Arsenokoites

[ottaia]

Anyone who claims a¹rsenokoiðthv (arsenokoites) does not refer to homoeroticism is either ignorant/deluded or prevaricating; there is no other alternative.

Yes, I understand

Under - to be beneath something
Stand - to be upon ones feet

understand - to be on one's feet beneath something.

 

[ebia]

1) "The Shadow Minister" is not a compound word, nor is it Ancient Greek

So you are claiming that compound words in ancient greek are always reliably determined by their root parts?

2) Mailman, policeman, fireman, fisherman, newspaper, doghouse, etc.

Examples where words do follow their roots do nothing to prove the reliability of the rule - that's a very basic logical fallacy.

 

[Brennin]

So you are claiming that compound words in ancient greek are always reliably determined by their root parts?

I am claiming that you need to make recourse to Ancient Greek (as I have done) if you want to argue about an Ancient Greek word.

Examples where words do follow their roots do nothing to prove the reliability of the rule - that's a very basic logical fallacy.

The point is more often than not, the meaning of a compound word is based on its constituents - that's very basic, period.

 

[Brennin]

Yes, I understand

Under - to be beneath something
Stand - to be upon ones feet

understand - to be on one's feet beneath something.

This discussion requires knowledge of Ancient Greek, not English. If you do not know Ancient Greek then do not let the thread's doorknob hit you on the way out.

 

[ottaia]

Retracted by ottaia

 

[ottaia]

This discussion requires knowledge of Ancient Greek, not English. If you do not know Ancient Greek then do not let the thread's doorknob hit you on the way out.

Oh, thank you! I am honored by your kind and loving words. Rather presumptuous of you to assume that I do not know Koine Greek.

 

[crazyfingers]

Why does this discussion matter at all?

 

[Brennin]

...

 

[ottaia]

I'll retract this one too. I really want to say it but I won't!

 

[Brennin]

If I had my books at home I woud have been sure to spell it right. Now that you know what I meant, you may follow the retraction.

But surely you know, friend, that "k," not "c" is the proper transliteration of "k."

 

[ottaia]

Thanks for the retraction but for your edification it is sku/balon (skubalon).

[Or sku/bala (skubala)--Ancient Greek is an inflected language]

Which is what I had typed.

 

[Brennin]

Why does this discussion matter at all?

I do not expect it would matter to an atheist. My atheist ex-gf had a similar reaction to a historical Jesus thread.

 

[Brennin]

Which is what I had typed.

No, you typed "scubala." Paul wrote in Koine Greek, not Latin (i.e., there is no "c" in Greek. BTW, stercora is the word used in the Vulgate translation of Philippians 3:8).

 

[ebia]

I am claiming that you need to make recourse to Ancient Greek (as I have done) if you want to argue about an Ancient Greek word.

An illustration is an illustration.

The point is more often than not, the meaning of a compound word is based on its constituents - that's very basic, period.

"More often than not" hardly consitutes definitive proof.

 

[Polycarp1]

(good writers use uncommon words and have even been known to invent words).

I divided your short post in two to comment separately on each part. First, the first occurrence of the word in Greek is in I Corinthians. Paul evidently coined it. And IIRC every ensuing usage of it is by a Christian writer, nearly always commenting on the passage from I Corinthians and in every case referencing Paul, directly or indirectly.

There seems to be some evidence that his intent may have been to echo the passage in Leviticus 18 that is literally translated with the phrase "lyings of a man."

Novel or not, the definition of the word is plain

The traditional meaning given to it by the Church and in translations is, certainly, clear. But the question is, is it what Paul meant? And various members have cited learned commentaries that suggest it had more to do with the male prostititution industry in Corinth than with what two homosexual people do.

I'd appreciate, since you say the definition is plain, that you spell out that definition and demonstrate why it's the plain meaning of the word.

The Bible ain't Humpty Dumpty, and it doesn't mean whatever we want it to mean. If you're right, then there should be some evidence backing the meaning you put to it. And that's not "It's homosexuality" -- that word has a good dozen meanings itself. I'm asking what precisely Paul meant by the use of the word, in your estimation.

Oh, and what Josephus thought that the Hebrew terms in Leviticus mean are hardly grist for a Christian New Testament discussion.

 

[Brennin]

The traditional meaning given to it by the Church and in translations is, certainly, clear. But the question is, is it what Paul meant? And various members have cited learned commentaries that suggest it had more to do with the male prostititution industry in Corinth than with what two homosexual people do.

Learned commentaries? I do not think so. Commentaries with an agenda is more like it.

 

[Brennin]

An illustration is an illustration.

It is a vacuous illustration. Not only is the illustration from a different language, it is from an analytic language (as opposed to an inflected or synthetic language such as Ancient Greek).

"More often than not" hardly consitutes definitive proof.

Since it is more often than not the case that the definition of a compound word is derived from its constituents, that should be the null hypothesis.

 

[Polycarp1]

Learned commentaries? I do not think so. Commentaries with an agenda is more like it.

In other words, only people who agree with you are learned and objective, and the others have an agenda? I have some serious problems with the sense behind that statement.

 

[crazyfingers]

I do not expect it would matter to an atheist. My atheist ex-gf had a similar reaction to a historical Jesus thread.

So since the Bible is not a reliable guide to moral behavior, it's a pointless discussion.

 

[ebia]

It is a vacuous illustration. Not only is the illustration from a different language, it is from an analytic language (as opposed to an inflected or synthetic language such as Ancient Greek).

Then I guess this these also constituted a vacuous illustration:

2) Mailman, policeman, fireman, fisherman, newspaper, doghouse, etc.

Since it is more often than not the case that the definition of a compound word is derived from its constituents, that should be the null hypothesis.

Not as something to be relied upon, no.