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

[Bill]

How does a person try to communicate real truth when the other already think they know it all.

How does someone who eats everything try to explain to someone that only drinks milk, guess what, it is ok to eat everything.

The vast majority of Christians are still drinking from the baby bottle, and believe the deception - "this is all there is".

They have not realized yet, the scripture is the beginning. It is the foundation. Once the foundation of a house is plumbed and secure, then you continue building the rest of the house.

When you decorate your home, you don't worry about the foundation.

Look at what came out of the foundation of Jesus teachings - all of the teachings of Paul. What will now come out of the foundation of Jesus, now that we have evem more to build upon with Paul and the foundation of the early Christians.

If the early Christians had reverted to the way people are now, the bible would never been written, as to print the bible was never in the scripture.

Can you see how reversre this confermation based faith is not of God, it is a deception.

Yes we use Scripture as our founadtion. But any builder will tell you, once the foundation is set, you don't need to keep returning to it to make sure it is square.

》》》》Jesus even tells us, he can not teach us what he wants to 《《《《

Because we are not ready for it. Then he says, when the paraclete arrives that the Holy Spirit will teach us.

Clearly Jesus is telling us that there's more to come

 

[KingJ]

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

Hi Bill, I am replying directly to Dylans mail. He made a weak and cringeworthy argument on sin, I debunked him, and he proceeds with a personal insult. No attempt to address the counter argument.

People like @Dylan569 require a formal debate setting to shut them up. They keep pushing their nonsense even after multiple corrections.

He is intellectually dishonest, elusive, pompous and a pretentious troll who brazenly pushes clear heresies with absolutely no fear of God.

 

[Dylan569]

The churches keeping men in M_M relationships out of the church, could they be risking these:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.”(Mat 23:2-4 NRSVue)

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Mat 23:13-15 NRSVue)

When the scriptures are so hotly debated, Rm 1:27; 1Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10 … I believe it will come under the class of debates in Romans 14 –

“Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat, for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on slaves of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” (Rom 14:2-5 NRSVue)

The uncertainty among the churches should cause us to be cautious for what we condemn in others.

In the 2021 NRSVue, there are two footnotes:

On malakos – Meaning of Gk uncertain
On arsenokoites – Meaning of Gk uncertain



I’m convinced the KJV translators did not view them as uncertain, and using the 1828 Webster’s English Dictionary, you can see it clearly. Since the RSV 1st Edition used “homosexuals” in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, most evangelical translations continue to insert a modern word and concept into a 1st century document; so of course, that will cause the words to be viewed as uncertain as to meaning. The mainstream translations: REB, RSV Revised Ed., NRSV, NRSVue avoid using that modern word because it is highly misleading.

From the New Bible Dictionary, 1996, IVP
"HOMOSEXUALITY. The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much."

 

[KingJ]

The churches keeping men in M_M relationships out of the church, could they be risking these:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them.”(Mat 23:2-4 NRSVue)

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” (Mat 23:13-15 NRSVue)

When the scriptures are so hotly debated, Rm 1:27; 1Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10 … I believe it will come under the class of debates in Romans 14 –

“Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat, for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on slaves of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” (Rom 14:2-5 NRSVue)

The uncertainty among the churches should cause us to be cautious for what we condemn in others.

In the 2021 NRSVue, there are two footnotes:

On malakos – Meaning of Gk uncertain
On arsenokoites – Meaning of Gk uncertain



I’m convinced the KJV translators did not view them as uncertain, and using the 1828 Webster’s English Dictionary, you can see it clearly. Since the RSV 1st Edition used “homosexuals” in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, most evangelical translations continue to insert a modern word and concept into a 1st century document; so of course, that will cause the words to be viewed as uncertain as to meaning. The mainstream translations: REB, RSV Revised Ed., NRSV, NRSVue avoid using that modern word because it is highly misleading.

From the New Bible Dictionary, 1996, IVP
"HOMOSEXUALITY. The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much."

What a load of croc. You are reaching and not addressing previous posts that corrected you. You just keep posting like you don't want to / can't debate.

If you don't debate, you are a troll pushing clear heresy. This thread must be closed.

 

[Dylan569]

What a load of croc. You are reaching and not addressing previous posts that corrected you. You just keep posting like you don't want to / can't debate.

If you don't debate, you are a troll pushing clear heresy. This thread must be closed.

KingJ, I usually ignore you because you merely make claims based on your opinions, which are so often nutty. You cannot “correct” me without using sound, standard hermeneutics to do so.

Do we ever see you explain a verse, exegete a verse and use a proper hermeneutic to understand what a verse is stating? I do not recall you doing the needed study in order to substantiate your claims. The first reply in this thread is by you, where you merely write:

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

Or you quote a verse and read into it, quite superficially, a meaning that supports your opinion, without doing any explanation from the Greek or Hebrew, how the context helps understand the verse, or how a particular writer uses a Hebrew or Greek word. As an example of study:

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Joh 3:3 KJV)

I believe the NRSV is correct to translate as “born from above”, as John uses the same word ἄνωθεν anōthen in the following:

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. (John 3:31, KJV)

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:11, KJV)

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (John 19:23, KJV)

This also will agree with what John writes in the prior whole sentence from chapter one:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13, KJV)

 

[Dylan569]

HERE’S SOME HELP FOR OUR HOMOPHOBIC FRIENDS

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,” (1Cor 6:9, NET2.1)

NET Note: malakos (This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. μαλακός 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.) *I also use the NET often to read the translator notes, but on this word I go with other authorities. Notice the NET in this note refers to 'arsenokoites' as “sodomizing” others, which implies abusive action by what NET translates as “practicing homosexuals”.

MY RESPONSE:

1. Wikionary, “Having behaviour or mannerisms considered unmasculine or typical of a woman or girl; feminine.” An example given in yourdictionary.com “The silken textures which at first found their way to Rome were necessarily of enormous cost, and their use by men was deemed a piece of effeminate luxury.”
*So,effeminate is considered a “behaviour”, but apparently it was just not the behaviour wanted by the NET. The example given fits exactly the use of ‘malakos’ in the other three NT occurrences. These are taken from onelook.com
2. The Greek Septuagint uses malakos twice, but with nothing close to a sexual meaning.
3. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek in its large entry for malakos states no meaning
as any sort of sexual acts
4. The Greek scholar Heinrich Meyer states about the word: “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
5. The Greek scholar William Robertson Nicoll states on the word: “ μαλακοί, soft, voluptuous, appears in this connexion to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh; lexical ground is wanting for the sense of pathici, suggested to some interpreters by the following word and by the use of molles in Latin.

SINCE GREEK SCHOLARS DISAGREE ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD MALAKOS, AND I FIND NOWHERE ELSE IN THE SCRIPTURES WHERE THE WORD HAS ANY MEANING OF SEXUAL ACT;. AND SINCE THE LSJ DOES NOT DEFINE THE WORD THUS, I'LL STAY WITH THE KJV “EFFEMINATE”.

1828 Webster's:
EFFEM'INATE, a. [L. effoeminatus, from effoeminor, to grow or make womanish, from foemina, a woman. See Woman.]
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.
2. Womanish; weak; resembling the practice or qualities of the sex; as an effeminate peace; an effeminate life.
3. Womanlike, tender, in a sense not reproachful.

 

[KingJ]

KingJ, I usually ignore you because you merely make claims based on your opinions, which are so often nutty. You cannot “correct” me without using sound, standard hermeneutics to do so.

You like to waffle, pass personal insults and claim to be wise because you can Google big words that make you sound smarter than you are.

You have already been debunked in this thread. You have ostrich syndrome and remind me of a mental patient that walks into walls and then changes direction not grasping they just hit a wall.

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

If you were a member of my church denomination you would not be allowed to say a single word from the pulpit as you are both a Calvinist and a homosexual advocate.

That is a fact you can meditate on.

But I know it will not impact your life. You have no fear of God. You customize the bible to suit your lifestyle choice.

Calvinist = guaranteed heaven.
Homosexual scriptures are blurry = live in sin.

The reality is that Calvinism incriminates God as partial and He hates the sin of homosexuality so much that he ordained the death penalty for it. You support and teach both. As someone who clearly has mostly a working brain, that makes you a borderline false teacher.

Surely you can Google false teaching too? Do a study on the risks of being one...

A wise Christian FEARS God and abstains from all appearance of evil. Does not teach or sugarcoat as acceptable something He ordained the death penalty for.

You need to take swimming lessons. Go and do a study on Matt 18:6.

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

Talking to you is a waste of time. You do not accept correction.

I just find it a bit funny that you are certainly NOT a Christian and yet you really believe you are one because you cherry pick scriptures that say God cherry picked YOU .

At least you make a good case study for Calvinists being cringe, disgusting, scripture twisting, brazen and pretentious.