Corinthians 6

[james_]

Hi, I'm not a homosexual, but I am doing my own personal research in what the bible truley says. I read the article 'What the bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality". It was really interesting and brought up several points when it can to many interpretations of the scriptures, but I still knew of other scriptures.

I'm not here to say he is wrong, or he is right, I'm here to get informed. I want to know what people think about other versus that claim to say homosexuality is wrong.

Such as Corinthians 6:9:

9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Can someone explain when the bible defines the word homosexual? Because from the article, it seems the word then is not the same as the modern meaning.

[Matt Algren]

One interpretation here: http://whosoever.org/bible/corin.shtml

(Two things worth mentioning in addition to the translation: A) This is back when male 'seed' was thought to include everything necessary for nascent life. The woman was for incubation, so to engage in gay sex to completion was seen as killing a baby. B) 1 Corinthians 6 also says that Christians shouldn't sue each other, but we conveniently ignore that one.

[Daniel]

If you continue your research, you will find that the bible does not contain the word homosexual. The word was invented in the 1880's by a German sex researcher. So- the translator of this passage has chosen a word with is pejorative (in this context anyway) which only confuses things further.

Andew Little (another member- and a straight ally) has done very adroit research in this matter. You will find his posts via the search feature- I will endeavor to dig them up too. As well, U-dog has written extensively about the word(s) in question.

[james_]

Thank you. That really changes thing. That the word homosexual isn't in the original bible. So what you are saying is that the translator didn't know the translation of a particular word and invented the word homosexual and decided that that's what it means?

What is the original scripture? Where can I find documentation on this?

I really appreciate it.

[Daniel]

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...obber+passages

And

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...ht=translation

And

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...51&postcount=7

This last post takes you to the following as well as another posts....

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

1Cor 6:9 has two words that, when translated into English, have been understood to be directed against homosexuality. The Greek the words, malakoi(s) and arsenokoitay, are problematic for different reasons, however.

malakos - is an adjective.
malakois appears in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and is the neuter/plural form of malakos. malakoi appears in 1Cor 6:9 and is the masculine/plural form of malakos. This is the full extent of the appearance of the malakos adjective in the New Testament.

It appears in ancient Greek texts and is understood to mean, variously, freshly plowed (when talking about land), luxurious (when talking about clothing) and is also used to mean temple idol slaves or servants (Homer and others).

The Latin Vulgate Bible, from the 5th century translated malakois (Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) into mollibus, which means "luxurious" or "effeminate". It translated malakoi (1Cor 6:9) into idolis servientes, which means idol slaves or servants.

The King James version (1611), which relied heavily on the Vulgate, translated malakois to "soft" in Matt and Luke, as it was referring to clothing. But in 1Cor, evidently not being happy with "idol servants" they translated malakoi into "effeminate". It seems to many scholars that the Latin translators were closer in time and culture than the English translators, so they would have a better idea of meaning. None-the-less, the KJV translation has, of course, stuck ever since.

As far as arsenokoitay is concerned it appears twice in scripture and not at all in classic Greek literature. It is a compound word, not uncommon in Greek. 1 Cor 6:9 uses arsenokoitay and 1Tim 1:10 uses arsenokoitais. The words combined to make the first word are arsen (adjective neuter/singular), o (masculine definite article) and koitay (noun feminine/singular). The second word is the same, except that koitais is feminine/plural.

Now, the first thing is that the Greek language is gender specific. These words have feminine endings which means they refers to something female. The word parts are varied, however. arsen means “male”. o is the male definite article (the). koitey, the root of koitay and koitais, means “bed” or "place where koitus (coitus) occurs" - can we presume "female's bed", since it is feminine?

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 tense. You could argue that this doubles up on the earlier use of adulterer appearing in the same verse, but that one is male tense.

So which meaning do you want to use? It seems you have quite the range of choices, and biblical scholars can’t agree – can we?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by james_

Thank you. That really changes thing. That the word homosexual isn't in the original bible. So what you are saying is that the translator didn't know the translation of a particular word and invented the word homosexual and decided that that's what it means?

What is the original scripture? Where can I find documentation on this?

I really appreciate it.

Personally, as a Christian, I can't hinge my soul on a technicality of hermeneutics or exegesis. I believe the Bible to by inspired and the translations accurate enough... But I also cannot change my orientation, nor choose to disbelieve in Christ. So if I'm condemned for just being gay, then God has planned on damning me from day one, Calvinism is probably right and I'm doomed...but that's okay, because I'd rather not spend eternity with a God who does such things to His creatures.

The way I see it, sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship (marriage) is wrong (a sin) because it diminishes the purpose and experience of intimacy, which was designed to be shared as a loving couple... But, it is only one of many sins:

ABOMINATIONS:
(in no particular order, but specifically referred to as such)

eaters of an abominable thing
sacrifers of a blemished thing
learners of nations abomination
those that do unrighteously
those with haughty eyes
lying tongue
hands that shed innocent blood
hearts that devise wicked plans
feet that run rapidly to evil
false witnesses
strife spreaders
a foreword heart
lying lips
those proud in heart
scorners
chargers of interest
sodomites.

Galatians 5:19-21(KJV)
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Proverbs 6:16-19
16There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Or maybe just damnable infractions...


A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19) Wickedness (Pro. 8:7) A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1) Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9) The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26) The proud of heart(Pro. 16:5) Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15) Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23) Divers, dishonest measures (Pro.20:10) Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9) Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18) Homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12) Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt.22:5) Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18)Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4) Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15) Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13) Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13) Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35) Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Lying with a menstruous woman(Ezek. 18: 6-13) Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13) Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th.2:4; Rev. 13) Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30) Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15) Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5)


We are all represented on that list...probably a few times...probably in ways we don't even recognize...I do worse things than be gay, and am no different than any other sinner trying to be better, and depending on grace in the mean time.


-I haven't looked over this much... but: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Personally, as a Christian, I can't hinge my soul on a technicality of hermeneutics or exegesis. I believe the Bible to by inspired and the translations accurate enough... But I also cannot change my orientation, nor choose to disbelieve in Christ. So if I'm condemned for just being gay, then God has planned on damning me from day one, Calvinism is probably right and I'm doomed...but that's okay, because I'd rather not spend eternity with a God who does such things to His creatures.

The way I see it, sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship (marriage) is wrong (a sin) because it diminishes the purpose and experience of intimacy, which was designed to be shared as a loving couple... But, it is only one of many sins:

Not interested in what the good book might actually say? But invested in Calvinism? That's quite interesting. Telling too.

So your soul needs a hinge? And Calvinism does it for ya? Perhaps you should talk to U-dog. That's right up his alley.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Not interested in what the good book might actually say? But invested in Calvinism? That's quite interesting. Telling too.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Where did I say any of that?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

Where did I say any of that?

Oh...Dean....looking for a fight are ya?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Oh...Dean....looking for a fight are ya?

No.Just not comfy with people putting words in my mouth.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

No.Just not comfy with people putting words in my mouth.

I suggest you go back and read your post with new eyes...or ears.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I suggest you go back and read your post with new eyes...or ears.

uh...I wrote it.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by awediot

uh...I wrote it.

Yep. You sure did. And if you can't observe your train of thought as another person might perceive it, then I guess you are at a loss as far as my post is concerned.

Perhaps we should let James have his thread back? And if you can't speak to his question you might have your fun elsewhere?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yep. You sure did. And if you can't observe your train of thought as another person might perceive it, then I guess you are at a loss as far as my post is concerned.

Perhaps we should let James have his thread back? And if you can't speak to his question you might have your fun elsewhere?

How about you let james speak for himself?

[james_]

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

[james_]

It's cool by the way, it's a thread, peopel tend to say what they want. I dont mind.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by james_

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

...it means God gave idolatrous adults over to a reprobate mind, as explained prior to your snipped quote:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

Also:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The homosexuality of Romans is comparable to greed and disobeying of parents...Only by dissecting it, leaving out the common sins that also result and ignoring the idolatry, is it cut down to the classic gay clobber passage it has become.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by james_

Okay, the explanation of arsenokoitai does make sense. Though, does that mean his says that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bed? I'm not sure if I understand what that is supposed to mean. But it does raise a lot of questions.

So, what would you say Romans 1:24-27 translate into then?

1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


What comes out of this. If that debatable word was only used twice, and not included in this. What does this verse mean exactly?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't search more in the site before posting. I probably could have found some of theses threads myself.

Not a problem- I remembered the conversation- which was recent.

You might use the search feature for the passage above as well as the words 'clobber passages.' I know that those who are into the nitty-gritty of biblical matters have done the legwork here. Sorry that I can't remember the conversations right off the bat.

However....

For a deep read, you might check out John Boswell's tome Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html

He deals with the these verses extensively.

[james_]

Originally Posted by awediot

...it means God gave idolatrous adults over to a reprobate mind, as explained prior to your snipped quote:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...

Also:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The homosexuality of Romans is comparable to greed and disobeying of parents...Only by dissecting it, leaving out the common sins that also result and ignoring the idolatry, is it cut down to the classic gay clobber passage it has become.

I'm completely open to interpretation of the scripture, but reading that section, I would never think to research the homosexuality as a metaphor for the Roman's greed. I will look this over some more, but that seems very hard to interpret.

[Daniel]

James- here is another thread worth investigating.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...4&postcount=12