Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Jerrell]

Sorry, should have refrained.

But tell me, do you take the bible literally?

I take the Bible for what it is, not as mere descriptive English words.

 

[LunarPlexus]

I take the Bible for what it is, not as mere descriptive English words.

And do you believe that what you think the bible is, IS in fact what the bible is?

 

[Jerrell]

I am human and there is room for error, I may not be right all the time, by by the grace of God I should be in the right part of the ballpark and not way off in the left field.

 

[davedjy]

If you wish to refuse to repent based solely on your denial of scripture trnaslation, that's sad. Paul clearly had a good understanding of what the word meant, read the opening of Romans Chapter, and consider reading 2 Timothy when he says that Homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine. So you can make as many excuses as you want, but that doesn't change the fact of what the Bible reads.

[SIZE=+1]ajrsenokoivthß [/SIZE]Arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 733

1. one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

Using a Lexicon that the most credible Scholars don't agree on isn't really helping you.

Excuses? this is a debate forum, and we don't all agree on these interpretations of Scripture.
I am set in my beliefs, I answer to God, I don't make excuses, I know who I am.


Rembert Truluck is a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. He was a Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, and a Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, from1973 to 1981. Truluck is well learned in Hebrew and Greek. In his article "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals", Dr. Truluck writes, "The Greek word [arsenokoitai] translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual! The word is obscure and uncertain."
Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."


In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship. An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic. There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT). Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure." --- Deirdre Good, General Theological Seminary.


There is simply no justification for translating arsenoskoitai as "homosexuals". Jeramy Townsley sums it up well by saying:
"... neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as "any homosexual behavior" (or more specifically, the active and passive partners in anal homosexual intercourse, as is the common interpration by contemporary Christian anti-gay writers) in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here."

When early, Greek-speaking homophobic Christians (John Chrysostom and Clemet of Alexandria) condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoitai, even when discussing Cor 6:9 and Tim. 1:10. Arguments from silence are generally weak, but had the word meant homosexuals, Chrysostom and Clemet would of most likely condemned homosexuals when they commented on Cor. 6:9 or Tim. 1:10. But they did not. This combined with the above discussion of the occurrences of the word, I feel, provide some serious problems for traditionalists.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The Mystery.htm

 

[LunarPlexus]

That is a very good point of view to have. Thankyou for answering my question

 

[Jerrell]

Using a Lexicon that the most credible Scholars don't agree on isn't really helping you.

Excuses? this is a debate forum, and we don't all agree on these interpretations of Scripture.
I am set in my beliefs, I answer to God, I don't make excuses, I know who I am.


Rembert Truluck is a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. He was a Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, and a Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, from1973 to 1981. Truluck is well learned in Hebrew and Greek. In his article "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals", Dr. Truluck writes, "The Greek word [arsenokoitai] translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual! The word is obscure and uncertain."
Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."


In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship. An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic. There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT). Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure." --- Deirdre Good, General Theological Seminary.


There is simply no justification for translating arsenoskoitai as "homosexuals". Jeramy Townsley sums it up well by saying:
"... neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as "any homosexual behavior" (or more specifically, the active and passive partners in anal homosexual intercourse, as is the common interpration by contemporary Christian anti-gay writers) in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here."

When early, Greek-speaking homophobic Christians (John Chrysostom and Clemet of Alexandria) condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoitai, even when discussing Cor 6:9 and Tim. 1:10. Arguments from silence are generally weak, but had the word meant homosexuals, Chrysostom and Clemet would of most likely condemned homosexuals when they commented on Cor. 6:9 or Tim. 1:10. But they did not. This combined with the above discussion of the occurrences of the word, I feel, provide some serious problems for traditionalists.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

" Most Credible" is merely your opinion. NO one here knows what defines your "most credible" it could just be unfounded opinion for all we know.

Considering that the word homosexual didn't exist until later in history does not mean that the bible is not talking about homosexuals, homosexuals is merely the word that is in common usage which is in correct usage of the real and proper meaning of the greek for homosexual.

There is also no justification in translating the word as something people don't understand....homosexual is plain English.

 

[davedjy]

" Most Credible" is merely your opinion. NO one here knows what defines your "most credible" it could just be unfounded opinion for all we know.

Considering that the word homosexual didn't exist until later in history does not mean that the bible is not talking about homosexuals, homosexuals is merely the word that is in common usage which is in correct usage of the real and proper meaning of the greek for homosexual.

There is also no justification in translating the word as something people don't understand....homosexual is plain English.

Yes, the most credible, as in read translation to translation and you will see inconsistencies, in 1 Cor. 6:9 alone. As I stated, the Latin Vulgate and Jersualem Bibles BOTH reject the translation of "homosexual", and those are just 2 translations, and they use male prostitute. Take the translators themselves, and you will have them not agreeing.

The NKJV translates "malakoi" to homosexual, which is another great breaking of Biblical exegesis. Malakoi means "effeminate" or soft, but that does not equate to "homosexual"...so you have inconsistencies just among the translators alone.

So yes, the best of Scholars do not agree on the meaning of Arsenokoitai, and the evidence = the translations do not match each other, in and of itself.

 

[RMDY]

Don't you all get tired of this forum? Were like a bunch of children on a see-saw, going back and forth, not ever stopping, not ever coming to a conclusion unless someone gets off of the ride.

Well, this ride is ridiculous. God knows He didn't create life to perverse itself over sexuality and freedoms.

People take their freedoms so far to the point where there are those that don't trust in the bible anymore for what sin really is.

People trust in the world more and it's ideas and their bodies. They look to their bodies and the world and anything flesh-bound to explain why things are the way it is and redefine sin according to the laws of this world.

That.....is called corruption----when you exchange the thinking of God's inspired Scriptures for world-dependant knowledge.

 

[RMDY]

Yes, the most credible, as in read translation to translation and you will see inconsistencies, in 1 Cor. 6:9 alone. As I stated, the Latin Vulgate and Jersualem Bibles BOTH reject the translation of "homosexual", and those are just 2 translations, and they use male prostitute. Take the translators themselves, and you will have them not agreeing.

The NKJV translates "malakoi" to homosexual, which is another great breaking of Biblical exegesis. Malakoi means "effeminate" or soft, but that does not equate to "homosexual"...so you have inconsistencies just among the translators alone.

So yes, the best of Scholars do not agree on the meaning of Arsenokoitai, and the evidence = the translations do not match each other, in and of itself.

And who are these "best scholars"?

The "best scholars" of the time are not always right in what they research.

I am just getting this impression about you Dave that if Jesus himself came to you in the flesh and told you that homosexuality was a sin, you could not accept it.

 

[davedjy]

And who are these "best scholars"?

The "best scholars" of the time are not always right in what they research.

I am just getting this impression about you Dave that if Jesus himself came to you in the flesh and told you that homosexuality was a sin, you could not accept it.

This is a rebuttal of my post, how?

As I said, translation to translation, there are inconsistencies there in and of itself. THE TRANSLATORS HAVE NOT AGREED UPON THE DEFINITIONS - SO WHO CARES ABOUT THE "BEST SCHOLARS" ANYWAYS? Are you even reading my posts completely?

Jesus would never "appear in the flesh" and say that homosexuality was a sin. God doesn't make arbitrary rules, and that would certainly be one.

 

[davedjy]

Don't you all get tired of this forum? Were like a bunch of children on a see-saw, going back and forth, not ever stopping, not ever coming to a conclusion unless someone gets off of the ride.

Well, this ride is ridiculous. God knows He didn't create life to perverse itself over sexuality and freedoms.

People take their freedoms so far to the point where there are those that don't trust in the bible anymore for what sin really is.

People trust in the world more and it's ideas and their bodies. They look to their bodies and the world and anything flesh-bound to explain why things are the way it is and redefine sin according to the laws of this world.

That.....is called corruption----when you exchange the thinking of God's inspired Scriptures for world-dependant knowledge.

You say that we are see-sawing back and forth, yet you come into the forum see-sawing your anti-gay point.

 

[MrPirate]

" Most Credible" is merely your opinion. NO one here knows what defines your "most credible" it could just be unfounded opinion for all we know.

Considering that the word homosexual didn't exist until later in history does not mean that the bible is not talking about homosexuals, homosexuals is merely the word that is in common usage which is in correct usage of the real and proper meaning of the greek for homosexual.

There is also no justification in translating the word as something people don't understand....homosexual is plain English.

It is also an incorrect translation.

Ancient Greek had several works that specifically meant homosexual. Paul didn’t use any of those words. Instead he used arsenokoties, which in literal terms means a man who employs prostitutes.

 

[MrPirate]

And who are these "best scholars"?

The "best scholars" of the time are not always right in what they research.

I am just getting this impression about you Dave that if Jesus himself came to you in the flesh and told you that homosexuality was a sin, you could not accept it.

I am just getting this impression about you that if Jesus himself came to you in the flesh and told you that hatred/prejudice against a group of people was a sin, you could not accept it.

Wait…Jesus already said that. Matthew 22:36-40, John 13:34-35, James 2:12-13

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's quite pitiful that there are so many hypocrits and "wise" men in this world.

Agreed.

You'd rather believer your own opinion than to repent of your sin and confess it before God and change.

I do not believe myself to be a sinner, nor do I believe in your god. So I don't really see why I should do either of these things.

An adulterer ought to change, the theif ought to change, the fornicator oought to change, the liar ought to change,

I agree, but not because it is in the Bible.

and yes, even the homosexual ought to change.

Why? It's not even condemned in the Bible (unless you twist the original text, of course).

As for me, I believe in accepting the whole word of God, not picking and choosing and making excuses as you have.

Neither do I: I reject the entire thing.

I never said "be Heterosexual or burn in hell" you did, I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so it's not a statement of become heterosexual or die, but accept Jesus Christ and repent of sin- or condemn your own self thourgh doubt.

Can you tell me why I should believe any of this?

 

[Ohioprof]

" Most Credible" is merely your opinion. NO one here knows what defines your "most credible" it could just be unfounded opinion for all we know.

Considering that the word homosexual didn't exist until later in history does not mean that the bible is not talking about homosexuals, homosexuals is merely the word that is in common usage which is in correct usage of the real and proper meaning of the greek for homosexual.

There is also no justification in translating the word as something people don't understand....homosexual is plain English.

But the Bible was not written in English, and it was not written at a time when the term "homosexual" even existed. Your translation is a later invention. It's not what the Bible actually says.

 

[Ohioprof]

It's quite pitiful that there are so many hypocrits and "wise" men in this world. You'd rather believer your own opinion than to repent of your sin and confess it before God and change. An adulterer ought to change, the theif ought to change, the fornicator oought to change, the liar ought to change, and yes, even the homosexual ought to change. As for me, I believe in accepting the whole word of God, not picking and choosing and making excuses as you have. I never said "be Heterosexual or burn in hell" you did, I merely am stating the fact that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, so it's not a statement of become heterosexual or die, but accept Jesus Christ and repent of sin- or condemn your own self thourgh doubt.

But you DO pick and choose. You just think you don't. And you embrace translations that accord with your prejudices and pre-existing assumptions.

Anyone who takes the Bible as the word of God picks and chooses, because the Bible is contradictory, and much of it is contrary to what we know from contemporary science. We obviously do not live by many of the rules laid down in the Bible, such as the call to stone gay people to death and to stone rape victims who don't "cry out" in the city.

Just as Clarence Darrow made William Jennings Byran look foolish in his insistence that the Bible is literally true, you'd look foolish if you insisted that everything in the Bible is literally true. Even the most rigid fundamentalist picks and chooses from the Bible, while accusing others of picking and choosing.

 

[RMDY]

I am just getting this impression about you that if Jesus himself came to you in the flesh and told you that hatred/prejudice against a group of people was a sin, you could not accept it.

Wait…Jesus already said that. Matthew 22:36-40, John 13:34-35, James 2:12-13

Disagreeing with what someone does is hateful?
Are suggesting I am hateful?

And what does it mean to you when Jesus says to love others as he has loved us?

 

[Ohioprof]

Disagreeing with what someone does is hateful?
Are suggesting I am hateful?

And what does it mean to you when Jesus says to love others as he has loved us?

Being gay is not simply "what someone does." It's who some people ARE. And the people who physically attack gay people seem to be less interested in what gay people do than in who gay people ARE.

 

[davedjy]

But the Bible was not written in English, and it was not written at a time when the term "homosexual" even existed. Your translation is a later invention. It's not what the Bible actually says.

Arsenokoitai wasn't even translated as homosexual until 1946, and as Dr. Remert Truluck says (Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968), "...was a bad mistake then".

 

[davedjy]

Being gay is not simply "what someone does." It's who some people ARE. And the people who physically attack gay people seem to be less interested in what gay people do than in who gay people ARE.

I've usually found that the biggest attackers are gay or lesbian themselves, but don't want to accept who they are, so they hide behind false doctrine and translations. I get the Private Messages here "I just didn't want to accept my true sexuality, which is why I debated you so much...".