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.
puriteen18 said:So the correct interpretations would be
Thou shalt not lie with male temple prostitudes, as with womankind: it is abomination.
-and-
If a man also lie with a male temple prostitute, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
If this was the case, then why include "as with womankind"?
We are all sinners. Why deny it? We are even told to accept it in I John.Rocinante said:Roz sez:
It is good you take up for your friend. But why now call ALL homosexuals sinners? That is slander.......which is not a friendly thing to do.
I do study many translations in my personal study, so the archaicness of the KJV do not trouble me. I am quite use to the language. Most of my reading apart from the Bible also comes from that period. Sometimes I even have to keep myself from talkign like that. Using words like thither, divers, and assunder, and keeping my grammar up to date. Just a note, 17th century english grammar and freshman comp. don't go together.Rocinante said:Roz sez:
Because that's the way the KJV translators talked. KJV, by the way, is archaic, highly inaccurate and confusing in many areas, not just this one.
I suggest you do a study and read the approximately 120 passages in the OT that call something an abomination (detestable in modern translations). That might help.
O, but for the Joy of proclaiming the glorious gospel of Christ would I be silent
Homosexuality is just the sin practiced by homosexuals. Just as a liar lies, a drunkard intoxicates himself, a playboy sleeps around, a judgemental person judges, so they also sin in their own fashion.
Fideist said:I think it is only "plainly" saying that to people who want or expect to read it that way.
Fideist said:It makes perfect sense to read the context as both of these being examples of giving up what is usual or expected for something that is not usual or not expected.
Fideist said:Verse 26, if it is referring to lesbianism, is the only instance of the idea in the Bible. That in itself is unusual. Moreover, the subject of lesbianism was not widespread at this time in history, not even in the Greek or Roman civilizations where same gender sex was anything but unusual.
Fideist said:Yes, Im aware of that. But the underlying Greek for "unnatural" in this case is para physin. If para physin refers to "unnatural relations" in the immoral sense, then what is meant in Romans 11:24?
Fideist said:For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature [para physin], into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Surely the above refers to something that is unexpected, out of the ordinary or unusual?
It could mean both.Fideist said:The next verse could very well mean that the similarities that you point out must be considered, because of the conjunctional phrase, mean that both examples have replaced the usual with the unusual, rather than both are engaging in same gender sex. There is no reason that I can see that would cause a reader to have to connect the two parallels as same gender sex. In fact I would see that as a response based more on expectation.
ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sinRocinante said:Kitty, I don't have time to read your links right now. I'll try to look at them later.
I suspect they are defending old prejudice with old arguments.
More slander, if they call ALL homosexual acts sin.
That makes just as much sense as calling ALL heterosexual acts sin.
That article is long. I'll read it later.keithylishus said:Context should also include extra-biblical study. Look at the society of the Roman Empire when Paul was writing this. Look at who Paul was writing this to (Romans 1:7). Look at what Paul was talking about (Romans 1 is clearly a condemnation of idolatrous Pagans).
I've posted this before, but I feel this sums up the historical context very well:
From http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9905&article=990521
This ties in with everything mentioned in Romans 1. First of all, idolatry is the main thing. Second of all, it was taking place when Paul wrote this, and in the very place he wrote it.
It's a talk about idolatry and its results throughout. Note that he began talking about God being evident in the world and the Romans worshipping the created things rather than the creator. He then proceeds to say what is a result of this worship - they were allowed to become defiled with sexual impurity (verses 24 - 27) and all other manner of sin (28 - 32). Apparently, because of the prevalance and seriousness of the sexual immorality issue, Paul spent some extra time on it.keithylishus said:Paul would not spend a while talking about idolatry, drop in a few sentences about homosexuality, then go back to talking about idolatry. Unless anyone thinks Paul couldn't hold a particular train of thought very well.
Paul's emphasis appears to be more on the act than the reason. Admittedly, he included it as a result of the idolatry (and, judging from the context you and others have said, this result was futher used for more idolatry), but his emphasis is on the actual act rather than the act as a means of worshipping idols. (In fact, I don't believe he even mentioned the homosexual sex as it pertains to worshipping the idols.)keithylishus said:Besides, anyone trying to apply the verses in Romans 1 to a loving, monogomous gay couple, needs their head examined. The verses are talking about lust-filled orgies.
ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sin
All homosexuals acts are sin...period.
Roman bathhouses? The Greek custom that a youth must first go through a relationship with a married man before he can marry himself?keithylishus said:Most historians would disagree. Homosexual monogomy was a cultural taboo in ancient Rome. The most public homosexual "lifestyle" would have been the paederasts and their catamites, and Pagan temple worship. Men did engage in homosexual sex, but they would have also been married to a woman. Homosexual monogomists were shunned by society..
Neither do I. It is just the translation I prefer. I study many translations. And am setting out to take NT Greek next year.keithylishus said:I don't owe my heart to the KJV. I take English translations with a grain of salt. Any translator will tell you that something is always lost in translation, whether it be flair of language, historical context, or the entire message.
Also, a sin.keithylishus said:"Abusers of themselves with mankind" used to be taken as "masturbators"..
Never claimed the KJV to be inerrant.keithylishus said:Interesting how "inerrant interpretations" can change.
If it was speaking of boy protitutes it seems it would have had no reason for mentioning "not with woman kind."Rocinante said:It appears we are moving on.
Lev. 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Lev. 20:13
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
This is the single Leviticus reference that may or may not refer to sex with the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes. There are strong arguments both ways.
In the Hebrew one runs into the fact that a man (iysh) is told not to lie with a Zakar (which is sometimes translated as boy). This has led many to believe that it could mean the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes. No one knows for sure......although some will tell you that they do. Take that with a grain of salt.
Like most thing sin the Bible, it is addressed to the men, but aplies also to the women.Rocinante said:2. It does not mention lesbians.
We are not worthy anything.Rocinante said:not worthy of us as Christians.
Strange.Rocinante said:In the Hebrew one runs into the fact that a man (iysh) is told not to lie with a Zakar (which is sometimes translated as boy). This has led many to believe that it could mean the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes. No one knows for sure......although some will tell you that they do. Take that with a grain of salt.
I almost love the way Liberals accuse Conservatives of not being true Christians while they find new ways to discredit God's Word and make Christianity less Christian.Rocinante said:To slander homosexuals on such flimsy evidence is deplorable behavior.......not worthy of us as Christians.
Right?
'zakar' is either a masculine noun meaning "male (of humans and animals)" or an adjecive meaning "male (of humans)."
Roz said:
To slander homosexuals on such flimsy evidence is deplorable behavior.......not worthy of us as Christians.
Right?
I almost love the way Liberals accuse Conservatives of not being true Christians while they find new ways to discredit God's Word and make Christianity less Christian.
It is clear that DETESTABLE did not include homosexual acts. For a list of what is detestable, see Proverbs 6:16-19. There are six detestable things, even seven that the Lord hates. Homosexuality is not in the list.cbk said:I will admit, you bring some good points to the table. And, I see that the arguements from your side are strong. However, in respect to Ezekiel's words, the sexual immoral acts that God frowned upon in Sodom could be included with verse 50 of Ezekiel's Chapter 16... "They were haughty and did DETESTABLE things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Now, granted, these detestable things may not have included homosexual acts, but coupled with God's peoples' law against homosexual acts, the readers in Ezekiel's time would have acknowledged it as being so.
Yes, Ezekiel's words focus on not helping the poor and needy, as well as the phrase above, but why bring up what may be a sin in the eyes of God to those who are not practicing these specific sins (assuming they are sins)? To do so would give the Jewish people pride in their ability to avoid such a specific sin, when the intent of the writing is to bring them to shame.
Other than this piece from Ezekiel, I will say, you have given a good arguement. God bless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?