Is this true?

[Randy89]

I have come across this. Is it accurate?

When the word homosexual appears in the Bible it does not meant it how it is used today.

The story about Sodom is talking about a gang rape. The city was about to be destroyed but God wanted to spare Lot. He sent angles to warn him. When the angles got there they see the citizens accosted Lot. They told him to bring out the righteous guys that Lot hand found so they could gang rape them(Genesis 19:4-30). The people there had been raping travelers. They had been doing all sorts of detestable things. Thats why the city was destroyed.

Romans 1:24-25- "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and ***worshiped and served created things*** rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."
This is referring to pagan worship practices where people would have sex with random strangers in huge orgies. This was done to worship the Roman god Bacchus. This is not talking about orientation.

I Corinthians 6:9(To understand this verse you have to look at it in Greek) - ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

In Greek homosexual used for orientation is: ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos. Neither is found in the verse. The same thing goes for 1 Timothy 1:10(πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειτα&#953

 

[OllieFranz]

There have been numerous threads here on all four of these issues, separately and in various combinations. I'll hunt down some of the better ones and link to them in a future post. For now let me just say:

On Sodom: Other than the narrative description of political gang-rape in Genesis 19, no verses about Sodom and its sins reference homosexuality. Rather, they all indicate that Sodom's sins are inhospitality, pride and greed, along with related attitudes.

On Romans: Paul was quoting Plato in Romans 1:26-27. Plato makes it clear that it is not the sex of the partner but the randomness and frequency that make the activity "para physin." Although Plato was writing before the time of the Roman orgies you reference, they would have been something that immediately sprang to mind as Paul wrote his letter, and the Church in Rome read it.

On "arsenokoites": Paul apparently invented the term in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. It does not appear in any earlier writing. All later occurences appear only in Christian writings. In all occurences, the context is a list of offences or offenders, without any elaboration, so it is impossible to use context to refine the intended meaning.

It would appear that Paul was referencing Leviticus 20:13, but that is not certain. Even if he was referencing Leviticus -- especially if he was referencing Leviticus -- the question of why he invented a term instead of using perfectly acceptable existing terms remains unanswered, unless an "arsenokoitai" is not the same thing as an "homophylophilicos."

Which then brings question on the popular interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as condemning all same-sex physical affection.

 

[Randy89]

Thank you for the reply. When I came across this it really made me ponder. This is such a big issue today. I would really like to know 100% on the issue. I would hate to condemn someone falsely. I would try to find the threads but I don't know what key words to search with.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Thank you for the reply. When I came across this it really made me ponder. This is such a big issue today. I would really like to know 100% on the issue. I would hate to condemn someone falsely. I would try to find the threads but I don't know what key words to search with.

First of all, don't condemn anyone, let God handle that.

Most threads involve these different passages that you mentioned.

On Sodom: Sodom was guilty of many things, one highlight is the polar opposite of hospitality. And by the incident with the men of the city and the angels, its just an example of how far away from God they had gotten.

On Romans 1:26-* : You seem to be focusing on one part of the subject and not the entire thing. Watch this.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

They exchanged the glory of God for images. This was their original sin. And because of this........

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


As a judgment against them, they were given over in the sinful desires of their hearts. What is this sexual impurity are we speaking of, though?

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This makes it pretty clear that same-sex sex was used in a judgment against a people who were living in depravity. The interesting thing, is that it doesn't reference fornication in general, or lustfulness in general, but rather makes it very specific of what exactly it was that they were doing which was sexually impure.



1Corinthians 6:9 : as far as this goes, it comes down to the word 'arsenokoites', which appears to be a 'slang' term, and we have no documentation of it being previously used in any texts of the time, so nothing prior to compare it to. It is a compound word, which breaks down to arsen= man koites= bed(s). So it literally means 'man-bedder'.

And to address your note about it not using the greek term for homosexual orientation, scripture does not comdemn a person's sexual orientation, but rather their sexual action. This is why its translated as 'practicing homosexuals', or 'homosexual offenders' in various translations.

If you weigh these things against scripture's constant references to the man-woman relationship (i.e. adam and eve), then there is nothing at all promoting same-sex sex, and only that which negates it.

Take care

 

[Texas Lynn]

This makes it pretty clear that same-sex sex was used in a judgment against a people who were living in depravity. The interesting thing, is that it doesn't reference fornication in general, or lustfulness in general, but rather makes it very specific of what exactly it was that they were doing which was sexually impure.

It's a very convincing argument against fundamentalism as it is obvious from such things as the above that such judgments refer only to cultural considerations and not to any divine judgment or such. That was put in by the High Priests to control people. It's no different from Northerners going to the Deep South and seeing they eat "grits" for breakfast and going "eeewww".

 

[IamRedeemed]

Good post. Well written.

First of all, don't condemn anyone, let God handle that.

Most threads involve these different passages that you mentioned.

On Sodom: Sodom was guilty of many things, one highlight is the polar opposite of hospitality. And by the incident with the men of the city and the angels, its just an example of how far away from God they had gotten.

On Romans 1:26-* : You seem to be focusing on one part of the subject and not the entire thing. Watch this.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

They exchanged the glory of God for images. This was their original sin. And because of this........

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


As a judgment against them, they were given over in the sinful desires of their hearts. What is this sexual impurity are we speaking of, though?

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This makes it pretty clear that same-sex sex was used in a judgment against a people who were living in depravity. The interesting thing, is that it doesn't reference fornication in general, or lustfulness in general, but rather makes it very specific of what exactly it was that they were doing which was sexually impure.



1Corinthians 6:9 : as far as this goes, it comes down to the word 'arsenokoites', which appears to be a 'slang' term, and we have no documentation of it being previously used in any texts of the time, so nothing prior to compare it to. It is a compound word, which breaks down to arsen= man koites= bed(s). So it literally means 'man-bedder'.

And to address your note about it not using the greek term for homosexual orientation, scripture does not comdemn a person's sexual orientation, but rather their sexual action. This is why its translated as 'practicing homosexuals', or 'homosexual offenders' in various translations.

If you weigh these things against scripture's constant references to the man-woman relationship (i.e. adam and eve), then there is nothing at all promoting same-sex sex, and only that which negates it.

Take care

 

[Texas Lynn]

And to address your note about it not using the greek term for homosexual orientation, scripture does not comdemn a person's sexual orientation, but rather their sexual action. This is why its translated as 'practicing homosexuals', or 'homosexual offenders' in various translations.

All incorrectly given the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation.

If you weigh these things against scripture's constant references to the man-woman relationship (i.e. adam and eve), then there is nothing at all promoting same-sex sex, and only that which negates it.

That shows the limitations of the Bible, not any limitations on love.

 

[Stinker]

I have come across this. Is it accurate?

When the word homosexual appears in the Bible it does not meant it how it is used today.

The story about Sodom is talking about a gang rape. The city was about to be destroyed but God wanted to spare Lot. He sent angles to warn him. When the angles got there they see the citizens accosted Lot. They told him to bring out the righteous guys that Lot hand found so they could gang rape them(Genesis 19:4-30). The people there had been raping travelers. They had been doing all sorts of detestable things. Thats why the city was destroyed.

Romans 1:24-25- "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and ***worshiped and served created things*** rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."
This is referring to pagan worship practices where people would have sex with random strangers in huge orgies. This was done to worship the Roman god Bacchus. This is not talking about orientation.

I Corinthians 6:9(To understand this verse you have to look at it in Greek) - ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

In Greek homosexual used for orientation is: ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos. Neither is found in the verse. The same thing goes for 1 Timothy 1:10(πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειτα&#953

Where did you find this Greek word homosexual orientation?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

It's a very convincing argument against fundamentalism as it is obvious from such things as the above that such judgments refer only to cultural considerations and not to any divine judgment or such. That was put in by the High Priests to control people. It's no different from Northerners going to the Deep South and seeing they eat "grits" for breakfast and going "eeewww".

Last time I checked, God hasn't allowed any northerners to eat grits as an act of judgment.

If you think the certain things you disagree with were included to control people, then whats the point in being Christian at all? Unfortunately being a Christian entails much suffering and hardship in this world, its not the utopian fun-land that the tv preachers make it out to be. The early church is a fine example of what we encounter when we stand up for the truth.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

All incorrectly given the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation.

Glad you brought this up, as I've had no one on the other side of this argument do so. Given that the ancients who wrote scripture did not conceptualize sexual orientation (seems to be more of a modern thing), then the only thing they would condemn is the homosexual action. Since they did not see people as 'hetero/homo/etc', they would not specifically address them as such. The scripture on fornication and sexual matters applies to all, regardless.

That shows the limitations of the Bible, not any limitations on love.

I disagree. It shows the limitations of some people accepting what scripture says, and rather put their own feelings at the forefront. This is called Humanistic Christianity. It's where scripture is good and gets an amen only when it falls into place with your preconceived ideals. When it is in direct conflict, it is passed off as either non-applicable or not God-inspired. And both fundamentalists and liberals are guilty of it.

I truly believe a person's salvation, and walk with God, needs to stay between them and God. It's only the church's business when the person makes it the church's business. That being said, though, there is absolutely nothing scriptural that gives approval to same-sex sex, and rather there is only some that shows it in a very negative light. For someone to come out and say "God blesses/loves gay sex, etc" is simply untrue, as there is no corroboration within the book that we (should) all (as christians) use and apply.
God bless.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If you think the certain things you disagree with were included to control people, then whats the point in being Christian at all?

It does not follow that the two things would necessarily be related. There is much variance among Christians on this and so many other areas.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Glad you brought this up, as I've had no one on the other side of this argument do so. Given that the ancients who wrote scripture did not conceptualize sexual orientation (seems to be more of a modern thing), then the only thing they would condemn is the homosexual action. Since they did not see people as 'hetero/homo/etc', they would not specifically address them as such. The scripture on fornication and sexual matters applies to all, regardless.

Another example of the old "whip 'em till they bleed and then fine 'em for bleeding" gambit.

I disagree. It shows the limitations of some people accepting what scripture says, and rather put their own feelings at the forefront. This is called Humanistic Christianity. It's where scripture is good and gets an amen only when it falls into place with your preconceived ideals. When it is in direct conflict, it is passed off as either non-applicable or not God-inspired. And both fundamentalists and liberals are guilty of it.

I truly believe a person's salvation, and walk with God, needs to stay between them and God. It's only the church's business when the person makes it the church's business. That being said, though, there is absolutely nothing scriptural that gives approval to same-sex sex, and rather there is only some that shows it in a very negative light. For someone to come out and say "God blesses/loves gay sex, etc" is simply untrue, as there is no corroboration within the book that we (should) all (as christians) use and apply.

All of this is presupposed by a belief that fundamentalism=Christianity, which is not correct.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Texas Lynn
Another coupe of one line contradictoons to what was written doesnt further the discussion.

The answer to the OP is no it is not true, for modern day audiences homosexual practice or offenders are correct translations.

The key issue in Genesis 19 is that even seeing this as gang rape of men by men, or homosexual gang rape if you like, Lot offeres his daughters as an alternative for heterosexual gang rape. So this issue isnt gang rape being wrong but homosexual practice.
In Romans 1 one can see the text says God gave them over to idolotry, gave them over to indecent acts men with men and woman with women and gave them over to all kinds of other things. The same-sex sex is just one of the things God gave them over to.

These proposals keep cropping up, yet they have all been refuted with straighforward logic.

 

[Phinehas2]

All of this is presupposed by a belief that fundamentalism=Christianity, which is not correct

The test is the Biblical record gudied by the Holy Spirit, if that test proves trustworthy and someone calls it fundamentalism then yes fundamentalism=Christianity. The NT warns in a number of places about the danger of false teaching and herises being introduced and one needs to be careful counterfit Christianity doesnt creep in by decepetion.

 

[Archer93]

The key issue in Genesis 19 is that even seeing this as gang rape of men by men, or homosexual gang rape if you like, Lot offeres his daughters as an alternative for heterosexual gang rape. So this issue isnt gang rape being wrong but homosexual practice.

So.... it's okay to offer your 13 year old (roughly) daughters to be gang-raped? I suppose it was a sign of how good a person Lot was, that he would rather sacrifice his own little girls than let the howling mob commit the terrible atrocity of homosexual rape. Such a shame the mob prefered adults to children... Well, whatever the sin of Sodom was, it clearly wasn't paedophilia!

And a good thing too; otherwise he and they wouldn't have shared those two delightful nights later to ensure the continuation of the line....

I don't think any human comes out of that story very well- except maybe for Lot's wife who got turned into a pillar of salt for the sin of glancing back for one last look at her old home.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The answer to the OP is no it is not true, for modern day audiences homosexual practice or offenders are correct translations.

Ah, so you are a linguist, then?

The key issue in Genesis 19 is that even seeing this as gang rape of men by men, or homosexual gang rape if you like, Lot offeres his daughters as an alternative for heterosexual gang rape. So this issue isnt gang rape being wrong but homosexual practice.

Wrong. No gang rape occurred in that chapter. The conjecture it's due to 'homosexual practice' is just wishful thinking. The Ezekiel 16:49 and Judges passages refute this, and, of course, none of the text can be proven to be historically accurate.

In Romans 1 one can see the text says God gave them over to idolotry, gave them over to indecent acts men with men and woman with women and gave them over to all kinds of other things. The same-sex sex is just one of the things God gave them over to.

[/quote]

That part referred to Roman orgaism, not loving relationships. Of course the specific mention of it is immaterial; it was about offenses some of which each and every one of us has committed and salvation therefrom. The conjecture it was about "homosexuality" is a reading out of context which any eighth grader who made a C in English or above knows.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Texas Lynn,

Ah, so you are a linguist, then?

Yes enough to know the Bible translators who are expert linguists are correct.
So the answer to the OP is no it is not true, for modern day audiences homosexual practice or offenders are correct translations.
How about you, are you an expert in koine Greek and ancient Hebrew?


The key issue in Genesis 19 is that even seeing this as gang rape of men by men, or homosexual gang rape if you like, Lot offeres his daughters as an alternative for heterosexual gang rape. So this issue isnt gang rape being wrong but homosexual practice.

Wrong. No gang rape occurred in that chapter.

I cant be wrong if Have never agreed!! Please re-read my post. If you disagree with the conjecture of gang rape address the poster who suggested it, instead of just arguing with.

The conjecture it's due to 'homosexual practice' is just wishful thinking.

How can men wanting sex with men rather than the female daughters be anything other than homosexual practice. Your statement defies logic and belief! It’s the same denial the whole homosexual issue is based on.

The Ezekiel 16:49 and Judges passages refute this, and, of course, none of the text can be proven to be historically accurate.

No it doesn’t. If you don’t believe Genesis 19, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 references don’t have the audacity to cite Ezekiel at me. Ezekiel also refers to the abominations they did in Sodom, the same words used to describe the sexual sins in Leviticus 18, including same-sex sex.

That part referred to Roman orgaism, not loving relationships.

It refers to neither, nor does it refer to big red buses, try and focus on what it does say and then you will see the very thing that you are trying to avoid is the very thing that the passage condemns as error. It refers to men committing indecent acts with men instead of with woman as turning away from God’s righteousness.

The conjecture it was about "homosexuality" is a reading out of context which any eighth grader who made a C in English or above knows.

a 12 year old can see what it says and understand what it means, same-sex sex is error, God created male and female to be united, the level of your denial and unbelief is massive.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yes enough to know the Bible translators who are expert linguists are correct.
So the answer to the OP is no it is not true, for modern day audiences homosexual practice or offenders are correct translations.

There's no consensus on that among the scholars. There is among those who use the Bible as a Rosarsch Test.

The key issue in Genesis 19 is that even seeing this as gang rape of men by men, or homosexual gang rape if you like, Lot offeres his daughters as an alternative for heterosexual gang rape. So this issue isnt gang rape being wrong but homosexual practice.

Actually it's about unkindness to strangers being wrong. The daughters were offered not because they were female but because they were Lot's property. Of course it's entirely metaphorical anyhow.

How can men wanting sex with men rather than the female daughters be anything other than homosexual practice.

There is no proof the men "wanted to have sex" with the strangers any more than every teenage boy who makes a gay slur against another one wants that.

Ezekiel also refers to the abominations they did in Sodom, the same words used to describe the sexual sins in Leviticus 18, including same-sex sex.

It does not confirm that; "abominations" include discourtesy to strangers and maltreatment of the poor.

a 12 year old can see what it says and understand what it means, same-sex sex is error,

You are in no position to determine what is an "error" and what is not. Scholars disagree. Some are politically correct, some are not. Deal with it.

God created male and female to be united

As you are not him, your assertion thereof is baseless.

the level of your denial and unbelief is massive.

I should certianly hope so and would recommend all others move beyond myth and superstition. Thank you.

 

[Randy89]

With Gen 19 my understanding of the argument was that it was not consensual homosexual sex that was being condemned. Therefore you should not use it as an example to say that consensual homosexual relationships are wrong.

 

[Texas Lynn]

With Gen 19 my understanding of the argument was that it was not consensual homosexual sex that was being condemned. Therefore you should not use it as an example to say that consensual homosexual relationships are wrong.

Exactly. Saying otherwise is like saying you want a hamburger without mustard as you order but then being mad if you get it with mayonaise on it.