Homosexuality, the KJV, 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10

[Dylan569]

How do I KNOW that the KJV has the correct translation, and the modern translations, liberal or conservative, have jumped the tracks into a modern concept not known in 1st century Palestine?

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, (1Cor 6:9, KJV)

The KJV “effeminate” is the Greek malakos is found 4 times in the NT, and the other 3 times it is translated “soft”. It is also found 2x in the LXX, Pro 25:15(H7390) & Pro 26:22(H3859). The word malakos found a total of 6 times in the Greek Bible, none of the 6 means sexual conduct of any kind. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek has a huge entry for malakos, but it does not mean “catamite” nor any word of sexual conduct. The site onelook.com has 20+ entries for the English “effeminate’, none of which have a meaning of sexual conduct. Meyer’s Critical & Exegetical NT, and the Expositor’s Greek Testament both say there is no basis to understand malakos as a “catamite”. This one word in itself makes it clear to me that the modern evangelical translations are incorrect. Self-indulgent or voluptuous ones along with effeminate are the best translations of malakos. The word and concept of homosexual itself was coined in Germany in 1869 and began to be seen in English around 1900. How you can read that modern idea back into a 1st century document escapes me. Yes, the BDAG says malakos refers to: "pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate." If a Grk-Eng Lexicon cannot support its definition, and I’ve searched for the support and do not find it, I’ll ignore the BDAG on this, though do I have high respect for the BDAG.

The Greek arsenokoites is used 2x in the NT. It is a rare word. The textbook, Principles of Interpretation, 1915, by Clinton Lockhart gives the approach to use: “ RULE:—The meaning of a rare word, not decided by usage, should be sought first in the etymology, then in early versions, and lastly in kindred tongues.” It is often objected that the etymology of a word is not its meaning. Merriam-Webster defines etymology “the history of a linguistic form (such as a word)…” There was no history previous to Paul, so apparently Paul coined the word. Since Paul coined the word, we CAN see what two words he combined to create arsenokoites: arsen and koites. The words arsen means male, and koites means a “couch” or “bed”. In Heb 13:4 koites is translated “bed” meaning the bed of marital relations. In Rom 9:10 it is translated “conceived” or conception. The key reference is in a vice list, as 1 Cor. 6:9 is a vice list: Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. (Rom 13:13, KJV) This is obviously referring to promiscuity and frequenting prostitutes. So, arsenokoites would mean by comparison, males with males frequenting prostitutes and promiscuity. The other key verse is the 2nd time Paul uses arsenokoites, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1Tim 1:10, KJV) Here arsenokoites is sandwiched between “whoremongers” or “fornicators” and “men stealers” or kidnappers. The vice list in 1 Tim. 1:9-10 is in a structure, similar sins grouped together, “ for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers” etc. So, if we put the meaning earlier of promiscuity, and add this violent and abusive element, we get an idea what Paul’s meaning was. In 1 Cor. 6:9 the key word is “abusers” and in 1 Tim. 1:10, “defile”. If I wish to know what those English words meant in centuries past, I go to the 1828 Webster’s English Dictionary, and I find the real meaning:

ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.
NOTICE! One who “abuses” and “ravishes” is a SODOMITE! A sodomite is not synonymous with homosexual. What is a “ravisher”?
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 words chosen by the KJV translators mean one who abuses, ravishes and rapes; and in the definitions the 1828 Websters even connects the words to Scripture. I’ve done my homework on the Greek, and find the KJV is truly accurate, and I’ll put the scholarship of those men up with any today! You can use the modern translations, Liberal or Conservative; but prove that they are correct by reading modern concepts of homosexuality back into a 1st century writing.

 

[KingJ]

Is this your contrived way of falsely teaching that scripture condones homosexuality?

 

[Dylan569]

Is this your contrived way of falsely teaching that scripture condones homosexuality?

KingJ, your response is typical of those who haven't the knowledge or common sense to discuss Bible doctrine. From Chapter One of Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart:

“It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. 'Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet'; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and
genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success.”

In the future if you post something of merit, I'll reply, but I'll not be holding my breath.

 

[B-A-C]

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 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.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Merely approving of others practicing these things makes you just as guilty.

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

Deut 22:5 "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

 

[Dylan569]

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 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.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Merely approving of others practicing these things makes you just as guilty.

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

Deut 22:5 "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

Do you know what Moses wrote about the laws given at Sinai?

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, KJV)

When you answer or give a defense of the modern translations of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, I'll explain Rom. 1:26-27. A hint, Paul wrote Romans as well 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, so he is describing the same people.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ, your response is typical of those who haven't the knowledge or common sense to discuss Bible doctrine.

Says the guy who 1. Uses an example of partiality mentioned in James 2:2 as the definition of the word. and 2. Consistently has ostrich syndrome when asked to explain how Calvinism does not incriminate God as monstrously evil.

You have to be rude and insult intelligence. You have no other cards to play. You are intellectually dishonest and unable to accept correction.

In the future if you post something of merit, I'll reply, but I'll not be holding my breath.

You mean until I post something that requires me to remove half my brain and agree with you?

-----------------------------

I am always truly shocked by old people, about to meet God, who so brazenly misrepresent Him and scripture. Pretentious. Fearless....

You teach that God is partial and now that homosexuality is fine. Oh boy, good luck to you standing before God of the universe when you die.

Your Calvinist nonsense is giving you a false sense of security.

 

[KingJ]

1. The OT is crystal clear that A. God does not change His mind and B. Hates homosexuality so much that He ordained the death penalty for all who practice it.

Num 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.

Lev 18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Hebrew - “V’ish asher yishkav et zakhar mishkevei ishah to’eivah asu shneihem mot yumat; d’meihem bam.''

Literal translation - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

2. Rom 1:26-27 as quoted by @B-A-C, describes the actions of homosexuals and ends with 'they received the due penalty of their error'.

There is no use of the word 'malakoi' as is the case with 1 Cor 6:9 and 'Arsenokoitai' as is the case with both 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.

3. You are grasping at a straw. That the KJV uses the direct translation of word 'malakoi' in 1 Cor 6:9 worsens your argument.

It's literal meaning is "soft" or "effeminate". This would certainly encompass all homosexual type activity and more.

4. The word Arsenokoitai is pretty clearly defining homosexual activity.

arsēn (ἄρσην) = male
koitē (κοίτη) = bed (often used euphemistically for sex)

----------------------

@Dylan569 You are guilty of cherry picking words and scripture. Pushing clear false teaching that can and will stumble the young and weak.

2 Pet 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

If you continue pushing this, you should take swimming lessons.

Matt 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones those who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

[bdavidc]

How do I KNOW that the KJV has the correct translation, and the modern translations, liberal or conservative, have jumped the tracks into a modern concept not known in 1st century Palestine?

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, (1Cor 6:9, KJV)

The KJV “effeminate” is the Greek malakos is found 4 times in the NT, and the other 3 times it is translated “soft”. It is also found 2x in the LXX, Pro 25:15(H7390) & Pro 26:22(H3859). The word malakos found a total of 6 times in the Greek Bible, none of the 6 means sexual conduct of any kind. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek has a huge entry for malakos, but it does not mean “catamite” nor any word of sexual conduct. The site onelook.com has 20+ entries for the English “effeminate’, none of which have a meaning of sexual conduct. Meyer’s Critical & Exegetical NT, and the Expositor’s Greek Testament both say there is no basis to understand malakos as a “catamite”. This one word in itself makes it clear to me that the modern evangelical translations are incorrect. Self-indulgent or voluptuous ones along with effeminate are the best translations of malakos. The word and concept of homosexual itself was coined in Germany in 1869 and began to be seen in English around 1900. How you can read that modern idea back into a 1st century document escapes me. Yes, the BDAG says malakos refers to: "pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate." If a Grk-Eng Lexicon cannot support its definition, and I’ve searched for the support and do not find it, I’ll ignore the BDAG on this, though do I have high respect for the BDAG.

The Greek arsenokoites is used 2x in the NT. It is a rare word. The textbook, Principles of Interpretation, 1915, by Clinton Lockhart gives the approach to use: “ RULE:—The meaning of a rare word, not decided by usage, should be sought first in the etymology, then in early versions, and lastly in kindred tongues.” It is often objected that the etymology of a word is not its meaning. Merriam-Webster defines etymology “the history of a linguistic form (such as a word)…” There was no history previous to Paul, so apparently Paul coined the word. Since Paul coined the word, we CAN see what two words he combined to create arsenokoites: arsen and koites. The words arsen means male, and koites means a “couch” or “bed”. In Heb 13:4 koites is translated “bed” meaning the bed of marital relations. In Rom 9:10 it is translated “conceived” or conception. The key reference is in a vice list, as 1 Cor. 6:9 is a vice list: Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. (Rom 13:13, KJV) This is obviously referring to promiscuity and frequenting prostitutes. So, arsenokoites would mean by comparison, males with males frequenting prostitutes and promiscuity. The other key verse is the 2nd time Paul uses arsenokoites, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1Tim 1:10, KJV) Here arsenokoites is sandwiched between “whoremongers” or “fornicators” and “men stealers” or kidnappers. The vice list in 1 Tim. 1:9-10 is in a structure, similar sins grouped together, “ for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers” etc. So, if we put the meaning earlier of promiscuity, and add this violent and abusive element, we get an idea what Paul’s meaning was. In 1 Cor. 6:9 the key word is “abusers” and in 1 Tim. 1:10, “defile”. If I wish to know what those English words meant in centuries past, I go to the 1828 Webster’s English Dictionary, and I find the real meaning:

ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.
NOTICE! One who “abuses” and “ravishes” is a SODOMITE! A sodomite is not synonymous with homosexual. What is a “ravisher”?
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 words chosen by the KJV translators mean one who abuses, ravishes and rapes; and in the definitions the 1828 Websters even connects the words to Scripture. I’ve done my homework on the Greek, and find the KJV is truly accurate, and I’ll put the scholarship of those men up with any today! You can use the modern translations, Liberal or Conservative; but prove that they are correct by reading modern concepts of homosexuality back into a 1st century writing.

Your whole argument collapses when you actually let Scripture interpret Scripture. Paul’s word arsenokoitēs is not vague, it is built from arsēn (male) and koitē (bed, sexual intercourse), the exact phrasing used in the Greek Old Testament in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where God says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. That alone proves Paul is carrying over God’s command against all male-with-male sex, not just prostitution or abuse. Pair that with malakos in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which literally means “soft” but in this context points to effeminate men taking the passive role in homosexual acts. Romans 1:26–27 makes it even plainer: “their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.” That text doesn’t mention abuse or prostitution, it condemns men with men and women with women because it is against God’s created order. You cannot reduce sin to just violence or rape when God Himself calls the practice sinful in every form. The truth is simple: homosexuality is sin according to the Word of God, but 1 Corinthians 6:11 gives the hope, “such were some of you, but ye are washed.” Christ forgives and changes those who repent, but no twisting of Greek words will make God’s Word say that being homosexual is acceptable.

 

[bdavidc]

Do you know what Moses wrote about the laws given at Sinai?

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, KJV)

When you answer or give a defense of the modern translations of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10, I'll explain Rom. 1:26-27. A hint, Paul wrote Romans as well 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, so he is describing the same people.

The problem with your reply is that you’re essentially trying to pit God’s Word against itself, but Scripture never contradicts Scripture. You act as if Romans 1: 26–27 is something that can be explained away, but the text is plain: “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature, and in the same way the men also, leaving the natural use of women, are inflamed in their lust for one another. Men do shameful deeds with men, receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” That’s not just temple prostitution or abuse, Paul is saying that the very act of male on male sex is dishonoring and against nature.

Physikēn chrēsin is the “natural function”, and para physin means “against nature”. Paul cites arsenokoitai (male + bed) from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in 1 Corinthians 6:9. When God spoke to the Levites through Moses He condemned men lying down with men as with a woman, and it was an abomination before Him. In 1 Timothy 1: 10 he repeats it verbatim again and places it in a list of sins contrary to sound doctrine. All three passages are in agreement, they condemn homosexual practice itself, not just abuse.

Leviticus 27: 34 says those commands were given to them at Sinai, but that does not somehow overwrite God’s moral law. Romans 7: 7 says, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” Paul did not jettison God’s standard, he held it up as a mirror, revealing the law exposes sin and then drives us to Christ. To claim that Paul was not describing all and every homosexual behavior but only a narrow, clearly-defined sub-group is to twist Scripture against itself. God calls it sin, period. And His Word also gives hope when one repents and turns from the sin: “And such were some of you: but ye are washed… but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

If you want to reject that, then fine. You are not just “correcting translations”, you are rejecting the clear Word of God Himself.

 

[Dylan569]

“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: 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.” (Rom 1:26-27, KJV) RSV “gave up” & “consumed with passion”;

Chrysostom, “For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, "They changed the truth of God for a lie." And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, "Leaving the natural use of the woman."
*The verse clearly states the men were leaving, giving up, meaning they were in hetero-relations from which they left. That does not apply to 2 males in a relationship not ever having been with females. The RSV “consumed with passion” shows they were burnt up, burnt out. With the grammar of the verse, we can do legitimate historical comparison. There was a Greek poet/philosopher who lived in Paul’s day and he gave a full description:

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse
Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152
"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:dio_chrysostom_orations_1-20#the_seventh_or_euboean_discourse

Paul quotes from Leviticus five times, Rm.10:5; Ga.3:12; Rm.13:9; Ga.5:14; 2Co.6:16. If Paul had Lv.18:22 in mind, he’d quote it. In Rm.13:9 he quoted just a part of Lv.19:18 “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Again, it is clear that if Paul was referring to Lv.18:22, he would certainly have quoted it, not pieced together two words, which he himself has used in his writings.

In the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on 18:22 reads:
"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191

Does God change his mind? No, but he does not put on Christians the same law as put upon Israel. Gn.38:8-10 is put into the Law of Moses:

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.” (Deut 25:5, KJV) *Is the Christian community commanded to continue this?

“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deut 18:15-18, KJV) *The prophet raised up is Jesus, Acts 3:22,23”

Mt.28:20 “…Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I [Jesus] have commanded you…” Christians are to observe the New Covenant commandments of Jesus, not the Old Covenant commandments of Moses; UNLESS quoted for us as the command “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” is quoted for us from Lv.19:18.

Back up to Rm.1:26 about the women: from Clement of Alexandria(150-215) “ Ad praeposteros et sodomiticos concubitus sese maribus prostituerunt translated to English “ They prostituted themselves to males for preposterous and sodomy sexual intercourse”

Baptist John Gill(1697-1771) on Rm.1:26 “either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature or…”

 

[B-A-C]

RSV.. Revised... that's a good name for that translation. It's "revised" all right.

Loving your neighbor... is not the same thing as have sex with your neighbor.
Loving doesn't make you a homosexual, sex does.
Nothing wrong with loving someone. Having sex with someone.. different story.
Trying to bend the Bible to bend meanings around the homo-sexual agenda doesn't work
at any level. Not in the OT, not in the NT.
For this reason God made then Male and female. That was always Gods plan.
Go and multiply, populate the earth. Something the LGBT crowd cannot do.

Bi-sexuals. You want to have sex with people of both genders?
How can you be faithful to someone if you're sex with two different people?
This whole thread is anti-Bible, anti-Christian, and anti-God's plan for marriage.

 

[KingJ]

@Dylan569

I find it funny that you are a Calvinist who claims to be guaranteed a seat in heaven and yet according to Rom 1:32 you clearly are not enroute to heaven. When will you take fearing God seriously? Christianity 101 = fear God.

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

[Dylan569]

It is often heard in evangelical circles that when Paul coined the word arsenokoites, translated “sodomites” in the YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) and the NRSV, that he based that on the phrase from Lev. 18:22 LXX. The following is the passage in the LXX and arsen and koites are not combined in that verse:

Lev 18:22 AndG2532 withG3326 a manG730 you shall notG3756 go to bedG2837 in a marriage-bedG2845 in the feminine way;G1134 [3an abominationG946 1forG1063 2it is].

If one wishes to play that sort of nonsensical word-game, let’s do it right. The abomination in the verse refers to a “marriage bed”, and it is that the man is banned from doing anal intercourse with another man “in the feminine way”. That can only mean anal intercourse, and as long as they are not married, making it a “marriage bed” it is okay. So, two men can practice mutual onanism, mutual fellatio or frottage because that is not prohibited by the verse.

Elsewhere, I’ve pointed out that Paul quoted from Leviticus 5 times in his writings, so if he wished to reference Lv 18:22, he would merely quote it. Paul, himself, uses the Greek for man/male several times, and he used koites for “marriage bed” in Heb.13:4, for “conception” in Rom. 9:10, and for “chambering” in Rom. 13:13. When Paul is using the words in such a manner, why would he seek the words out of Leviticus LXX to coin a new word, when he is using the Greek words elsewhere, himself?

The evangelicals like to say two males cannot produce children, so that violates a command of God in “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Gen 1:28, KJV) Using that argument also makes it clear that any sexual act between man and wife that is not conducive to procreation, is sinful. There was a time in the New Testament church, that was the teaching.

In Christian forums, those condemning any and all male-to-male sex, do a lot of blustering and pontificating, but without a sound exegesis and proper hermeneutic to back it up, it is just that, empty bluster and pontification. Bias, prejudice and personal opinion do not make any real biblical truth!

Don’t forget what we learned by the events with George A. Rekers and Ted Haggard, both rabid anti-homosexual crusaders. Read about them in Wikipedia. It is similar to the Democrats accusing Republicans of nefarious actions, when it is they themselves who are guilty of it!

 

[Dylan569]

@Dylan569

I find it funny that you are a Calvinist who claims to be guaranteed a seat in heaven and yet according to Rom 1:32 you clearly are not enroute to heaven. When will you take fearing God seriously? Christianity 101 = fear God.

Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I usually ignore your foolishness, but you make a deceitful point that so many people do. I wish to correct your misrepresentation. You are doing as so many hypocrites, you read like this:

"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. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Rom 1:27 & 32, KJV)

Why skip over vs 28, 29, 30 & 31? They list sins as well that are “worthy of death”! The covetous/greedy, the envious, the whisperers/gossips, the proud, those who show no mercy, and the boasters, and also children who disobey their parents.

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Jas 2:10, KJV)

 

[KingJ]

I usually ignore your foolishness,

That is what you call conflicting arguments that you can't debunk?

but you make a deceitful point that so many people do. I wish to correct your misrepresentation. You are doing as so many hypocrites, you read like this:

"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. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Rom 1:27 & 32, KJV)

Why skip over vs 28, 29, 30 & 31? They list sins as well that are “worthy of death”! The covetous/greedy, the envious, the whisperers/gossips, the proud, those who show no mercy, and the boasters, and also children who disobey their parents.

You defend yourself by moving the goal posts....

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Jas 2:10, KJV)

In the OT punishments matched the crime. Irrespective of the category. The sin of homosexuality is a 10/10 level in the category of sexual sin. A sin that got one the death penalty. Fornication, lust with your eyes did not.

Do you really not understand that the sin you are in points to the level of love you have for what is evil and hatred for God?

That 'everyone sins' warrants ''Christians'' committing mortal sins?

Jesus CLEARLY differentiates between degrees of sin in Matt 5:28 and Matt 5:32. Paul in 1 Cor 5:1 and 1 Cor 6:1-9.

-----------------

It should be impossible for a Christian to continue in a mortal sin. That is like saying that Paul continued to murder Christians when he said Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Yes or No answer please. Did Paul continue in the sin of murder or in other mortal sins like rape and paedophilia?

-----------------

Your discernment of scripture is terrible! The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom!

@Bill is 100% correct when He says God told him. God told me too. I was once in mortal type sexual sin and had God speak to me. I will try find my testimony and link it for you.

 

[Dylan569]

That is what you call conflicting arguments that you can't debunk?



You defend yourself by moving the goal posts....



In the OT punishments matched the crime. Irrespective of the category. The sin of homosexuality is a 10/10 level in the category of sexual sin. A sin that got one the death penalty. Fornication, lust with your eyes did not.

Do you really not understand that the sin you are in points to the level of love you have for what is evil and hatred for God?

That 'everyone sins' warrants ''Christians'' committing mortal sins?

Jesus CLEARLY differentiates between degrees of sin in Matt 5:28 and Matt 5:32. Paul in 1 Cor 5:1 and 1 Cor 6:1-9.

-----------------

It should be impossible for a Christian to continue in a mortal sin. That is like saying that Paul continued to murder Christians when he said Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Yes or No answer please. Did Paul continue in the sin of murder or in other mortal sins like rape and paedophilia?

-----------------

Your discernment of scripture is terrible! The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom!

@Bill is 100% correct when He says God told him. God told me too. I was once in mortal type sexual sin and had God speak to me. I will try find my testimony and link it for you.

When you write "Bill is 100% correct when He says God told him. God told me too. I was once in mortal type sexual sin and had God speak to me."

That is all I need to read from you and Bill to know the basis of your belief system! Did God speak to you in an "unknown tongue", or was it English?

 

[Bill]

When you write "Bill is 100% correct when He says God told him. God told me too. I was once in mortal type sexual sin and had God speak to me."

That is all I need to read from you and Bill to know the basis of your belief system! Did God speak to you in an "unknown tongue", or was it English?

If the voice you hear tells you to sin, then that voice is not of the Lord.

I recognize the voice of Jesus and God the Father, i know when the Holy Spirit moves me

 

[KingJ]

When you write "Bill is 100% correct when He says God told him. God told me too. I was once in mortal type sexual sin and had God speak to me."

That is all I need to read from you and Bill to know the basis of your belief system! Did God speak to you in an "unknown tongue", or was it English?

What's funny is that you are completely and utterly debunked and you pick that line to reply to.

 

[KingJ]

@Dylan569 Does God speak to His children?

 

[Bill]

What's funny is that you are completely and utterly debunked and you pick that line to reply to.

Maybe I miss your understanding of what debunked means.

I know what I'm saying. But to prove it, it's difficult one another person thinks they have the Holy Spirit when they do not. ( not talking about you)

Another problem that takes place is that there's a predisposition among the man Christians going both directions.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you're above having a prejudiced view of another person. It just means that you strive to be a follower of Christ.

As you can see in the scriptures how many times Paul talks to follow Christians about trying to follow the narrow road without having judgment on others because they are not of that same group. For instance look at the issues that were going on between the Jewish Christians in Israel versus other Christians from around the Mediterranean. There was difficulty going on and many times the apostles would have to go out and deal with the different factions of Christians.

During the time of the Apostles they themselves had to deal with predisposition of the Jewish Christians and the other Christians. Even Peter had to deal with that when he had the vision of all these different creatures coming down from heaven and the Lord telling him to take and eat. That he would not take the unclean creatures. And then the Lord told him what comes from Heaven is already clean.

So the same thing is true between Catholics and the Protestants were all Christians we just have this predisposition towards each other that makes it difficult to talk to anyone