language problems...

[lmnop9876]

i see there is a lot of debate about the greek word arsenokoites (sorry if that's not what is, but as close as I can think of) and whether it means homosexual.

i was just thinking today. there are a number of guys i know who we commonly refer to as "man-harlots" because they sleep around a lot and have a reputation for having sex with the first girl they bump into.

now, say in 1000 years time people were looking back and reading something i had written down. e.g. "some of the people who live here! they're always sleeping around, always drunk, no self-respect, no consideration, the guys have no sense of masculinity, man-harlots, couldn't care less about what their life really means."

this could very easily be interpreted in the same way as some people interpret passages in the Bible. because "man-harlots" follows on from "men with no sense of masculinity", and because i've already mentioned "always sleeping around", someone who doesn't understand how people talk today could think i mean "men with no sense of masculinity who sleep around with men."

is it possible that we are making a similar mistake when translating the words arsenokoites and malakos from the Greek?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear pjw,
No more so than using the word love to mean agape.

i see there is a lot of debate about the greek word arsenokoites (sorry if that's not what is, but as close as I can think of) and whether it means homosexual.

I am not sure anyone is claiming the word arsenokoites means homosexual, I think some however are claiming it doesnt. I dont think there is much doubt 'arsen' and 'koites' means man and bed.(fam) Look where else koites is used. see the link to pornos. In the NT man is aren not arsen. I suspect Paul is specifically referring to Leviticus with the septuagint word.

is it possible that we are making a similar mistake when translating the words arsenokoites and malakos from the Greek?

no because arsenokoites follows pornos in 1 Tim 1:10 so its not dependant on malakoi.
Is it possible arsenokoites obviously means same-sex sex and some of us are trying everything to make out it doesnt?

Theology, Non-Nicene Theology​

 

[Zaac]

i see there is a lot of debate about the greek word arsenokoites (sorry if that's not what is, but as close as I can think of) and whether it means homosexual.

i was just thinking today. there are a number of guys i know who we commonly refer to as "man-harlots" because they sleep around a lot and have a reputation for having sex with the first girl they bump into.

now, say in 1000 years time people were looking back and reading something i had written down. e.g. "some of the people who live here! they're always sleeping around, always drunk, no self-respect, no consideration, the guys have no sense of masculinity, man-harlots, couldn't care less about what their life really means."

this could very easily be interpreted in the same way as some people interpret passages in the Bible. because "man-harlots" follows on from "men with no sense of masculinity", and because i've already mentioned "always sleeping around", someone who doesn't understand how people talk today could think i mean "men with no sense of masculinity who sleep around with men."

is it possible that we are making a similar mistake when translating the words arsenokoites and malakos from the Greek?

The Bible says in 2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

There is no need to go back and forth with folks about how a word was translated and how it is used when the person you are talking to is not looking for truth, but rather a way to justify sin.

That is why when dealing with what the text actually says, there is not a single person on the face of the earth who can mistake what God is saying about fornicative homosexual acts and who marriage is to be between.

You've either got to reject God's Word as His Word, or devise some translative error in order to justify this sin.

And if folks are gonna do that for one sin, then they might as well say they don't trust God's Word or what He says about ANYTHING being sinful.

The Bible says in Psalm 10:4 thatIn his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

That's what we have with this issue. Folks who are so proud of their sin and their relationships and what orientation with which they identify that there is no room for the Holy Spirit to deliver truth that they will receive.

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall

 

[davedjy]

There is no need to go back and forth with folks about how a word was translated and how it is used when the person you are talking to is not looking for truth, but rather a way to justify sin.

Or perhaps I could say, that the anti-gay arguers are not looking for the truth, but would rather rely upon false translations, since it "JUSTIFIES" their position on homosexuality.

Is it possible arsenokoites obviously means same-sex sex and some of us are trying everything to make out it doesnt?

As mentioned, there are many inconsistencies in translation with that word. It was universally translated as those who touch at the time of Martin Luther.

 

[Zaac]

Or perhaps I could say, that the anti-gay arguers are not looking for the truth, but would rather rely upon false translations, since it "JUSTIFIES" their position on homosexuality.




As mentioned, there are many inconsistencies in translation with that word. It was universally translated as those who touch at the time of Martin Luther.

There are no anti-gay arguers. If you want to be gay, then by all means be gay. But when you commit fornicative acts, expect it to be identified as fornication.

And you can play the translation game all you like. God's Word says what it says.

Take every other sin and apply the same level of disdain, twisted word study and incredulousness for what God's Word says as you do for this one sin, and then we've got something to talk about.

There is no need for any Christian to justify repeating what God says about a sin. It is what it is. You can choose to reject it. That doesn't change the sin into non-sin.

 

[davedjy]

And you can play the translation game all you like. God's Word says what it says.

You have yet to prove the consistencies of the words that I have disputed. Plenty of theologians don't agree with the homosexual translation in 1 Cor. 6:9.

That doesn't change the sin into non-sin.

I'm clearly stating it isn't a sin. "It doesn't change a non-sin into a sin". It is an INTERPRETATION from you, that all homosexual acts are "fornication", but you cannot prove that by the Bible.

 

[Zaac]

You have yet to prove the consistencies of the words that I have disputed. Plenty of theologians don't agree with the homosexual translation in 1 Cor. 6:9.

As has been stated before, sticking bias before GOD is a dangerous thing and does nothing more than breed confusion.

Like you, these theologians have approached the words of which you speak in an attempt to show that they do not condemn homosexual acts.

That's bad theology.

You don't isogete before you exegete. And part of exegesis is making sure that what the text says agrees with the entirety of God's Word.

You and your theologians want the words to best translate as something that makes your biased supposition true, and thus instead of dealing with what the text says, they set out to find the translation that best says what they want it to say.

It's called pride. God is God. His Word says what He intends for it to say, and no amount of theologians trying to fit His Word to their theology will change it.

I'm clearly stating it isn't a sin.

Then in accordance with God's Word, you're clearly stating a lie based upon a bias for the Word to say something else.

Forget your word studies and translation and deal with the words that are on the page in God's Word. Using those Words, justify fornication as unsinful.

"It doesn't change a non-sin into a sin". It is an INTERPRETATION from you, that all homosexual acts are "fornication", but you cannot prove that by the Bible.

And I don't play the whole interpretation game either. That's why I said deal with what the Word SAYS.

I didn't ask for an interpretation and have not given one. I asked what the Word says.

I didn't ask for commentary. I didn't ask for a word study. I asked what the Word says.

 

[davedjy]

Like you, these theologians have approached the words of which you speak in an attempt to show that they do not condemn homosexual acts.

That's bad theology.

I never said that all of them don't condemn homosexual acts...but which homosexual acts? Leviticus was clearly an idolatry/sex violation to a false God in a pagan ritual, just like Romans 1 (Romans 1 verse 22 makes that clear).

You don't isogete before you exegete. And part of exegesis is making sure that what the text says agrees with the entirety of God's Word.

Actually to put the word "homosexual" into the Bible is a breaking of Biblical exegesis, as there isn't any viable translation of that word.

You and your theologians want the words to best translate as something that makes your biased supposition true, and thus instead of dealing with what the text says, they set out to find the translation that best says what they want it to say.

That is a common argument that doesn't hold up under careful examination. As I have already shown, esp. with 1 Cor. 6:9, that there isn't any "suitable translation" for Arsenokoitai, except MAYBE for a promiscuous man, and we have proven that by the only way the 2 broken down Greek phrases translate.

It's called pride. God is God. His Word says what He intends for it to say, and no amount of theologians trying to fit His Word to their theology will change it.

The humorous nature of this post insists that the translation IS God's Word, and that they are one and the same. I have already shown the inconsistencies in translation, so I can easily say that YOU wish to choose the homosexual translation.

Then in accordance with God's Word, you're clearly stating a lie based upon a bias for the Word to say something else.

There isn't any bias, I have already shown the inconsistencies. Nobody should accept something means something that is based upon a breaking of Biblical exegesis.

And I don't play the whole interpretation game either. That's why I said deal with what the Word SAYS.

You don't play the whole "interpretation game", AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT...because it supports your anti-gay doctrine.

I didn't ask for an interpretation and have not given one. I asked what the Word says.

I didn't ask for commentary. I didn't ask for a word study. I asked what the Word says.

Until you figure out that God's Word isn't necessarily the translated word, there isn't any reason for me to debate you. Pull up all the different ways Arsenokoitai have been translated ALL THE WAY THROUGH HISTORY, and you will see in that word study alone that the translators don't have it figured out.

 

[MrPirate]

The Bible says in 2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

There is no need to go back and forth with folks about how a word was translated and how it is used when the person you are talking to is not looking for truth, but rather a way to justify sin.

That is why when dealing with what the text actually says, there is not a single person on the face of the earth who can mistake what God is saying about fornicative homosexual acts and who marriage is to be between.

You've either got to reject God's Word as His Word, or devise some translative error in order to justify this sin.

And if folks are gonna do that for one sin, then they might as well say they don't trust God's Word or what He says about ANYTHING being sinful.

The Bible says in Psalm 10:4 thatIn his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

That's what we have with this issue. Folks who are so proud of their sin and their relationships and what orientation with which they identify that there is no room for the Holy Spirit to deliver truth that they will receive.

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall

You just accused anyone who is looking for the truth of NOT looking for the truth…

It is the very people who investigate the language, who look at meanings and context that hare seeking the truth.

What you are doing is much like what the various Cardinals did when Galileo invited them to look through his telescope. They refuse to look at the moons of Jupiter because they did not want the truth, they wanted their comfortable untruths, their historic fantasy. So they accused Galileo, the messenger of the truth, of lying.

 

[MrPirate]

As has been stated before, sticking bias before GOD is a dangerous thing and does nothing more than breed confusion.

Like you, these theologians have approached the words of which you speak in an attempt to show that they do not condemn homosexual acts.

That's bad theology.

Because they have shown the word doesn’t mean what you wish it to mean?

That means they are honest, that they have refused to lie.

How exactly is telling the truth “bad theology”?

You don't isogete before you exegete. And part of exegesis is making sure that what the text says agrees with the entirety of God's Word.

And what are you doing? You are demanding a word mean what you want it to and attacking anyone offering evidence that it does not.

You and your theologians want the words to best translate as something that makes your biased supposition true,

No…that is what you are doing

and thus instead of dealing with what the text says, they set out to find the translation that best says what they want it to say.

Again…that is what you are doing


You wish it desperately to mean homosexual so you can continue to use it to prop up your personal prejudices. But there is no evidence to support that translation and plenty of evidence to dismiss that translation. Why do you clutch to something untrue?

It's called pride. God is God. His Word says what He intends for it to say, and no amount of theologians trying to fit His Word to their theology will change it.

So…is pride is why you cling to a poor translation and make accusations about those who provide evidence otherwise? Is pride why you attack honest researchers and linguists and historians and theologians? Is pride why you offer nothing to counter the evidence provided except your insistence that you are right and anyone who dares to show cause that you are not correct is a liar?

Forget your word studies and translation and deal with the words that are on the page in God's Word. Using those Words, justify fornication as unsinful.

As noted the “words” on the page are inaccurate. Why should we abandon reason here just because you prefer to ignore the truth?

And I don't play the whole interpretation game either. That's why I said deal with what the Word SAYS.

But the fact remains it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

I didn't ask for an interpretation and have not given one. I asked what the Word says.

I didn't ask for commentary. I didn't ask for a word study. I asked what the Word says.

And you have been provided that answer. It is an answer you do not like…but that does not change truth.

 

[Zaac]

I never said that all of them don't condemn homosexual acts...but which homosexual acts? Leviticus was clearly an idolatry/sex violation to a false God in a pagan ritual, just like Romans 1 (Romans 1 verse 22 makes that clear).

Commentary. What does the actual WORD say?

Actually to put the word "homosexual" into the Bible is a breaking of Biblical exegesis, as there isn't any viable translation of that word.

As it is merely the common day word for someone performing the acts described, there is no change of theology by placing the word in the text.

If you repelace homosexual with the word that was used, it STILL doesn't change the theology of what is said.

That is a common argument that doesn't hold up under careful examination. As I have already shown, esp. with 1 Cor. 6:9, that there isn't any "suitable translation" for Arsenokoitai, except MAYBE for a promiscuous man, and we have proven that by the only way the 2 broken down Greek phrases translate.

And as has been said, the only way to get to that, is to base your conclusion upon COMMENTARY and not what the Word of God SAYS.

The humorous nature of this post insists that the translation IS God's Word, and that they are one and the same. I have already shown the inconsistencies in translation, so I can easily say that YOU wish to choose the homosexual translation.

The humorous nature of this post is that you and many others think that your wordsmithing and commentative discourse changes what God says about this sin.

As was said, those who seek truth find truth. And those who start witha bias will generally finagle until they get the supposition they want.

There isn't any bias, I have already shown the inconsistencies. Nobody should accept something means something that is based upon a breaking of Biblical exegesis.

You have shown somebody else's work about a subject they were biased towards, and attempted to show that God's Word does not condemn.

You don't play the whole "interpretation game", AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT...because it supports your anti-gay doctrine.

I don't have any anti-gay doctrine. I've told you, be gay. I could care less if someone identifies as gay cause God'S Word doesn't say anything about orientation as you pointed out.

But the fornicative acts will be spoken to just as God's Word speaks to them.

Until you figure out that God's Word isn't necessarily the translated word, there isn't any reason for me to debate you.

I'm not debating you. Until you figure out that God is capable of maintaining His Word and the theology not being changed by writing it in French vs English, then the truth of your biased supposition based upon somebody else's research is the false truth that you will believe.

Pull up all the different ways Arsenokoitai have been translated ALL THE WAY THROUGH HISTORY, and you will see in that word study alone that the translators don't have it figured out.

Put up all the different ways that God models what is sexually moral and what is sexually immoral and you will see that your bias is just that and nowhere near His Truth.

 

[Zaac]

You just accused anyone who is looking for the truth of NOT looking for the truth…

It is the very people who investigate the language, who look at meanings and context that hare seeking the truth.

What you are doing is much like what the various Cardinals did when Galileo invited them to look through his telescope. They refuse to look at the moons of Jupiter because they did not want the truth, they wanted their comfortable untruths, their historic fantasy. So they accused Galileo, the messenger of the truth, of lying.

If they were truly looking for truth, they would approach it from an unbiased standpoint instead of from the standpoint that "God didn't say what yall traditionally thinks He says about homosexuality."

 

[davedjy]

Commentary. What does the actual WORD say?

You mean...what does the WORD MEAN!

If you repelace homosexual with the word that was used, it STILL doesn't change the theology of what is said.

Yes it does, the word translated Universally as masturbator, at the time of Martin Luther, and even to this day the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Bibles both reject the homosexual translation, and use male and boy prostitutes.

And as has been said, the only way to get to that, is to base your conclusion upon COMMENTARY and not what the Word of God SAYS.

That is false, and I have already proved the inconsistencies, read above.

The humorous nature of this post is that you and many others think that your wordsmithing and commentative discourse changes what God says about this sin.

Nothing I have said is "commentary". I have proved consistencies, and a word that to this day isn't universally agreed upon by all translations.

As was said, those who seek truth find truth. And those who start witha bias will generally finagle until they get the supposition they want.

Nope. I came to this forum (before there was a homosexuality subforum) arguing like you did, that homosexuality was sin. I realized that under careful examination, the anti-gay arguments didn't hold up. I also found lots of truth in realizing that ex-gay therapy or a conversion from one's true sexuality is not only not possible, it is very dangerous.

But the fornicative acts will be spoken to just as God's Word speaks to them.

You can't use the Bible to condemn all same sex acts, as the Bible doesn't even call homosexuality "fornication", there goes, YOUR commentary.

I'm not debating you. Until you figure out that God is capable of maintaining His Word and the theology not being changed by writing it in French vs English, then the truth of your biased supposition based upon somebody else's research is the false truth that you will believe.

There you go...I have already proven the inconsistencies in "God's Word", which isn't God's Word if there have been inconsistent translations from masturbator, to male prostitute, to pimps. You keep dodging that credible point, so you really don't have any credible point to make here.

Put up all the different ways that God models what is sexually moral and what is sexually immoral and you will see that your bias is just that and nowhere near His Truth.

You can't look past a translated word, because you don't want to. It supports your lazy, non-credible debate points, and I have already proven the inconsistencies.

 

[Zaac]

Because they have shown the word doesn’t mean what you wish it to mean?

That means they are honest, that they have refused to lie.

How exactly is telling the truth “bad theology”?

They haven't shown anything other than they have taken the research of someone else who wanted to show that God's Word does not call homosexuality a sin and used it as their own, built in bias and all.

Frankly, I wish the word meant that you could be ina loving relationship with whomever you wanted no matter what the sex. But it does not.

And what are you doing? You are demanding a word mean what you want it to and attacking anyone offering evidence that it does not.

Nope. I've done nothing but ask folks to stop repeating what someone else with the same bias has said and to deal with what the actual text on the page says.

No…that is what you are doing

I haven't given an interpretation so you have no cause to deduce such a thing other than a need to discredit what I HAVE said.

You wish it desperately to mean homosexual so you can continue to use it to prop up your personal prejudices. But there is no evidence to support that translation and plenty of evidence to dismiss that translation. Why do you clutch to something untrue?

Like I said, I'm all for folks loving whomever they want. But I'm not God. He has spoken on the matter and choosing to translate and commentate in such a way as to disprove that He is saying what He says does nothing more than leave folks who call themselves Christians with NO WITNESS.

So…is pride is why you cling to a poor translation and make accusations about those who provide evidence otherwise?

You ain't provided nothing more than the evidence of people who had the same bias as you present.

Is pride why you attack honest researchers and linguists and historians and theologians?

And once again, there is nothing honest about taking a bias into research and then attempting to formulate commentary that says what you want it to say.

Is pride why you offer nothing to counter the evidence provided except your insistence that you are right and anyone who dares to show cause that you are not correct is a liar?

Nope. It's prideful of you to bear false witness that I've insisted anything other than God's Word being right.

As noted the “words” on the page are inaccurate. Why should we abandon reason here just because you prefer to ignore the truth?

Notice how all the folks who think God's Word is inaccurate always seem to have an ulterior motive.

But the fact remains it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

Unless the English language changed, it says exactly what i read on the page.

 

[davedjy]

Unless the English language changed, it says exactly what i read on the page.

Mr. Pirate, this ALONE speaks volumes about his ability to debate us. There are inconsistencies in the "reading on the page" translation to translation.

 

[MrPirate]

Commentary. What does the actual WORD say?

Not what you wish it does.

Sorry

As it is merely the common day word for someone performing the acts described, there is no change of theology by placing the word in the text.

Not according to the linguists and historians it doesn’t
Why should we accept false theology because of poor research and linguistics from the past?

If you repelace homosexual with the word that was used, it STILL doesn't change the theology of what is said.

It changes it significantly. It removes the entire minority of homosexuals from the conversation and it causes those seeking justification for personal prejudice to go back to the drawing board.

And as has been said, the only way to get to that, is to base your conclusion upon COMMENTARY and not what the Word of God SAYS.

Untrue. A word’s meaning comes form its usage, not from your desire to impose a specific meaning upon it. A word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations.

The humorous nature of this post is that you and many others think that your wordsmithing and commentative discourse changes what God says about this sin.

It changes nothing…it just brings the truth to light and banishes the false accusations made against homosexuals.

As was said, those who seek truth find truth. And those who start witha bias will generally finagle until they get the supposition they want.

And the many researchers, theologians, linguists and historians have found the truth…you continue to try to reject the truth however…maybe because you are not actually seeking the truth but rather validation for your prejudice based on your personal bias

You have shown somebody else's work about a subject they were biased towards, and attempted to show that God's Word does not condemn.

Do you have anything other than the fact that these people found evidence contrary to what you wish to back up your claim of bias?

I don't have any anti-gay doctrine. I've told you, be gay. I could care less if someone identifies as gay cause God'S Word doesn't say anything about orientation as you pointed out.

But the fornicative acts will be spoken to just as God's Word speaks to them.

Well…not scripture doesn’t…again, sorry but the truth is the truth

I'm not debating you. Until you figure out that God is capable of maintaining His Word and the theology not being changed by writing it in French vs English,

It all just means that God is using these researchers and linguists, leading them to the truth to return his word to what he meant it to say in the first place.

then the truth of your biased supposition based upon somebody else's research is the false truth that you will believe.

More accusations of bias. Still no evidence to back that claim up

And another accusation that anyone who dares to disagree with you is ling. Care to look through a telescope?

 

[Zaac]

You mean...what does the WORD MEAN!

Nope. I mean what does it SAY. How are you gonna get to the meaning if you can't first accept what God says?

Yes it does, the word translated Universally as masturbator, at the time of Martin Luther, and even to this day the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Bibles both reject the homosexual translation, and use male and boy prostitutes.

Where's the support for homosexual fornication?

That is false, and I have already proved the inconsistencies, read above.

No you haven't.

Nothing I have said is "commentary". I have proved consistencies, and a word that to this day isn't universally agreed upon by all translations.

You've copied somebody else's work that included their biases.

Nope. I came to this forum (before there was a homosexuality subforum) arguing like you did, that homosexuality was sin

Again, a lie as I have not said that homosexuality is a sin.

I realized that under careful examination, the anti-gay arguments didn't hold up. I also found lots of truth in realizing that ex-gay therapy or a conversion from one's true sexuality is not only not possible, it is very dangerous.

Has nothing to do with the ACTS that God prohibits.

You can't use the Bible to condemn all same sex acts, as the Bible doesn't even call homosexuality "fornication", there goes, YOUR commentary.

Just the sexual same sex acts.

There you go...I have already proven the inconsistencies in "God's Word", which isn't God's Word if there have been inconsistent translations from masturbator, to male prostitute, to pimps. You keep dodging that credible point, so you really don't have any credible point to make here.

The credible point is that the theology of God's Word is not changed. Fornication is STILL fornication and sexual immorality is STILL sexual immorality.

You can't look past a translated word, because you don't want to.

You immediately look past the translated word because you have to to be able to get to the point to make it say what your bias wants it to say.

It supports your lazy, non-credible debate points,

HEy, it ain't my fault that the TRUTH doesn't need as complex a defense as lies.

and I have already proven the inconsistencies.

Theology remains the same.

 

[Zaac]

Mr. Pirate, this ALONE speaks volumes about his ability to debate us. There are inconsistencies in the "reading on the page" translation to translation.

Oooo. They are double teaming me. Man you have really got the wrong one if you want a debate. I don't do the childish debate thing because God didn't ask me to convince anyone that His Word is His Word or that it says anything other than what it says.

So if you're looking for a child to play your debate games with,let me recommend The Father's Daughter for ya.

His Word still says what it says so you won't get a debate from me, just repetition of the same thing.

 

[Zaac]

Not what you wish it does.

Sorry






Not according to the linguists and historians it doesn’t
Why should we accept false theology because of poor research and linguistics from the past?



It changes it significantly. It removes the entire minority of homosexuals from the conversation and it causes those seeking justification for personal prejudice to go back to the drawing board.




Untrue. A word’s meaning comes form its usage, not from your desire to impose a specific meaning upon it. A word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations.






It changes nothing…it just brings the truth to light and banishes the false accusations made against homosexuals.




And the many researchers, theologians, linguists and historians have found the truth…you continue to try to reject the truth however…maybe because you are not actually seeking the truth but rather validation for your prejudice based on your personal bias







Do you have anything other than the fact that these people found evidence contrary to what you wish to back up your claim of bias?





Well…not scripture doesn’t…again, sorry but the truth is the truth






It all just means that God is using these researchers and linguists, leading them to the truth to return his word to what he meant it to say in the first place.



More accusations of bias. Still no evidence to back that claim up

And another accusation that anyone who dares to disagree with you is ling. Care to look through a telescope?

Now after all that Mr. Pirate, Biblically show where God's Word at any time gives you reason to believe that fornication and sexual immorality is ever anything but sinful.

 

[MrPirate]

They haven't shown anything other than they have taken the research of someone else who wanted to show that God's Word does not call homosexuality a sin and used it as their own, built in bias and all.

More accusations of bias…yet we have no reason to believe bias on the part of these researchers.

What has been shown is that literally and contextually the bible does not condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts.

Nope. I've done nothing but ask folks to stop repeating what someone else with the same bias has said and to deal with what the actual text on the page says.

Which is what people have done. The fact that what is on the page is not what you desire does not change the truth of what is on the page, or the sincerity and honesty of the researchers and linguists involved

What is non the page is not the condemnation you want, no matter how much you deny and accuse…so why don’t you deal with what the actual text says.

I haven't given an interpretation so you have no cause to deduce such a thing other than a need to discredit what I HAVE said.

But you have stated your desired interoperation…you have done so most clearly.

Like I said, I'm all for folks loving whomever they want. But I'm not God. He has spoken on the matter and choosing to translate and commentate in such a way as to disprove that He is saying what He says does nothing more than leave folks who call themselves Christians with NO WITNESS.

As noted before. It seems God is using these historians, linguists, theologians, scholars (the people who dare to disagree with you…the ones you have falsely accused of bias because they dared to disagree with you) to bring clarity to his word, to bring truth and accuracy to the meaning of his word. Why do you fight God so on this matter?

You ain't provided nothing more than the evidence of people who had the same bias as you present.

You have accused scholars, historians linguists and theologians of bias and of false witness

And once again, there is nothing honest about taking a bias into research and then attempting to formulate commentary that says what you want it to say.

Once again…can you offer up any proof of your accusations? Or are you attacking them merely because they speak the truth?

Nope. It's prideful of you to bear false witness that I've insisted anything other than God's Word being right.

God’s word is right. Your personal interpretation of it and your use to condemn members of a minority however…those are not right

Notice how all the folks who think God's Word is inaccurate always seem to have an ulterior motive.

you didn't answer the question:
Why should we abandon reason here just because you prefer to ignore the truth?

Unless the English language changed, it says exactly what i read on the page.

It says what an inaccurate translation says…which is not the truth…no matter how much you pretend it is.

The English language has changed. Like all living languages it does change and evolve. New words come into being, old words fall out of favor. Try reading Chaucer in the original…it maybe English but it is incomprehensible to the modern reader.