All in a word

[BronzDragon]

I do not want anyone to think I am a Greek scholar of any degree, except a curious soul with a few documents and a dictionary. As I read the tract What the Bible Says — and doesn’t say — about Homosexuality, and looked up some words. I don’t know, but this word -άρσενοκοīται - looks like we might better interpret it as pedophilia, rather than man-with-man intimacy. What does this forum think, am I reasonably close to the mark? Or so far off in left field the ball is coming in the right?

άρσενοκοīται I Corinthians 6.9; 1 Timothy 1:10
Man-with-child (pedophilia) sensual intimacy
’άρσην Male, Manly, Vigerous, Strong
κοιταīς laying in bed
κοίτη, κοīτος going to bed; sleep; couch, bed; marriage-bed; embryo; offspring

PS: I didn't find much help with μαλακος. Looks like it means queen in the way we might mean it.

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ Logic can be fun, ... when it doesn't get in the way of a good Freudian moment. I just thought I would post this one and see where it goes.

In logic, one can do what is called a logical inversion, where you test a truth by turning the statement into its logical opposite. Following is one test that proves, ... interesting.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Corinthians i, 13.4 - 7

Inversion:

Hate is impatient; hate is unkind; hate is envious and boastful and arrogant and rude. It insists on its own way; it is irritable and resentful; it rejoices in wrongdoing, but not in the truth. It bears nothing, believes nothing, hopes nothing, endures nothing.

Let that one cook. Problem, I can't imagin that being nonviolent if presented to the opposition. I would appreciate any feed back on that one.

[andrewlittle]

As to your first post:

I don’t know, but this word -άρσενοκοīται - looks like we might better interpret it as pedophilia, rather than man-with-man intimacy.

Paul, unfortunately, used an occasional word that is a compound form of two or more others, usually nouns. This is one of those cases. Because of a lack of useage in other NT passages, and also in classic Greek texts, we will never know what Paul actually intended. This was discussed in the "For Sammy 1980" thread in posts #20, 21 and 23, with mediocre success.

Any attempt to say that Paul meant anything with absolute certainty is either ill-conceived or a bold faced lie. It is up to the interpretor (each of us), then, to decide if the English translations from the King James Version until the present day, in which it interpreted as referring to homosexuality, is either folly or intentional deceit based on cultural bias.

Before the English translations (the various semitic and latin versions), the word was left equally as vague as when Paul wrote it. The English, in our desperate need for certainty or arrogance in discerning sin, gave this word its current meaning - not Paul.

So, BronzDragon, interpret away in the absolute conviction that no-one can prove you wrong. You are, infact, reading the Bible as a "live" scripture that is speaking to whom you are and where you are.

As to your second post:

Love it! I will certainly think about this more, but my inital reaction is to say, "Thank you for a wonderful sermon idea."

Paul was a master of rhetoric and logic, and I think he would be proud.

I, personally, see nothing violent in proclaiming truth. Violence is having to have someone else's "truth" surgically removed.

[novaseeker]

That's interesting. The vulgate translation was also equally vague? Very interesting indeed.

[andrewlittle]

In one of the earlier posts I cited above, I wrote:

What was being communicated here? No-one is really sure. The KJV opted for “the abusers of themselves with mankind”. The NIV went with “homosexual offenders”. The NRSV went with “sodomites”.

The notion of "men in a bed together" is not literal at all, but shows the same bias as KJV, by assuming a lot of things that the Greek, or Latin, doesn't say.

But the Vulgate, translated 1000 years earlier, and closer to the original culture, than the KJV translated to adulteri, which means “adulterer” but in the female case.

I Cor 6:9 from the vulgate reads:

an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri ...

...neither fornicator/adulterer (married man who has sex with woman?) nor slave to idols nor illicit lover (the other participant in the adultery?) ...

To me, and many others, the attention is on the common Biblical prohibition of adultery, not on the otherwise virtually non-existent Biblical prohibition against homosexuality.

[novaseeker]

Thanks for that, that's very interesting.

It reminds me of people who say that homosexuality is forbidden by the Ten Commandments because homosexual sex is, by their own "definition", adultery.

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by BronzDragon

» Let that one cook.

» Thom says: ☛ I have always understood the narrow/broad paths to refer to their usage. Narrow paths and straight gates are seldom found, broad and crooked paths and gates are signs of frequent usage.

So, I took my own advice and let this one cook. I’ve been having some fun with logical substitutions within the Hebrew and Christian canon. That is, if there is one logical equation, a = b, and another, b=c, then we can substitute b in the third equation with a from the first.

The following has proven interesting, if anyone is still interested.

☛[/COLOR] a. God is Love.
b. ∴ God is patient; God is kind; God is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. She does not insist on her own way; She is not irritable or resentful; she does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. She bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Corinthians i, 13.4 - 7, reinterpreted in light of I John 4.8

Now, what if we plug that logic into the first creation story where the Elohym begin humanity in her image and likeness?

[TigerXero]

Well, if you take an NIV Bible, you'd saying:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So you come to a few different conclusions (only in wording) about hate:

Hate is impatient, hate is unkind. It envys, boasts, and is proud. It is rude, self-seeking, easily angered, keeps record of wrongs. It delights in evil, and does not rejoice with the truth. It always hurts, mistrusts, loses hope, gives up.

Idk, just a thought. Which version of the Bible were you using to bring up you're analysis?

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by TigerXero

Well, if you take an NIV Bible, you'd saying:... I'd, just a thought. Which version of the Bible were you using to bring up you're analysis?

» Thom says: ☛ Various: For many things I employ the Oxford New Revised Standard. I also look to an interlinear version of the Christian Canon for understanding of the Greek. I will employ a columnar version of the Jewish Publication Societies, Hebrew English TN'K for the Hebrew Canon, again for the same reason. Every once in a while I will present my own translations.

In the case of Corinthians, i.13.7, it is the NRSV.

Um, in case there are documents related to, but excluded from the canon, I just review many references to see what I can see. And don't ask about the Qur'an, I have the columnar versions, but don't read the Arabic very well.