*Finally reads Cyndane's essay on homosexuality in the Bible*
Good try, but I've actually come out <i>more</i> convinced that homosexuality is condemned by the bible then when I started.
First, you try to convince us that a few uses of the verb "yada" are not meant to be sexual references, when they clearly make sense as nothing else. I won't dwell on that point though, as those verses are really tangential to the issue anyway.
Next, you try to convince us that the Leviticus bans on homosexuality are taken out of context, because they are really referring to fertility-related idol-worship practices of Baal worshipers. Of course, if you actually <i>read</i> the context, you quickly realize that's completely rediculous--the bans actually reside in the middle of a long list of sexual sins. There are numerous verses describing sexual sins before the bans, and several more after, so the contextual clues clearly point to interpreting those verses with a sexual meaning.
Next comes probably the only good point in the entire essay--Leviticus (and other similar old testament law lists) contains hundreds of laws, many of which we don't consider valid any more. So why pick out those referring to homosexuality and say they should still stand? Well, to answer that we look at the New Testament.
Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 14 2005, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 14 2005, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *Finally reads Cyndane's essay on homosexuality in the Bible*
Good try, but I've actually come out <i>more</i> convinced that homosexuality is condemned by the bible then when I started.
First, you try to convince us that a few uses of the verb "yada" are not meant to be sexual references, when they clearly make sense as nothing else. I won't dwell on that point though, as those verses are really tangential to the issue anyway.
Next, you try to convince us that the Leviticus bans on homosexuality are taken out of context, because they are really referring to fertility-related idol-worship practices of Baal worshipers. Of course, if you actually <i>read</i> the context, you quickly realize that's completely rediculous--the bans actually reside in the middle of a long list of sexual sins. There are numerous verses describing sexual sins before the bans, and several more after, so the contextual clues clearly point to interpreting those verses with a sexual meaning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sadly I think you failed to read most of the linguist portion of the essay, which is fine, most skip over what they find to hard to understand.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Next comes probably the only good point in the entire essay--Leviticus (and other similar old testament law lists) contains hundreds of laws, many of which we don't consider valid any more. So why pick out those referring to homosexuality and say they should still stand? Well, to answer that we look at the New Testament. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I shall use the NSAB and NIV translations to show you that you are incorrect, and the very translations are for all intents and purposes wrong. In addition, I won't even bother doing all the fun work of proving you wrong I shall let the countless minsters and christian scholars do that for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud. As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.
Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.
And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution. (unless you argue that the Sodomites must have been frowned on for their homosexuality, since we all know that rape-murder of angels is just fine with God). And here those nasty male temple prostitutes get kicked out again over in 2 Kings.
How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)
In addition, the Hebrew theology of women was based on the fact man was made in the image of God and should be treated with the same respect as God. Women, however were created in the image of men, so they were one step further removed from God and not deserving of the same respect. As a result a women was under the domination of a man and used sexually at the whim of their husband. If a man were to treat another man in the same manner that would be degrading God. So to "lie with a man as with a women" was blasphemous degrading God to a mere possession as a women.
The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.
<!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1]
ROMANS 1:24-27
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind. * Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following: * "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29. * 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18. * 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world.
It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.
As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!
Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.
It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next we have I Timothy, this is where the bible gets amusing.
10and (E)immoral men and (F)homosexuals and (G)kidnappers and (H)liars and (I)perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (J)sound teaching, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well look at that, the two translations contradict each other, just re-affirming that no one has translated the bible correctly yet. Now for the arguement against that particular section...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This passage is similar to I Cor 6:9 in that the word arsenokoites is again included in the vices listed. Paul is combating Christian teaching he considers heretical.
The list of vices seems connected in the order given, with pornoi, arsenokoitai and andrapodistai grouped together. So lets study what each of these words mean.
Pornoi in normal Greek usage means a male prostitute and appears many times in literature of the time pointing to either the male who sells himself, or the slave in the brothel house. (e.g. Demosthernes, Against Adrotion 73; idem, Epistle 4,; Aristophanes, Plutus, lines 153-157 etc
Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian usage, however, skews the apparent straightforward definition. The word does not appear in any Septuagint book except the post Old Testament Sirach 23:16-18. I does appear a few times in the New Testament.
The problem here is that the word in Sirach and in the New Testament seems to have a meaning broader than "male prostitute" and is usually taken by scholars to refer to sexual crimes in general. But this assumption may be due to lack of awareness of the prominence of the male prostitute in Greco-Roman society which may have misled some away from it's more narrow original usual meaning.
Within the text of 1 Tim there is no reason to assume it meant anything more than male prostitute. The juxtaposition of pornos with arsenokoites, however, should give pause before translating the word in a more general fashion. There is no reason why the same relationship between malakos and arsenokoites, that is, between the youth who is used and the adult who uses him, could not also pertain to the two words in 1 Timothy. Pornos may effectively function in relations to arsenokoites in precisely the same way as malakos does in 1 Corinthians.
This possibility is further supported by the third word: andropodistes. This word means "kidnapper" or "slave dealer". While in our culture these definitions carry differences in meaning, in the culture of the first century they would be synonymous. One reason a handsome boy or beautiful girl would be kidnapped is to provide slaves for brothel houses. Thus the kidnapper or slave dealer is the one responsible for the pornos, who is used by arsenokoites. Should "kidnapper" not be related to the preceding words in some fashion, it would be unique in this list, since all the other words have some connection with a previous or following word.
The three words would thus fit together and could be translated: "male prostitutes, males who lie with them, and slave dealers who procure them.
If we reflect on the Septuagint it makes sense. There is the injunction against arsenokoites (Lev 18,20), pornos (Deut 23:18), and the kidnapper (Exod 4:16; Deut 24:7). Since arsenokoites must be a Hellenistic Jewish coinage, and since the vice list here does not seem dependent on that in 1 Cor 6:9-10, it may indeed be likely that this list originated in the Hellenistic Jewish circles.
Therefore it may be concluded that the vice list in 1 Timothy may not be condemnatory of homosexuality in general, not even pederasty in general, but that specific form of pederasty which consists of the enslaving of boys for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was fairly painless, now I shall list my use of references since I have debunked these all before in my previous thread. <!--QuoteBegin-Biblography+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Biblography)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html' target='_blank'>Reference 1</a> <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 2</a> <a href='http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 3</a> <a href='http://www.musingson.com/' target='_blank'>Reference 4</a> <a href='http://www.whosoever.org/bible/' target='_blank'>Reference 5</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html' target='_blank'>Fun Link</a> <-- This one is quite biased but is a fun read nevertheless. I also didn't use this one as a reference.
*edit* I wasn't going to do this, but I am annoyed now. You didn't use strongs lexicon, and I shall now demostrate.
Strongs Lexicon according to BLB.
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1116167872-4031.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116167971-977.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168039-7111.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity. <a href='http://http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168077-3321.html' target='_blank'>shakab (Lexicon proof)</a>
(Levticius) But do these two passages really condemn homosexuality? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, one sees a different condemnation. Leviticus 20:13 states, in part, "When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman". Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition". <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1116168174-8733.html' target='_blank'>Lexicon Zakar</a>
(New testament) Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed". <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168290-4185.html' target='_blank'>arsenokoites (lexicon)</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168333-7433.html' target='_blank'>Malakos (Lexicon)</a> What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 15 2005, 09:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 15 2005, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *Sadly I think you failed to read most of the linguist portion of the essay, which is fine, most skip over what they find to hard to understand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, actually I did. In fact, let me quote for you the part of your original essay linguistically analyzing the Leviticus passages:
"Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship."
Wait-- Thats it? There's no linguistics at all in there. That's simply the author (you?) stating her own opinion on what the words mean, with no support whatsoever for how she decides that "males lying with males as they would with a female" is not related to sex. Fortunately, you make an attempt to explain your reasoning more clearly this time:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud. As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember, there's two different questions to be considered about the Leviticus bans on homosexuality: A) Do they really ban homosexuality, or are we misinterpreting them? B) Now that we have abandoned many of the Leviticus laws anyway, are these particular laws even still important? So far, your post has answered only question B, but you do finally get around to saying a few words on question A:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, here's the passage from Deuteronomy that parallels Leviticus 18 (heavily paraphrased), starting at 27:15-- Worship of crafted idols is cursed. Worshiping your ancestors is cursed. Cheating your neighbor out of land is cursed. Tormenting the blind is cursed. Conning the unfortunate is cursed. Sleeping with your mother is cursed. Sleeping with animals is cursed. Sleeping with your sister is cursed. Sleeping with your mother-in-law is cursed. Smiting your neighbor secretly is cursed. Taking bounty for assassinations is cursed. And just for good measure, you're cursed if you don't do everything in this law.
The parallel passage in Leviticus: Don't sleep with you own kin. Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your father's other wives. Don't sleep with your sisters (or half sisters). Don't sleep with your children or your grandchildren. Don't sleep with your aunts. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law. Don't sleep with your brother's wife. Don't sleep with the children of another woman you've slept with. Don't sleep with a woman and her sister. Don't sleep with a woman on her period. Don't sleep with your neighbors wife. Don't sacrifice your children to Molech. Don't sleep with a man (as with a woman). Don't sleep with an animal.
You know what? Those passages aren't even close to being parallel. So the fact that one entry from Leviticus happens to be missing in Deuteronomy really isn't very good proof that we must have mistranslated it. You'll have to offer something that explains how "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination" somehow <i>doesn't</i> refer to having sex with a man for me to believe you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you haven't quite dismissed Leviticus yet. I would also raise the Judges example. Sodom isn't the best example, but the Judges passage is a bit better.
To paraphrase: A Levite and his concubine are taken in as travelers in a strangers home. The mob comes by and wants to "know" the Levite, but the homeowner refuses and sends out the concubine instead. She is "known", beaten, and finally dies on the doorstep. When the man finds her body the next day, he gets mad and eventually assembles an army which comes in and annihilates almost the entire tribe of Benjamin. Very strange story all told, but obviously what the mob wanted to do with the woman was considered wrong, but what they wanted to do with the man was worse. Otherwise the homeowner wouldn't have insisted on sending out the concubine instead of the Levite.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or it could possibly be related to the idea that most sexual sin <i>is</i> a form of idolatry... That seems to be a common theme between Leviticus and Romans, and provides a much simpler explanation for the coincidence than postulating that the words used obviously mean something other than what they look like, just because its good for symmetry or whatever. And then we get back to question B--Given that we still follow some laws from Leviticus, but not all, should we still follow these particular laws?
So far your answer has been, "we don't follow most of them", with no rationale as to whether the laws on homosexuality should fall into the same category as laws on Incest and Wizardry (which we still follow), or the same category as laws on whether we can eat pigs and oysters (which we don't).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look! It's a real point for once! Rather vague though...but I'll think about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love. ... That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, Jesus also said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it", and "Not one jot or tiddle of the law shall pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the law will not pass away." As stated, we still adhere to many of the old laws, just not all of them. For example, sacrificing animals is pointless now because we have a much better sacrifice, Jesus himself. On the other hand, we still avoid Wizardry, Fortunetelling, Idolatry, etc, all of which were forbidden in Leviticus as well. You still have given no explanation as to why homosexuality in particular ought to be something that changes under the new covenant.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait--so Paul couldn't have been condeming homosexual acts...because he was too stupid to realize that homosexuality isn't a choice? And if he had seen modern research "proving" that homosexuality can't be changed, then he would have just changed his mind, and said "oh, ok then...I guess you can do it afterall". Is that what you're telling me?
While it's certainly possible that Paul wouldn't personally know if homosexuality was "natural" or not, God obviously would know, and God makes the rules, not Paul. Paul just relays them on to us.
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind. * Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following: * "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29. * 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, all points here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Paul doesn't need to <i>prove</i> that anything is wrong. He is not attempting to prove something wrong, merely stating that it <i>is</i> wrong, on his way to describing how even Gentile wrongdoers can be saved.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about this reference, from vs 25- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator". Paul does indeed seem to be connecting the homosexual acts with idolatry--but that doesn't mean that he is <i>only</i> condemning homosexual acts committed as part of worship rituals. Why then would he specify those worship rituals, and not other worship rituals? Rather, it seems he is referring to homosexuality as a form of idolatry in and of itself, of worshipping the human body and taking it for uses other than that which God intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally in need of grace. Your point? That doesn't really do anything to prove that homosexual acts are not looked down on by God.
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Checking the Strong's concordance (since thats my best source of Greek vocabulary at the moment), the "pornos" in that verse is the male temple prostitues, not the female. Ok, so if we already have the male prostitutes, then run into "arsenokoites", it obviously can't be male prostitutes <i>again</i>. So it must be something else...like homosexuals maybe?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why should the word be required to apply only to those using the "services" of the previous entry in the list? No other entry is listed together with customers. I imagine when Paul warns about prostitutes ("pornos") earlier on, that he wouldn't be happy with the prostitute's customers either, but he doesn't specifically name them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lucky for us that we keep making new translations then, huh? By now we've got hundreds of translations to choose from, I'm sure, each of which reflects only the biases of its own particular time period. And some of them may even be fairly true to the original Greek, if the authors were careful in their work (as I'm sure many of them were). I happen to know several people in the business of translating the Bible, and they do a lot of error checking and referring back to original language source materials to minimize any possible bias.
I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Despite the fact that I'd rather the Bible didn't condemn homosexuality, and that I'm not a Christian, I'm finding it hard to see how the use of "yada" as a sexual term has been disproved. In most of the cases quoted it seems to make little sense when the other variations are used.
Cyndane, I also don't think it's fair to claim that cxwf has a different opinion because he doesn't understand what you're saying. It's a bit patronising.
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+May 15 2005, 06:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ May 15 2005, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, I also don't think it's fair to claim that cxwf <b>doesn't understand what you're saying</b> because he <b>has a different opinion</b>. It's a bit patronising. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Insane,May 15 2005, 05:30 PM] Despite the fact that I'd rather the Bible didn't condemn homosexuality, and that I'm not a Christian, I'm finding it hard to see how the use of "yada" as a sexual term has been disproved. In most of the cases quoted it seems to make little sense when the other variations are used. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> It doesn't condem consenual homosexuality at all. As previously stated.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Insane Cyndane, I also don't think it's fair to claim that cxwf has a different opinion because he doesn't understand what you're saying. It's a bit patronising. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> Actually Insane I do think it is fair to assume that.
He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect.
I'd also like to point out, you are not arguing against me any more cxwf, you are calling <i> your </i> christian ministers and scholars wrong. Untill you can actually give a reference that claims the same you really don't have much to stand on at the moment.
*edit* (Insane @ May 15 2005, 06:30 PM) Cyndane, I also <b> do </b> think it's fair to claim that cxwf doesn't <b> understand what you're saying because he has little understanding of linguistics of ancient texts. </b> It's a bit patronising. Re-Fixed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 15 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 15 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 15 2005, 09:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 15 2005, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *Sadly I think you failed to read most of the linguist portion of the essay, which is fine, most skip over what they find to hard to understand. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, actually I did. In fact, let me quote for you the part of your original essay linguistically analyzing the Leviticus passages:
"Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship."
Wait-- Thats it? There's no linguistics at all in there. That's simply the author (you?) stating her own opinion on what the words mean, with no support whatsoever for how she decides that "males lying with males as they would with a female" is not related to sex. Fortunately, you make an attempt to explain your reasoning more clearly this time:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud. As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember, there's two different questions to be considered about the Leviticus bans on homosexuality: A) Do they really ban homosexuality, or are we misinterpreting them? B) Now that we have abandoned many of the Leviticus laws anyway, are these particular laws even still important? So far, your post has answered only question B, but you do finally get around to saying a few words on question A:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, here's the passage from Deuteronomy that parallels Leviticus 18 (heavily paraphrased), starting at 27:15-- Worship of crafted idols is cursed. Worshiping your ancestors is cursed. Cheating your neighbor out of land is cursed. Tormenting the blind is cursed. Conning the unfortunate is cursed. Sleeping with your mother is cursed. Sleeping with animals is cursed. Sleeping with your sister is cursed. Sleeping with your mother-in-law is cursed. Smiting your neighbor secretly is cursed. Taking bounty for assassinations is cursed. And just for good measure, you're cursed if you don't do everything in this law.
The parallel passage in Leviticus: Don't sleep with you own kin. Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your father's other wives. Don't sleep with your sisters (or half sisters). Don't sleep with your children or your grandchildren. Don't sleep with your aunts. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law. Don't sleep with your brother's wife. Don't sleep with the children of another woman you've slept with. Don't sleep with a woman and her sister. Don't sleep with a woman on her period. Don't sleep with your neighbors wife. Don't sacrifice your children to Molech. Don't sleep with a man (as with a woman). Don't sleep with an animal.
You know what? Those passages aren't even close to being parallel. So the fact that one entry from Leviticus happens to be missing in Deuteronomy really isn't very good proof that we must have mistranslated it. You'll have to offer something that explains how "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination" somehow <i>doesn't</i> refer to having sex with a man for me to believe you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you haven't quite dismissed Leviticus yet. I would also raise the Judges example. Sodom isn't the best example, but the Judges passage is a bit better.
To paraphrase: A Levite and his concubine are taken in as travelers in a strangers home. The mob comes by and wants to "know" the Levite, but the homeowner refuses and sends out the concubine instead. She is "known", beaten, and finally dies on the doorstep. When the man finds her body the next day, he gets mad and eventually assembles an army which comes in and annihilates almost the entire tribe of Benjamin. Very strange story all told, but obviously what the mob wanted to do with the woman was considered wrong, but what they wanted to do with the man was worse. Otherwise the homeowner wouldn't have insisted on sending out the concubine instead of the Levite.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or it could possibly be related to the idea that most sexual sin <i>is</i> a form of idolatry... That seems to be a common theme between Leviticus and Romans, and provides a much simpler explanation for the coincidence than postulating that the words used obviously mean something other than what they look like, just because its good for symmetry or whatever. And then we get back to question B--Given that we still follow some laws from Leviticus, but not all, should we still follow these particular laws?
So far your answer has been, "we don't follow most of them", with no rationale as to whether the laws on homosexuality should fall into the same category as laws on Incest and Wizardry (which we still follow), or the same category as laws on whether we can eat pigs and oysters (which we don't).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look! It's a real point for once! Rather vague though...but I'll think about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love. ... That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, Jesus also said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it", and "Not one jot or tiddle of the law shall pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the law will not pass away." As stated, we still adhere to many of the old laws, just not all of them. For example, sacrificing animals is pointless now because we have a much better sacrifice, Jesus himself. On the other hand, we still avoid Wizardry, Fortunetelling, Idolatry, etc, all of which were forbidden in Leviticus as well. You still have given no explanation as to why homosexuality in particular ought to be something that changes under the new covenant.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So we agree the old testament mentions nothing about homosexuals in a condesending tone. Fair enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait--so Paul couldn't have been condeming homosexual acts...because he was too stupid to realize that homosexuality isn't a choice? And if he had seen modern research "proving" that homosexuality can't be changed, then he would have just changed his mind, and said "oh, ok then...I guess you can do it afterall". Is that what you're telling me?
While it's certainly possible that Paul wouldn't personally know if homosexuality was "natural" or not, God obviously would know, and God makes the rules, not Paul. Paul just relays them on to us.
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind. * Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following: * "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29. * 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, all points here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we are agreed Paul was wrong, yay.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Paul doesn't need to <i>prove</i> that anything is wrong. He is not attempting to prove something wrong, merely stating that it <i>is</i> wrong, on his way to describing how even Gentile wrongdoers can be saved.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about this reference, from vs 25- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator". Paul does indeed seem to be connecting the homosexual acts with idolatry--but that doesn't mean that he is <i>only</i> condemning homosexual acts committed as part of worship rituals. Why then would he specify those worship rituals, and not other worship rituals? Rather, it seems he is referring to homosexuality as a form of idolatry in and of itself, of worshipping the human body and taking it for uses other than that which God intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally in need of grace. Your point? That doesn't really do anything to prove that homosexual acts are not looked down on by God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am referring to this because you christians are so set against homosexuality you fail to even realize that your god DOESN'T CONDEM IT. Talk about narrow mindedness.
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Checking the Strong's concordance (since thats my best source of Greek vocabulary at the moment), the "pornos" in that verse is the male temple prostitues, not the female. Ok, so if we already have the male prostitutes, then run into "arsenokoites", it obviously can't be male prostitutes <i>again</i>. So it must be something else...like homosexuals maybe? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Strongs Lexicon concordance is wrong, just look at the previous post. I have proved this now three times in a row, and you fail to even grasp the basic linguistics behind it.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why should the word be required to apply only to those using the "services" of the previous entry in the list? No other entry is listed together with customers. I imagine when Paul warns about prostitutes ("pornos") earlier on, that he wouldn't be happy with the prostitute's customers either, but he doesn't specifically name them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lucky for us that we keep making new translations then, huh? By now we've got hundreds of translations to choose from, I'm sure, each of which reflects only the biases of its own particular time period. And some of them may even be fairly true to the original Greek, if the authors were careful in their work (as I'm sure many of them were). I happen to know several people in the business of translating the Bible, and they do a lot of error checking and referring back to original language source materials to minimize any possible bias.
I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There will always be biased because they refuse to look at the other ancient texts of the same time period. I have a few connections with those that translate the bible as well, in fact for one of the basic theological activites that you do when you study religions is to translate multiple passages from various books. That includes the bible, baghavad gita, toran, and etc.
You are failing to undestand the basic concept here. All of your translations on the bible are WRONG on a few words(Proven by my edit and previous posts). Which is why your christianity sect is divided amoungst itself, it can't even decide which translation is the best, hell for all you know the amplified bible is the best one. It still misses the point on many words but perhaps god wanted to dumb it down for us mortals and those who try interpet it more devinely the normal are the morons who are dragging christianity down as a religion as a whole.
I am not even writing that much really, if you wish I shall make a very, very, through document with my translations of those various passages, it may take me a day or two, but I could do it if you wish.
I'll respond to everything eventually, Cyndane, but it is very time consuming, so it will take me awhile to get around to it. In the meanwhile, there's a few small points I want to establish first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect.
I'd also like to point out, you are not arguing against me any more cxwf, you are calling <i> your </i> christian ministers and scholars wrong. Untill you can actually give a reference that claims the same you really don't have much to stand on at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Strongs Lexicon concordance is wrong, just look at the previous post. I have proved this now three times in a row, and you fail to even grasp the basic linguistics behind it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I have proved this now three times in a row"--Correction. You have <i>stated</i> it three times in a row. Point me to your proof of where Strong's Lexicon doesn't know proper Greek.
For references I used passages from the bible, while you used passages from the bible and quotes from some random people who you didn't bother to identify. How does that make your references more credible than mine? I actually have a fair amount of experience with translation-- I just don't happen to know ancient Greek, so I have to rely on the Strong's dictionary to tell me what the words mean. But if you want I can go ask some scholars I know who <i>have</i> studied Greek and Hebrew, and get their opinions here. Of course, they won't be anyone you've ever heard of, so will that really make my points any more believable to you?
At any rate, since you freely acknowledge that the church as a whole tends to believe homosexuality is opposed by the Bible (even if they are wrong), why should you insist on finding scholars who support that view? Of course there are scholars who support that view (even if they arrived at that view because of bias), since thats where the church got the idea in the first place. It's finding scholars that <i>disagree</i> with the established view that is difficult, and which should require proof or documentation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 15 2005, 08:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 15 2005, 08:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Biblography+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Biblography)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html' target='_blank'>Reference 1</a> <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 2</a> <a href='http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 3</a> <a href='http://www.musingson.com/' target='_blank'>Reference 4</a> <a href='http://www.whosoever.org/bible/' target='_blank'>Reference 5</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html' target='_blank'>Fun Link</a> <-- This one is quite biased but is a fun read nevertheless. I also didn't use this one as a reference.
*edit* I wasn't going to do this, but I am annoyed now. You didn't use strongs lexicon, and I shall now demostrate.
Strongs Lexicon according to BLB.
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1116167872-4031.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116167971-977.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168039-7111.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a> This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity. <a href='http://http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168077-3321.html' target='_blank'>shakab (Lexicon proof)</a>
(Levticius) But do these two passages really condemn homosexuality? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, one sees a different condemnation. Leviticus 20:13 states, in part, "When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman". Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition". <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1116168174-8733.html' target='_blank'>Lexicon Zakar</a>
(New testament) Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed". <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168290-4185.html' target='_blank'>arsenokoites (lexicon)</a> <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168333-7433.html' target='_blank'>Malakos (Lexicon)</a> What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There are my references which you casually skipped over twice now. (You are becoming almost as bad as steeltroll for ignoring references.)
I haven't changed them, nor will I for there is no reason to change them.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For references I used passages from the bible, while you used passages from the bible and quotes from some random people who you didn't bother to identify. How does that make your references more credible than mine? But if you want I can go ask some scholars I know who have studied Greek and Hebrew, and get their opinions here. Of course, they won't be anyone you've ever heard of, so will that really make my points any more believable to you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can not reference a book you are trying to prove, that is a logical fallacy. You must use outside texts in order to prove that the ancient greek in the bible matches up with the same greek at the time period. If you haven't noticed, it doesn't on the words that are claimed to mean "homosexual".
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I actually have a fair amount of experience with translation-- I just don't happen to know ancient Greek, so I have to rely on the Strong's dictionary to tell me what the words mean. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong, if you did even you would acknowledge that in order to dechiper ancient texts one is required to look at similar writings (aka from the same time period) to make sure the words are interpeted correctly. Since you have never addressed this issue it is quite obvious you do not have the experience required.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At any rate, since you freely acknowledge that the church as a whole tends to believe homosexuality is opposed by the Bible (even if they are wrong), why should you insist on finding scholars who support that view? Of course there are scholars who support that view (even if they arrived at that view because of bias), since thats where the church got the idea in the first place. It's finding scholars that disagree with the established view that is difficult, and which should require proof or documentation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Finally, I acknowledge some of the church condems homosexuality, however since there is a division within your religion, you are fighting amongst yourselves, That means, untill those conseratives actually read the bible the conflict is causing lots more harm then good.
I also have found quite a few references that go against your "stance" on homosexuality. Hell, it really doesn't take a whole lot, just type into google "homosexuality in the bible" you get quite a few responses, and every single one that I have seen that supports condeming homosexuals, it ignores the fact about the greek language not having noun to mean homosexual(it was a verb and is NEVER DOCUMENTED IN THE BIBLE). As if the bible was written in english and not greek/hebrew.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll respond to everything eventually, Cyndane, but it is very time consuming, so it will take me awhile to get around to it. In the meanwhile, there's a few small points I want to establish first. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't care how long it takes you to refute my statements and facts. Point of the matter is, you really can't. Especially when you get down and dirty with the sematics of ancient greek. I'll let hebrew go since there are quite a few errors translating it, that everyone knowledges.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 15 2005, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 15 2005, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are my references which you casually skipped over twice now. (You are becoming almost as bad as steeltroll for ignoring references.)
I haven't changed them, nor will I for there is no reason to change them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't skip them, I simply hadn't gotten to them yet. Your post was like 15 pages long.
Edit: Ok, 11 1/2. And my response was 12 pages, just getting the first half. Seriously, I'm getting to them.
Why must these topics always boil down to some form of religion? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old...
WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now!
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 16 2005, 12:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 16 2005, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is funny... really funny
THE BIBLE IS WRONG!
Yes, shocking...
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old...
WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sssshhhh. It's impolite to trample upon the Cyndane/whoever religious text translation arguments.
But I LIKE hating ****! It gives my life purpose! Without my raging, white-hot hate for homosexuals, I am but an empty shell of a man! Will you not respect my fragile beliefs?
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 15 2005, 11:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 15 2005, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually Insane I do think it is fair to assume that.
He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, what was the point in bringing any of this up, then, if all you are going to do is dismiss anyone that comments on it as having an insufficient knowledge of linguistics?
Also, I swear to God that if you continue to pull this "fixing" quotes nonsense on me or anyone else I'll start reporting you for it. Do you have <i>any</i> idea how infuriating it is to have something you said mangled to prove some petty little point?
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sssshhhh. It's impolite to trample upon the Cyndane/whoever religious text translation arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If he wasn't clearly misunderstanding, I probably wouldn't find it funny. You is so silly clam.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 15 2005, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 15 2005, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is funny... really funny THE BIBLE IS WRONG! WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the bible is right, the translations are wrong.
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll just correct a few minor errors here.
The old testament was written around 1700 BC (parts of it) in hebrew. Now the hebrew used to write the old testament was actually a secondary language to most of the scholars because Aramaic was becomming like english is today, the language of trade. Meanwhile, another Phoenician-derived (how the characters are wrote) script, Aramaic, was fast becoming the international trade language. Consequently, the Hebrews started writing in Aramaic for every day use and confined the Old Hebrew script for religious use (and the occasional inscription on coins). The Aramaic script adopted by the Hebrews quickly became known as the Jewish script, and because of the shape of its letters it also became known as ketab merubba`, or "square script".
Like all Proto-Sinaitic-derived scripts, vowels are not written in either Old Hebrew nor Jewish scripts. However, it became increasingly important to record the vowels when Aramaic became more popular as the spoken language rather than Hebrew. So the system known as "matres lectionis" was devised where certain letters were used to represent long vowels: 'aleph for [a:], he for [o:] and [a:], waw for [o:] and [u:], and yodh for [e:] and [i:]. However, matres lectionis was not a complete system, and by the 9th century CE the practice of adding dots and lines, called nikkudim, above or below a letter to indicate a vowel came into being. This is known as the "Tiberian" system, named after the city of Tiberias in Palestine, and joined matres lectionis as part of the Hebrew writing system.
I think that is enough about the hebrew language.
Next point, onto the new testament. The NT was written in greek(after the greecian empire fell quite a few years before). Now, even though greek is much eaiser to understand and translate into english, there are many words that have never been seen before in the bible, which is were translators are left up to their own devices. However, before you say "well it was interpted devinely" I would like to point out that had the various authors of the new testament actually use other works around the same time period (aka the various dialects available) there would have been little to no misunderstanding on the translations. Which means, they made up words themselves, while using their limited knowledge of greek to write a holy book. (Look at ebonics today, its a language that was made up within the past twenty years)
Example: The top left is the really old greek (hercules days). The next one to the right is when jesus supposedly lived (cira 0 AD to 500 AD). The next one to the right is modern greek, and the next one to the right is our current alphabet.
Can you spot the differences? <img src='http://sio.midco.net/selcock/greek.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
In closing for bullethead, since I have addressed most of your points bullethead, the bible was translated to three major languages, from hebrew to aramaic, from greek to latin, and from latin it has been translated to hundreds of others, not limited to but including; english, spanish, french, german, hiragana(japanese), and of course mandrin (chinese). I'd also like to end with the fact the "bible" as we know it today is only around 1700 yrs old, the first complete bible was thought to be written around 300 or so AD. It really isn't that old compared to human history.
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, what was the point in bringing any of this up, then, if all you are going to do is dismiss anyone that comments on it as having an insufficient knowledge of linguistics? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I told you, I will dismiss his claims untill he proves to me he has sufficent understanding of semantics of ancient languages. Untill such a time he is using lack of knowledge and you can not enter this type of a discussion(read in-depth) with clearly limited knowledge. Any discussion on this forum. I know that I have steered away from discussions on what I do not know very well. The same should be applied here.
As for your quotes, I think you should lighten up, I know cxwf has a sense of humor even if sometimes I don't get it. :-)
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited May 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+May 16 2005, 06:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ May 16 2005, 06:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, I swear to God that if you continue to pull this "fixing" quotes nonsense on me or anyone else I'll start reporting you for it. Do you have <i>any</i> idea how funny it is to have something you said mangled to prove some petty little point? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed.
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon*
And sorry, but I can hardly see that image... too small <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you mail it to me?
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 16 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 16 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I was off by a few hundred years...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you were.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually what was orginally wrote down is correct. It is the way various people have translated it and created their own politics from it, that is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I didn't, considering the rcc isn't the only one to be condemed for doing this, there is also the lutheren, protestant, angelic, and etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And sorry, but I can hardly see that image... too small <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you mail it to me?
YoukaiInuYasha(at)gmail.com <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Email is sent, however, I wouldn't post your email on a message board there are programs that actually look for those. I would change the @ to a (at). :-)
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+May 16 2005, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ May 16 2005, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Insane+May 16 2005, 06:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ May 16 2005, 06:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, I swear to God that if you continue to pull this "fixing" quotes nonsense on me or anyone else I'll start reporting you for it. Do you have <i>any</i> idea how funny it is to have something you said mangled to prove some petty little point? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed.
C'mon, someone had to do it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That actually was mildly amusing, but it hardly has a place in the discussions forum.
It has become clear to be that my concept of linear logic is irreconcilable with Cyndane's. Half (at least) of what I say seems absurd to her, and likewise half of her (presumably well thought out) points seem flat out absurd to me. So I am not going to bother with detailed point-by-point analysis any more, as it clearly accomplishes nothing.
I did finally look through your links in detail. While much of what they say closely resembles what you have already said (since you quoted them afterall), and follows that same type of logic that seems twisted and irrational to me, they also had a few points that more closely meshed with my type of logic.
This doesn't mean I have been convinced that the Bible approves of homosexuality--but I have at least accepted the possibility that I might be wrong. However, to move from "there is a possibility I might be wrong", to actually changing my mind, will require proof presented in the linear logic that I accept. Since that doesn't seem to be possible for Cyndane, we'll probably have to leave the discussion here and move on to another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 16 2005, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 16 2005, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I was off by a few hundred years...
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text --> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B A --> C A --> D A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 17 2005, 12:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 17 2005, 12:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 16 2005, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 16 2005, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I was off by a few hundred years...
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text --> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B A --> C A --> D A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not in all cases.
The New International Version of scripture is just cleaned up King James, for instance.
Many translations do, however, go back to the original manuscripts to at least check for consistancy, etc. "The Message" is a good example of that sort of translation - it's a paraphrase that went back to the original manuscripts to check for errors.
I just wanted to correct you nicely before someone else did in a not-so-polite way.
~ DarkATi
On-Topic --
I've come to the conclusion that I don't understand homosexuality. Because I'm not homosexual. I can't understand homosexual desires etc. Therefore, this must be between the homosexual person and God.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 17 2005, 01:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 17 2005, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not in all cases.
The New International Version of scripture is just cleaned up King James, for instance.
Many translations do, however, go back to the original manuscripts to at least check for consistancy, etc. "The Message" is a good example of that sort of translation - it's a paraphrase that went back to the original manuscripts to check for errors.
I just wanted to correct you nicely before someone else did in a not-so-polite way.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, thank you then. In that case the tree probably looks something like this--
A --> B --> C A --> D A --> E --> F --> G A --> H A --> I
Etc. The important thing is just that we do have "A" available to check back on for accuracy.
While I am quite disappointed you gave up I can understand how things are hard to accept when they are presented in ways of thinking that are different from your own.
On the translations note, the little chart you presented, that was nice.
I think this graphic probably illustrates it better, and it isn't mine. (The first generation of copies probably did have errors because they were translated from the greek to eithe aramiac or latin) <img src='http://sio.midco.net/selcock/copy.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<a href='http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualexample.htm' target='_blank'>Source page (extremely biased, but nice graph)</a> (Note: I did not take the following below from the above website, these are just a few minor facts about the NT.)
In addition, there are over 24,000 old manuscripts, that is hand written copies, of ortions of the New Testament (NT) today. Over 5,000 of these old manuscripts are in Greek, the language the NT was written in.Many manuscripts are in Latin, Syriac, or another language. The NT was completed around 95 AD when John wrote Revelation. Our earliest manuscript fragment, John Rylands MS, dated 130 AD has a few words of the gospel of John. The following old Greek manuscripts contain most of the Bible or the NT: The Vatican manuscript 350 AD= Bible. Codex Sinaiticus 350 AD= NT. Codex Alexandrinus 425 AD= Bible. Manuscript of Ephraem 450 AD= NT. Geddes MacGregor lists over 50 important Bible manuscripts in his book "The Bible in the Making." While hardly any hand written copies are from the 2nd century over 25 are dated from the 3rd century (200's). Bruce Metzger lists over 30 NT manuscripts that are complete and without gaps in "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : an introduction to Greek Palaeography." His list includes manuscripts 35, 241, and 1384 from the 11th century.Besides this evidence we also have various old translations of the Bible and NT like the Syriac and Latin versions. Jerome's Latin Vulgate 384 AD for example.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited May 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 17 2005, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 17 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 16 2005, 05:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 16 2005, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I was off by a few hundred years...
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text --> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B A --> C A --> D A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> International publishing houses and small religious groups that publish bibles do not spend millions getting academics to translate original biblical manuscripts, as a rule.
Either way, this is no longer a discussion about bisexuality or the prevalence of it in society, so I'm closing the thread to prevent any further confusion.
Comments
Good try, but I've actually come out <i>more</i> convinced that homosexuality is condemned by the bible then when I started.
First, you try to convince us that a few uses of the verb "yada" are not meant to be sexual references, when they clearly make sense as nothing else. I won't dwell on that point though, as those verses are really tangential to the issue anyway.
Next, you try to convince us that the Leviticus bans on homosexuality are taken out of context, because they are really referring to fertility-related idol-worship practices of Baal worshipers. Of course, if you actually <i>read</i> the context, you quickly realize that's completely rediculous--the bans actually reside in the middle of a long list of sexual sins. There are numerous verses describing sexual sins before the bans, and several more after, so the contextual clues clearly point to interpreting those verses with a sexual meaning.
Next comes probably the only good point in the entire essay--Leviticus (and other similar old testament law lists) contains hundreds of laws, many of which we don't consider valid any more. So why pick out those referring to homosexuality and say they should still stand? Well, to answer that we look at the New Testament.
Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.)
I'm 100% straight, yet I can look at a guy and say "Yeah... he's handsome... damn I'd like to look like him"
Not cming on to him- rathr, I'm admitting he's good looking
Note two self, do NOT powet at 2:30 am...
Good try, but I've actually come out <i>more</i> convinced that homosexuality is condemned by the bible then when I started.
First, you try to convince us that a few uses of the verb "yada" are not meant to be sexual references, when they clearly make sense as nothing else. I won't dwell on that point though, as those verses are really tangential to the issue anyway.
Next, you try to convince us that the Leviticus bans on homosexuality are taken out of context, because they are really referring to fertility-related idol-worship practices of Baal worshipers. Of course, if you actually <i>read</i> the context, you quickly realize that's completely rediculous--the bans actually reside in the middle of a long list of sexual sins. There are numerous verses describing sexual sins before the bans, and several more after, so the contextual clues clearly point to interpreting those verses with a sexual meaning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sadly I think you failed to read most of the linguist portion of the essay, which is fine, most skip over what they find to hard to understand.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Next comes probably the only good point in the entire essay--Leviticus (and other similar old testament law lists) contains hundreds of laws, many of which we don't consider valid any more. So why pick out those referring to homosexuality and say they should still stand? Well, to answer that we look at the New Testament.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I shall use the NSAB and NIV translations to show you that you are incorrect, and the very translations are for all intents and purposes wrong. In addition, I won't even bother doing all the fun work of proving you wrong I shall let the countless minsters and christian scholars do that for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud.
As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.
Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.
And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution. (unless you argue that the Sodomites must have been frowned on for their homosexuality, since we all know that rape-murder of angels is just fine with God). And here those nasty male temple prostitutes get kicked out again over in 2 Kings.
How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)
In addition, the Hebrew theology of women was based on the fact man was made in the image of God and should be treated with the same respect as God. Women, however were created in the image of men, so they were one step further removed from God and not deserving of the same respect. As a result a women was under the domination of a man and used sexually at the whim of their husband. If a man were to treat another man in the same manner that would be degrading God. So to "lie with a man as with a women" was blasphemous degrading God to a mere possession as a women.
The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.
<!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, ©men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is fairly simple as paul had absolutely no idea that sexual orientation isn't based on choice. Again I do not even need to use my words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1]
ROMANS 1:24-27
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.
* Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:
* "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.
* 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.
* 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world.
It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.
As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NSAB 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? ©Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
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
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is even easier, since the word is quite clearly translated by homophobic conservatives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Arsenkoites"
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!
Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.
It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next we have I Timothy, this is where the bible gets amusing.
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV I Timothy 1:9-10+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV I Timothy 1:9-10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NSAB I Timothy 1:9-10+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB I Timothy 1:9-10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
realizing the fact that (A)law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and (B)rebellious, for the ©ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and (D)profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and (E)immoral men and (F)homosexuals and (G)kidnappers and (H)liars and (I)perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (J)sound teaching,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well look at that, the two translations contradict each other, just re-affirming that no one has translated the bible correctly yet. Now for the arguement against that particular section...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This passage is similar to I Cor 6:9 in that the word arsenokoites is again included in the vices listed. Paul is combating Christian teaching he considers heretical.
The list of vices seems connected in the order given, with pornoi, arsenokoitai and andrapodistai grouped together. So lets study what each of these words mean.
Pornoi in normal Greek usage means a male prostitute and appears many times in literature of the time pointing to either the male who sells himself, or the slave in the brothel house. (e.g. Demosthernes, Against Adrotion 73; idem, Epistle 4,; Aristophanes, Plutus, lines 153-157 etc
Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian usage, however, skews the apparent straightforward definition. The word does not appear in any Septuagint book except the post Old Testament Sirach 23:16-18. I does appear a few times in the New Testament.
The problem here is that the word in Sirach and in the New Testament seems to have a meaning broader than "male prostitute" and is usually taken by scholars to refer to sexual crimes in general. But this assumption may be due to lack of awareness of the prominence of the male prostitute in Greco-Roman society which may have misled some away from it's more narrow original usual meaning.
Within the text of 1 Tim there is no reason to assume it meant anything more than male prostitute. The juxtaposition of pornos with arsenokoites, however, should give pause before translating the word in a more general fashion. There is no reason why the same relationship between malakos and arsenokoites, that is, between the youth who is used and the adult who uses him, could not also pertain to the two words in 1 Timothy. Pornos may effectively function in relations to arsenokoites in precisely the same way as malakos does in 1 Corinthians.
This possibility is further supported by the third word: andropodistes. This word means "kidnapper" or "slave dealer". While in our culture these definitions carry differences in meaning, in the culture of the first century they would be synonymous. One reason a handsome boy or beautiful girl would be kidnapped is to provide slaves for brothel houses. Thus the kidnapper or slave dealer is the one responsible for the pornos, who is used by arsenokoites. Should "kidnapper" not be related to the preceding words in some fashion, it would be unique in this list, since all the other words have some connection with a previous or following word.
The three words would thus fit together and could be translated: "male prostitutes, males who lie with them, and slave dealers who procure them.
If we reflect on the Septuagint it makes sense. There is the injunction against arsenokoites (Lev 18,20), pornos (Deut 23:18), and the kidnapper (Exod 4:16; Deut 24:7). Since arsenokoites must be a Hellenistic Jewish coinage, and since the vice list here does not seem dependent on that in 1 Cor 6:9-10, it may indeed be likely that this list originated in the Hellenistic Jewish circles.
Therefore it may be concluded that the vice list in 1 Timothy may not be condemnatory of homosexuality in general, not even pederasty in general, but that specific form of pederasty which consists of the enslaving of boys for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was fairly painless, now I shall list my use of references since I have debunked these all before in my previous thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Biblography+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Biblography)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<a href='http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html' target='_blank'>Reference 1</a>
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 2</a>
<a href='http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 3</a>
<a href='http://www.musingson.com/' target='_blank'>Reference 4</a>
<a href='http://www.whosoever.org/bible/' target='_blank'>Reference 5</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html' target='_blank'>Fun Link</a> <-- This one is quite biased but is a fun read nevertheless. I also didn't use this one as a reference.
*edit* I wasn't going to do this, but I am annoyed now. You didn't use strongs lexicon, and I shall now demostrate.
Strongs Lexicon according to BLB.
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1116167872-4031.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116167971-977.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168039-7111.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
<a href='http://http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168077-3321.html' target='_blank'>shakab (Lexicon proof)</a>
(Levticius)
But do these two passages really condemn homosexuality? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, one sees a different condemnation. Leviticus 20:13 states, in part, "When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman". Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition".
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1116168174-8733.html' target='_blank'>Lexicon Zakar</a>
(New testament)
Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed".
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168290-4185.html' target='_blank'>arsenokoites (lexicon)</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168333-7433.html' target='_blank'>Malakos (Lexicon)</a>
What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, actually I did. In fact, let me quote for you the part of your original essay linguistically analyzing the Leviticus passages:
"Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship."
Wait-- Thats it? There's no linguistics at all in there. That's simply the author (you?) stating her own opinion on what the words mean, with no support whatsoever for how she decides that "males lying with males as they would with a female" is not related to sex. Fortunately, you make an attempt to explain your reasoning more clearly this time:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud.
As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember, there's two different questions to be considered about the Leviticus bans on homosexuality:
A) Do they really ban homosexuality, or are we misinterpreting them?
B) Now that we have abandoned many of the Leviticus laws anyway, are these particular laws even still important?
So far, your post has answered only question B, but you do finally get around to saying a few words on question A:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, here's the passage from Deuteronomy that parallels Leviticus 18 (heavily paraphrased), starting at 27:15--
Worship of crafted idols is cursed. Worshiping your ancestors is cursed. Cheating your neighbor out of land is cursed. Tormenting the blind is cursed. Conning the unfortunate is cursed. Sleeping with your mother is cursed. Sleeping with animals is cursed. Sleeping with your sister is cursed. Sleeping with your mother-in-law is cursed. Smiting your neighbor secretly is cursed. Taking bounty for assassinations is cursed. And just for good measure, you're cursed if you don't do everything in this law.
The parallel passage in Leviticus:
Don't sleep with you own kin. Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your father's other wives. Don't sleep with your sisters (or half sisters). Don't sleep with your children or your grandchildren. Don't sleep with your aunts. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law. Don't sleep with your brother's wife. Don't sleep with the children of another woman you've slept with. Don't sleep with a woman and her sister. Don't sleep with a woman on her period. Don't sleep with your neighbors wife. Don't sacrifice your children to Molech. Don't sleep with a man (as with a woman). Don't sleep with an animal.
You know what? Those passages aren't even close to being parallel. So the fact that one entry from Leviticus happens to be missing in Deuteronomy really isn't very good proof that we must have mistranslated it. You'll have to offer something that explains how "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination" somehow <i>doesn't</i> refer to having sex with a man for me to believe you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you haven't quite dismissed Leviticus yet. I would also raise the Judges example. Sodom isn't the best example, but the Judges passage is a bit better.
To paraphrase: A Levite and his concubine are taken in as travelers in a strangers home. The mob comes by and wants to "know" the Levite, but the homeowner refuses and sends out the concubine instead. She is "known", beaten, and finally dies on the doorstep. When the man finds her body the next day, he gets mad and eventually assembles an army which comes in and annihilates almost the entire tribe of Benjamin. Very strange story all told, but obviously what the mob wanted to do with the woman was considered wrong, but what they wanted to do with the man was worse. Otherwise the homeowner wouldn't have insisted on sending out the concubine instead of the Levite.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or it could possibly be related to the idea that most sexual sin <i>is</i> a form of idolatry... That seems to be a common theme between Leviticus and Romans, and provides a much simpler explanation for the coincidence than postulating that the words used obviously mean something other than what they look like, just because its good for symmetry or whatever. And then we get back to question B--Given that we still follow some laws from Leviticus, but not all, should we still follow these particular laws?
So far your answer has been, "we don't follow most of them", with no rationale as to whether the laws on homosexuality should fall into the same category as laws on Incest and Wizardry (which we still follow), or the same category as laws on whether we can eat pigs and oysters (which we don't).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look! It's a real point for once! Rather vague though...but I'll think about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
...
That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other hand, Jesus also said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it", and "Not one jot or tiddle of the law shall pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the law will not pass away."
As stated, we still adhere to many of the old laws, just not all of them. For example, sacrificing animals is pointless now because we have a much better sacrifice, Jesus himself. On the other hand, we still avoid Wizardry, Fortunetelling, Idolatry, etc, all of which were forbidden in Leviticus as well. You still have given no explanation as to why homosexuality in particular ought to be something that changes under the new covenant.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, ©men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is fairly simple as paul had absolutely no idea that sexual orientation isn't based on choice. Again I do not even need to use my words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait--so Paul couldn't have been condeming homosexual acts...because he was too stupid to realize that homosexuality isn't a choice? And if he had seen modern research "proving" that homosexuality can't be changed, then he would have just changed his mind, and said "oh, ok then...I guess you can do it afterall". Is that what you're telling me?
While it's certainly possible that Paul wouldn't personally know if homosexuality was "natural" or not, God obviously would know, and God makes the rules, not Paul. Paul just relays them on to us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ROMANS 1:24-27
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.
* Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:
* "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.
* 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, all points here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul doesn't need to <i>prove</i> that anything is wrong. He is not attempting to prove something wrong, merely stating that it <i>is</i> wrong, on his way to describing how even Gentile wrongdoers can be saved.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about this reference, from vs 25- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator". Paul does indeed seem to be connecting the homosexual acts with idolatry--but that doesn't mean that he is <i>only</i> condemning homosexual acts committed as part of worship rituals. Why then would he specify those worship rituals, and not other worship rituals? Rather, it seems he is referring to homosexuality as a form of idolatry in and of itself, of worshipping the human body and taking it for uses other than that which God intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally in need of grace. Your point? That doesn't really do anything to prove that homosexual acts are not looked down on by God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-NSAB 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? ©Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
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
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is even easier, since the word is quite clearly translated by homophobic conservatives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Arsenkoites"
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Checking the Strong's concordance (since thats my best source of Greek vocabulary at the moment), the "pornos" in that verse is the male temple prostitues, not the female. Ok, so if we already have the male prostitutes, then run into "arsenokoites", it obviously can't be male prostitutes <i>again</i>. So it must be something else...like homosexuals maybe?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should the word be required to apply only to those using the "services" of the previous entry in the list? No other entry is listed together with customers. I imagine when Paul warns about prostitutes ("pornos") earlier on, that he wouldn't be happy with the prostitute's customers either, but he doesn't specifically name them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lucky for us that we keep making new translations then, huh? By now we've got hundreds of translations to choose from, I'm sure, each of which reflects only the biases of its own particular time period. And some of them may even be fairly true to the original Greek, if the authors were careful in their work (as I'm sure many of them were). I happen to know several people in the business of translating the Bible, and they do a lot of error checking and referring back to original language source materials to minimize any possible bias.
I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Cyndane, I also don't think it's fair to claim that cxwf has a different opinion because he doesn't understand what you're saying. It's a bit patronising.
Fixed.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Insane,May 15 2005, 05:30 PM] Despite the fact that I'd rather the Bible didn't condemn homosexuality, and that I'm not a Christian, I'm finding it hard to see how the use of "yada" as a sexual term has been disproved. In most of the cases quoted it seems to make little sense when the other variations are used.
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
It doesn't condem consenual homosexuality at all. As previously stated.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Insane
Cyndane, I also don't think it's fair to claim that cxwf has a different opinion because he doesn't understand what you're saying. It's a bit patronising.
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Actually Insane I do think it is fair to assume that.
He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect.
I'd also like to point out, you are not arguing against me any more cxwf, you are calling <i> your </i> christian ministers and scholars wrong. Untill you can actually give a reference that claims the same you really don't have much to stand on at the moment.
*edit*
(Insane @ May 15 2005, 06:30 PM)
Cyndane, I also <b> do </b> think it's fair to claim that cxwf doesn't <b> understand what you're saying because he has little understanding of linguistics of ancient texts. </b> It's a bit patronising.
Re-Fixed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, actually I did. In fact, let me quote for you the part of your original essay linguistically analyzing the Leviticus passages:
"Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship."
Wait-- Thats it? There's no linguistics at all in there. That's simply the author (you?) stating her own opinion on what the words mean, with no support whatsoever for how she decides that "males lying with males as they would with a female" is not related to sex. Fortunately, you make an attempt to explain your reasoning more clearly this time:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!
From a Jewish prospective, the commandments given at Sinai, including those of Leviticus (in Hebrew Jews simply name a book after the first word that appears - "V'yikra" - which means "then he spoke") were given to the Jewish people. Since they were only commanded to Jews, no one who is not Jewish need worry about obeying them. Judaism holds God taught basic laws to all humanity before Sinai (no murder, rape, etc), but that the more specific laws such as in Leviticus, apply only to Jews.
Lev 20:13 is giving the penalties for the Lev 18:22 "abomination" or in the Hebrew "toevah" Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, trimming beards, etc is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality.
Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry almost identical with this, and like 18, its manifest purpose is to elaborate a system of ritual "cleanliness" whereby the Jews will be distinguished from neighboring peoples. This was also the interpretation given by later Jewish commentaries such as those of Maimonides. Boswell also references much Jewish historic discussion about the non practice of the death penalty which is also mandated for violating the Sabbath, cursing one's parents and many infractions listed in the Talmud.
As they stated, it does not mean something inherently evil, but something taboo, something ritually unclean. Of course, some acts that are "toevah" were more serious than others.
The most serious act of "toevah" was idolatry. It too carried a death penalty. Now, one common form of idolatry among the peoples surrounding Israel was male sacred prostitution. It is quite natural that engaging in that specific form of idolatry would also carry the death Penalty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember, there's two different questions to be considered about the Leviticus bans on homosexuality:
A) Do they really ban homosexuality, or are we misinterpreting them?
B) Now that we have abandoned many of the Leviticus laws anyway, are these particular laws even still important?
So far, your post has answered only question B, but you do finally get around to saying a few words on question A:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if something carries the death penalty, it is of particular importance to the Lord. If you draw up a list of all the offenses given in Leviticus for which the death penalty is prescribed, you will find every one of them (with some minor shifts concerning particular forms of sanguinity in incest) is forbidden expressly once again in Deuteronomy.
There is one exception. Only one. Of all the capital crimes, only one was so unimportant to God that He didn't bother to bring it up again. Guess which one. :-)
However, interestingly enough, Deuteronomy does forbid male sacred prostitution. And Leviticus does not. Do you think, juuust maybe, that God did forbid it in Leviticus? Say, around 20:13?
No, if that were true, God would probably have put commands against other kinds of idolatry in the same place. You know: no fortunetelling, no wizardry, no sacrifices to Moloch.
Oops, what do you know, those are all right there in the same section of Leviticus too. Chapter 20. And when 1 Kings tells about the sacred male prostitutes being kicked out of the Temple, it repeats not just the word "toevah", but the assertion which closes chapter 20, that the former peoples were kicked out of the promised land for doing "all these toevah". Apparently male sacred prostitution made the writer of Kings think of Leviticus 20, rather than of Deuteronomy. Odd, that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, here's the passage from Deuteronomy that parallels Leviticus 18 (heavily paraphrased), starting at 27:15--
Worship of crafted idols is cursed. Worshiping your ancestors is cursed. Cheating your neighbor out of land is cursed. Tormenting the blind is cursed. Conning the unfortunate is cursed. Sleeping with your mother is cursed. Sleeping with animals is cursed. Sleeping with your sister is cursed. Sleeping with your mother-in-law is cursed. Smiting your neighbor secretly is cursed. Taking bounty for assassinations is cursed. And just for good measure, you're cursed if you don't do everything in this law.
The parallel passage in Leviticus:
Don't sleep with you own kin. Don't sleep with your mother. Don't sleep with your father's other wives. Don't sleep with your sisters (or half sisters). Don't sleep with your children or your grandchildren. Don't sleep with your aunts. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law. Don't sleep with your brother's wife. Don't sleep with the children of another woman you've slept with. Don't sleep with a woman and her sister. Don't sleep with a woman on her period. Don't sleep with your neighbors wife. Don't sacrifice your children to Molech. Don't sleep with a man (as with a woman). Don't sleep with an animal.
You know what? Those passages aren't even close to being parallel. So the fact that one entry from Leviticus happens to be missing in Deuteronomy really isn't very good proof that we must have mistranslated it. You'll have to offer something that explains how "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination" somehow <i>doesn't</i> refer to having sex with a man for me to believe you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we never once see a concrete example of a condemned homosexual act in the old testament which is not an act of temple prostitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you haven't quite dismissed Leviticus yet. I would also raise the Judges example. Sodom isn't the best example, but the Judges passage is a bit better.
To paraphrase: A Levite and his concubine are taken in as travelers in a strangers home. The mob comes by and wants to "know" the Levite, but the homeowner refuses and sends out the concubine instead. She is "known", beaten, and finally dies on the doorstep. When the man finds her body the next day, he gets mad and eventually assembles an army which comes in and annihilates almost the entire tribe of Benjamin. Very strange story all told, but obviously what the mob wanted to do with the woman was considered wrong, but what they wanted to do with the man was worse. Otherwise the homeowner wouldn't have insisted on sending out the concubine instead of the Levite.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How come you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time? How come you never see a condemned homosexual act in the bible without being told that the actors were either idolaters, or actual male temple prostitutes?
Could all this possibly, juuust maybe, be more than a wild coincidence? Are all those thousands of **** teenagers committing suicide over a stupid misunderstanding? Would it be all right to treat **** people as if they were ordinary human beings, and God wouldn't even get thundering mad? Comme un fou se croft Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels" (As a fool believes himself to be God, we beleive believe ourselves to be mortal)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or it could possibly be related to the idea that most sexual sin <i>is</i> a form of idolatry... That seems to be a common theme between Leviticus and Romans, and provides a much simpler explanation for the coincidence than postulating that the words used obviously mean something other than what they look like, just because its good for symmetry or whatever. And then we get back to question B--Given that we still follow some laws from Leviticus, but not all, should we still follow these particular laws?
So far your answer has been, "we don't follow most of them", with no rationale as to whether the laws on homosexuality should fall into the same category as laws on Incest and Wizardry (which we still follow), or the same category as laws on whether we can eat pigs and oysters (which we don't).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The struggle over the issue of Christian and the Mosaic law was a serious area of confusion for the new converted Christians. Paul addresses this in Gal 5:1-2 urging Christians not to be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" or to give "heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth," for "unto the pure all things are pure" (Titus I: 14-15). Jesus said aside the purity laws and gave the commandment of love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look! It's a real point for once! Rather vague though...but I'll think about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts. Those few that did, exercised extreme selectivity in selecting which Levitical laws to say are legitimate for Christians and which are not, whatever suited their personal prejudice. It was clearly not their respect for the law which created their hostility to homosexuality but their hostility to homosexuality which led them to retain a few passages from a law code largely discarded. Most of Leviticus is simply not appropriate for Christians. We no longer make animal sacrifices to God as commanded in Leviticus. Most of us eat shrimp and lobster which is forbidden. Many people eat that unclean animal the pig. How many are guilty of rounding off the hair on their temples and marring the edges of their beard (Lev 27)? Jesus set aside all of these obsessive-compulsive purity laws and gave the commandment of love.
...
That one was fairly easy to understand yes? We move on to the new testament now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other hand, Jesus also said, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it", and "Not one jot or tiddle of the law shall pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the law will not pass away."
As stated, we still adhere to many of the old laws, just not all of them. For example, sacrificing animals is pointless now because we have a much better sacrifice, Jesus himself. On the other hand, we still avoid Wizardry, Fortunetelling, Idolatry, etc, all of which were forbidden in Leviticus as well. You still have given no explanation as to why homosexuality in particular ought to be something that changes under the new covenant.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we agree the old testament mentions nothing about homosexuals in a condesending tone. Fair enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-cwxf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cwxf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thus we move to such verses as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:9-10. These are somewhat trickier to argue, since they involve fine points of translation of old languages, and aren't exactly as clear as we might have hoped--but after studying them for awhile, armed with Strong's number searches, I'm pretty well convinced myself that most of them actually refer to homosexuality. (maybe not the "effeminate" one, but definately "arsenokoites" and the Romans passage). (I'd be willing to try and argue my interpretation, but I warn you it won't be as clear as something I argue in English.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NSAB Romans 1:26-27+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB Romans 1:26-27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, ©men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is fairly simple as paul had absolutely no idea that sexual orientation isn't based on choice. Again I do not even need to use my words.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn **** and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.[1]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait--so Paul couldn't have been condeming homosexual acts...because he was too stupid to realize that homosexuality isn't a choice? And if he had seen modern research "proving" that homosexuality can't be changed, then he would have just changed his mind, and said "oh, ok then...I guess you can do it afterall". Is that what you're telling me?
While it's certainly possible that Paul wouldn't personally know if homosexuality was "natural" or not, God obviously would know, and God makes the rules, not Paul. Paul just relays them on to us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ROMANS 1:24-27
This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. In order to understand the point of romans chapter one you must read romans chapter one through three. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.
Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?
28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:
* Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.
* Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:
* "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.
* 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, all points here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we are agreed Paul was wrong, yay.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity does go on in the animal world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Paul doesn't need to <i>prove</i> that anything is wrong. He is not attempting to prove something wrong, merely stating that it <i>is</i> wrong, on his way to describing how even Gentile wrongdoers can be saved.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about this reference, from vs 25- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator". Paul does indeed seem to be connecting the homosexual acts with idolatry--but that doesn't mean that he is <i>only</i> condemning homosexual acts committed as part of worship rituals. Why then would he specify those worship rituals, and not other worship rituals? Rather, it seems he is referring to homosexuality as a form of idolatry in and of itself, of worshipping the human body and taking it for uses other than that which God intended.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over *** and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally in need of grace. Your point? That doesn't really do anything to prove that homosexual acts are not looked down on by God.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am referring to this because you christians are so set against homosexuality you fail to even realize that your god DOESN'T CONDEM IT. Talk about narrow mindedness.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-NSAB 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NSAB 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? ©Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NIV 1 Cor 6:9+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NIV 1 Cor 6:9)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
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
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is even easier, since the word is quite clearly translated by homophobic conservatives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Arsenkoites"
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women. BINGO! Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Checking the Strong's concordance (since thats my best source of Greek vocabulary at the moment), the "pornos" in that verse is the male temple prostitues, not the female. Ok, so if we already have the male prostitutes, then run into "arsenokoites", it obviously can't be male prostitutes <i>again</i>. So it must be something else...like homosexuals maybe?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strongs Lexicon concordance is wrong, just look at the previous post. I have proved this now three times in a row, and you fail to even grasp the basic linguistics behind it.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should the word be required to apply only to those using the "services" of the previous entry in the list? No other entry is listed together with customers. I imagine when Paul warns about prostitutes ("pornos") earlier on, that he wouldn't be happy with the prostitute's customers either, but he doesn't specifically name them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lucky for us that we keep making new translations then, huh? By now we've got hundreds of translations to choose from, I'm sure, each of which reflects only the biases of its own particular time period. And some of them may even be fairly true to the original Greek, if the authors were careful in their work (as I'm sure many of them were). I happen to know several people in the business of translating the Bible, and they do a lot of error checking and referring back to original language source materials to minimize any possible bias.
I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There will always be biased because they refuse to look at the other ancient texts of the same time period. I have a few connections with those that translate the bible as well, in fact for one of the basic theological activites that you do when you study religions is to translate multiple passages from various books. That includes the bible, baghavad gita, toran, and etc.
You are failing to undestand the basic concept here. All of your translations on the bible are WRONG on a few words(Proven by my edit and previous posts). Which is why your christianity sect is divided amoungst itself, it can't even decide which translation is the best, hell for all you know the amplified bible is the best one. It still misses the point on many words but perhaps god wanted to dumb it down for us mortals and those who try interpet it more devinely the normal are the morons who are dragging christianity down as a religion as a whole.
I am not even writing that much really, if you wish I shall make a very, very, through document with my translations of those various passages, it may take me a day or two, but I could do it if you wish.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect.
I'd also like to point out, you are not arguing against me any more cxwf, you are calling <i> your </i> christian ministers and scholars wrong. Untill you can actually give a reference that claims the same you really don't have much to stand on at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Strongs Lexicon concordance is wrong, just look at the previous post. I have proved this now three times in a row, and you fail to even grasp the basic linguistics behind it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I have proved this now three times in a row"--Correction. You have <i>stated</i> it three times in a row. Point me to your proof of where Strong's Lexicon doesn't know proper Greek.
For references I used passages from the bible, while you used passages from the bible and quotes from some random people who you didn't bother to identify. How does that make your references more credible than mine? I actually have a fair amount of experience with translation-- I just don't happen to know ancient Greek, so I have to rely on the Strong's dictionary to tell me what the words mean. But if you want I can go ask some scholars I know who <i>have</i> studied Greek and Hebrew, and get their opinions here. Of course, they won't be anyone you've ever heard of, so will that really make my points any more believable to you?
At any rate, since you freely acknowledge that the church as a whole tends to believe homosexuality is opposed by the Bible (even if they are wrong), why should you insist on finding scholars who support that view? Of course there are scholars who support that view (even if they arrived at that view because of bias), since thats where the church got the idea in the first place. It's finding scholars that <i>disagree</i> with the established view that is difficult, and which should require proof or documentation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Biblography+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Biblography)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<a href='http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html' target='_blank'>Reference 1</a>
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 2</a>
<a href='http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm' target='_blank'>Reference 3</a>
<a href='http://www.musingson.com/' target='_blank'>Reference 4</a>
<a href='http://www.whosoever.org/bible/' target='_blank'>Reference 5</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html' target='_blank'>Fun Link</a> <-- This one is quite biased but is a fun read nevertheless. I also didn't use this one as a reference.
*edit* I wasn't going to do this, but I am annoyed now. You didn't use strongs lexicon, and I shall now demostrate.
Strongs Lexicon according to BLB.
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1116167872-4031.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116167971-977.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168039-7111.html' target='_blank'>Genesis 9:18</a>
This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
<a href='http://http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168077-3321.html' target='_blank'>shakab (Lexicon proof)</a>
(Levticius)
But do these two passages really condemn homosexuality? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, one sees a different condemnation. Leviticus 20:13 states, in part, "When a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman". Had the writer intended to convey homosexuality being condemned here, he would have likely used the Hebrew word 'iysh, which means "man", or "male person". Instead, the author utilizes a much more complicated Hebrew word, zakar, which literally translated means "a person worthy of recognition".
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1116168174-8733.html' target='_blank'>Lexicon Zakar</a>
(New testament)
Greek, like Hebrew, is a much more descriptive language than English. As an example, while we have the word "love", Greek has agape, storge, philia, and eros - each describing a different form of love. Further, meanings of words can change over generations. A typical example would be if someone were referred to as a "space cadet" thirty years ago, likely they were employed by NASA. Today, the same phrase would be an insult. Thus, it is easy to understand why words in the ancient Greek could be misinterpreted, as are the terms "men who lie with men", "abusers of mankind", "homosexual", and "pervert" in the above referenced scriptures. The two words in Greek used in the above scriptures that are commonly mistranslated as such are arsenokoites and malakos. Bible scholars now believe arsenokoites to mean "male temple prostitute", as mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures at Deut. 23: 17-18. The actual meaning of this word, however, has been lost in history, as it was a slang term which, literally translated, means "lift bed".
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116168290-4185.html' target='_blank'>arsenokoites (lexicon)</a>
<a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116168333-7433.html' target='_blank'>Malakos (Lexicon)</a>
What is important to note here is that both of these words are nouns. In ancient Greek, there is no known noun to define homosexuality. It was always expressed as a verb. Just as in the Hebrew scriptures examined above, the Greek scriptures make reference to those who engaged in idolatrous practices, much of which centered around sex in return for favors. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are my references which you casually skipped over twice now. (You are becoming almost as bad as steeltroll for ignoring references.)
I haven't changed them, nor will I for there is no reason to change them.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
For references I used passages from the bible, while you used passages from the bible and quotes from some random people who you didn't bother to identify. How does that make your references more credible than mine? But if you want I can go ask some scholars I know who have studied Greek and Hebrew, and get their opinions here. Of course, they won't be anyone you've ever heard of, so will that really make my points any more believable to you?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can not reference a book you are trying to prove, that is a logical fallacy. You must use outside texts in order to prove that the ancient greek in the bible matches up with the same greek at the time period. If you haven't noticed, it doesn't on the words that are claimed to mean "homosexual".
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I actually have a fair amount of experience with translation-- I just don't happen to know ancient Greek, so I have to rely on the Strong's dictionary to tell me what the words mean.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, if you did even you would acknowledge that in order to dechiper ancient texts one is required to look at similar writings (aka from the same time period) to make sure the words are interpeted correctly. Since you have never addressed this issue it is quite obvious you do not have the experience required.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
At any rate, since you freely acknowledge that the church as a whole tends to believe homosexuality is opposed by the Bible (even if they are wrong), why should you insist on finding scholars who support that view? Of course there are scholars who support that view (even if they arrived at that view because of bias), since thats where the church got the idea in the first place. It's finding scholars that disagree with the established view that is difficult, and which should require proof or documentation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Finally, I acknowledge some of the church condems homosexuality, however since there is a division within your religion, you are fighting amongst yourselves, That means, untill those conseratives actually read the bible the conflict is causing lots more harm then good.
I also have found quite a few references that go against your "stance" on homosexuality. Hell, it really doesn't take a whole lot, just type into google "homosexuality in the bible" you get quite a few responses, and every single one that I have seen that supports condeming homosexuals, it ignores the fact about the greek language not having noun to mean homosexual(it was a verb and is NEVER DOCUMENTED IN THE BIBLE). As if the bible was written in english and not greek/hebrew.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'll respond to everything eventually, Cyndane, but it is very time consuming, so it will take me awhile to get around to it. In the meanwhile, there's a few small points I want to establish first.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't care how long it takes you to refute my statements and facts. Point of the matter is, you really can't. Especially when you get down and dirty with the sematics of ancient greek. I'll let hebrew go since there are quite a few errors translating it, that everyone knowledges.
There are my references which you casually skipped over twice now. (You are becoming almost as bad as steeltroll for ignoring references.)
I haven't changed them, nor will I for there is no reason to change them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would continue, but I'm running out of time, so I'm going to save the rest of your post on my computer and come back later. You write too much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't skip them, I simply hadn't gotten to them yet. Your post was like 15 pages long.
Edit: Ok, 11 1/2. And my response was 12 pages, just getting the first half. Seriously, I'm getting to them.
THE BIBLE IS WRONG!
Yes, shocking...
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old...
WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now!
THE BIBLE IS WRONG!
Yes, shocking...
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old...
WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sssshhhh. It's impolite to trample upon the Cyndane/whoever religious text translation arguments.
He hasn't proven to me he understands the linguistics of ancient hewbrew nor greek to even be commenting on this issue. Let alone, I have yet to see any reference he has used to back up his claims other then a horrible interpetation by Strongs Lexicon, which before has been proven to be incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, what was the point in bringing any of this up, then, if all you are going to do is dismiss anyone that comments on it as having an insufficient knowledge of linguistics?
Also, I swear to God that if you continue to pull this "fixing" quotes nonsense on me or anyone else I'll start reporting you for it. Do you have <i>any</i> idea how infuriating it is to have something you said mangled to prove some petty little point?
Sssshhhh. It's impolite to trample upon the Cyndane/whoever religious text translation arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he wasn't clearly misunderstanding, I probably wouldn't find it funny. You is so silly clam.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+May 15 2005, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ May 15 2005, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is funny... really funny
THE BIBLE IS WRONG!
WHO KNOWS what it was supposed to say... but 'taint what it says now! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the bible is right, the translations are wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yes, shocking...
it was translated at LEAST 12 times, thru at LEAST 4 different languages, by at LEAST a HUNDRED people. It was CONTROLLD by the the Catholic church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to say what THEY wanted it to say. It was translated from HEBREW to another language that doesn't have ANY equal for some Hebrew words. The Bible is what... a few THOUSAND YEARS old...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll just correct a few minor errors here.
The old testament was written around 1700 BC (parts of it) in hebrew. Now the hebrew used to write the old testament was actually a secondary language to most of the scholars because Aramaic was becomming like english is today, the language of trade. Meanwhile, another Phoenician-derived (how the characters are wrote) script, Aramaic, was fast becoming the international trade language. Consequently, the Hebrews started writing in Aramaic for every day use and confined the Old Hebrew script for religious use (and the occasional inscription on coins). The Aramaic script adopted by the Hebrews quickly became known as the Jewish script, and because of the shape of its letters it also became known as ketab merubba`, or "square script".
Like all Proto-Sinaitic-derived scripts, vowels are not written in either Old Hebrew nor Jewish scripts. However, it became increasingly important to record the vowels when Aramaic became more popular as the spoken language rather than Hebrew. So the system known as "matres lectionis" was devised where certain letters were used to represent long vowels: 'aleph for [a:], he for [o:] and [a:], waw for [o:] and [u:], and yodh for [e:] and [i:]. However, matres lectionis was not a complete system, and by the 9th century CE the practice of adding dots and lines, called nikkudim, above or below a letter to indicate a vowel came into being. This is known as the "Tiberian" system, named after the city of Tiberias in Palestine, and joined matres lectionis as part of the Hebrew writing system.
I think that is enough about the hebrew language.
Next point, onto the new testament. The NT was written in greek(after the greecian empire fell quite a few years before). Now, even though greek is much eaiser to understand and translate into english, there are many words that have never been seen before in the bible, which is were translators are left up to their own devices. However, before you say "well it was interpted devinely" I would like to point out that had the various authors of the new testament actually use other works around the same time period (aka the various dialects available) there would have been little to no misunderstanding on the translations. Which means, they made up words themselves, while using their limited knowledge of greek to write a holy book. (Look at ebonics today, its a language that was made up within the past twenty years)
Example:
The top left is the really old greek (hercules days). The next one to the right is when jesus supposedly lived (cira 0 AD to 500 AD). The next one to the right is modern greek, and the next one to the right is our current alphabet.
Can you spot the differences?
<img src='http://sio.midco.net/selcock/greek.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
In closing for bullethead, since I have addressed most of your points bullethead, the bible was translated to three major languages, from hebrew to aramaic, from greek to latin, and from latin it has been translated to hundreds of others, not limited to but including; english, spanish, french, german, hiragana(japanese), and of course mandrin (chinese). I'd also like to end with the fact the "bible" as we know it today is only around 1700 yrs old, the first complete bible was thought to be written around 300 or so AD. It really isn't that old compared to human history.
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So, what was the point in bringing any of this up, then, if all you are going to do is dismiss anyone that comments on it as having an insufficient knowledge of linguistics?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I told you, I will dismiss his claims untill he proves to me he has sufficent understanding of semantics of ancient languages. Untill such a time he is using lack of knowledge and you can not enter this type of a discussion(read in-depth) with clearly limited knowledge. Any discussion on this forum. I know that I have steered away from discussions on what I do not know very well. The same should be applied here.
As for your quotes, I think you should lighten up, I know cxwf has a sense of humor even if sometimes I don't get it. :-)
Fixed.
C'mon, someone had to do it.
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon*
And sorry, but I can hardly see that image... too small <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you mail it to me?
YoukaiInuYasha gmail.com
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you were.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually what was orginally wrote down is correct. It is the way various people have translated it and created their own politics from it, that is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon*
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I didn't, considering the rcc isn't the only one to be condemed for doing this, there is also the lutheren, protestant, angelic, and etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-bullethead+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bullethead)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And sorry, but I can hardly see that image... too small <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you mail it to me?
YoukaiInuYasha(at)gmail.com
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Email is sent, however, I wouldn't post your email on a message board there are programs that actually look for those. I would change the @ to a (at). :-)
Meh, let em look... gmail is the best at sorting out spam ;P
Fixed.
C'mon, someone had to do it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That actually was mildly amusing, but it hardly has a place in the discussions forum.
I did finally look through your links in detail. While much of what they say closely resembles what you have already said (since you quoted them afterall), and follows that same type of logic that seems twisted and irrational to me, they also had a few points that more closely meshed with my type of logic.
This doesn't mean I have been convinced that the Bible approves of homosexuality--but I have at least accepted the possibility that I might be wrong. However, to move from "there is a possibility I might be wrong", to actually changing my mind, will require proof presented in the linear logic that I accept. Since that doesn't seem to be possible for Cyndane, we'll probably have to leave the discussion here and move on to another topic.
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text
--> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B
A --> C
A --> D
A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them.
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text
--> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B
A --> C
A --> D
A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not in all cases.
The New International Version of scripture is just cleaned up King James, for instance.
Many translations do, however, go back to the original manuscripts to at least check for consistancy, etc. "The Message" is a good example of that sort of translation - it's a paraphrase that went back to the original manuscripts to check for errors.
I just wanted to correct you nicely before someone else did in a not-so-polite way.
~ DarkATi
On-Topic --
I've come to the conclusion that I don't understand homosexuality. Because I'm not homosexual. I can't understand homosexual desires etc. Therefore, this must be between the homosexual person and God.
The New International Version of scripture is just cleaned up King James, for instance.
Many translations do, however, go back to the original manuscripts to at least check for consistancy, etc. "The Message" is a good example of that sort of translation - it's a paraphrase that went back to the original manuscripts to check for errors.
I just wanted to correct you nicely before someone else did in a not-so-polite way.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, thank you then. In that case the tree probably looks something like this--
A --> B --> C
A --> D
A --> E --> F --> G
A --> H
A --> I
Etc. The important thing is just that we do have "A" available to check back on for accuracy.
On the translations note, the little chart you presented, that was nice.
I think this graphic probably illustrates it better, and it isn't mine.
(The first generation of copies probably did have errors because they were translated from the greek to eithe aramiac or latin)
<img src='http://sio.midco.net/selcock/copy.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<a href='http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualexample.htm' target='_blank'>Source page (extremely biased, but nice graph)</a>
(Note: I did not take the following below from the above website, these are just a few minor facts about the NT.)
In addition, there are over 24,000 old manuscripts, that is hand written copies, of ortions of the New Testament (NT) today.
Over 5,000 of these old manuscripts are in Greek, the language the NT was written in.Many manuscripts are in Latin, Syriac, or another language.
The NT was completed around 95 AD when John wrote Revelation. Our earliest manuscript fragment, John Rylands MS, dated 130 AD has a few words of the gospel of John. The following old Greek manuscripts contain most of the Bible or the NT: The Vatican manuscript 350 AD= Bible. Codex Sinaiticus 350 AD= NT. Codex Alexandrinus 425 AD= Bible. Manuscript of Ephraem 450 AD= NT. Geddes MacGregor lists over 50 important Bible manuscripts in his book "The Bible in the Making." While hardly any hand written copies are from the 2nd century over 25 are dated from the 3rd century (200's). Bruce Metzger lists over 30 NT manuscripts that are complete and without gaps in "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : an introduction to Greek Palaeography." His list includes manuscripts 35, 241, and 1384 from the 11th century.Besides this evidence we also have various old translations of the Bible and NT like the Syriac and Latin versions. Jerome's Latin Vulgate 384 AD for example.
my point still stands... what GOD origionally said thru his disciples is NOT what the bible as we have it now says.
Also- you left out the part about the Catholic Church bending it to their will.. *stabs the church many many times with a spoon* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your bible can only be twisted by the Catholic Church if you are reading a translation made by the Catholic Church. I think most people have serious misconceptions about how Bible Translation works. You're probably thinking about it this way:
A = original text
--> = "translated into"
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
If that was the case, then whatever mistakes were made in translation B would also cause errors in D, E, and F. But translating the new testament actually works this way:
A --> B
A --> C
A --> D
A --> E
So whatever mistakes are made in translation B have nothing to do with how accurate D and E are. The Old Testament is a little more complex, since the earliest texts we have for it are already a few hundred years removed from the Original Writings. But our "original" New Testament copies are less than 100 years removed from the true originals, and written in the same langugage, so there shouldn't be any translation errors in them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
International publishing houses and small religious groups that publish bibles do not spend millions getting academics to translate original biblical manuscripts, as a rule.
Either way, this is no longer a discussion about bisexuality or the prevalence of it in society, so I'm closing the thread to prevent any further confusion.