Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me guess.. you are getting your information from a right wing Christian website, right?
"Arsenokoitai" does not refer to homosexuals. This fact comes from native Greek speakers. If it did refer to homosexuals then it is odd that the word never appears in any Greek texts which actually deal with homosexuality, isn't it?
The word is obscure, as evidenced by the variety of interpretations it has been assigned throughout history (including "people with infamous habits", and "child molesters"). If Paul was addressing male homosexuality why did he choose such an obscure word when there were Greek words that were more commonly used to describe homosexual behavior? Given Paul's concern with temple prostitution, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that "male-active-bed" was a reference to the male cult prostitution that was prevalent in Greco- Roman culture at that time? Logically, the answer to that question is "yes".
If the translations regarding adultery were inaccurate, then yes I would "tear apart" scripture as you put it. Though I don't really see correcting mistakes as "tearing apart" anything.
I am not defending anything, merely pointing out that what is believed to be an accurate translation is not.
All this demonstrates is that, like Christians today, the "Biblical scholars" were conditioned to be anti-homosexual and wrote the translation to fit their prejudices.
Ok, so not to "beat a dead horse" but what about the passage in I believe, it's Leviticus, that forbids a man "to lie with a man as with a woman" or something like that. Have you also an alternative explanation for this as well? ( I realize this would be under Old Covenant law but would not this shed some light on God's view of homosexuality nonetheless?)
Ok, so not to "beat a dead horse" but what about the passage in I believe, it's Leviticus, that forbids a man "to lie with a man as with a woman" or something like that. Have you also an alternative explanation for this as well? ( I realize this would be under Old Covenant law but would not this shed some light on God's view of homosexuality nonetheless?)
Did you read the link I provided? It covers those as well:
The infamous verse Leviticus 20:13, often used to condemn homosexuality, is about a married-man with another male, in the "marriage-bed" as with his wife. See the Latinized Greek for Leviticus 20:13 below:
"Kai hos an koimEthE meta arsenos koitEn
gunaikos, bdelugma epoiEsan amphoteroi;
thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin." [Lev 20:13 in Greek Septuagint LXX].
The translation of the Greek term 'gunaikos' is interpreted to mean: wife. Hence, the verse actually forbids male-male adultery, pertaining only to a married man.
Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version]
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:
"We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation]
So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way.
Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.
When many aspects of Biblical issues are considered, there is no textual basis for misinterpreting & mistranslating Bible verses to condemn homosexuality: the original Hebrew & Greek texts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today's society.
Finally, the question arises: In 1611, did the Bible translators/scribes for King James purposely mistranslate Bible verses into English because they had intensely resented King James, with his open homosexuality & various male lovers? The answer might never be known.
Did you read the link I provided? It covers those as well:
The infamous verse Leviticus 20:13, often used to condemn homosexuality, is about a married-man with another male, in the "marriage-bed" as with his wife. See the Latinized Greek for Leviticus 20:13 below:
"Kai hos an koimEthE meta arsenos koitEn
gunaikos, bdelugma epoiEsan amphoteroi;
thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin." [Lev 20:13 in Greek Septuagint LXX].
The translation of the Greek term 'gunaikos' is interpreted to mean: wife. Hence, the verse actually forbids male-male adultery, pertaining only to a married man.
Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version]
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:
"We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation]
So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way.
Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.
When many aspects of Biblical issues are considered, there is no textual basis for misinterpreting & mistranslating Bible verses to condemn homosexuality: the original Hebrew & Greek texts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today's society.
Finally, the question arises: In 1611, did the Bible translators/scribes for King James purposely mistranslate Bible verses into English because they had intensely resented King James, with his open homosexuality & various male lovers? The answer might never be known.
Although I don't agree with your interpretation, I might be willing to at least concede that you might could make a case based on the Leviticus scripture and Corinthians scripture alone, but I think the case you're trying to make regarding the verses in Romans is really quite a "stretch" IMO.
Seems that 17 year old Bob was in a joust, injured his arm, and Jimmy thought he'd comfort the gallant lad by helping him bathe... then making him an Earl, and becoming a trusted advisor. While kings who enjoyed the company of other men was nothing new, the nobles often thought that such political meddling by lovers of either sex was a bad idea.
Luckily for Carr, he didn't end up like Piers Gaveston, Edward II's catamite.
Although I don't agree with your interpretation, I might be willing to at least concede that you might could make a case based on the Leviticus scripture and Corinthians scripture alone, but I think the case you're trying to make regarding the verses in Romans is really quite a "stretch" IMO.
This isn't my interpretation. It's the interpretation of a speaker of Koine Greek.
Logically, if homosexuality were considered a sin, there should be many verses about it, and the word "arsenokoitai" would occur more than twice if it had referred to a major issue, such as homosexuality; the rarity of the word fits the logical translation: the word "arsenokoitai" refers to the rare practice of temple prostitution, not general homosexuality. (See: 73 references to arsenokoit* found in TLG E Feb/2000, "http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm".) Yet, precisely because the word is so rare and had no formal definition, the word "arsenokoitai" is crucial in fostering misinterpretation of the Bible: a more common word could not be so easily redefined.
Again, if homosexuality were the sin Christians claim it is, it would be mentioned time and time again in the Bible, using Greek words that clearly refer to homosexuality. The fact that the only mention of it is two instances of a word that is mistranslated in the first place shows that homosexuality was not a concern to Paul, Jesus, or any other author of The Bible.
Rom 1:32
Who knowing the righteous Judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers: and they will turn their ears away form the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Tim 4:3-4. They are tossed to and fro and carried by every wind of doctrine, by the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting. eph 4:14
However, As long as people think the bible is a lie, nothing else matters. You will not change their minds.
Rom 1:32
Who knowing the righteous Judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers: and they will turn their ears away form the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Tim 4:3-4. They are tossed to and fro and carried by every wind of doctrine, by the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting. eph 4:14
However, As long as people think the bible is a lie, nothing else matters. You will not change their minds.
And who knows, "the righteous judgment of God?" According to Jesus, only God knows. Once again, Paul decides he knows better than Jesus and even goes so far as to contradict him.
And who knows, "the righteous judgment of God?" According to Jesus, only God knows. Once again, Paul decides he knows better than Jesus and even goes so far as to contradict him.
2 Pet 3:14-17
Be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the lonsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his apistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scripture. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall form your own stedfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked.
You just beat Paul up and now you agree with what Peter says about Paul???? doesn't help your case much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but what about the passage in I believe, it's Leviticus, that forbids a man "to lie with a man as with a woman" or something like that. Have you also an alternative explanation for this as well? ( I realize this would be under Old Covenant law but would not this shed some light on God's view of homosexuality nonetheless?)
doesn't help your case much.