Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

Archer93 · Jan 30, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear Archer93,
Actually that's quite a good observers appraisal.
Yet many on this forum like Jet_A_Jockey also look at the imagery and words such as arsenokoites and see that homosexual offender is about as good a translation as one can get. Indeed the debate ragng in the recent decades has actually strengthened the translation as homosexual offender. But one will find that those who want to look closer at the translation and imagery are alomost unanimously those who dont want the Bible to says what it says.
Furthermore heterosexual offender is mentioned, adultery and fornication. And no the Bible does refer to adultery and sex being oustide marriage, and not just Paul's letters but the writer of Hebrews, Matthew Mark, and Peter.

Thank you.

However, what many of us are not seeing is why 'arsenekoites' is best translated as 'homosexual offender'- it certainly seems to relate to some form of sexual offense from context; but there are, to the best of my understanding, very few examples of the word kicking around to help clarify the matter.

And again, even if that is the best translation- why, if homosexuality is wrong in and of itself, did they bother tacking 'offender' on the end of it? It isn't 'fornicating offender' as fornicating is seen as an offense in its own right. Why emphasise 'offender' there?

With regard to Paul- I meant that he's the one who advised that one should not marry, if possible. If one absolutely has to give in to physical desires then one should marry, but better not to.
Beter to be asexual.

davedjy · Jan 30, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Yet many on this forum like Jet_A_Jockey also look at the imagery and words such as arsenokoites and see that homosexual offender is about as good a translation as one can get.

How the heck is that true? there isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the original Hebrew OR Greek manuscripts, so it couldn't be.

MercyBurst · Jan 30, 2008

Archer93 said:
Thank you.

However, what many of us are not seeing is why 'arsenekoites' is best translated as 'homosexual offender'-

That's because nobody here went to divinity school like the translators that got their PHDs, thus making them much more qualifed than anyone here. Davedjy is an IT specialist with a bunch of socks -- hardly what anyone would consider an authority on Greek.

MercyBurst · Jan 30, 2008

Originally Posted by BigBadWlf

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

And you're a sock puppet. Mr. Pirate is at least one of your other socks, and davedjy is yet another.

EnemyPartyII · Jan 31, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Dear EnemyPartyII,
Really? So Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" is relevant to Christians!. We have discussed this before, all the Old covennat is relevant to Christians in that Jesus Christ has fulfilled it. Indeed His fulfillment includes both loving ones neigbour and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, with sex outside that as error and specifically same-sex sex.
Again it seems there are two radically different worldviews claiming they are Christianity. with your one seemingly keen to tell our one not to comment.

Jesus fulfilling the law = " loving ones neigbour and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, with sex outside that as error and specifically same-sex sex.
"?

In old computer parlance... syntax error.

I think your trying to force meanings into the Bible that simply arent there. Jesus saying "I came to fulfill the law" does NOT mean we are to literally follow Leviticus law.

Or if it did, your a sinner for wearing polycotton underpants.

EnemyPartyII · Jan 31, 2008

MercyBurst said:
That's because nobody here went to divinity school like the translators that got their PHDs, thus making them much more qualifed than anyone here. Davedjy is an IT specialist with a bunch of socks -- hardly what anyone would consider an authority on Greek.

yet he cites authorities on Greek... or are they all sock puppets too?

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

Archer93 said:
And again, even if that is the best translation- why, if homosexuality is wrong in and of itself, did they bother tacking 'offender' on the end of it? It isn't 'fornicating offender' as fornicating is seen as an offense in its own right. Why emphasise 'offender' there?

from what I've read, the translation reads 'homosexual offender' because of political correctness, when homosexuals began to identify themselves as such several years ago. It's worded in that way to clarify that homosexual attraction is not a sin in itself, but homosexual action is.

God bless.

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

davedjy said:
How the heck is that true? there isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the original Hebrew OR Greek manuscripts, so it couldn't be.

Because same-sex sex was seen as just that. There was no separation of sexual identity until recent history. This explains why the bible does not outright mention homosexuals, since they didnt 'exist'. (of course 'they' existed, but they didn't identify as homosexuals at the time).

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
yet he cites authorities on Greek... or are they all sock puppets too?

Is he citing all of them, or just the ones that agree with his argument? If they all agree with him, then why hasn't anyone recanted on it except a choice few. (some of which also happen to be pro-gay activists)

EnemyPartyII · Jan 31, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
Is he citing all of them, or just the ones that agree with his argument? If they all agree with him, then why hasn't anyone recanted on it except a choice few. (some of which also happen to be pro-gay activists)

I'm not sure I see your point.

Yes, David certainly does cite those with a certain view (i.e. arsenokroites is hard to accurately translate) but I blieve he does this to provide a counterpoint.

Why have other linguists not "recanted"? Presumeably because they do not agree.

But surely you aren't suggesting that truth is dictated by the side with the greatest number of supporters are you? Only a clear and unbiassed reading of the available evidence is the appropriate way to decide what is likely to be correct, Certainly not resorting to "my side has more supporters than your sidfe, therefore my side is right" type games.

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
I'm not sure I see your point.

Yes, David certainly does cite those with a certain view (i.e. arsenokroites is hard to accurately translate) but I blieve he does this to provide a counterpoint.

Why have other linguists not "recanted"? Presumeably because they do not agree.

But surely you aren't suggesting that truth is dictated by the side with the greatest number of supporters are you? Only a clear and unbiassed reading of the available evidence is the appropriate way to decide what is likely to be correct, Certainly not resorting to "my side has more supporters than your sidfe, therefore my side is right" type games.

I'm not talking about a mindless majority rules type thing. We are talking about bible scholars. I trust what for ex. 50 bible scholars agree upon rather than what 5 scholars agree upon.

EnemyPartyII · Jan 31, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
I'm not talking about a mindless majority rules type thing. We are talking about bible scholars. I trust what for ex. 50 bible scholars agree upon rather than what 5 scholars agree upon.

and is that the breakdown? do 50 unbiased Bible scholars claim that arsenokroites is correctly translated as "homosexual" for every 5 unbiased scholars who claim that it is difficult to translate?

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
and is that the breakdown? do 50 unbiased Bible scholars claim that arsenokroites is correctly translated as "homosexual" for every 5 unbiased scholars who claim that it is difficult to translate?

Um i just used those numbers as an example, I have no idea the exact figures. Considering that i've only seen but a very select few scholars named who arguing this translation, it is safe to assume that there are many more who do not.

I'm not saying that everything a majority determines is perfect, and there are some things regarding biblical history that I hold a different view than most historians also. With those, however, they are very substantiated by various sources, I'm not just jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon everytime someone comes up with a new one.

Phinehas2 · Jan 31, 2008

Dear Archer93,

However, what many of us are not seeing is why 'arsenekoites' is best translated as 'homosexual offender'- it certainly seems to relate to some form of sexual offense from context; but there are, to the best of my understanding, very few examples of the word kicking around to help clarify the matter.

That’s true but the words arsen and koites are male - bed and we can see from passages like Matt 19 that fornication (pornos) and adultery (moichos) are what breaks God’s only countenanced purpose in man/woman marriage, so in a way its not so important because all sex outside marriage is defined as not God’s purpose. the only union that is countenanced as God’s purpose. However male – bed is a pretty straightforward conclusion and to analyse the word one can see that it relates to the law 1 Tim 1:10 and can be seen in the Septuagint Lev 18 & 20. Cant really be anything else.

And again, even if that is the best translation- why, if homosexuality is wrong in and of itself, did they bother tacking 'offender' on the end of it? It isn't 'fornicating offender' as fornicating is seen as an offense in its own right. Why emphasise 'offender' there?

Well that’s because of the gay thinking and the word homosexual. Same-sex sex offenders might be better, or sodomites or men abusers with men. Adulterers are essentially those who carry out adultery so homosexual offenders are people with same-sex attraction who carry out such sexual acts.

With regard to Paul- I meant that he's the one who advised that one should not marry, if possible. If one absolutely has to give in to physical desires then one should marry, but better not to.

Beter to be asexual.

Not really, Paul is just one of the writers of Jesus Christ’s testimony, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John also record where the Kingdom should be above all human relationships, even ‘hating’ ones family, so I would single out Paul, this is clearly God’s purpose for those who feel called to dedicate their lives in this way. Remember Jesus said marriage, also there are celibates for the Kingdom.

Phinehas2 · Jan 31, 2008

Dear Davedjy,

How the heck is that true? there isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the original Hebrew OR Greek manuscripts, so it couldn't be.

What do you mean by viable translation, there isnt a viable translation for the word agape from the NT definition, we use the modern word love, but charity could be used as it has in the past. The modern word love encompasses agapeo and fileo in the NT and agapeo, fileo, eros and storge in ancient Greek.
The problem is gay thinking had invented this word homosexual just as Paul coined the phrase arsenokoites yet gay thinking tries to dsmiss arsenkpites according to homosexual.

Phinehas2 · Jan 31, 2008

Dear EnemyPartyII

Jesus fulfilling the law = " loving ones neigbour and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, with sex outside that as error and specifically same-sex sex.
"?

In old computer parlance... syntax error.

I think your trying to force meanings into the Bible that simply arent there. Jesus saying "I came to fulfill the law" does NOT mean we are to literally follow Leviticus law.

Or if it did, your a sinner for wearing polycotton underpants.

Sorry but I have already explained that to you. If we want to see the fulfilment of the law we need to see how Jesus fulfils it, and not just focused on the law. If you looked at how Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets you will see Jesus said don’t worry about what you wear, and then you wouldn’t need to ask the question about polycotton underpants.
But your reply simply doesn’t even attempt to address what I wrote, which you quoted. Before you move on to more of what I would consider nonsense please deal with the criticism I have made. You implied Leviticus no longer applies, I have shown you some Leviticus that you still think applies, your comment was incorrect. Can you not admit your mistake?
The answer to this question is Jesus fulfils the law and prophets, not by law but by the Spirit and in various ways. We no longer need to sacrifice, HE has become our sacrifice, we now no longer need to keep to dietry and clothing laws, but we do need to love God and love our neighbour, and we do need to avoid malice, greed, sexual immorality, theft etc and the fruit of the Spirit is joy love, peace, patience, kindness, self control etc.

and is that the breakdown? do 50 unbiased Bible scholars claim that arsenokroites is correctly translated as "homosexual" for every 5 unbiased scholars who claim that it is difficult to translate

Bias? Who said anything about bias? A translator is supposed to translate what is said to the best understood meaning of what is said or written, not how he/she would like to have it interpreted. This is at the heart of the problem with gay thinking and gay theology, gay arguments are biased towards gay. It doesn’t like any truth that condemns anything gay, yet the Bible truth does condemn same-sex sex.

MercyBurst · Jan 31, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
yet he cites authorities on Greek... or are they all sock puppets too?

Yep, they are indeed socks with absolutely no credibility. Where is their fully translated Bible from cover to cover? We're still waiting for their "accepted version", so where is it I might ask? Nowhere -- why-- because they have NO credibility within the church, just like the gays that are here dumbing down the Bible for their own personal agendas.

And let's say there really were some question on the translations, though we know there isn't -- do we trust a bunch of gays to bring us the truth? uhh yeah...

When you start justifying other sins in the Bible, we'll address that too.

Archer93 · Jan 31, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
from what I've read, the translation reads 'homosexual offender' because of political correctness, when homosexuals began to identify themselves as such several years ago. It's worded in that way to clarify that homosexual attraction is not a sin in itself, but homosexual action is.

God bless.

Bear in mind that arsenokoites used to be translated as 'masturbator'.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Are you saying that the translators of the NIV only used 'homosexual' because that was the current term in use to describe same-sex sex; or that they used 'homosexual offender' as a distinction between inclination and activity as a form of political correctness- i.e. not wishing to offend people by suggesting that their very nature was sinful, only that their activities were?

Jet_A_Jockey · Jan 31, 2008

Archer93 said:
Bear in mind that arsenokoites used to be translated as 'masturbator'.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Are you saying that the translators of the NIV only used 'homosexual' because that was the current term in use to describe same-sex sex; or that they used 'homosexual offender' as a distinction between inclination and activity as a form of political correctness- i.e. not wishing to offend people by suggesting that their very nature was sinful, only that their activities were?

basically, yes. We sin because of the choices we make.

Phinehas2 · Jan 31, 2008

Bear in mind that arsenokoites used to be translated as 'masturbator'

evidence please?

Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Phinehas2

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency