Gay Marriage

[Seagoon]

Hi Silat,

Originally posted by Silat
Seagoon Im incredulous that you would post this as from the  bible that most of us use. This is the international version of the bible.The International Bible Society (IBS) was founded in 1809.Their translation added many things that were not there before the editing.
 They edited things to suit their particular agenda.

Actually my quote was taken from the NKJV not the NIV which was a revision of the KJV commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson publishers and worked on by 130 scholars. It's purpose was simply to update the language to a standard more easily readable in modern English not change the meanings. I use it in my congregation, and it is my second choice for biblical exegesis and exposition.

Check your parents bibles. You wont find the word homosexual in it anywhere.

Cor 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

Here is the actual quote from the bible that most of us have seen and were raised on, and the word homosexual isnt there.

"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. "
 

My friend, I'm having trouble answering this post because I don't even know where to begin.

First off regarding the translation you have used above referencing "boy prostitutes" - I have access to 19 English translations of the Bible of varying age and quality, and the translation you have used above does not occur in any of them. I would suspect that most people's "parents" (not mine incidentally, they did not read the bible) read was either the KJV or RSV. Here are their translations of 1 Cor. 6:9:

KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
RSV: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts"

Now if you don't like the "agenda" of the NIV translation, which is pretty good at this point, let's go with one of the the most literal, scholarly, modern word for word translations on the market, the NASB:

"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"

The reason they made the lexical decision to translate the Greek word arsenokoites Homosexual is because that is what it means. I am not the world's finest Greek scholar by any means, but every (even the liberal) lexicon I own translates this word either "sodomite" or "homosexual."

Now admittedly, proponents of what is called "homosexual theology" in liberal seminaries are trying valiantly to confuse the issue attempting to persuade us that the translation means that Paul is actually condemning Paedophiles who have sex with boys (sorry NAMBLA), not adult homosexuals. The problem is that that really is agenda driven translation and eisegesis. Even if we weren't clear on this passage we still have the unmistakable evidence of Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

And then there is the the evidence of the Old Testament which actually spells out the practice at various points such as Lev. 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Aside from getting down to a rudimentary "please do not ever put part b in part a as it is a sin" (and the OT in particular comes close to this) It couldn't be clearer.

This is confirmed by the fact that every interpretation by an orthodox commentator on these verses going back to the church fathers has agreed that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns homosexuality.

In any event, the pro-homosexual theologians working on the process of textual revision do not assume divine authorship of the bible, plenary inspiration of all the parts, or its controlling authority in all spheres. They also atomize dividing the bible (especially the Old from the New testaments) so of what use would such a bible as they propose be in any event? It would have no more weight in any of its declarations than my own opinions about which is the best color in the spectrum.

[It's orange btw]

Sorry, Silat, blatant modern attempts to craft a "pro-gay" bible aside, one simply cannot escape the fact that wherever homosexual sex is touched on in scripture it is condemned as a sin.

- SEAGOON

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #5

Well, I doubt he expected to be called a homosexual, and to have his children called lesbians.  

I really think that people on this BBS should imagine that everyone posting is 6'6 and 260 pounds of pure muscle, then imagine you are standing face to face with them.  If you'd still say whatever you were going to, then it probably isn't offensive.

Jackal, why are gay people gay?  Did they make a conscious decision to be an "abomination"?  Everything I've ever heard about it says there is at least some biological component to it.. so it isn't exactly mature to castigate them for it, much less people who support behaviour between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home (or hotel, or whatever).  

I'm not gay.  I don't really understand how a guy can look at another guy and be overcome with lust.  I can look at a guy and make an honest assessment about whether he is good looking or not (at least by society's standards), I can look at a guy and say "Damn, I wish my (arms, chest, whatever) was as big/ripped as that dude's"... but I don't look at a guy and imagine myself sleeping with him.  

I'm not even a particularly religious person, so I'm not even against gay "marriage" except for the fact that it would break millennia of tradition.  I think it is kind of sad that two poor "sinners" that are going to go to hell anyway (if you listen to y'all) can't collect benefits on this earthly realm though.  That just strikes me as being unfair.  

Seagoon, by the way... I have always found your posts to be very well-reasoned and damn near inspirational.  I guess if I ever decide to "get religion" I'm moving to North Carolina .

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Avro, the laws are already imposed and have been in force for decades if not centuries.

The problem here is that some people want to change the laws based upon their personal beliefs.

Who is driving the change?

It's not based on religious beliefs this time though.

And your referendums during the last elections were changes.

[Holden McGroin]

I don't consider them so, in Oregon at least, our referendum was passed to clarify a long standing interpretation of the law which stated,  “Marriage is defined as a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.”

The readers digest condensed version would read, "A contract entered into by males and females." Not males and / or females.

The county supervisors in Multanomah Co. (Portland) decided to interpret the law differently from the other counties in the state, and differently from the way it was interpreted in the past.  

Once again, the change was not pushed by right wing christian conservatives, but it was left wing activists looking to force the agenda.  That the referendum passed against their view by a considerable margin shows that the Co. supervisors miscalculated.

The referendum only upheld the precedence of 150 years of marriage law interpretation.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Silat,



Actually my quote was taken from the NKJV not the NIV which was a revision of the KJV commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson publishers and worked on by 130 scholars. It's purpose was simply to update the language to a standard more easily readable in modern English not change the meanings. I use it in my congregation, and it is my second choice for biblical exegesis and exposition.

 

My friend, I'm having trouble answering this post because I don't even know where to begin.

First off regarding the translation you have used above referencing "boy prostitutes" - I have access to 19 English translations of the Bible of varying age and quality, and the translation you have used above does not occur in any of them. I would suspect that most people's "parents" (not mine incidentally, they did not read the bible) read was either the KJV or RSV. Here are their translations of 1 Cor. 6:9:

KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
RSV: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts"

Now if you don't like the "agenda" of the NIV translation, which is pretty good at this point, let's go with one of the the most literal, scholarly, modern word for word translations on the market, the NASB:

"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"

The reason they made the lexical decision to translate the Greek word arsenokoites Homosexual is because that is what it means. I am not the world's finest Greek scholar by any means, but every (even the liberal) lexicon I own translates this word either "sodomite" or "homosexual."

Now admittedly, proponents of what is called "homosexual theology" in liberal seminaries are trying valiantly to confuse the issue attempting to persuade us that the translation means that Paul is actually condemning Paedophiles who have sex with boys (sorry NAMBLA), not adult homosexuals. The problem is that that really is agenda driven translation and eisegesis. Even if we weren't clear on this passage we still have the unmistakable evidence of Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

And then there is the the evidence of the Old Testament which actually spells out the practice at various points such as Lev. 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Aside from getting down to a rudimentary "please do not ever put part b in part a as it is a sin" (and the OT in particular comes close to this) It couldn't be clearer.

This is confirmed by the fact that every interpretation by an orthodox commentator on these verses going back to the church fathers has agreed that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns homosexuality.

In any event, the pro-homosexual theologians working on the process of textual revision do not assume divine authorship of the bible, plenary inspiration of all the parts, or its controlling authority in all spheres. They also atomize dividing the bible (especially the Old from the New testaments) so of what use would such a bible as they propose be in any event? It would have no more weight in any of its declarations than my own opinions about which is the best color in the spectrum.

[It's orange btw]

Sorry, Silat, blatant modern attempts to craft a "pro-gay" bible aside, one simply cannot escape the fact that wherever homosexual sex is touched on in scripture it is condemned as a sin.

- SEAGOON

No matter how you slice it the word HOMOSEXUAL was never in the original text.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Jackal1
See Rule #5

What do I expect? Alot more civility and tolerence from those that say they are freedom loving Americans.

Im promoting nothing but the freedom for you to make a choice whether you want to "back seat boogy with another guy".

[Martlet]

That's because the original text wasn't in English.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Elfie
No, thats not correct. I understood what Seagoon was saying. I dont go around gay bashing and I doubt Seagoon does either. You see, Christ told us not to judge others. I dont judge gay people, it's not my place to do so. Seagoon I am sure understands that also. For the record, I dont approve of gay bashing or bashing anyone.

Seagoon is talking about what happens when his sermons topic is on homosexuality? Will things progress in America to the point that when Seagoon and other pastors preach that homosexuality is wrong, will they be in trouble for commiting a hate crime? It could very well get to that point imo. What happens to freedom of religion then? What happens to freedom of speech then?

You posted a link to God Hates studmuffins. God doesnt hate gay people, he loves each and everyone of us. It's His desire that we would all come to know Him.

It's late, I'm going to bed now. I hope I made sense

Elfie substitute the word Jew for Homosexual and then decide if it becomes hate speech...
And it has been done and is still done.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
That's because the original text wasn't in English.

No. That is because the translation in no way comes close to the word HOMOSEXUAL.
Try again...

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
No. That is because the translation in no way comes close to the word HOMOSEXUAL.
Try again...

Actually, that's exactly what they were referring to.  

You try again.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, that's exactly what they were referring to.  

You try again.

It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Silat
It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.

Your own argument defeats itself.  You've asserted nothing as fact beyond you not knowing the original intention of the word.

Unfortunately for you, it isn't the only place in the Bible that homosexuality is condemned.  It was also mentioned in Corinthians, Leviticus, and Romans.Given the other references, we can safely interpret that he was talking about homosexuality.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Silat
It is easy to win the discussion with facts instead of knee jerk reactions.

The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute.
The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

Right back at you:)
Submit some facts to disprove that homosexual was never in the original text.

Silat,

I want to be Respectful, but was there any point to my spending time responding to your original post on this subject?

Silat the fact is that most lexographers of the Koine Greek language are agreed that Malakos means "effeminate" in the context (after all when you call a man "soft" what do you mean) and that Arsenokoites means "sodomite."

[The root of this compound word even leads to this: Arsen which means men and Koites which means either bed, sexual relations, or sperm depending on how it is used (the word is always sexual). You put the words together, and the meaning couldn't be more clear a man who has sexual relations with man. It's even more graphic - "A man-copulator."]

Even without 1 Cor. 6:9  and its two obvious words, you are still left with places where the Bible spells out things in even more detail.

Lets take two of them, one OT and one NT:

First Old Testament:

Lev. 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Please note the symmetry in the passage. Adult Males (Zakar) are not to "lie down" (i.e. have sex) with Adult Males (Zakar). If there is any doubt as to what the passage means, the law makes it abundantly clear: as one lays (has sex) with a female.

We are indisputably referring to the kind of sex where an adult male has sex with another adult male. This is called an "abomination" and forbidden. What do we call this kind of sex in English Silat?

Then New Testament:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and 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."
(Romans 1:26-27)

Note the symmetry in this passage. Women with Women, Males with Males (arsenes en arsesin). They abandon the "natural sexual use" (chresis) of one another, and in stead "burn for one another" - men with men - committing indecent acts.

What on earth do you think Paul is speaking of here? Tiddlywinks?

Now as I said, I did not make Greek my speciality at Seminary, but I have kept it up to a certain degree so that I could do my sermon exposition and essay writing using the original text. If your position was in any way lexically sound, please believe me, I'd admit it. I draw my beliefs from the text of scripture, therefore to play fast and loose with it and then teach others my errors would be a very great sin. If I sincerely thought the attitude of the Bible towards homosexual sex was "hey its not a problem" that would be what I preached regardless of my personal preferences. Few things irritate me as much as eisegesis.

- SEAGOON

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Few things irritate me as much as eisegesis.

Me too, but the doctor gave me a cream to rub on it and it's not a problem anymore.

[Urchin]

There's my SAT word for the day.