Should you say, 'Homosexuality is a Sin.'

[Ethan1942]

The Greek malakos and arsenokoites as found in 1 Cor. 6:9 in the following translations:

KJV/1611 "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
RV/1885 "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men"
ASV/1901 "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men"

Using the 1828 Webster's to see what "effeminate" and "abusers" meant earlier in translation:

effeminate - 1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
abusers - One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.
ravisher - 1. One that takes by violence.

YLT/ 1887 "nor effeminate, nor sodomites"

From the literal translation in the NIV Greek-English Interlinear NT by Zondervan, 1976 -
"nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites"

The NJB/1985 "the self-indulgent, sodomites"

Search the dictionaries and a thesaurus and see if you can find "homosexual" and "sodomite" as synonyms and you find they are not! Only a homophobic person will try to equate sodomite with homosexual. In fact, to "sodomize" shows it clearly -

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language -
"To subject to an act of sodomy, especially forcibly."

YourDictionary.com
"To engage in sodomy with; specif., to forcibly subject to sodomy"

Where the KJV renders arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Cor. 6:9; in 1 Tim. 1:10 it renders arsenokoites as "them that defile themselves with mankind". Again going to the old 1828 Webster's to match closer to the English of centuries past we find:

defile - 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34. [This is about rape in Gen. 34]

It is quite clear what the body of Christ understood in 1 Cor. 6:9 and it is clear their understanding does not match the meaning of "homosexual". That is a modern perversion of the text!

If you are going to make the genders involved being the same gender and call it "practice of homosexuality", by like logic "adultery" should be "practice of heterosexuality". That is unless you wish to embrace the modern idea of "gay marriage".

Yes, I was ending my participation, but felt one last attempt at sanity on the translations and meanings was important.

 

[presidente]

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.

It may be the conservatives want a linguistic translation of the Bible, and don't want liberal as injected-- like putting in gender-neutral language to pander to certain liberal social concerns when the Greek uses the masculine.

A lot of this is marketing, too. Conservatives represent a market segment. Bible translations make money. There are also translation choices that would be colored by one views the overall message of scripture. Theological persuasion __does__ play a role since there are multiple ways of interpreting the same passage.

Conservatives also may be concerned that Bible translations could be 'contaminated' by the unbelief of liberals who translate it, or the translation decisions of sexual perverts on committees that translate certain passages.

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 problem here is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between English and Koine Greek words for these words. 'Homosexual' is not totally wrong, either. My OP is about the fact that in the social sciences, 'homosexual' has more to do with inclination, 'orientation' and the like than with action. That is the case for the younger generations that have been influenced (or brainwashed) by LGBT propaganda.

But there still are plenty of people that use 'homosexual' to mean 'a man who has sex with a man' and adjectives to describe related concepts. And Bible translators are in the Humanities not the social sciences. Especially decades ago, the LGBT propaganda hadn't had the influence it has now. It wasn't even called LGBT.

If you want to go by a linguistics... and lexicographer's standard, then 'homosexual' was probably not a bad translation pre-1980, since most Americans probably thought of 'homosexual' as someone who had sex with the same sex. From that perspective, 'gay' might have been even better in the 1980's, since it focused particularly on male activity.

The history of the English translations are quite clear, the exact meaning is uncertain, and homosexual & sodomite are NOT synonyms.

Not exactly, but I took a law course in high school, and 'sodomy' referred to certain sexual acts that even married couples (male and female) could commit. I do not recall if that was common law or state law. 'Sodomy' is a bit fuzzy term, also. And some of the acts arsenokoitai did might not exactly qualify as sodomy, either, under some laws. Thigh sex? Is that sodomy? That was apparently a form of 'gay sex' in the Grecco-Roman world.

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.

I don't know if I have posted my concerns about this on here, but I have addressed it elsewhere at other times in my life. I came across the idea that a spouse who defrauds the other sexually is committing 'sexual immorality' and an argument that this is grounds for divorce according to Matthew 19. the problem with that is though it migh tbe sexual immorality, it is not porneia, which is that the passage mentions.

The plus side of not using 'fornication' is comprehensibility--that it is such an obscure word, the only place most people would encounter it is in older translations of the Bible. A couple of hundred years ago, 'prostitution' might have been a good word to use, but now that word implies an exchange of money, which it did not in the 1800s.

A terrible translation I came across was an older version of the NASB, which translated porneia as 'immorality' in some places-- a truly terrible lack of information there in the choice of word. Maybe the translator put Victorian sensibilities above the need to communicate the word of God.

Another issue is copyrightability. These translations make money. A rule of thumb is 5 words or set collocations in a row that are the same as another work is plagiarism. If a translation is identical to another translation, it cannot be copyrighted. So when the good translations are used up, they resort to poor grammar and substandard translations. An advantage of having a King sponsor a translation is that the new translation can plagiarize the older ones without people batting an eye, like the KJV did with the Geneva in places.

Continued next message.

 

[presidente]

@Ethan1942

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.

I think you are too critical hear. Paul might actually use 'pornos' more broadly for fornicators. But it does have a history of the 'catcher' in the same-sex relationship, the one in the passive, or somewhat female-imitating role. But if such a person were not hired, might not Paul have used 'malakos' just for that reason?

I did a word study on malakos looking it up in the broader body of Greek literature (in translation; I have just really been studying Classical Greek formally for the past few weeks). Some of it does seem to be 'gay', or kind of effeminate in a broader term. I remember reading the opinion that it was malakos for men to pluck the hair in their thighs. It could be the grooming was considered unmanly, or it could be that was preparation for same-sex sex act. It could be the word is being used to refer to men with a lack of 'male virtue.' There are aspects of Grecco-Roman virtue-ethics that are not really desirable for Christians, IMO, so I do not think Paul is invoking all those ideas. It could be that he is referring to a broad category of participants in same sex sex acts, cross dressers, etc., the kind of folks that Jewish near contemporary Philo thought should be put to death.

The word 'arsenokoitai' is a bit clearer, IMO. According to I Timoth 1, it is against the Torah. The word is a 'productive' grammatical construction. There is an 'uncle-koite' type word that was used in Greek that means a... pardon my French.. uncle screwer-- man who had sex with his uncle. There are other crude phrases. The word Paul uses refers to men who had sex with men, just applying the understood uses of the morphemes. If I recall correctly, there is a picture of two males engaging in an activity that involved the mouth of one and the male part on another on Greek pottery that had the word 'arsenokoite' on it. And 'arsenos koiten' shows up in Leviticus 20 where Moses related the words of God that one who lies with a man as one does with a woman shall be put to death.

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.

Your accusations are not rationale based on the evidence you have presented. It is pretty obvious that, especially a few generations back, 'Homosexual' also referred to the sex acts. From that perspective, it is a good translation. However, social science, and current trends in the understanding of the word based on both social science and LGBT propaganda have led to probably a majority understanding 'homosexual' to have to do with the concept of 'orientation' or something along those lines.

 

[presidente]

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)

Your message was rather confused, IMO, treating dictionary definitions as way too authoritative. You also seem to have bought into LGBT propaganda that there is such a thing as 'homophobia.' I read in a psychological journal that there was not, as far as the author knew, a real phobia that corresponded to the term 'homophobia.' It's politically and socially charged rhetoric. That's all the term is, like Orwellian Newspeak.

Here is an Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'homosexual.'
a. Characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to, or sexual activity with, people of the same sex; involving or relating to same-sex desire or sexual activity. Both as an adjective and a noun, homosexual was for much of the first half of the 20th cent.

from https://www.google.com/search?q=def...UCJIBBTAuNS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

When I was getting my Bachelors in Linguistics, I took one course from an English lexicographer. They way they are supposed to get definitions is to try to capture what words mean in the mind of the speakers. The Oxford dictionary does seem to try to do that. I have seen some rather selective definitions when it comes to this topic, but Oxford's is professional.

My OP was written because so many young people and now not so-young-people have been indoctrinated with a social sciences/LGBT definition of 'homosexual.' But it is not fair to judge the translators of Bible translations from the 1980's based on a trend that happened later.

 

[presidente]

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.

It says inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[CS1]

It says inherit the kingdom of God.

if you don't Inherit it you will not see it

 

[presidente]

if you don't Inherit it you will not see it

Where is that written?

 

[CS1]

Where is that written?

 

[TMS]

1Co 6:9 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, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

It is a miracle from God that changes our heart. Any sin that is overcome is a miracle from heaven.

Homosexuality can be overcome by the power of God in you.

 

[CherieR]

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 believe a Christian can struggle with homosexual feelings and urges and still be saved . I believe Jesus blood covers all our sins.

 

[TMS]

I believe a Christian can struggle with homosexual feelings and urges and still be saved . I believe Jesus blood covers all our sins.

It isn't a sin to be tempted, but to give in to the temptation is wrong.
We all struggle with different temptations, and if you let Jesus have full control and crucify the flesh, you can have victory.
Glory to God, we can overcome, by the power of God.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: ......9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[CherieR]

It isn't a sin to be tempted, but to give in to the temptation is wrong.
We all struggle with different temptations, and if you let Jesus have full control and crucify the flesh, you can have victory.
Glory to God, we can overcome, by the power of God.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: ......9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It's not my particular temptation. I struggle in different ways.