Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

[Archer93]

I can certainly see why 'arsenokoites' is understood to refer to same-sex sexual wrong-doing.

But it is rather sweeping to assume that it is a blanket condemnation of ALL forms of same-sex activity. Since the preceding points in the lists refer to particlar forms of sexual offences- prostitution, adultery, pre-marital sex- why assume that the disputed words are more wide-ranging? Particularly since there were perfectly standard and easily recognisable words already in existance that indicated the 'active' and 'passive' parties in male/male intercourse- 'erastes' and 'eromenos' respectively.
If he meant that all same-sex sex was unquestionably wrong; why didn't he say so clearly and distinctly?

It makes more sense to read it as indicating a particular set of circumstances, so that the activity itself is not wrong but the situation or approach is, in the same way that having heterosexual intercourse when you are married is perfectly fine- as long as the person you are having it with is the person you are married to!

For general consideration may I submit the following site-
http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The Mystery.htm
Yes, it's a site for gay Christians and could therefore be seen as biased, but then again the only people who seem to be looking closely at these particular words are those with a personal interest one way or the other.
I haven't yet checked out the names cited, nor yet had the time to research the accounts of Caananite temple prostitution, but if they do hold up then it makes a fairly compelling argument.

MercyBurst:-

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...

That is completely unwarrented. Gay is just one aspect of a person- it has no bearing on their integrity or trustworthiness, on the validity of their arguments or the accuracy of their research.
If someone were to claim that Christians can't be trusted to tell the truth, I would think that you would be angry and offended- rightly so.

People do tend to have some mild bias due to their own beliefs- the trick is to identify and compensate for them. Not to reject them out of hand.

 

[Archer93]

evidence please?

New Roman Catholic encyclopedia, apparently, for one; and I am informed by a variety of sources that it was a standard translation in Martin Luther's time. Still trying to track down first-hand sources though- I wish more websites had decent footnotes and bibliographies.
I dislike relying over-much on secondary and tertiary sources.

 

[MercyBurst]

evidence please?

Phinehas, this place is one big sock drawer. Why waste your time debating socks?

 

[MercyBurst]

I can certainly see why 'arsenokoites' is understood to refer to same-sex sexual wrong-doing.

me too if it isn't plainly obvious enough without looking at a Bible.

But it is rather sweeping to assume that it is a blanket condemnation of ALL forms of same-sex activity.

Male-female marriage, the way God made Adam and Eve, is blessed, but all other sexual relations are fornication. All other forms came after the fall of man.

Since the preceding points in the lists refer to particlar forms of sexual offences- prostitution, adultery, pre-marital sex- why assume that the disputed words are more wide-ranging? Particularly since there were perfectly standard and easily recognisable words already in existance that indicated the 'active' and 'passive' parties in male/male intercourse- 'erastes' and 'eromenos' respectively.

Gay sex is idolatry where the bed is the altar, the giver of pleasure worships the receiver of pleasure, who is the god. I read it on a bathroom stall.

If he meant that all same-sex sex was unquestionably wrong; why didn't he say so clearly and distinctly?

Gay sex is idolatry worship.

It makes more sense to read it as indicating a particular set of circumstances, so that the activity itself is not wrong but the situation or approach is, in the same way that having heterosexual intercourse when you are married is perfectly fine- as long as the person you are having it with is the person you are married to!

Idolatry is wrong.

For general consideration may I submit the following site-
http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm
Yes, it's a site for gay Christians and could therefore be seen as biased, but then again the only people who seem to be looking closely at these particular words are those with a personal interest one way or the other.
I haven't yet checked out the names cited, nor yet had the time to research the accounts of Caananite temple prostitution, but if they do hold up then it makes a fairly compelling argument.

Yep, same-sex idolatry takes on many cultures.

MercyBurst:-


That is completely unwarrented. Gay is just one aspect of a person- it has no bearing on their integrity or trustworthiness, on the validity of their arguments or the accuracy of their research.

They have a dog in the fight, so they can't be honest, and I think that point is completely warrented.

If someone were to claim that Christians can't be trusted to tell the truth, I would think that you would be angry and offended- rightly so.

They say it all the time. They even called Jesus a liar. What's new? We don't care about the praise of men.

People do tend to have some mild bias due to their own beliefs- the trick is to identify and compensate for them. Not to reject them out of hand.

Especially when they have a pet sin they put up on a pedestal, and expect everyone else to bow to.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

maybe thats something you could look into... how many linguists with secular qualifications believe that "homosexual" is a valid and appropriate translation of "arsenokroites".

I'm yet to find any who say its a dead cert of a translation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
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.

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.

Your insistance that that is what "Bible Truth" is, BEFORE looking at any of the available evidence, is the very definition of bias.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Gay sex is idolatry worship.

No its not

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Archer93,

But it is rather sweeping to assume that it is a blanket condemnation of ALL forms of same-sex activity

On the contrary it is pretty much impossible to say it isn’t a blanket condemnation. That’s the whole point. One can see God’s purpose in creation is woman for man, Genesis 2, to be in faithful union Matt19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6,7 and fornication outside that breaks that union and is error Matt 19. So one already knows all same-sex sex is error even before it is called out specifically as such, Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tm 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.
One cant assume that this isn’t a blanket condemnation without major holistic denial of an established and repeated Bible truth. As there are no passages which countenance same-sex or any other union than man and woman, the whole basis of the pro same-sex argument is denial and disbelief.

New Roman Catholic encyclopedia, apparently, for one; and I am informed by a variety of sources that it was a standard translation in Martin Luther's time. Still trying to track down first-hand sources though- I wish more websites had decent footnotes and bibliographies.

I dislike relying over-much on secondary and tertiary sources.

If you don’t know your facts you shouldn’t make sweeping and misleading claims. You said ‘used to be’ translated. So it isnt any more then? since 1967?
Are you sure? The New Catholic Encyclopedia has been revised. In it Fr. John Harvey has merely identified a distinction between being homosexual in orientation and homosexual sexual acts.
“The Catholic bishops in the United States noted in their 1990 document Human Sexuality: "The distinction It is not a Bible translation. Anything modern is suspicious as the gay and lesbian lobby try and dispute the Bible and history. “

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

maybe thats something you could look into... how many linguists with secular qualifications believe that "homosexual" is a valid and appropriate translation of "arsenokroites".

I'm yet to find any who say its a dead cert of a translation

Well why would you be interested in secular linguists. No there isn’t a dispute about the linguistics, we are convinced of what arsen and koites.mean, even the gay theologians like Scroggs and Boswell. “The Catholic bishops in the United States noted in their 1990 document Human Sexuality: "The distinction It is not a Bible translation. Anything modern is suspicious as the gay and lesbian lobby try and dispute the Bible and history. “

We are exposing the agenda. We can see the gay arguments merely jump from one unconvincing claim to the next Biblical or historical denial.
If you are interested in some linguistic discussion try http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-March/033644.html but if you merely want to think same-sex sex is ok whatever the evidence I wouldn't bother

 

[MercyBurst]

No its not

Gay sex is idolatry according to the "writing on the wall" in the men's room.

Gays write that they worship a man's [wash my mouth]. They call it "their god" and want to give it pleasure, saying it's better to give than receive. That sounds like a Bible verse.

yup, it's idolatry.

How often I've heard that one woman absolutely worshipped another, only to end up in a lesbian relationship.

As one pastor said, somewhere in the middle of it all is "beauty" -- that is the god they worship, thinking it will bring them pleasure.

Yup, it's idolatry.

 

[Archer93]

If you don’t know your facts you shouldn’t make sweeping and misleading claims. You said ‘used to be’ translated. So it isnt any more then? since 1967?
Are you sure? The New Catholic Encyclopedia has been revised. In it Fr. John Harvey has merely identified a distinction between being homosexual in orientation and homosexual sexual acts.
“The Catholic bishops in the United States noted in their 1990 document Human Sexuality: "The distinction It is not a Bible translation. Anything modern is suspicious as the gay and lesbian lobby try and dispute the Bible and history. “

You are, essentially, correct in pointing out the problem with my statement.
I was working in the first instance from an occasion back at school, when I was studying classical (not koine) Greek.
The Greek master based a lesson around the point that the problem with translating Greek is that, since it's so old, it is often hard to find a suitable idiomatic translation. When faced with the standard 'by the book' translations of such texts as the Odyssey that we the class came up with, his standard cry was 'Now in English please, not Translationese!' The point being, no-one in standard speech would ever say 'having done.... we then..... lest....'
It's technically accurate, if you break it down word by word, but it's not how people think or write in their own language.

The point being, a classmate of mine asked about 'arsenokoites'- he had a vested interest, sure, as he was a) gay and b) a leading light in the Christian Union.
The Greek master was something of a lapsed Catholic who had studied in a seminary before he became a teacher- his other passion was languages and that was what won out. (Yes, it IS all a bit Alan Bennett's 'History Boys', isn't it? Still true, though.)
The Greek master told us- and this is a direct quotation as best as I can remember over the last half a lifetime-
"Don't worry about that, dear boy, when I was your age they told us that meant we shouldn't have one off the wrist".
Sensation in class.
He went on to elaborate as to how 'arsenokoites' was translated in such a way as to reflect whatever the dominant sexual bogeyman of the day was.


But indeed- it is anecdotal and therefore not authoratative.It was a first hand source, but not referable.
It just made a lasting impression on me.

 

[MercyBurst]

Phinehas,

Why in the heck are you debating someone with a pagan icon regarding scripture translations? Is it because they say exactly the same things that "Gay Christians" say? I can understand how you could overlook this extremely trivial distinction, as in "Gay Christianity" is really just a to-ebah pagan pleasure seeking idolatry anyway.

 

[MercyBurst]

You are, essentially, correct in pointing out the problem with my statement.
I was working in the first instance from an occasion back at school, when I was studying classical (not koine) Greek.
The Greek master based a lesson around the point that the problem with translating Greek is that, since it's so old, it is often hard to find a suitable idiomatic translation. When faced with the standard 'by the book' translations of such texts as the Odyssey that we the class came up with, his standard cry was 'Now in English please, not Translationese!' The point being, no-one in standard speech would ever say 'having done.... we then..... lest....'
It's technically accurate, if you break it down word by word, but it's not how people think or write in their own language.

The point being, a classmate of mine asked about 'arsenokoites'- he had a vested interest, sure, as he was a) gay and b) a leading light in the Christian Union.
The Greek master was something of a lapsed Catholic who had studied in a seminary before he became a teacher- his other passion was languages and that was what won out. (Yes, it IS all a bit Alan Bennett's 'History Boys', isn't it? Still true, though.)
The Greek master told us- and this is a direct quotation as best as I can remember over the last half a lifetime-
"Don't worry about that, dear boy, when I was your age they told us that meant we shouldn't have one off the wrist".
Sensation in class.
He went on to elaborate as to how 'arsenokoites' was translated in such a way as to reflect whatever the dominant sexual bogeyman of the day was.


But indeed- it is anecdotal and therefore not authoratative.It was a first hand source, but not referable.
It just made a lasting impression on me.

Now lookie who has a brand new sock!!!! Peek-a-boo I see you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Gays write that they worship a man's [wash my mouth]. They call it "their god" and want to give it pleasure, saying it's better to give than receive. That sounds like a Bible verse.

I'm gay, I've never written any such thing.

Are you making the mistake of atributing the actions of a lone individual to an entire group again?

 

[David Brider]

Gay sex is idolatry where the bed is the altar, the giver of pleasure worships the receiver of pleasure, who is the god. I read it on a bathroom stall.

Gay sex is idolatry worship.

No, gay sex is what happens when two people who happen to be of the same gender and love each other very much have reached the point in their relationship where they feel that physical lovemaking is the best possible way to express their love.

It's rather a bit like straight sex in that respect.

Definitely nothing to do with idolatry worship, though.

David.

 

[MercyBurst]

I'm gay, I've never written any such thing.

In a men's latrine -- why would you even be in one?

Are you making the mistake of atributing the actions of a lone individual to an entire group again?

No, I said it before and I'll say it again -- the giver of pleasure is the worshipper and the receiver of pleasure is the god. I've heard plenty of it from both gays and lesbians that worship their other.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

In a men's latrine -- why would you even be in one?



No, I said it before and I'll say it again -- the giver of pleasure is the worshipper and the receiver of pleasure is the god. I've heard plenty of it from both gays and lesbians that worship their other.

"with my body, I thee worship", I'm pretty sure is a common element of many Christian marriage cermonies...

However I have never heard any homosexual refer to their partnert as a "god" in the sense you suggest.

I think you are placing far to much importance on what you might have once seen in a bathroom cubicle.

Of course, if you are reduced to getting your information from toilet walls, some might say you were clutching at straws.

 

[MercyBurst]

No, gay sex is what happens when two people who happen to be of the same gender and love each other very much have reached the point in their relationship where they feel that physical lovemaking is the best possible way to express their love.

You got that right-- it's their best way to express their incomplete love -- not God's best way. God's best way allows for life to be created from the union. Even when Sara was 90-something she had a child according to God's plan. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's rather a bit like straight sex in that respect.

Sorry...No kids. Isn't it funny they can have kids with the opposite sex, but not with each other in a loving monogamous relationship because it is incomplete. So did God goof it all up? Nahh... I think you goofed it all up..

Definitely nothing to do with idolatry worship, though.

David.

They bow down to worship the one they adore and give them pleasure, and the receiver is the god. yup it's to-ebah idolatry all-the-way just like the Bible says. The worshipper gives pleasure and their god (whihc is the other person) receives pleasure. This is totally unlike a hetero relationship where both are equal in giving and receiving. Totally unlike God's ordained plan, where opposite sex continues the human race.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The worshipper gives pleasure and their god (whihc is the other person) receives pleasure. This is totally unlike a hetero relationship where both are equal in giving and receiving.

Just how the heck do you figure this?

Both parties recieve pleasure in both heterosexual AND Homosexual relationships! At least they do ideally.

 

[MercyBurst]

Just how the heck do you figure this?

From the Bible. Children always end up on the losing end of the deal whether it's parents sacrificing their own babies to Molech or a to-ebah same-sex temple worship where sex is NEVER about children.

Both parties recieve pleasure in both heterosexual AND Homosexual relationships! At least they do ideally.

With heteros at the same time. With gays, one typically gives it to the other and vice versa, especially with the anal variety. As with other sexual idoaltries, the children are sacrificed -- there aren't any. In this respect, abortion is also an idolatry for the hetero god of sexual pleasure.