• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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.


Everytime I say "homosexuality is a sin" someone implies it on the same subject as physically harming others. This isn't fair. I haven't physically harmed homosexuals or persecuted them.
 
Upvote 0

naotmaa

me!
Feb 2, 2004
665
38
✟24,557.00
Faith
Seeker
Politics
US-Democrat
Everytime I say "homosexuality is a sin" someone implies it on the same subject as physically harming others. This isn't fair. I haven't physically harmed homosexuals or persecuted them.
I don't think that is what she was implying. Its that regardless if a gay person has ever had sex or not, they are still persecuted against.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
41
Richmond
Visit site
✟25,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I don't think that is what she was implying. Its that regardless if a gay person has ever had sex or not, they are still persecuted against.

I don't agree that homosexuals are persecuted against either, but no one should associate me with such people because I believe it is a sin.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
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
It does matter, the issue you are stating is because the translations don't use the EXACT terminology therefore the deduction of homosexuality is WRONG. You are incorrect since all the words in the translations make obvious what the meaning is. Also there is a fact that some translations are MORE clear than others. Is it the fact that other BAD translations invalidate the point that homosexuality is pointed in scripture?



1 Corinthians 6:9

Context
NET ©Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, 1 practicing homosexuals, 2
NIV ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
NASB ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
NLT ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

BBE ©
SABDAweb 1Co 6:9
Have you not knowledge that evil-doers will have no part in the kingdom of God? Have no false ideas about this: no one who goes after the desires of the flesh, or gives worship to images, or is untrue when married, or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men,
NRSV ©
bibleoremus1Co 6:9
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
NKJV ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

arsenokoithv arsenokoites

Pronunciation:ar-sen-ok-oy'-taceOrigin:from 730 and 2845Reference:prtSpch:noun masculineIn Greek:In NET:In AV:abuser of (one's) self with mankind 1,abuser of (one's) self with mankind 1, defile (one's) self with mankind 1Count:2Definition:1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual from 730 and 2845; a sodomite:-abuser of (that defile) self with
mankind.
see GREEK for 730
see GREEK for 2845


malakos <3120>

malakov malakos

Pronunciation:mal-ak-os'Origin:of uncertain affinityReference:prtSpch:adjectiveIn Greek:In NET:In AV:soft 3, effeminate 1Count:4Definition:1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a
catamite:-effeminate, soft.






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.
This isn't even a valid argument since Jesus didn't define all the rules which are presented to be valid in the bible. Read the Pauline Letters which Paul makes it more than clear he is speaking for God. That's besie all the rules that are presented in the OT which are again confirmed in the NT. Stop trying to chery picky Jesus, it's all or nothing.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It does matter, the issue you are stating is because the translations don't use the EXACT terminology therefore the deduction of homosexuality is WRONG. You are incorrect since all the words in the translations make obvious what the meaning is. Also there is a fact that some translations are MORE clear than others. Is it the fact that other BAD translations invalidate the point that homosexuality is pointed in scripture?



1 Corinthians 6:9

Context
NET ©Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, 1 practicing homosexuals, 2
NIV ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
NASB ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
NLT ©
biblegateway 1Co 6:9
Don&#8217;t you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don&#8217;t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

The meaning of Arsenokoitai is unknown, so you posting the same false lexicon as the other guy proves nothing. Some translations are more clear than others? as I mentioned the Latin Vulgate AND Jerusalem Bibles reject the homosexual translation, and both use male prostitute and catamite.

By the translations you posted, you proved even more inconsistencies. As "Malakoi" in some is translated as Male prostitute, effeminate, and homosexual in others.

Even your lexicon is inconsistent. The NKJV lists homosexual and sodomite separately, yet your false lexicon combines them as the same thing. :scratch:







Stop trying to chery picky Jesus, it's all or nothing.

Not for one second have I "cherry picked" anything. A ceremonial violation in Leviticus (Tow'ebah) doesn't have anything to do with a moral violation (zimmah).

YOU have cherry picked the Bible and the laws that are valid. For I can tell you all the things that you violate in Leviticus, such as wearing clothing of mixes fabrics, which is an "abomination". I don't believe for one second that 1 Cor. 6:9 has anything to do with homosexuality, and since 1946, the word Arsenloitai used to translate as "homosexual", was male prostitute, before.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
The meaning of Arsenokoitai is unknown, so you posting the same false lexicon as the other guy proves nothing.
Evidence for this claim.

Some translations are more clear than others? as I mentioned the Latin Vulgate AND Jerusalem Bibles reject the homosexual translation, and both use male prostitute and catamite.
Evidence.



By the translations you posted, you proved even more inconsistencies. As "Malakoi" in some is translated as Male prostitute, effeminate, and homosexual in others.
Nope, what I proved is the essnce of the meaning is there. You are just playing semantics tring to pervert the real meaning of the words.

Even your lexicon is inconsistent. The NKJV lists homosexual and sodomite separately, yet your false lexicon combines them as the same thing.
Show me the "real" lexicon then.









Not for one second have I "cherry picked" anything. A ceremonial violation in Leviticus (Tow'ebah) doesn't have anything to do with a moral violation (zimmah).

YOU have cherry picked the Bible and the laws that are valid. For I can tell you all the things that you violate in Leviticus, such as wearing clothing of mixes fabrics, which is an "abomination". I don't believe for one second that 1 Cor. 6:9 has anything to do with homosexuality, and since 1946, the word Arsenloitai used to translate as "homosexual", was male prostitute, before.
Again proof for your claims. Part of the ethical code transfered over from the OT to the NT. You are not only misrepresneting me but also contradicting yourself. Why do you quote Jesus if you have in no way validating what he stated if the trainslations are wrong?
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Evidence for this claim.

Evidence.
I already posted evidence, the Latin Vulgate and Jersualem Bibles both reject arsenokoitai to mean "Homosexual", those are just 2 translations right there that are valid, accepted translations as male prostitute and child molester. The evidence is that all translations have not "universally agreed upon" the homosexual translation. Look below in this post, and you will see even more ways it was translated. Your "some translations are clearer than others" point doesn't add up, as child molesters and homosexuals are CLEARLY 2 different things.




Show me the "real" lexicon then.



There is no "real" lexicon, which is evident by the inconsistencies in translation.
The only one that seems to make sense is an excerpt quoted from gaychurch.org:

"So there lay the subject with me until I came across an article written by Paul R. Johnson for &#8220;Second Stone&#8221; magazine titled "A New Look at Arsenokoitais" (1994 January/February issue). In this article he wrote:

"The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means &#8216;the male who has many beds&#8217;. The word arsen means &#8216;male&#8217;, the adjective o means &#8216;the&#8217;, and the term koitais is defined as &#8216;many beds&#8217;. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy."

http://gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christ...ome/7c_gac_clobber_passages_arsenokoitais.htm





What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

"Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).

Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai." 3

Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm



There is no viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the Hebrew or Greek, that should be enough evidence right there. I pointed out a flaw in the Lexicon you posted right off the bat...malakoi is translated as "homosexual" in the NKJV (meaning effeminate or child prostitute), and sodomite as arsenokoitai. Why would 2 different words be the same thing in your Lexicon if they are listed as 2 separate sins in the NKJV. Hmm...



***I have also pointed out YOUR contradictions, which are that effeminate and homosexual are the same, yet you post translations here that
trap you, that say child prostitute is malakoi. Why would effeminate and homosexual be listed as 2 different things in translations, when according to you, they are "the same thing"? Talk about contradictions!






Again proof for your claims. Part of the ethical code transfered over from the OT to the NT. You are not only misrepresneting me but also contradicting yourself. Why do you quote Jesus if you have in no way validating what he stated if the trainslations are wrong?

Your proof relies on a translation that is not agreed upon by the translators OR scholars. YOU are misquoting me, John said something to the effect of "if Jesus appeared in person and said that homosexuality was a sin, you still wouldn't accept it". So I said, "Jesus would never say that, as God doesn't make arbitrary rules". You came back with a comment that had nothing to do with the context of which we spoke.


"I sat amazed as I heard the Bible being invoked in ways that were wholly inappropriate to any canons of biblical scholarship. Perhaps something snapped in me...for better or worse I decided somebody needed to provide resources that would give both clarity and honesty." -- Robbin Scroggs.
Robbin Scroggs feels that arsenokoitai refers to a man who uses the services of "call-boys", and that malakoi refers to those "call-boys". In his book, "The New Testament and Homosexuality", Scroggs writes, "If the malakos points to the effeminate call-boy, then the arsenokoites in this context must be the active partner who keeps the malakos as a 'mistress' or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires. No more than molakos is to be equated with the youth in general, the eromenos, can arsenokoites be equated with the adult in general, the erastes" (pg. 108).

The Jerusalem Bible, German 1968, agrees with Scroggs, translating arsenokoitai as "child molesters". Of course, fundamentalists ignore that bible translation [as well as Phillips (1958), Jerusalem Bible (French -1955), The Latin Vulgate, (405), etc., of which reject the homosexual interpretation] while accepting the NIV (which is unclear since it has the translation "homosexual offenders").
Note: The Dutch NBG translation of 1951 uses the word "schandjongens" ("maleprostitutes" in English) for malakoi and "knapenschenders" ("boy-molesters" in English) for arsenokotai.


"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.


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."
Jeramy Townsley says that "It seems clear that arsenokoites [arsenokoitai] does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships..." Learned in Greek and Hebrew, Jeramy received a MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary.
".... The term appears only in contexts dealing with greed, prostitution, adultery, idolatry, and lack of self control. Although it is a rare term, its use is probably best connected with those male prostitutes who are clearly condemned in the Old Testament, and who would fit in with those temptations which drew Paul's audience toward idolatry and greed, whether they were tempted to become such prostitutes or take advantage of their services.


http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The Mystery.htm
 
Upvote 0

Ohioprof

Contributor
Jun 27, 2007
988
219
70
✟28,933.00
Faith
Unitarian
Everytime I say "homosexuality is a sin" someone implies it on the same subject as physically harming others. This isn't fair. I haven't physically harmed homosexuals or persecuted them.
Where do you get that from my post? You keep reading statements into people's posts that are not there.

When have I ever accused you of physically harming gay people or wanting to do so? There are people who physically harm gay people, and many of us, myself included, have been subjected to physical attack. That doesn't mean YOU do this.

You have said that you oppose physically harming or persecuting gay people, and I take you at your word about that.

Why are you so defensive about this? You don't need to be.

Btw, gay people ARE persecuted and subject to attacks and murders in alarming numbers. But you are not the one doing this. So you don't need to feel defensive about it.
 
Upvote 0

Jet_A_Jockey

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2006
11,279
1,082
hurricane central
Visit site
✟62,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.


No, it denotes their sexual orientation. That is, unless their life revolves around sexuality.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi dave,

what are your feelings on the account of sodom and gomorrah in the book of genesis?
Hi, the only direct sins mentioned are in Ezekiel...they were arrogant, overfed, and didn't help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:


'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
 
Upvote 0

Jet_A_Jockey

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2006
11,279
1,082
hurricane central
Visit site
✟62,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi, the only direct sins mentioned are in Ezekiel...they were arrogant, overfed, and didn't help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:


'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

I am aware of that, but thanks for the reply. I meant your feelings on the text in genesis itself.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I am aware of that, but thanks for the reply. I meant your feelings on the text in genesis itself.
I don't understand your question.
What do I feel about the story as it pertains to homosexuality?
 
Upvote 0

Jet_A_Jockey

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2006
11,279
1,082
hurricane central
Visit site
✟62,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand your question.
What do I feel about the story as it pertains to homosexuality?


Yes, in the assumption that you defend the attempt of homosexual action by the occupants
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, in the assumption that you defend the attempt of homosexual action by the occupants
Nothing needs to be defended. I don't see this as a blanket condemnation of same sex, monogamous relationships.

There is also a lot of debate over what they really wanted to do with the angels, but the word "yada" is used (Bring them out to us so that we may "know" them), which has been interpreted as "violent rape".

As it says, "all the men surrounded the house, both young and old". To assume that ALL the men from the city are homosexual, is quite unbelievable. Homosexuals have always accounted for a minority of the population. It was relatively common back then for the victorious army to rape high-ranking leaders of the defeated foe.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Davedjy,
Nothing needs to be defended. I don't see this as a blanket condemnation of same sex, monogamous relationships.
The Bible tells us non-monogamous man/woman unions are wrong so that’s where you get the monogamous bit from. But they were allowed by Moses because their hearts were hard, but Jesus tells us it wsnt God’s purpose. What you are referring to in same-sex sex unions which was never God’s purpose, monogamous or otherwise.


There is also a lot of debate over what they really wanted to do with the angels, but the word "yada" is used (Bring them out to us so that we may "know" them), which has been interpreted as "violent rape".
That’s interesting as the word has never been seen to mean violent rape in Hebrew, it must be a gay theology meaning. No yada has a number of meanings usually ‘to know’ mostly to know socially or a fact, but also to know carnally. Maybe its used is always ‘violent rape’ so in Genesis 4 Adam violently raped his wife Eve and conceived Cain.. Psalm 51:3

For I violently rape my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.”
Deut 8:5 “Violently rape then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you “
No I don’t think so.

As it says, "all the men surrounded the house, both young and old". To assume that ALL the men from the city are homosexual, is quite unbelievable.
But it doesn’t assume that and doesn’t even say that, you have assumed it. You have applied and assumption to the text to show it doesn’t deal with the assumption and then are using the assumption as valid. One cant know God’s revelation if one is seeking to apply ones own interpretation on it.
 
Upvote 0