Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

[Jet_A_Jockey]

So I've spent some time studying the corinthians passage. I would like to know the pro-gay argument against my conclusion.


(Please note: I'm not quoting from a propaganda site, unless you count bible.org as one)

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

Here we have the issue of the definitions of the greek malakos and arsenokoites. malakos is translated here as male prostitutes and arsenokoites as homosexual offenders.

Malakos:




Reference rtSpch:adjectiveIn Greek:In NET:In AV:soft 3, effeminate 1Definition: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.

So this basically tells me that this word means effeminate. In this context, it is meant as the "female"/submissive one of the same-sex sexual action.




arsenokoites

Pronunciation:ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace Origin:from 730 and 2845 Reference:
PrtSpch:noun masculine In 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 1 Count:2 Definition: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

Here is the breakdown of the word, since it is not defined previous to paul's writings.
arsen

Pronunciation:ar'-hrane ar'-sane Originrobably from 142 Reference:
PrtSpch:adjective In Greek:arsen 4 In NET:male 4 In AV:male 4, man 3, man child 1, man child + 5207 1 Count:9 Definition:1) a male probably from 142; male (as stronger for lifting):-male, man.
see GREEK for 142


koite

Pronunciation:koy'-tay Origin:from 2749
Reference:
PrtSpch:noun feminime In Greek:koithn 2 In NET:bed 1, conceived 1 In AV:bed 2, conceive 1, chambering 1 Count:4 Definition:1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1a) a bed, couch
2) the marriage bed
2a) of adultery
3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
3a) sexual intercourse from 2749; a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the
male sperm:-bed, chambering, X conceive.

So we have man(arsen) bed/adultery/cohabitation/sexual intercourse(koite).

I understand now why the term "homosexual offenders (or more politically correct, those who practice same-sex sex), was used here.

The first part "malakos" refers to the feminine part of the same-sex action, while the arsenkoites refers to the male part. This being said, it is a complete condemnation for both parties involved.









4


Now what I want to know is why you believe this conclusion is incorrect?
It is a very simple conclusion and did not take any special effort to come to.

 

[OllieFranz]

So I've spent some time studying the corinthians passage. I would like to know the pro-gay argument against my conclusion.


(Please note: I'm not quoting from a propaganda site, unless you count bible.org as one)

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

Here we have the issue of the definitions of the greek malakos and arsenokoites. malakos is translated here as male prostitutes and arsenokoites as homosexual offenders.

Malakos:




Reference rtSpch:adjectiveIn Greek:In NET:In AV:soft 3, effeminate 1Definition: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.

So this basically tells me that this word means effeminate. In this context, it is meant as the "female"/submissive one of the same-sex sexual action.




arsenokoites

Pronunciation:ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace Origin:from 730 and 2845 Reference:
PrtSpch:noun masculine In 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 1 Count:2 Definition: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

Here is the breakdown of the word, since it is not defined previous to paul's writings.
arsen

Pronunciation:ar'-hrane ar'-sane Originrobably from 142 Reference:
PrtSpch:adjective In Greek:arsen 4 In NET:male 4 In AV:male 4, man 3, man child 1, man child + 5207 1 Count:9 Definition:1) a male probably from 142; male (as stronger for lifting):-male, man.
see GREEK for 142


koite

Pronunciation:koy'-tay Origin:from 2749
Reference:
PrtSpch:noun feminime In Greek:koithn 2 In NET:bed 1, conceived 1 In AV:bed 2, conceive 1, chambering 1 Count:4 Definition:1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1a) a bed, couch
2) the marriage bed
2a) of adultery
3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
3a) sexual intercourse from 2749; a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the
male sperm:-bed, chambering, X conceive.

So we have man(arsen) bed/adultery/cohabitation/sexual intercourse(koite).

I understand now why the term "homosexual offenders (or more politically correct, those who practice same-sex sex), was used here.

The first part "malakos" refers to the feminine part of the same-sex action, while the arsenkoites refers to the male part. This being said, it is a complete condemnation for both parties involved.

4


Now what I want to know is why you believe this conclusion is incorrect?
It is a very simple conclusion and did not take any special effort to come to.

OK, malakos simply means soft. In the literature of the time it is never used to mean either effeminate or the "passive" partner. There are other words for those. There is only one recorded instance that even comes close to this purported meaning. In an advertisement a dancer uses the word to describe his delicate movements.

When used to describe (and insult) a person, it was usually used to refer to someone who inherited wealth and power and did not use them well spending the wealth on frippery and frittering away the power -- in other words, a "soft" man is a fop. (See Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) Throughout history, a fop has been a completely different animal from a "sodomite." Most of the fops in classical literature were heterosexuals who, in fact, fancied themselves skilled ladykillers. It was not until the 20th century that the stereotype of the fop was associated with homosexuality, creating the stereotype of the "queer."

When it comes to arsenokoites, I am willing to consider the probability that Paul coined it with Leviticus 20:13 in mind, if you are willing to consider that there was a reason that the existing words and phrases did not fit. If you are not willing to meet me half-way on this issue, then we have no agreed-upon starting point for considering the meaning that Paul intended.

 

[artybloke]

Which just goes to show you that using dictionary definitions is pretty pointless if the only recorded instances of the word being used in the ancient world refers to something totaly different.

Dictionary definitions do not the meaning of a word give. They only ever give you the recorded history of the meaning of that word. Only when it is used in a sentence, a paragraph, a writing of a particular genre and in a particular time and place does a word acquire a meaning. Which may well be one of the recorded historical meanings of that word; but then it changed its meaning later. Words change their meaning all the time.

 

[savedandhappy1]

1 Corinthians 6:9

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 ©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 ©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 ©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,
MSG ©Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex,
BBE ©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 ©Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
NKJV ©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,
KJV<2228>Know ye <1492> (5758)not <3756>that <3754>the unrighteous <94>shall <2816> (0)not <3756>
inherit <2816> (5692)the kingdom <932>of God <2316>_?Be <4105> (0)not <3361>deceived <4105> (5744)_:neither <3777>fornicators <4205>_,nor <3777>idolaters <1496>_,nor <3777>adulterers <3432>_,nor <3777>effeminate <3120>_,nor <3777>
abusers of themselves with mankind <733>_,

GREEKh <2228> PRTouk <3756> PRT-Noidate <1492> (5758)
V-RAI-2Poti <3754> CONJ adikoi <94> A-NPMyeou <2316> N-GSMbasileian <932> N-ASFou <3756> PRT-N
klhronomhsousin <2816> (5692) V-FAI-3Pmh <3361>
PRT-planasye <4105> (5744) V-PPM-2Poute <3777> CONJ pornoi <4205> N-NPMoute <3777> CONJ eidwlolatrai <1496> N-NPMoute <3777> CONJ
moicoi <3432> N-NPMoute <3777> CONJ malakoi
<3120> A-NPMoute <3777> CONJ arsenokoitai
<733> N-NPM

NET © [draft] ITLDo you <01492>not <03756>know <01492>that
<03754>the unrighteous <094>will <02816>
not <03756>inherit <02816>the kingdom <0932>
of God <02316>? Do <04105>not <03361>
be deceived <04105>! The sexually immoral
<04205>, idolaters <01496>, adulterers <03432>
, passive homosexual partners <03120>
, practicing homosexuals <0733>,

NET © Notes1 tn This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. &#956;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#954;&#972;&#962; 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for &#956;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#943; in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.
2 tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. &#7936;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#943;&#964;&#951;&#962; states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. &#956;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#954;&#972;&#962;…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that &#7936;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#943;&#964;&#951;&#962; in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with &#956;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#954;&#972;&#962;, the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

 

[artybloke]

Is there any extra-Biblical evidence from other Greek writers around the time of Paul or before, that either of these two word meant what th homophobes want it to mean? Or have the homophobes just decided that they must obviously mean what thet so desperately want them to mean?

If there is any evidence that these words were used in any context to refer to even certain homosexual practises, or even that malakos was even a word for "male prostitute", outside of the Bible, I'll concede it does seem to have something to do with "gay sex." Repeating definitions from dictionaries where somebody has decided that it "must" mean what they think it means (but they have no evidence to prove it) doesn't cut it.

I want references to actually existing documents, not speculation.

 

[OllieFranz]

Is there any extra-Biblical evidence from other Greek writers around the time of Paul or before, that either of these two word meant what th homophobes want it to mean? Or have the homophobes just decided that they must obviously mean what thet so desperately want them to mean?

If there is any evidence that these words were used in any context to refer to even certain homosexual practises, or even that malakos was even a word for "male prostitute", outside of the Bible, I'll concede it does seem to have something to do with "gay sex." Repeating definitions from dictionaries where somebody has decided that it "must" mean what they think it means (but they have no evidence to prove it) doesn't cut it.

I want references to actually existing documents, not speculation.

As I said, there is only one record, an advertisement or a dancer, that even comes close to using malakos in a way that can be interpreted as "effeminate."

As far as arsenokoites goes, the word only appears in half a dozen documents total. All are Christian writings. All are influenced by 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9-10. And all are simply lists of sins and/or sinners, and so there is no context to help distinguish what kind of sin is implied.

The usual interpretation pairing malakos and arsenokoites as eromenos and erastes in 1 Cor 6:9 is rather unfounded. A somewhat stronger case could be made of pairing aresnokoites with pornos in the 1 Timothy passage, but not much stronger.

 

[BreadAlone]

Then what, pray tell, is Paul saying here when he uses those words? And where are all you pro-homosexuals' references and proof for your claims..jet-a-jockey posted his; all you guys do is say "nope you're wrong it doesn't mean that"..your will doesn't make it so..PROOF does..

 

[BigBadWlf]

So I've spent some time studying the corinthians passage. I would like to know the pro-gay argument against my conclusion.


(Please note: I'm not quoting from a propaganda site, unless you count bible.org as one)

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

Here we have the issue of the definitions of the greek malakos and arsenokoites. malakos is translated here as male prostitutes and arsenokoites as homosexual offenders.

Malakos:




Reference rtSpch:adjectiveIn Greek:In NET:In AV:soft 3, effeminate 1Definition: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.

So this basically tells me that this word means effeminate. In this context, it is meant as the "female"/submissive one of the same-sex sexual action.




arsenokoites

Pronunciation:ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace Origin:from 730 and 2845 Reference:
PrtSpch:noun masculine In 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 1 Count:2 Definition: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

Here is the breakdown of the word, since it is not defined previous to paul's writings.
arsen

Pronunciation:ar'-hrane ar'-sane Originrobably from 142 Reference:
PrtSpch:adjective In Greek:arsen 4 In NET:male 4 In AV:male 4, man 3, man child 1, man child + 5207 1 Count:9 Definition:1) a male probably from 142; male (as stronger for lifting):-male, man.
see GREEK for 142


koite

Pronunciation:koy'-tay Origin:from 2749
Reference:
PrtSpch:noun feminime In Greek:koithn 2 In NET:bed 1, conceived 1 In AV:bed 2, conceive 1, chambering 1 Count:4 Definition:1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1a) a bed, couch
2) the marriage bed
2a) of adultery
3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
3a) sexual intercourse from 2749; a couch; by extension, cohabitation; by implication, the
male sperm:-bed, chambering, X conceive.

So we have man(arsen) bed/adultery/cohabitation/sexual intercourse(koite).

I understand now why the term "homosexual offenders (or more politically correct, those who practice same-sex sex), was used here.

The first part "malakos" refers to the feminine part of the same-sex action, while the arsenkoites refers to the male part. This being said, it is a complete condemnation for both parties involved.









4


Now what I want to know is why you believe this conclusion is incorrect?
It is a very simple conclusion and did not take any special effort to come to.

The translations and interpretations of malakos are not steeped in mystery like the word arsenokoites. There are many examples of malakos in various literary pieces and essays form the era and a very clear picture of how interpretive decisions have changed due to historical shifts in the ideology of sexuality.
Early English translations render malakos by terms that denote a general weakness of character or degeneracy, usually "weaklinges" however, a curious shift takes place in the mid-twentieth century. The translation of malakosbriefly became "effeminate" and then that translation was universally rejected and a term that denotes a particular sexual action or orientation is substituted. 1966 marks the first appearance of the translation of Malakos as "catamite," and the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoites and malakos together as "sodomite," the NIV 1973 was the first to try to make malakos mean "male prostitute". More recently we have seen attempts to render the word to mean “pervert” or “homosexual perversion” As was the case with arsenokoites, no real historical or philological evidence has been marshaled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the "effeminacy" of earlier versions to the "homosexual perversion" of the last fifty years. In fact, all the historical and philological evidence is on the side of the earlier versions. The shift in translation resulted not from the findings of historical scholarship but from shifts in sexual ideology.
Malakos is easy to define. Evidence from the ancient sources is abundant and easily accessible. Malakos can refer to many things: the softness of expensive clothes, the richness and delicacy of gourmet food, the gentleness of light winds and breezes. When used as a term of moral condemnation, the word still refers to something perceived as "soft": laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, women. For the ancients women are weak, fearful, vulnerable, tender. They stay indoors and protect their soft skin and nature: their flesh is moister, more flaccid, and more porous than male flesh, which is why their bodies retain all that excess fluid that must be expelled every month. The female is penetrable; their pores are looser than men's. One might even say that in the ancient male ideology women exist to be penetrated. It is their purpose (telos). And their "soft-ness" or "porousnes" is nature's way of inscribing on and within their bodies this reason for their existence.
To say that malakos meant a man who was penetrated is simply wrong. In fact, a perfectly good word existed that meaning just that was kinaedos. Malakos referred to this entire complex of femininity. This can be recognized by looking at the range of ways men condemned other men by calling them malakoi. In fact, in ancient writings when malakos is applied to an adult male it referred to men who prettied themselves up to further their heterosexual exploits.



Further. You have not shown arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Specifically you have failed to show that compound words derive their meaning from the meaning from their root words. DO you understand?
And by understand I mean comprehend what I am saying….not standing beneath something

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

The translations and interpretations of malakos are not steeped in mystery like the word arsenokoites. There are many examples of malakos in various literary pieces and essays form the era and a very clear picture of how interpretive decisions have changed due to historical shifts in the ideology of sexuality.

arsenkoites is not steeped in mystery either, its not some magical word that has no meaning or that no one can understand.

Early English translations render malakos by terms that denote a general weakness of character or degeneracy, usually "weaklinges" however, a curious shift takes place in the mid-twentieth century. The translation of malakosbriefly became "effeminate" and then that translation was universally rejected and a term that denotes a particular sexual action or orientation is substituted. 1966 marks the first appearance of the translation of Malakos as "catamite," and the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoites and malakos together as "sodomite," the NIV 1973 was the first to try to make malakos mean "male prostitute". More recently we have seen attempts to render the word to mean &#8220;pervert&#8221; or &#8220;homosexual perversion&#8221; As was the case with arsenokoites, no real historical or philological evidence has been marshaled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the "effeminacy" of earlier versions to the "homosexual perversion" of the last fifty years. In fact, all the historical and philological evidence is on the side of the earlier versions. The shift in translation resulted not from the findings of historical scholarship but from shifts in sexual ideology.

so you are saying that the change in definition is incorrect, right? What else shifted by sexual ideology i wonder? Oh yea, the term homosexual, so I guess that is incorrect also.

Malakos is easy to define. Evidence from the ancient sources is abundant and easily accessible. Malakos can refer to many things: the softness of expensive clothes, the richness and delicacy of gourmet food, the gentleness of light winds and breezes. When used as a term of moral condemnation, the word still refers to something perceived as "soft": laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, women.

I just bolded because it sounds like your statement contradicts itself. There's not question of what the subject matter is, its about morality.

For the ancients women are weak, fearful, vulnerable, tender. They stay indoors and protect their soft skin and nature: their flesh is moister, more flaccid, and more porous than male flesh, which is why their bodies retain all that excess fluid that must be expelled every month. The female is penetrable; their pores are looser than men's. One might even say that in the ancient male ideology women exist to be penetrated. It is their purpose (telos). And their "soft-ness" or "porousnes" is nature's way of inscribing on and within their bodies this reason for their existence.

To say that malakos meant a man who was penetrated is simply wrong. In fact, a perfectly good word existed that meaning just that was kinaedos. Malakos referred to this entire complex of femininity. This can be recognized by looking at the range of ways men condemned other men by calling them malakoi. In fact, in ancient writings when malakos is applied to an adult male it referred to men who prettied themselves up to further their heterosexual exploits.

are you a greek scholar? I'm not, who is your source? And how does any of this negate that it can refer to the passive "female" person in a male-male sexual interaction?

Further. You have not shown arsenokoites to mean homosexual. Specifically you have failed to show that compound words derive their meaning from the meaning from their root words. DO you understand?
And by understand I mean comprehend what I am saying&#8230;.not standing beneath something

Yes I know about compound word definitions. What I wonder is how many other terms written by paul were in "slang" so to speak. Wouldn't make alot of sense to write in slang often, if you are addressing a culture like rome's at the time, since it was steeped in diversity.


What I want to know is what do you think arsenkoites means?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

OK, malakos simply means soft. In the literature of the time it is never used to mean either effeminate or the "passive" partner. There are other words for those. There is only one recorded instance that even comes close to this purported meaning. In an advertisement a dancer uses the word to describe his delicate movements.

I'm compelled to ask, for comparison, what literature of the time mentions the life and sacrifice of Christ?

When used to describe (and insult) a person, it was usually used to refer to someone who inherited wealth and power and did not use them well spending the wealth on frippery and frittering away the power -- in other words, a "soft" man is a fop. (See Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) Throughout history, a fop has been a completely different animal from a "sodomite." Most of the fops in classical literature were heterosexuals who, in fact, fancied themselves skilled ladykillers. It was not until the 20th century that the stereotype of the fop was associated with homosexuality, creating the stereotype of the "queer."

does this mean it cannot be used to define the 'feminine' part of a male/male sexual encounter?

When it comes to arsenokoites, I am willing to consider the probability that Paul coined it with Leviticus 20:13 in mind, if you are willing to consider that there was a reason that the existing words and phrases did not fit. If you are not willing to meet me half-way on this issue, then we have no agreed-upon starting point for considering the meaning that Paul intended.

If I recall correctly, you state that you believe that the term simply means male-whoremonger or something of the like. The reason I came back to this passage was from another that I was just reading over, in which I do not believe that interpretation fits.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Which just goes to show you that using dictionary definitions is pretty pointless if the only recorded instances of the word being used in the ancient world refers to something totaly different.

Dictionary definitions do not the meaning of a word give. They only ever give you the recorded history of the meaning of that word. Only when it is used in a sentence, a paragraph, a writing of a particular genre and in a particular time and place does a word acquire a meaning. Which may well be one of the recorded historical meanings of that word; but then it changed its meaning later. Words change their meaning all the time.

Since words change their meanings, do you believe Christ died for your sins? What if the term "died" used to mean "did not die"? Since words change all the time, I guess we can rewrite every piece of scripture to our liking as long as we write and redefine the words enough.

I gave the definition of the words, and pieced them together. Tell me how it is incorrect?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Is there any extra-Biblical evidence from other Greek writers around the time of Paul or before, that either of these two word meant what th homophobes want it to mean? Or have the homophobes just decided that they must obviously mean what thet so desperately want them to mean?

If there is any evidence that these words were used in any context to refer to even certain homosexual practises, or even that malakos was even a word for "male prostitute", outside of the Bible, I'll concede it does seem to have something to do with "gay sex." Repeating definitions from dictionaries where somebody has decided that it "must" mean what they think it means (but they have no evidence to prove it) doesn't cut it.

I want references to actually existing documents, not speculation.

Why are you calling everyone who disagrees with your position a homophobe? All I did was give what I believe it says, and why. It's alot better than everyone throwing their hands up and saying "its undefinable", because it is not.

So I guess I'm a homophobe now because I believe the bible does not support same-sex sex.

 

[BigBadWlf]

arsenkoites is not steeped in mystery either, its not some magical word that has no meaning or that no one can understand.

Yes it is. It is a word possibly made up by Paul with an unknown meaning. It appears in a half dozen texts and then disappears from the language entirely. There is no evidence to show that means homosexual and in fact was translated to mean masturbators for centuries.

The fact you don’t like that it cannot be shown to mean the members of a particular minority is to bad but changes nothing

so you are saying that the change in definition is incorrect, right? What else shifted by sexual ideology i wonder? Oh yea, the term homosexual, so I guess that is incorrect also.

"historical or philological evidence has been marshaled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the "effeminacy" of earlier versions to the "homosexual perversion" of the last fifty years" was that not clear?

I just bolded because it sounds like your statement contradicts itself.

Hardly. It is easy to define as soft, luxurious, lavish, opulent.

Yet strangely none of these things mean homosexual

There's not question of what the subject matter is, its about morality.

Just as many look down upon the ultra wealthy and the life of leisure they lead. But that isn’t exactly a moral issue is it

are you a greek scholar? I'm not, who is your source? And how does any of this negate that it can refer to the passive "female" person in a male-male sexual interaction?

First off…you might want to ask a few homosexuals about your strange notions about sex rolls and effeminate issues. You don’t seem to have a clue. There is no “female” person in a gay male relationship. If there was a female person then it would be a heterosexual relationship.

As for how does “any of this negate that it can refer to the passive "female" person in a male-male sexual interaction?”
Did you even read it?
Obviously not.

Kinaedos = Passive partner
Mlakos = soft, luxurious, decadent
A man who prettied himself up to go on the hunt for a woman …Malakos

And I am sure you have prettied yourself up when going on the hunt for female companionship as well.

Yes I know about compound word definitions.

Yet you ignore basic concepts of compound words in your argument for prejudice

What I wonder is how many other terms written by paul were in "slang" so to speak. Wouldn't make alot of sense to write in slang often, if you are addressing a culture like rome's at the time, since it was steeped in diversity.

I don’t know of any others
However Paul wasn’t addressing anyone in Rome was he?

What I want to know is what do you think arsenkoites means?

The best definition for when one looks at the literal and contextual meaning who financial exploits a woman for sex. IE a john or a man who uses prostitutes.


But then you knew this…

 

[BigBadWlf]

does this mean it cannot be used to define the 'feminine' part of a male/male sexual encounter?

It means it never was.

And no matter how hard you twist it you can’t get it to mean something to help you condemn a minority

If I recall correctly, you state that you believe that the term simply means male-whoremonger or something of the like. The reason I came back to this passage was from another that I was just reading over, in which I do not believe that interpretation fits.

Why not?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Since words change their meanings, do you believe Christ died for your sins? What if the term "died" used to mean "did not die"? Since words change all the time, I guess we can rewrite every piece of scripture to our liking as long as we write and redefine the words enough.

That is what you are doing. You don’t like what a word actually meant so you change its meaning to help you create an interpretation against a minority you have chosen to be prejudiced against.

I gave the definition of the words, and pieced them together. Tell me how it is incorrect?

You have been shown…why are you not honest enough to acknowledge that?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Why are you calling everyone who disagrees with your position a homophobe? All I did was give what I believe it says, and why. It's alot better than everyone throwing their hands up and saying "its undefinable", because it is not.

So I guess I'm a homophobe now because I believe the bible does not support same-sex sex.

No you are a homophobe because you are misusing Christianity and altering language to justify your hate, fear and contempt of an entire minority.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Yes it is. It is a word possibly made up by Paul with an unknown meaning. It appears in a half dozen texts and then disappears from the language entirely. There is no evidence to show that means homosexual and in fact was translated to mean masturbators for centuries.

The fact you don’t like that it cannot be shown to mean the members of a particular minority is to bad but changes nothing
[/color][/font]

So throw it out then, how convenient for you

"historical or philological evidence has been marshaled to support these shifts in translation, especially not that from the "effeminacy" of earlier versions to the "homosexual perversion" of the last fifty years" was that not clear?

It has not been proven that the term does NOT refer to the passive partner. It is most easily understood this way.

Hardly. It is easy to define as soft, luxurious, lavish, opulent.

Yet strangely none of these things mean homosexual

What does the word 'fairy' mean? Other than the magical creature type?

Just as many look down upon the ultra wealthy and the life of leisure they lead. But that isn’t exactly a moral issue is it

what does this have to do with moral condemnations within scripture?

First off…you might want to ask a few homosexuals about your strange notions about sex rolls and effeminate issues. You don’t seem to have a clue. There is no “female” person in a gay male relationship. If there was a female person then it would be a heterosexual relationship.

So you claim there is not a passive or feminine acting partner in a same-sex relationship? It may not apply to all, but many ( not all ) of the homosexuals I know have feminine tendencies.

As for how does “any of this negate that it can refer to the passive "female" person in a male-male sexual interaction?”

Did you even read it?
Obviously not.

rude.

Kinaedos = Passive partner
Mlakos = soft, luxurious, decadent
A man who prettied himself up to go on the hunt for a woman …Malakos

And I am sure you have prettied yourself up when going on the hunt for female companionship as well.



[/font]

Okay, so now I know your definitions of the words. What about the dictionary? Perhaps one backed in reputable greek scholarship? Why am I supposed to believe your definition over the book's definition?

Yet you ignore basic concepts of compound words in your argument for prejudice

Here goes the prejudice card again! haha and it only took 30 minutes into the conversation this time!

The best definition for when one looks at the literal and contextual meaning who financial exploits a woman for sex. IE a john or a man who uses prostitutes.

How does that interact with the rest of the corinthians passage, if i recall correctly, the following verses actually do talk about a man's sexual interaction with a prostitute. And as a side note, each time the prostitute is mentioned, the word 'she' comes up.

But then you knew this…

I don't know all of your specific ideology. I usually stop reading your posts after you start calling people prejudiced and bigots. Reason is because by that point in the thread, if its come down to that level, then any pertinent information is already long gone.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

No you are a homophobe because you are misusing Christianity and altering language to justify your hate, fear and contempt of an entire minority.

Hahaha. I'm the one misusing christianity? Altering language? All I did was a breakdown of the words, and their definitions, and now I'm being called a homophobic hater who has fear and contempt of homosexuals.



I actually responded to your other post before I read this reply. Since you are being a child, and obviously violating forum rules, I'm done talking to you. If you can be mature enough to have an adult discussion then we'll talk again later.

And good luck with looking at Christianity through the lens of your sexual drive.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I am a homophobe and I am proud of it.

God made me one and I was born that way.

We all know that in the thousands of years of Christianity and Judaism homosexuality has always been condemned as an evil abomination against God and nature.

Nowhere in the Bible is there is a single example of a gay marriage or any sort of acceptance of homosexuality.

So the only translation of certain passages is that they condemn homosexuality are the only ones that make sense.

Where in the Bible does it state that only homosexuals are exempt from adultery, fornication, or sodomy ?

Do you want me to discriminate against homosexuals and state the Ten Commandments and Paul's teachings against sexual immorality only apply to heterosexuals ? Do you want me to say that hell is only for heterosexuals ?

This is how it works: you cannot defend gay sex within the context of Christian morality, so you must attack an OP that argues within the framework of Christianity and scripture that homosexual practices are immoral.

You have nothing else. There is no foundation within the context of Christianity for you to defend or gain approval of the gay lifestyle.

So, instead of following the forum guidelines that say debate within the context if Christianity, you attack the poster on a personal level.

Any Christian who debates from scripture or theology is a homophobe, racist, guilty of discrimination.

Because you have nothing else.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So throw it out then, how convenient for you

No one has thrown anything out. claiming so is dishonest on your part

It has not been proven that the term does NOT refer to the passive partner. It is most easily understood this way.

Please stop trying to twist words and play word games. It is remarkably dishonest of you. There is no evidence that Malakos ever mean homosexual passive partner or otherwise.

What does the word 'fairy' mean? Other than the magical creature type?

What does the N word mean?

what does this have to do with moral condemnations within scripture?

You are the one who brought such up.

So you claim there is not a passive or feminine acting partner in a same-sex relationship? It may not apply to all, but many ( not all ) of the homosexuals I know have feminine tendencies.

And many (not all) heterosexual men I know have feminine tendencies. It all depends on how you define feminine.
Again there is no “female” person in a gay male relationship. If there was a female person then it would be a heterosexual relationship.

rude.

No…a legitimate question. When you cut and paste the answer to your question I can either assume you are being dishonest or didn’t actually read what was posted. Which would you prefer I assume?

Okay, so now I know your definitions of the words. What about the dictionary? Perhaps one backed in reputable greek scholarship? Why am I supposed to believe your definition over the book's definition?

Prejudice is part of your OP

Here goes the prejudice card again! haha and it only took 30 minutes into the conversation this time!

Prejudice is part of your OP

How does that interact with the rest of the corinthians passage, if i recall correctly, the following verses actually do talk about a man's sexual interaction with a prostitute. And as a side note, each time the prostitute is mentioned, the word 'she' comes up.

It fits in quite well as a man who employs a prostitute may not be welcome in heaven.
And BTW “she is implicit in arsenokoites. Arsenokoites is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Thus referring to a man and a woman’s bed, not in the bed of another man

I don't know all of your specific ideology. I usually stop reading your posts after you start calling people prejudiced and bigots. Reason is because by that point in the thread, if its come down to that level, then any pertinent information is already long gone.

Please cite the posts where I specifically called you or anyone a “bigot”