My fault, I was asleep this morning when I replied. I apologize for the mistake. OTOH, it still isn't clear. Rather, it just makes it sound as if three people are involved rather than two. It doesn't make it sound like what you want to make it sound like unless you start adding words like "as" that aren't in the original text. Further, as has been pointed out, this word in the Bible means "bed" most of the time.
Further, this is where we can go back to Lev. 18 which states, "with male not lay bed woman abomination is", that definitely sounds like not to have sex with a male in a woman's bed.
You are the one that claimed, "as soon as one uses the modern concepts homosexual and heterosexual which cuts across the Biblicla truth...." While perhaps I misunderstand, it is saying like you are claiming that homosexuals (same-sex attraction) is a "modern concept"; that it is something made up that didn't exist in the time of the Bible. And if the idea of same-sex attraction is not a modern invention, but rather something that did exist in Biblical times (not necessarily the concept but the attraction), why does the Bible not address homosexuality?
Just call it a quirk of my upbringing that I don't like the Bible being referred to as the word of God. Strangely, I don't mind God's word but Word of God should be reserved for Christ.
But this isn't what you posted earlier. You claimed, "The Bible says through faith in Christ we are no longer under obligation of the law but under grace.". So, before you claimed no obligation but now it is a partial obligation. I agree with the no obligation, which is why I have not mentioned Paul's writings on the Law (and a thank to Ollie Franz for posting them). I don't see where they Bible states we are still under obligation to the Law.
And again, it doesn't state that man and woman is the only allowable coupling. In fact, the Bible actually shows this isn't the only allowable type of relationship since there are so many man with multiple women that God blessed and allowed. In fact, the Bible even state that God gave David his wives and would have given him more, when it condemns David for killing Uriah so he could marry Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:8). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that man/woman is the only acceptable standard. Your claims that because it mentions a man woman relationship it is condemning other relationships is a logical fallacy. It is much like saying since the Bible talks of Jesus riding on an ass that riding in cars is condemned for not being mentioned.
I've shown the problem of translating Leviticus. And 1 Corinthians 6 has a larger translation issue than Leviticus. Paul uses the word "arsenokoites" and we have no historical evidence of exactly what the word means. It appears as if Paul may have made the word up, the word is only seen in a few other writings at the time of Paul and they are believed to have access to Paul's writings. Further, like Paul, they use the word in a list where no clear meaning can be inferred.
Beyond that, there are two main reasons why it doesn't seem like homosexuality is the correct translation. One, in older Bible translations (those prior to the King James), the word is typically defined as masturbation. And secondly, there were six other words in common usage in Koine Greek that we today would understand to mean homosexual acts. So why would Paul use a word that people would not clearly understand as homosexual if that is what he wanted us to understand?
No, I believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and that we are no longer subject to the Law. Not that Christ fulfilled parts of the Law.
Again, I'm not claiming that sin immediately condemns; this is a straw man of my position that you can't seem to let go of. Instead, I merely asked if that is what you were trying to do (as that is what many Christians here try to do, to condemn homosexual behavior), you said no and I dropped it. Please quit misrepresenting and assigning motives for what I am stating.
This is a ridiculous claim. Were the abolitionists bothered by the truth of the Bible verses supporting slavery, and that is why they were "bothered"? Are you bothered because you actually believe what I say and that is why you are bothered? I trust you can see the bad logic in your assumptions here.
And when I mentioned homosexual, I meant homosexual acts. While it isn't technically correct, in a conversation like this I think most understand that homosexual is meant as the acts and not the orientation.
Again, so you claim. I do think it interesting that historically we can see where the translators of the King James version of the Bible appear to change some verses (such as "arsenokoites") to mean homosexual. Further, there is some evidence that this was not done because they necessarily thought the verses actually meant homosexual but rather to make comments about King James' lifestyle. And if you look at most translation notes of English translations of the Bible, they use the King James version as a reference.
Um, why does that matter? This just seems like some random point you throw out.
Of course, the people then thought they understood the Bible properly, just as you claim that you understand the Bible properly. I'm not really worried about what verses say there Earth is flat, as it is known many Christians believed in a flat Earth based on the Bible. It is one of the primary reasons Galileo was imprisoned. But this site shows the verses. As for segregation, find the original court decision but the trial judge of Loving v. Virginia. He quoted the Biblical argument as evidence that mixed race marriages should be prohibited.
And there are several hundred passages that talk of heterosexual sex as a sin. Should we then imply that all heterosexual sex is sinful? You have provided no verses that condemn monogamous same sex relationships.
And you belief does not make your assertions the truth, just as the verses that imply a flat earth or segregation does not make those views the truth. Instead, it is an argument from silence to claim that homosexual relationships are forbidden simply because they aren't mentioned. But, for a same sex relationship that was countenanced I'll give you the Centurion and his servant.
Upvote
0
