I didn't "damn" anyone. God did. And 'Christians' will be held accountable on Judgment Day for not warning them! What Paul said is the Word of God!
Last edited:
Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?
- Thread starter Pooh Bear
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
Jack, you would have some credibility if you could explain and substantiate your idea of "homosexuals" being mentioned by Paul. That is impossible because the word and very concept of that word came about closer to 1900 AD. In addition, to read "homosexuals" into 1 Cor. 6:9 is to contradict the translations of the KJV, RV, ASV and YLT.
So, tell us how you prove Paul was writing about our idea of "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9.
Sadly, you present an argument that well earns fundamentalist Christians the label of hate filled bigots and homophobes! You are voicing your own biases and opinions, not the word of God that you can explain.
In addition, how can you be dogmatic based on a verse that in modern translations is so uncertain of meaning? I've always been taught never to base my beliefs on legitimately contested translations.
So, tell us how you prove Paul was writing about our idea of "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9.
Sadly, you present an argument that well earns fundamentalist Christians the label of hate filled bigots and homophobes! You are voicing your own biases and opinions, not the word of God that you can explain.
In addition, how can you be dogmatic based on a verse that in modern translations is so uncertain of meaning? I've always been taught never to base my beliefs on legitimately contested translations.
How many English translations do you want me to quote?
See above.
Let me guess, you're a Biden fan.
IOW, you're extremely biased against Bible believers! How many English Bibles do you want me to quote? There are many.
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
Since there are no variations of the phrase in question, in the manuscripts, I'll recommend the honored KJV to all on this:
From the KJV line from 1 Cor. 6:9 "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind".
"effeminate, adj, 1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor"
"abuser, n One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"ravisher, n 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
These definitions are from the 1828 Webster's, closest to the 1769 Edition of the 1611 KJV
God blessed the KJV as "the" English translation for centuries, so I'll trust it on this issue. These translators worked with the Greek without trying to read modern psychological concepts into God's word!
By the way, I've voted for Trump twice, and though I preferred DeSantis, I'll be voting Trump again this year.
From the KJV line from 1 Cor. 6:9 "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind".
"effeminate, adj, 1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor"
"abuser, n One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"ravisher, n 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
These definitions are from the 1828 Webster's, closest to the 1769 Edition of the 1611 KJV
God blessed the KJV as "the" English translation for centuries, so I'll trust it on this issue. These translators worked with the Greek without trying to read modern psychological concepts into God's word!
By the way, I've voted for Trump twice, and though I preferred DeSantis, I'll be voting Trump again this year.
You like KJV? Ok
Romans 1:26-28 (KJV)
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: 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. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
I see, you cannot answer for your claims on 1 Cor. 6:9, so you just switch to another passage to distort! LOL You're not worth my time to discuss. But, earlier in this thread I have discussed Rom. 1:26-27. See it at:
Saturday at 9:39 AM, reply #2,191
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Clearly saying gays are heading for Hell fire!
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
Your choice of translation helps me illustrate the homophobia in the modern evangelical translations. Compare two earlier evangelical translations -
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-010 (NASB95)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
The NKJV you quoted clearly shows "homosexual" and "sodomite" are not the same in meaning. Yet, the NKJV translates the Greek malakos as "homosexuals" and the NASB translates arsenokoites as "homosexuals". These translators were in a rush to damn homosexual males, but could not agree on which of the completely different words mean "homosexual".
The attempt to say the Greek malakos means a passive homosexual male as in lexicons today is not agreed upon by other Greek scholars, and there are no ancient Greek writings quoted to support that idea, nor is it used elsewhere in the Greek NT or the LXX with the meaning of "catamite" or "passive" homosexual male.
I used YOUR choice, the KJV. Want me to quote it again? Homophobia? That sounds like something a Biblephobe, pro abortion, pro Biden Liberal would accuse Christians of.
You don't seem to like any translation.
You're a Greek expert? How many English translations do you want me to quote? I have many.
Last edited:
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
I have reasons for choosing a particular translation on some verses, and it is not because I am a Greek scholar, but I do read the Greek scholars and see their reasoning. I also have studied hermeneutics from several textbooks over the years. I've given my general reasoning on Rom. 1:26-27 in a recent reply. For my study of 1 Cor. 6:9 and how I compare the translations and choose one, my post is on Jun 7, 2024 Article #2161
Sometimes I am indifferent what translation I am quoting and whatever is last on my Bible software I quote. Other times I choose a particular translation. As examples:
Gal. 6:16 I quote the RSV -
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16 RSV)
*As v15 is clearly all believers, Jew & Gentile, the church... v16 must refer to the church as "the Israel of God".
Matt. 23:34 I quote the REB -
"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)
or
"Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." (Matt 24:34 GNB92)
* I choose such translations as those because they give the meaning clearly. When I study 'genea' through the NT, especially Matthew; and consider the grammatical difference between "this generation" and "that generation", those meaning for meaning translations get it right.
Some translations I avoid quoting on certain verses such as Ex. 21:22 which should mean "miscarriage", not premature birth. Or 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 where homosexuals is improperly inserted. Also, I do NOT quote the NRSV on verses where they have changed "brothers/brethren" to "men and women", or omitted "me" on Zech. 12:10, etc.
I generally avoid quoting any of the evangelical translations because they seem to be biased toward the religious right in areas that distort the application in politics and civil law. I generally prefer the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, REB and NRSVue over the evangelical translations. For the closest, word for word English translation, with least bias generally, I choose the RV & ASV.
Sometimes I am indifferent what translation I am quoting and whatever is last on my Bible software I quote. Other times I choose a particular translation. As examples:
Gal. 6:16 I quote the RSV -
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16 RSV)
*As v15 is clearly all believers, Jew & Gentile, the church... v16 must refer to the church as "the Israel of God".
Matt. 23:34 I quote the REB -
"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)
or
"Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." (Matt 24:34 GNB92)
* I choose such translations as those because they give the meaning clearly. When I study 'genea' through the NT, especially Matthew; and consider the grammatical difference between "this generation" and "that generation", those meaning for meaning translations get it right.
Some translations I avoid quoting on certain verses such as Ex. 21:22 which should mean "miscarriage", not premature birth. Or 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 where homosexuals is improperly inserted. Also, I do NOT quote the NRSV on verses where they have changed "brothers/brethren" to "men and women", or omitted "me" on Zech. 12:10, etc.
I generally avoid quoting any of the evangelical translations because they seem to be biased toward the religious right in areas that distort the application in politics and civil law. I generally prefer the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, REB and NRSVue over the evangelical translations. For the closest, word for word English translation, with least bias generally, I choose the RV & ASV.
Arthur81
Well-Known Member
The Greek-English Lexicon's of NT Greek cite so-called evidence that malakos means a "catamite", or the passive partner in the practice of homosexuality. I've spent some time searching the Internet to read such evidence these Lexicons give. I found the following:"...for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men/arsenokoites, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;" (1Tim 1:10 ASV)
Paul uses the word between "fornicators" and "men stealers". So here you have the word associated not only with frequenting prostitutes in fornication; but it is associated with "men stealers", an act of violence and abusiveness. You do NOT need to go back to Leviticus to get Paul's meaning, Paul himself uses the key word several times; and, in Rom. 13:13 we get the key that matches exactly what was seen in Rom. 1:27. The KJV uses two phrases to translate arsenokoites, "abusers" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and for men who "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10. The 1828 Webster's gives the meaning used in centuries past for those two words:
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
"DEFILE, v.t.... 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."
The KJV, RV & ASV use the similar phrasing which means a "sodomite"; and then the YLT translates as the one word "sodomite". I'll trust the KJV Bible scholars on these two verses of Paul, over modern translations that have become obsessed with LGBTQ+!
It is clear that Paul uses arsenokoites to represent violence, abusiveness and rape of male to male. There is not a hint that the sin is the simple act of sex between two consenting males. Just as Gen. 19:9 proves that in Sodom it was attempted rape that was the sexual/violent sin, not simple sex between males.
In spite of how many wish to twist the English language, "sodomite" is not synonymous with "homosexual", use your English dictionaries!
Now, how about that word "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9? The word was the traditional translation of malakos. No English dictionary that I have found defines "effeminate" as in any way sexual conduct between persons. That Greek malakos is used in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25 for luxurious clothing as kings wear. The word is also used in the Septuagint in Pro. 25:15 for "soft tongue" and in Pro. 26:22 for "words...soft". Nowhere in the Bible is malakos used for sexual conduct between persons. The claim that malakos means "catamite" has no support that I can find other than the statements in theological Greek-English Lexicons of NT words. But, if you go to the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon which gives great detail, you do not find "catamite" as a meaning for malakos:
That page gives a huge amount of meanings for malakos but NOT catamite or male prostitute. The Greek actually had the exact word for catamite that Paul could have used if he meant catamite or male prostitute:
The 19th century Greek scholar Heinrich Meyer writes that to translate malakos as a catamite or cinaedus is wrong, in spite of what the BDAG gives:
"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."
1 Corinthians 6 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
1 Corinthians 6, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Meyer's New Testament Commentary provides critical insights through original text analysis, essential for Christian comprehension.www.studylight.org
The evangelical obsession about male sex with another male started after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which started the modern LGBTQ+ movement. There is certainly gross sin seen in so many outward expressions in the LGBTQ+, but to use that to condemn simple male to male sex between consenting adults is unfounded in the Bible or in any scholarly references I can find. I've given links to the arguments I make, so I can be checked. The New Covenant certainly does not condemn simple sex relationships between consenting males. The actual practice of sex between man and wife in private, is just that, PRIVATE. In like manner sex between two adult consenting males in private is also just that, PRIVATE. It is between those persons involved in private to answer to God how they relate to each other.
I'll not take my time to try answering all the sarcastic, mocking and ignorant replies to my post. If I see someone actually try to go into a detailed exegesis and exposition of the verses involved, I'll reply. By the way, I did not include Jude 6, 7 because that is about men attempting the rape of ANGELS,
"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7 REB) See Gen. 6:1-4
Dionysius Halicarnassus, Antiquities 7, 2
"The tyrant of Cumae at that time was Aristodemus, the son of Aristocrates, a man of no obscure birth, who was called by the citizens Malacus or “ Effeminate "— a nickname which in time came to be better known than his own name—either because when a boy he was effeminate and allowed himself to be treated as a woman, as some relate, or because he was of a mild nature and slow to anger, as others state." *Notice, it is an 'either-or' so no proof here. If you read the entire article about this general, it hardly fits as a "catamite".
Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, 7 Volumes In One (Loeb) : Dionysius of Halicarnassus : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This work by Dionysios of Halikarnassos (or Halicarnassus) in Asia Minor was written about 7 BCE. Earnest Cary, The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of...
archive.org
Diogenes Laërtius 7, 173 at the end
And it is said, that when he asserted that, on the principles of Zeno, one could judge of a man’s character by his looks, some witty young men brought him a profligate fellow, having a hardy look from continual exercise in the fields, and requested him to tell them his moral character; and he, having hesitated a little, bade the man depart; and, as he departed, he sneezed, “I have the fellow now,” said Cleanthes, “he is a debauchee.” *A debauchee does not mean a catamite
The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers | Project Gutenberg
www.gutenberg.org
Diogenes Laërtius 7, 173 at the end; from another translation
It is said that when he laid it down as Zeno's opinion that a man's character could be known from his looks, certain witty young men brought before him a rake with hands horny from toil in the country and requested him to state what the man's character was. Cleanthes was perplexed and ordered the man to go away ; but when, as he was making off, he sneezed, " I have it," cried Cleanthes, "he is effeminate." *effeminate does not mean a catamite.
Lives of eminent philosophers : Diogenes Laertius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Includes indexes
archive.org
Dio Chrysostom. 49 [66], 25
Just so Ceerops confounds the man of servile parentage, and likewise Thersites confounds the man of shabby appearance but with ambition to be a beauty? The fact is. if by calling him a glutton or a miser or a catamite or a general blackguard you jeer at the man who plumes πήξει on his temperance and who has enrolled under the banner of virtue. You have ruined him completely. By carrying around the Gorgon's head and displaying it to his foes Perseus turned them to stone: but most men have been turned to stone by just one word. if it is applied to them; besides, there is no need to carry this around, guarding it in a wallet. *This particular translator rendered 'malakos' as a "catamite", but nothing in the context supports that idea!
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses, 5 volumes In 1 (Loeb) : Dio Chrysostom : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Dio Chrysostom, or Dio of Prusa, Discourses, or Speeches, five volumes in one of the Loeb Classical Library translation: J.W. Cohoon and H.L. Crosby, Dio...
archive.org
It is laughable that the Lexicons give such evidence as the above to prove the Apostle Paul meant a passive homosexual or a catamite by his use of the Greek malakos! The Greek LXX does not use malakos for a catamite, nor do the other occurrences in the NT.
Behold
Well-Known Member
If you are a born again Christian, with the Spirit of God in you.....= The HOLY Spirit of God...
Do you need to read 34 Bible Verses and watch 22 Videos, to understand that what is in this Photo below, is immoral, perverted, unnatural, demonic.... and God Hates it?
-
-
Do you need to read 34 Bible Verses and watch 22 Videos, to understand that what is in this Photo below, is immoral, perverted, unnatural, demonic.... and God Hates it?
-
-
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
There are 'two' perversions of truth in this picture.
a.) man sexual perversion with another man
b.) holding a infant as if it came from them, thus mocking Genesis/Creation/God's words
What is more surprising is that this is even being talked about. There is nothing positive about this subject. It has nothing to do with love, it is all about lust. Having a best friend is a far cry from illicit lover.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Let me know if there is anything 'positive' from this line of thinking:
"There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
There is a link between repentance and forgiveness.
There is a link between repentance and forgiveness.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
AGREE
So then, the negative(sin) is washed away by the Positive
Repentance means = change your mind and direction = which leads to Eternal Life
Similar threads
