Should you say, 'Homosexuality is a Sin.'

[CS1]

Every translation of the Holy Bible has a bias and is influenced by the culture and times of its writing. It is important to understand this when using the various translations. The Translators to the Readers in the KJV explains a lot about their approach, but most have never read that section because most KJV Bibles today do not include it. The NRSV I use a lot I know will translate in the OT more in the way they suppose the OT saints would 'hear' it, rather than read back into the OT the NT theology. The REB of the UK is an excellent translation as well, but it revises the NEB which was not a revision of an earlier translation, but a fresh translation. The NEB avoided many ecclesiastical words of the tradition and it expands more in a dynamic approach to the translation. Even if you compare various literal, word for word Interlinear Hebrew/Greek/English works, you'll find they do not always agree with each other on the precise meaning of individual words in their context. It does take work, and in this day we can't leave it just to those guys in the pulpit to do the studying they are directed to and we often have to be diligent in our own studies.

As to the meaning of "sodomite" contrasted to "homosexual", in English I can only go to a dictionary and a thesaurus and read the meanings in 'standard' English.

that is not correct.

the context and authorial intent were established by the Holy Spirit and are consistent with what God intended it to say. the KJV, NASB, NKJV, and the NIV pre-1984 in context to who Christ is and what is appropriate for righteous living and worship of God are more than clear and for any devote believer to understand

 

[Ethan1942]

How does a Pastor shepherd the 1 who silently sits beside the 99 in the pews, who is in that small minority who is only attracted to and loves their own gender? That is how I understood the spirit of the OP. It is about conduct or actions, not about the names one calls this person. The more common answer among Bible-believers seems to be it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. That prescribes an answer that seems to be based on the idea every person has the gift of total abstinence as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 7:7-9. If the conduct is sinful, doesn't that make the desire also sinful, as Jesus spoke about adultery in the heart? It is surely a difficult situation as it has been shown prayer or reparative therapy does not change who these people desire and love. The closest thing to an answer I've ever seen actually came from centuries ago.

"The second remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That God hath nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he hath promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be for ever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins; and where God hath not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people that he will not in this life effectually subdue in his people. I would go far to speak with that soul that can shew me a promise, that when our sorrow and grief hath been so great, or so much, for this or that sin, that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ."
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/brooks/PreciousRemediesAgainstSatanThomasBrooks.pdf

Lutherans say every believer is saint & sinner and that seems inline with the Westminster Confession of Faith about 'Original Sin':

"This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)"

"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." (Matt 13:29, KJV)

Is there a danger of doing exactly what Jesus warned about? Do we place this unfortunate individual in the same class as the fornicator in 1 Cor. 5:1-5? Paul goes on to list other sinners who should be put of the assembly as well, does the church do it?

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one." (1Cor 5:11, NRSV) Sadly the church is full of "revilers".

If the OT is to be as an example for the body of Christ, is there a risk of scattering God's flock:

"Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people: It is you who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. So I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the LORD." (Jer 23:1-2, NRSV)

Is it shepherding the 1 out of 100 to condemn them to a life of self-loathing, guilt and shame that is destructive to life itself?

 

[CS1]

How does a Pastor shepherd the 1 who silently sits beside the 99 in the pews, who is in that small minority who is only attracted to and loves their own gender? That is how I understood the spirit of the OP. It is about conduct or actions, not about the names one calls this person. The more common answer among Bible-believers seems to be it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. That prescribes an answer that seems to be based on the idea every person has the gift of total abstinence, as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 7:7-9. If the conduct is sinful, doesn't that make the desire also sinful, as Jesus spoke about adultery in the heart? It is surely a difficult situation as it has been shown prayer or reparative therapy does not change who these people desire and love. The closest thing to an answer I've ever seen actually came from centuries ago.

"The second remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider, That God hath nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he hath promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be for ever, in this life, put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins; and where God hath not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon those sins to his people that he will not in this life effectually subdue in his people. I would go far to speak with that soul that can shew me a promise, that when our sorrow and grief hath been so great, or so much, for this or that sin, that then God will preserve us from ever falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears nothing more than backsliding from Christ."
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/brooks/PreciousRemediesAgainstSatanThomasBrooks.pdf

Lutherans say every believer is saint & sinner and that seems inline with the Westminster Confession of Faith about 'Original Sin':

"This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)"

"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." (Matt 13:29, KJV)

Is there a danger of doing exactly what Jesus warned about? Do we place this unfortunate individual in the same class as the fornicator in 1 Cor. 5:1-5? Paul goes on to list other sinners who should be put of the assembly as well, does the church do it?

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one." (1Cor 5:11, NRSV) Sadly the church is full of "revilers".

If the OT is to be as an example for the body of Christ, is there a risk of scattering God's flock:

"Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people: It is you who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. So I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the LORD." (Jer 23:1-2, NRSV)

Is it shepherding the 1 out of 100 to condemn them to a life of self-loathing, guilt, and shame that is destructive to life itself?

First, one must stop creating false narratives and presuppositions that homosexuality is one who is only attracted to and loves their own gender. That is not true.

First off, one who is in love with their own gender is not loved it is a perversion. The world touts it is love but not a Biblical one for sure.


"The more common answer among Bible-believers seems to be it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. That prescribes an answer that seems to be based on the idea every person has the gift of total abstinence, as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 7:7-9. "


One is you are taking out of context the words of Paul. Secondly, when one says it seems to be so, it is not actually so until it is true.

Also, the opinion that among "Bible-believers," homosexuality is not a sin is a lie. That is an opinion those were unbiblical.

Jesus is the final authority on this topic, and when Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28

27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


The idea that lusting after a woman in your heart is adultery, then surely Homosexual desire is sin. FYI God is not impressed with a homosexual's ability to be abstinent or celibacy. God looks right into the heart of man and see what is really there. The heart and mind must be transformed by the word of God, the power of the Holy Spirit, and separation from those things that cause one to stumble. Like identifying with the "LBGTQ community. "



"That God hath nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I cannot find in the whole book of God where he hath promised any such strength or power against this or that particular sin, "

Wow, I guess you are not looking hard enough, or is God lying?


So there is no promise from God of victory over sin in this life? So go with the flow and do what is right for your own people.

God in the Bible did not mean what he said in 1cor chapter 10: 13, did he?


No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able,


but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

God is faithful, and he will provide and make a way to escape:

Homosexuality, drunkness, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, and every issue and intent of the heart.

Jesus came to set the captive free, and the only reason why one doesn't have victory is that they enjoy the sin and the pleasure of it. And had not TAKEN THE WAY OF ESCAPE that God provided but took the way of an excuse. They have refused so many times to go in the direction God provided, but their will was to do what they wanted to do. So a stronghold has developed, and they need deliverance.

God has allowed their minds to be seared, and now they believe a lie that God said nowhere in his word can you be free from this sin.

A Reprobate mind now says the God of the Bible loves acceptance of sin at the expense of His Holiness.

 

[Ethan1942]

First, one must stop creating false narratives and presuppositions that homosexuality is one who is only attracted to and loves their own gender. That is not true.

First off, one who is in love with their own gender is not loved it is a perversion. The world touts it is love but not a Biblical one for sure.

If you are going to use words of psychology, which did not exist in biblical times, use them correctly.

"Sexual orientation describes patterns of sexual, romantic, and emotional attraction—and one's sense of identity based on those attractions. Sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity, the internal sense of being male, female, or non-binary."

"Heterosexuality (attraction to members of the opposite sex), homosexuality (attraction to members of the same sex), and bisexuality (attraction to members of both sexes) are the three most commonly discussed categories of sexual orientation, although they are by no means the only ones in the world of sexual identification."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/homosexuality

What is the definition of love in the English language of today?

Love defined by Lexico by Oxford:
"1.1 A feeling of deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone.
‘they were both in love with her’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/love

Love defined in the Collins English dictionary:
"2 noun, Love is a very strong feeling of affection towards someone who you are romantically or sexually attracted to."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/love

From the 1611/1769 KJV where some modern translations insert the words "homosexuality".

"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)

From the 1828 Webster's, which will give the correct definition fitting to the times of KJV -

"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."

"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)

1828 Webster's -

"DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

From the 1828 Webster's above, the meaning of "sodomite" did not equate to the modern word "homosexual at that time, nor does it in our time. To make "homosexual" and "sodomite" synonymous verges on homophobia and apparently comes from the Homophobe's Dictionary of English because it is not found as synonymous in standard English dictionaries or thesaurus.

"Do not answer a fool as his folly deserves, or you will grow like him yourself; answer a fool as his folly deserves, or he will think himself wise." (Prov 26:4-5, REB)

 

[CS1]

If you are going to use words of psychology, which did not exist in biblical times, use them correctly.

"Sexual orientation describes patterns of sexual, romantic, and emotional attraction—and one's sense of identity based on those attractions. Sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity, the internal sense of being male, female, or non-binary."

"Heterosexuality (attraction to members of the opposite sex), homosexuality (attraction to members of the same sex), and bisexuality (attraction to members of both sexes) are the three most commonly discussed categories of sexual orientation, although they are by no means the only ones in the world of sexual identification."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/homosexuality

What is the definition of love in the English language of today?

Love defined by Lexico by Oxford:
"1.1 A feeling of deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone.
‘they were both in love with her’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/love

Love defined in the Collins English dictionary:
"2 noun, Love is a very strong feeling of affection towards someone who you are romantically or sexually attracted to."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/love

From the 1611/1769 KJV where some modern translations insert the words "homosexuality".

"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)

From the 1828 Webster's, which will give the correct definition fitting to the times of KJV -

"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."

"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)

1828 Webster's -

"DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

From the 1828 Webster's above, the meaning of "sodomite" did not equate to the modern word "homosexual at that time, nor does it in our time. To make "homosexual" and "sodomite" synonymous verges on homophobia and apparently comes from the Homophobe's Dictionary of English because it is not found as synonymous in standard English dictionaries or thesaurus.

"Do not answer a fool as his folly deserves, or you will grow like him yourself; answer a fool as his folly deserves, or he will think himself wise." (Prov 26:4-5, REB)

LOL hey guy

The word "psychology" is Greek.

The New Testament was written in Greek. psychē, which is life or Breath logos = word, reason which Psychology is the science or study of the mind and behavior.

Matthew 6: 25

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, (psyche) G5590 what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life G5590 more than meat, and the body than raiment?

If you are going to be on a Christian Biblical study where many here are students of greek and Hebrew, you might want to know what you are talking about.

 

[CS1]

If you are going to use words of psychology, which did not exist in biblical times, use them correctly.

"Sexual orientation describes patterns of sexual, romantic, and emotional attraction—and one's sense of identity based on those attractions. Sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity, the internal sense of being male, female, or non-binary."

"Heterosexuality (attraction to members of the opposite sex), homosexuality (attraction to members of the same sex), and bisexuality (attraction to members of both sexes) are the three most commonly discussed categories of sexual orientation, although they are by no means the only ones in the world of sexual identification."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/homosexuality

What is the definition of love in the English language of today?

Love defined by Lexico by Oxford:
"1.1 A feeling of deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone.
‘they were both in love with her’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/love

Love defined in the Collins English dictionary:
"2 noun, Love is a very strong feeling of affection towards someone who you are romantically or sexually attracted to."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/love

From the 1611/1769 KJV where some modern translations insert the words "homosexuality".

"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)

From the 1828 Webster's, which will give the correct definition fitting to the times of KJV -

"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."

"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)

1828 Webster's -

"DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

From the 1828 Webster's above, the meaning of "sodomite" did not equate to the modern word "homosexual at that time, nor does it in our time. To make "homosexual" and "sodomite" synonymous verges on homophobia and apparently comes from the Homophobe's Dictionary of English because it is not found as synonymous in standard English dictionaries or thesaurus.

"Do not answer a fool as his folly deserves, or you will grow like him yourself; answer a fool as his folly deserves, or he will think himself wise." (Prov 26:4-5, REB)

FYI, the only Love that matter is the one God says in John 3:16 . Your approach to the word of God is from a humanistic position, not a biblical one.

 

[Ethan1942]

I've been reading about the NRSV Udated Edition to see what was done to the very good NRSV. The review link is:
https://baptistnews.com/article/after-30-years-the-nrsv-gets-an-update-heres-what-that-means/

The article writes the following paragraph:

"While the project’s organizers cite many reasons for tackling an update, users of the translation may be intently interested in two things: Gender usage and how difficult passages related to homosexuality are rendered."

Here is how the NRSVUE translates 1 Cor. 6:9 with the footnotes, taken from Biblegateway:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex,

Footnotes
6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain
6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain

This thread came to mind. That verse has truly been translated in so many ways, it is refreshing to see a backing off of dogmatism on it.

 

[CS1]

I've been reading about the NRSV Udated Edition to see what was done to the very good NRSV. The review link is:
https://baptistnews.com/article/after-30-years-the-nrsv-gets-an-update-heres-what-that-means/

The article writes the following paragraph:

"While the project’s organizers cite many reasons for tackling an update, users of the translation may be intently interested in two things: Gender usage and how difficult passages related to homosexuality are rendered."

Here is how the NRSVUE translates 1 Cor. 6:9 with the footnotes, taken from Biblegateway:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex,

Footnotes
6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain
6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain

This thread came to mind. That verse has truly been translated in so many ways, it is refreshing to see a backing off of dogmatism on it.

The translation is watered down

1cor 6:7-11 provides context
7 Now, therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 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. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [d]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


The translation has the word "Sodomites," which describes a specific sin as the text lists other sins.

Strike out the word Homosexual, however, as the early writers correctly identified Homosexuality because of the word "Sodomites".

 

[Ethan1942]

The translation is watered down

Strike out the word Homosexual, however, as the early writers correctly identified Homosexuality because of the word "Sodomites".

You can prove anything under the sun when you make up your own ignorant, bigoted dictionary and thesaurus! Standard English reads:

sodomite noun One who practices sodomy; a sodomist.
noun derogatory A male homosexual.
from wikitionary

sodomite often offensive
: someone who practices sodomy —used as a term of abuse and disparagement for a gay person
from Merriam-Webster

sodomite
n 1: someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male
who engages in anal copulation with another male) [syn:
sodomite, sodomist, sod, bugger]
from Free Dictionary.org [Notice that "homosexual" is not listed as a synonym.]

sodomite
[n] someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male) .
⇔ Synonyms
[ sodomist sod bugger ]
⇑Broader
[pervert deviant deviate degenerate ]
Related derivation
[sodomize bugger sodomise ]
from the Look Way Up Translation Dictionary

The definitions above come out of www.onelook.com

From the 1984 NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the literal rendering of the words:

1 Cor. 6:9
"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites"

The Young's Literal Translation gives the translation as:
"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites," (1Cor 6:9, YLT)

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "effeminate" as:
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.

 

[Lanolin]

I've heard preachers preach on the sin of homosexuality. Some might even say homosexuals are going to Hell, gays are going to Hell, lesbians are going to Hell, etc.

When I grew up, the way 'homosexual', 'gay', etc. was used was to refer to people who did 'gay stuff'-- meaning sexual acts. So I thought.

It turns out based on the original meaning of the word and the way it is used in academia, a homosexual is someone attracted to the same sex. Now suppose you are a young person and you've never done any 'gay stuff', but you found yourself attracted to the same sex. Then you go to church, and you hear someone preach that if you have same-sex attraction, you are a sinner and you are going to Hell.

The sins that homosexuals commit that are related to homosexuality are things like actually performing same-sex sexual acts, and looking with lust. Having attraction for the same sex is a bad thing to have to deal with. But can't someone who struggles with this still be a Christian and just resist temptation?

Many of us men are attracted to beautiful women. Especially when we are/were young, a beautiful scantily clad woman might be a bit of an eye magnet for the flesh, but you can choose to avert your eyes and discipline your mind and not sin. There are ads on magazines and various other type of media. There is a difference between what we find attractive and the acts we commit. If a woman is attractive to a man, that doesn't mean he has committed fornication or adultery with her or that he has looked at her with lust.

And if a man struggles with same-sex attraction, that doesn't mean he constantly goes around sinning. At least with the Gen-Y and Gen-Z generations, and probably most of X now, and in academia, and certainly with LGBTI folks, in the US, 'gay', 'homosexual', and 'lesbian' refer to 'orientation'-- not what they do with their sex lives. Some Fundamentalists preachers who say 'Homosexuals are going to Hell' do no realize that what they are saying from the perspective of the listener is if you find yourself attracted to the same sex, even if you don't act on it, you are going to Hell. It sounds rather hopeless.

We do need to combat the ideas associated with 'orientation' that these types of inclinations or lusts are permanent problems. LBGT folks think of their sexual inclinations and propensities to be attracted as a big part of their identity. But the Bible tells Christians, to "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11.)

Christian men who are attracted to women do not introduce themselves as "I am a Christian who has the propensity to fornicate with women", and so Christian men who struggle with same-sex attraction should not say, "I am a gay Christian." We should reckon ourselves dead to sin, and alive to God, and "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof."

Some people with same-sex attraction who become Christians may have to constantly struggle against it and overcome it for years, like some men have to tame their eyes. Others may be delivered from the temptation and not worry about it. Marriage between a man and a woman is a Biblical remedy for decreasing the propensity to be tempted by sexual lust.

I think theres a double standard cos same sex couples were told they couldnt marry each other, when marrying each other would mean at least they only fornicated with each other and not heaps of other people.

but then is marriage really a solution for fornication? Many marriages breakdown because one party decides to be unfaithful later on. And this can happen between both men and women

 

[Lanolin]

you got to define attraction

lots of things are attractive and lovely to look at but it doesnt necessarily mean we want to sleep with them

 

[Lanolin]

or poke them with a stick...to be blunt

 

[presidente]

I think theres a double standard cos same sex couples were told they couldnt marry each other, when marrying each other would mean at least they only fornicated with each other and not heaps of other people.

Before the SCOTUS made the evil decision to decide that the 14th amendment protected falsely so-called 'gay marriage' all alone, there was no double standard. A man who was attracted to men could legally marry a woman just as easily as a man with normal passions could. A woman attracted to women could marry a man legally just like a woman with normal passions could. What they were doing was changing the legal definition of marriage away from what God ordained.

So are you in favor of giving drug users needles so they can shoot up without infecting others, murderers one person to murder so they don't murder heaps of others, child molesters one child to molest so they don't molest heaps of others? Why not let one-child molesting parent marry just one of their children so they don't molest them all? Does that make sense?

We shouldn't compromise with sin like that. If something is an affront to God, we shouldn't tolerate it in our churches.

but then is marriage really a solution for fornication? Many marriages breakdown because one party decides to be unfaithful later on. And this can happen between both men and women

It can happen. One needs to be very careful choosing a partner. Most singles in western countries are not marriage material, IMO. If half of marriages end in divorce, the other half don't. I have read that 41% of first marriage in the US end in divorce. Serial divorcees stats skew the statistics a little bit. That's an abysmal divorce rate, but most first marriages make it, apparently. Even if one chooses wisely, there is still a risk of getting an unfaithful partner.

As Christians, we should seek to live in a way that we do not sin against God. Two men having a ceremony and calling themselves 'married' by doing so does not make them married, and isn't it disrespectful to God to call it that since God ordained marriage between male and female? Every sexual act they commit with each other is a sin. It is neither holy nor sanctified as sex is in a real marriage.

 

[presidente]

You can prove anything under the sun when you make up your own ignorant, bigoted dictionary and thesaurus! Standard English reads:

sodomite noun One who practices sodomy; a sodomist.
noun derogatory A male homosexual.
from wikitionary

sodomite often offensive
: someone who practices sodomy —used as a term of abuse and disparagement for a gay person
from Merriam-Webster

sodomite
n 1: someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male
who engages in anal copulation with another male) [syn:
sodomite, sodomist, sod, bugger]
from Free Dictionary.org [Notice that "homosexual" is not listed as a synonym.]

sodomite
[n] someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male) .
⇔ Synonyms
[ sodomist sod bugger ]
⇑Broader
[pervert deviant deviate degenerate ]
Related derivation
[sodomize bugger sodomise ]
from the Look Way Up Translation Dictionary

The definitions above come out of www.onelook.com

From the 1984 NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the literal rendering of the words:

1 Cor. 6:9
"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites"

The Young's Literal Translation gives the translation as:
"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites," (1Cor 6:9, YLT)

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines "effeminate" as:
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.

Using an English dictionary is going to take you a bit far from the Greek meanings.
I Corinthians 6 has two relevant terms 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakos.'

The former term means 'man bedders'. A similar construction was found in Greek to mean uncle $&*^er. the 'koitai' part means 'bedders' and could have a sexual connotation... or denotation. It is very similar to the wording used in Leviticus 20 when it says a man that lies with a man as one does with a woman shall be put to death. The LXX contains the words 'arsenos koiten' in that verse.

'Malakos' means soft, and was used of effeminate men, and also of men who were effeminate in the since of lacking male virtue, in some contexts. One Greek text referred to effeminate men plucking the hair out of their thighs. Greek catamite type men offered their thighs for thigh sex. Moderns thinking of behinds and mouths I suppose, but they had another alternative. Sorry to be graphic.

Some think these refer to two participants in a same-sex sex act. I heard a movie that used the terms 'pitcher' and 'catcher', where two loud young guys were accusing two roommates of being gay, and they said they thought one was the pitcher and the other was the catcher. I'd never heared that, but I can guess what that means. The word arsenokoitai likely referred to pitchers and malakos referred to catchers. Or maybe arsenokoitai were men who had sex with men and malakos is referring to men who lack male virtue, or men who dressed in drag and pretended to be women. There were such men in their society. The Jewish philosopher Philo goes into a bit of detail about the perversions and expressed his opinion that all such perverts should be put to death.

So was my suspicion that you post-mils tend to be social and theological liberals true? Are you pro-arsonokoitai here-- pro same-sex sex, pro same sex marriage. You have a sort of liberal stance on abortion. That in itself would be an argument against post-mil, or at least be a big backward step in history. I'm sad that so many of the churches start by the Puritan/Separatists of New England that get so much attention in American history went so liberal.

 

[mustaphadrink]

One thing you need to understand is that most homosexuals do not live in faithful monogamous relationships. I have read books and watched several documentaries on TV that indicate there is always sex on the side in most relationships. One TV programme was about a middle-aged homosexual couple who lived together and every Thursday evening one of them went to a homosexual club to meet others and have sex with them. His bedmate knew all this but put up with it on the basis that he had him the other six days a week.

Fire Island in the USA is another example. It is a place where homosexuals go at the weekend to have sex with as many different men as possible.

Not to mention the incident of homosexual beats where men gather to find someone who they can have sex with. There may be one round the corner from you. They may have sex with someone at the beat one day and the next day someone else.

Generally speaking, homosexuality is about good looks. The better looking you are the more likely you will score. I belong to a book club and there is a smattering of novels about homosexuals and the covers always portray musclebound 20-somethings on the cover.

These all are examples of why homosexuals are never gay. They talk about meeting their white knight as one young homosexual told me but none of the "white knights" he met and lived with never lasted for more than six months.

 

[Ethan1942]

Concerning conservative, liberal or scholarly input to a translation, a book by the RSV translators gets directly to the point speaking on the OT, but the principle applies to the NT as well:

"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contradictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
https://ia903104.us.archive.org/13/items/introductiontore00inte/introductiontore00inte.pdf

The first RSV is the first English translation to use "homosexuals". The change to "sexual perverts" in the RSV Revised was brought about not by lobbying of homosexual groups, but by one seminary student, as published a couple years ago in the Baptist News Global. Luther Allan Weigle who headed the RSV translation team received a letter from a seminary student challenging the translation "homosexual", with the reasons. Weigle admitted it was a mistake but by contract no change could be made for 10 years. The RSV Rev. removed "homosexuals", but the conservative translations began to add it to a book where such a word or concept never existed. The first major 'evangelical translation was the NASB and one of the "Cons" of the NASB was the following:

Often stated cons of the translation: Often almost impossible to understand in English; Conservative theology affects translational decisions - https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/which-is-the-best-bible-translation/

How have malakos and arsenokoites(1 Cor 6:9) been translated down through history:

Wycliffe ................ neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men
Tyndale-Coverdale neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind
Douay-Rheims..... Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind,
KJV .................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
RV ...................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men
Young's LT ........... nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
ASV ................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men
RSV ................... nor homosexuals (first translation to combine malakos & arsenokoites into one word or phrase)
RSV Rev ............ nor sexual perverts
NASB77 ................ nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, [a - i.e. effeminate by perversion]
NKJV 1982 ............ nor [a]homosexuals, nor sodomites, [a - that is catamites]
NKJV BibleGateway.. nor homosexuals[a], nor sodomites [a - that is catamites, those submitting to homosexuals; b - sodomites]
NIV 1984 ............... nor homosexual offenders
NRSV 1989............. male prostitutes, sodomites
ESV 2016 ............... nor men who practice homosexuality, [b - The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts]
NRSVue 2021......... male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex, [both a & b - Meaning of Gk uncertain]

The history of the English translations are quite clear, the exact meaning is uncertain, and homosexual & sodomite are NOT synonyms. It is interesting that the complaints about "illicit sex" draw such criticism, but I do not recall such complaints about the boundless ideas when "sexually immoral" is substituted for "fornicators" in 1 Cor. 6:9 ESV. It is interesting in 1 Cor.6:9 "sexually immoral", the Greek pornos means a male prostitute, a catamite. The NET2.1 translator note on malakos begins "This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior." "Demeanor" is a behavior according to English dictionaries. This is a clear example of translating to match a preconceived belief. Notice that the NASB & NKJV cannot agree on what word means "homosexual". The mention of "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22 was brought up, and with that also, historically it was translated as and explained as "miscarriage" until the conservatives changed the translations! Notice, the NASB & NKJV could not even agree on what Greek to translate as "homosexuals" in their rush to twist the Scriptures to their view.

 

[Ethan1942]

I've been spending too much time working on replies and posts so I am dropping out. It will be more profitable for me to begin using the NRSVue along with the Fifth Edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible and spend some time on that. I find that so often in the so-called "liberal" study Bibles, I find more agreement with the KJV and men of old than with evangelicals and fundamentalists of today. For instance in the KJV, Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16 and Gal. 3:22, the phrase is "faith of Jesus Christ". Most modern translations changed to "faith in Jesus Christ". It was in an Oxford Annotated Study Bible that I saw it first pointed out that "faith of" is closer to the Greek. Now in the NRSVue, the translation has gone back to the KJV "faith of Jesus Christ". For me, the "faith of Jesus Christ" is the faith that the saints are to contend for as in Jude 3. It fit closely to the following as well:

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb 12:2, KJV)

 

[Magenta]

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb 12:2, KJV)

Hebrews 12:1-3

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

I've heard preachers preach on the sin of homosexuality. Some might even say homosexuals are going to Hell, gays are going to Hell, lesbians are going to Hell, etc.

"Homosexuality" isn't a SIN. However it does result in SINFUL ACTS.

Simple as that.

 

[CS1]

Concerning conservative, liberal or scholarly input to a translation, a book by the RSV translators gets directly to the point speaking on the OT, but the principle applies to the NT as well:

"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contradictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
https://ia903104.us.archive.org/13/items/introductiontore00inte/introductiontore00inte.pdf

The first RSV is the first English translation to use "homosexuals". The change to "sexual perverts" in the RSV Revised was brought about not by lobbying of homosexual groups, but by one seminary student, as published a couple years ago in the Baptist News Global. Luther Allan Weigle who headed the RSV translation team received a letter from a seminary student challenging the translation "homosexual", with the reasons. Weigle admitted it was a mistake but by contract no change could be made for 10 years. The RSV Rev. removed "homosexuals", but the conservative translations began to add it to a book where such a word or concept never existed. The first major 'evangelical translation was the NASB and one of the "Cons" of the NASB was the following:

Often stated cons of the translation: Often almost impossible to understand in English; Conservative theology affects translational decisions - https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/which-is-the-best-bible-translation/

How have malakos and arsenokoites(1 Cor 6:9) been translated down through history:

Wycliffe ................ neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men
Tyndale-Coverdale neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind
Douay-Rheims..... Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind,
KJV .................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
RV ...................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men
Young's LT ........... nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
ASV ................... nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men
RSV ................... nor homosexuals (first translation to combine malakos & arsenokoites into one word or phrase)
RSV Rev ............ nor sexual perverts
NASB77 ................ nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, [a - i.e. effeminate by perversion]
NKJV 1982 ............ nor [a]homosexuals, nor sodomites, [a - that is catamites]
NKJV BibleGateway.. nor homosexuals[a], nor sodomites [a - that is catamites, those submitting to homosexuals; b - sodomites]
NIV 1984 ............... nor homosexual offenders
NRSV 1989............. male prostitutes, sodomites
ESV 2016 ............... nor men who practice homosexuality, [b - The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts]
NRSVue 2021......... male prostitutes,[a] men who engage in illicit sex, [both a & b - Meaning of Gk uncertain]

The history of the English translations are quite clear, the exact meaning is uncertain, and homosexual & sodomite are NOT synonyms. It is interesting that the complaints about "illicit sex" draw such criticism, but I do not recall such complaints about the boundless ideas when "sexually immoral" is substituted for "fornicators" in 1 Cor. 6:9 ESV. It is interesting in 1 Cor.6:9 "sexually immoral", the Greek pornos means a male prostitute, a catamite. The NET2.1 translator note on malakos begins "This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior." "Demeanor" is a behavior according to English dictionaries. This is a clear example of translating to match a preconceived belief. Notice that the NASB & NKJV cannot agree on what word means "homosexual". The mention of "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22 was brought up, and with that also, historically it was translated as and explained as "miscarriage" until the conservatives changed the translations! Notice, the NASB & NKJV could not even agree on what Greek to translate as "homosexuals" in their rush to twist the Scriptures to their view.

The context is the same for homosexuals and sodmites in the text that was provided.

1 Cor. 6:9
"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites"

The word of God and the authorial intent concerning 1Cor 6:9 is a list of sins that those who DO them will not see the Kingdom of God.