Originally Posted by
JohnT
The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE???
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one....
We agree on that; it is universally and CONSISTENTLY condemned. Therefore God is not politically correct. Imagine that! God says what he means, and means what he says.
Also the fact that homosexuality is called sinful is also good news. It offers hope to those who repent, and follow Jesus when he said several times, Go and sin no more
The experts didn't "go wrong" so much as "get influenced by the society they lived in". ...the argument between scholars claiming that pre- and post-world war 2 translations/interpretations disagree, in that some are pro-semetic (sic) and others anti-semetic, (sic) due to cultural influence.
If you noticed, I quoted from the American Standard Version (1901) and the Greek Texts, both before WW1. Therefore your objection is moot. Your connection between slavery and homosexuality is illogical balderdash.
As a matter of fact, I have done extensive reading on the transmission and translation of the Bible. Nothing of what you allege has been substantiated. If you can provide proof of your allegation, that would be interesting. Until you do, you fail to make your point.
Incidentally, how is your Greek? As a fluent speaker myself, I might point out that that your copy-pasted quote isn't the original text, but a translation into modern Greek written in 1550. I could see that even if I couldn't read Greek, because you forgot to delete the "Stephanus" off the end of your quote. A brief search will show that the Stephanus New Testament was written in 1550. Ooops.
In 152728 he published his first complete Bible in Latin, and in 1531 he completed his great Dictionarium seu linguae latinae thesaurus, a Latin dictionary that marks an epoch in the history of lexicography, not only for Latin but also for all other languages. Francis I of France made him king's printer for Hebrew and Latin works in 1539; in 1540 he became de facto king's printer also for Greek. He was commissioned in 1541 to supply the king's library with books printed in the Greek type of Claude Garamond. He prepared the first printed editions of many works by ancient Greek and Roman authors. Among his Latin editions, his Virgil of 1532 is noteworthy. He also published grammars and other educational texts.
Estienne, Robert I. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica.
Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
OOPS to you, Stephanus printed it. He did not translate it.
Would you like me to quote the UBS version, or the Byzantine Majority Text versions? I left the tag on the quotes so anyone could see it as a deliberate footnote, so it is not as you allege, an oops. The Stephanus, commonly called the Textus Receptus is the basis for the King James version, and was the version used by Erasmus.
And Plato has everything to do with it, as Paul is alluding to Plato's writings...
Since would an Apostle, trained under Gamaliel ever stoop to allude to a PAGAN philosopher when he knew that his letters were Scripture?
So before you claim what you deem "natural" or not, perhaps we should find out what the Greek philosophers meant by it?
If the issue was what I deem natural then the suggestion would be valid. However I do not stray from Scripture, and that, as you noted above is consistent.
Also, in that passage, the Greek word for homosexual does not appear once. In the list of "sins" in Romans, there are several ambiguous words that have been translated in different ways due to cultural influence (such as malakoi, lit. "soft" translated as weak/effeminate/masturbators/etc). What you are losing in translation is the reiteration and emphasis on the sin being lust and passion, satisfying the flesh in the easiest way...
You present an argument from silence, and that only proves silence. What you fail to take into consider is the many OT passages, as well as the other clear NT passages
ACTUALLY, THE HEBREW WORD IS TRANSLATED KNOW AND IT HAS AS A MEANING KNOW SEXUALLY THIS IS THEREFORE TOTALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE HEBREW; I CAN COPY FROM SEVERAL HEBREW LEXICONS ON THAT ONE.
AS TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, NOR ITS RELEVANCE. YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)
Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? et al...
[/quote]
Compare this to, for example, sex/rape in prison. It isn't about love or desire, it's about being someone's b****!
We can agree that homosexual activity is evil.
Also, go back a chapter where Abraham is arguing with God, and it gets to the point where God says that, if there are even 10 righteous people in the city, He will not destroy it. So if the sin is homosexuality, then in the whole city there were not even 10 people who weren't gay.
You interpret too much, The issue for the city is not homosexuality per se, but righteousness. T
hat includes sins of every sort.
Think about that. A whole city gay, in a time where widespread travel and communication was slow, unreliable, difficult, dangerous. Compared to today, with almost (sic) isntant (sic) communication, easy and affordable travel, and even the gayest city has more than 10 straight people there.
Does not compute. Does not compute. Arrgh.
And your point here is what?
____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (
arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996).
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
========================================================
This struck me as the most cleverly crafted, sinister part of the whole page. Very carefully worded. The first sentence, for example: What it should read, is that "the Greek word aρσενοκοίτης is translated as "homosexual" in the NASB." But instead it states the "word homosexual is the Greek word aρσενοκοίτης". Using language to subconsciously(sic) bias the reader's view.
Your annoyance is with CARMthey wrote it as well as the lexicons of the Greek Bible. DO you want me to quote from Arnt and Gingrich?
The whole section is crafted to lend authority to what they say; to make it sound like they've done research and know everything there is to know, therefore the reader can trust anything they say on biblical referencing without question or having to bother reading further themselves. People today prefer that. They don't want to think for themselves, so it's easy to reassure the average person with passage like that
.
This response is mere huff and puff. It blusters but does not provide proof other than mere opinion
On the webpage, it goes further, quoting that they get their definition from Strong's dictionary, "The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order." Wow. If that doesn't impress people, nothing will.
That is the title of the reference. Sorry if you do not like it.
Never mind the fact that aρσενοκοίτης doesn't appear anywhere else in the bible other than when Paul mentions it twice, isn't the Greek word for homosexual, isn't even a Greek word but a coined phrase, the meaning of which cannot be deciphered as the only other appearances in history are those writings alluding or referring to what Paul wrote.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 6:9, try this out:
This term is sometimes rendered effeminate, although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v.
μαλακός 2 has pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship,
effeminate esp. of
catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship. L&N 88.281 states, the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse - homosexual.
As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse. See also the discussion in G. D. Fee,
First Corinthians (
NICNT), 24344. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase male prostitutes for μαλακοί in 1 Cor 6:9 (
NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean males who sell their services to women, while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation passive homosexual partners has been used here.
On this term BDAG 135 s.v.
ἀρσενοκοίτης states, a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex,
pederast 1 Cor 6:9
of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp.
μαλακός
1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. L&N 88.280 states, a male partner in homosexual intercourse - homosexual.
It is possible that
ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with
μαλακός, the passive male partner. Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification practicing was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.
From Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006).
The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
So people take their cultural influence and use that to write what they think the word should mean.
All we do is quote Scripture;
Right. That's more than half the problem. How about praying, thinking, using critical judgement,(sic) getting to know people, looking at the world?
There may be some who believe that he/she has good rhetorical skills on your side; (I found none so far) who can state things clearly and reasonable, but do any of you think for one nanosecond that if you have the greatest skills in the world that you could convince a just, righteous and holy God to change his mind about what he wrote? Who are you to stand in the face of God and argue your case yourself?
[/quote] You fail to mention common sense. That is taking the Bible as meaning what it says first, and clearly
God wrote? Forgive me, but man wrote, inspired by God. At best, God wrote through man. I have several pages in my personal journal of the same thing; God speaking through me, in written words.
Think the bible we have today is infallible? What about the existence of the Jehovah's Witness Bible? How did that happen?
And who are you to assume you know without doubt or error God's will and opinions, or that we are trying to change them?
If we don't argue the case, who will? You?
This fails to understand the nature and transmission of Scripture.
I'm not arguing with God; I'm arguing with people who think I'm evil/sin itself. I don't mean that as a personal slight; I don't know you. I'm thinking of all the people who have openly and honestly claimed outrageous things about homosexuals to my face, such as them being the devil's henchmen, bringing about the downfall of society.
By definition, you certainly are arguing with God; your post says, God did not mean what he wrote. Balderdash
Ultimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.
Just FYI, I am not a proud homosexual. I'm merely an unashamed one. How can I be proud about something neither I nor anyone else has done? About a state of being, an element of my personal makeup/character?
I did not say that YOU are
All I wrote was a generic description, but hey, if the shoe fits
That's like being proud of the size of your penis. At the end of the day, it's just folly.
Totally unnecessary comment
