Those would be his words in a language you don’t speak, yes?
The same way you have to rely on a host of translators
Yes, like folks stuffing in English.
So am I. He expressed his intent in Greek.
I mean no disrespect, but I do not see “confusion” on Paul’s part whatsoever. I’m not a cynic, but maybe there are those who would like to sow confusion to legitimize a view that the bible shows no confusuion about.
I see no evidence of this, certainly not in the bible. And to the extent behavior may have existed the purpose of Paul’s writings was to admonish the flock that behavior like this was reprehensible! I do not think you can the case that this was a pervasive as you infer, and certainly not biblically. Even so, the OP deals not with the existence of homosexuality; but rather it’s legitimacy within the context of a Christian lifestyle. You may find non biblical instances of same sex marriages, but in every case the church would have identified it as aberent behavior.
I don’t believe you can find a single scripture that supports the view that “sex in general” between married couples was seen negatively. OTOH, sex between unmarried people, and between married people who were not married to each other, was always condemned. I would also like the biblical cite “better to marry than to burn.” Christianity as such didn’t need a maturation period, and was fully developed by Christ! In fact, any deviation from the time that Christ practiced his ministry going forward would have represented “development” that was a degradation of Christianity, not “developments” that would have improved on the masters work. As to homosexuality, the early church was always intolerant! Certainly from a biblical POV there was never a “tolerant” period!
Once again, a cite please. Certainly usury, or the collecting excessive interest, is against biblical principles. However, I don’t believe that usury is mentioned once in the Christian/Greek scriptures, is it? If not, how could it have been “illegal throughout most of Christian history?” Best I can tell, it was last mentioned around 600 years before Christ. Further, Christ himself gave a parable that involved making investments and the earning of interest. (Luke 19)
[/QUOTE]
The language is clear. We’re not discussing Daniel’s prophesy or John’s Revelation. The bible uses clear umambiguous language that identifies homosexuality as aberrant behavior. As such, it wouldn’t have been “legitiimized” by the presence of sincerity, or even love, by the parties. And the notion that love and sincerity may be present and still be in a relationship that is unacceptable would have been a worldview known by bible writers. (Genesis 34, 2 Samuel 11)
This is true. It is hard to attach meaning to words. It is particularly difficult when discussing complex doctrinal issues. All the same, the OP deals with an issue and a set of scripitures that are unambiguous and consistent. One must make a careful examination in an effort to not come to purely arbitrary or self serving views. In the end, we will be held accountable for our choices. (Heb 4:13)
1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
You don’t know your early church history very well, do you? The basic dogma and doctrine of Christianity wasn’t settled until, at the earliest, the Council of Rome in 382, when the Biblical canon (Catholic version) was finally set. The almost 400 years before that consisted of centuries of pitched philosophical battles between competing schools of theology.
It’s because I don’t speak Greek that I use translators. I use a “host” of them to gain the most accurate understanding possible. I also use multiple transators to better understand the different approaches used. It identifies inconsistencies and when numerous translators are extremely consitent it tends to build a sense of credbility in my feeble mind. I don’t google, and I don’t engage in threads where I’m patently ignorant and use google to impress. The cites were from material that I own and use. I also have the Biblia Hebraica (Rud,Kittel) and the NT in original Greek (Westcott & Hort) That is not to posture, but to simply let you know my interest and limitations.
A concern to any sincere student. Still, if “English Stuffing” happened with this particular text it happened among all translators, and even among those who compiled the Interlinear bibles. Not only would have thay all would have engaged in it (They are, after all, in almost total harmony) they would have had to act in concert; a conspiracy. One translation may be suspect. but if a dozen are in harmony, unrelated to each other, I tend to give credence to the accounts as written.
Do you believe that it is impossible to translate languages? I am struggling with this aspect to your answer. It’s been noted that nuances may be hard to accurately transcribe. But certainly the fundamental meaning can be captured. For someone to use these passages to support homosexuality involves not just adjusting minor nuances, but throwing out the text wholesale. I’m hard pressed coming to terms with the inference that it is impossible to capture another’s intent/meaning simply because it originates from another language. If we can’t believe that clear unambiguous language, supported by many translators, what part of the bible (considering none of it was written in English) can we believe?
I believe translation is possible. I also believe a translator can easily find the interpretation which most favors their preconceived ideas. Generally a Christian translating Paul’s Greek is working from the teaching that homosexuality is sinful. They look for no other interpretation. Naturally the translations agree, the translators went in with the same preconceived ideas.
But when Diogenes gives a translation, based not on doctrine but on comparisons to other Greek sources, he’s ‘twisting the words’ or ‘forcing his own interpretation’ or ‘putting word’s in Paul’s mouth’.
[quote]
1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[quote]
Here’s the text you cited, in context and in the complete thoughts as expressed by Paul: 1 Cor 7:1-9
*"7 Now concerning the things about which YOU wrote, it is well for a man not to touch a woman; 2 yet, because of prevalence of fornication, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to [his] wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to [her] husband. 4 The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not be depriving each other [of it], except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that YOU may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting YOU for YOUR lack of self-regulation. 6 However, I say this by way of concession, not in the way of a command. 7 But I wish all men were as I myself am. Nevertheless, each one has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that way.
8 Now I say to the unmarried persons and the widows, it is well for them that they remain even as I am. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed [with passion]."*
The poster who cited this alleged that sex was generally considered negatively. There’s nothing in this text that paints sex in a negative light. In fact, Paul admonishes that married persons show considerations for each other’s sexual needs and that a marriage mate should be giving her/his “due”. Restraint should be used for times when it is apprpriate for prayers and spiritual concerns. This account, rather than being a comdemnation of sex, as was inferred, was an prescrition for a healthy sex life between married couples! this is a far cry from the the assertion that responded to, and I’ll quote: “sex in general was considered negative.”
Paul believed that if person could remain single to fully accomplish their ministry it would be better for him/her. that certainly doesn’t mean that he considered sex negatively. in fact he acknowleged that not everyone was able to do that, and in thoise people it was better to marry than to be “inflamed with passion.” (Most translations use langauge similar) His first recommendation was singleness, but he certainly was a proponent of healthy marriages and healthy sex lives. Nothing in your cite supports the notion that sex was seen in a negative light.
Pretty good I think. You correctly note that it was the beginning of the Catholic dogma/doctrine. If you are referring tio the council of Nicea, the fact is that the people who presided were not Christians, and much of their motivation was political. My point stands. The person who is in the best position to articulate the tenets of Christianity is Christ, not Constantine. Further, while there certainly has been developments, they are degradations to Christainity, not improvements.
Back to the OP, the definitive answer on the biblical view of homosexuality must be the bible, not Constantine.
Here’s the text you cited, in context and in the complete thoughts as expressed by Paul: 1 Cor 7:1-9
*"7 Now concerning the things about which YOU wrote, it is well for a man not to touch a woman; 2 yet, because of prevalence of fornication, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to [his] wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to [her] husband. 4 The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not be depriving each other [of it], except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that YOU may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting YOU for YOUR lack of self-regulation. 6 However, I say this by way of concession, not in the way of a command. 7 But I wish all men were as I myself am. Nevertheless, each one has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that way.
8 Now I say to the unmarried persons and the widows, it is well for them that they remain even as I am. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be inflamed [with passion]."*
The poster who cited this alleged that sex was generally considered negatively. There’s nothing in this text that paints sex in a negative light. In fact, Paul admonishes that married persons show considerations for each other’s sexual needs and that a marriage mate should be giving her/his “due”. Restraint should be used for times when it is apprpriate for prayers and spiritual concerns. This account, rather than being a comdemnation of sex, as was inferred, was an prescrition for a healthy sex life between married couples! this is a far cry from the the assertion that responded to, and I’ll quote: “sex in general was considered negative.”
Paul believed that if person could remain single to fully accomplish their ministry it would be better for him/her. that certainly doesn’t mean that he considered sex negatively. in fact he acknowleged that not everyone was able to do that, and in thoise people it was better to marry than to be “inflamed with passion.” (Most translations use langauge similar) His first recommendation was singleness, but he certainly was a proponent of healthy marriages and healthy sex lives. Nothing in your cite supports the notion that sex was seen in a negative light.
Pretty good I think. You correctly note that it was the beginning of the Catholic dogma/doctrine. If you are referring tio the council of Nicea, the fact is that the people who presided were not Christians, and much of their motivation was political. My point stands. The person who is in the best position to articulate the tenets of Christianity is Christ, not Constantine. Further, while there certainly has been developments, they are degradations to Christainity, not improvements.
Back to the OP, the definitive answer on the biblical view of homosexuality must be the bible, not Constantine.
This would be very hard to believe in general terms. But in this case we have translators who don’t simply agree conceptually and then reflect that hostility towards homosexuality in their translations. We have different translators who are writing things like interlinear bibles and who are experts in the source languages. The troubling aspect is that they are in agreement almost word for word, not just conceptually. Short of a conspiracy, I don’t see how that’s possible.
Doctrine flows from the text or source, right? I’ve not offered you my opinion, or beliefs on the matter. Simply how numerous translators have rendered the source langauge into English. Nor have I accused Diogenes of any of those things. While I disagree with him more often than I agree with him, I have great respect for his energy and intellect.
In the end, my point is that (From the OP) homosexuality and Christianity are at diametrical odds with each other.
rather than try to address everything you’ve said line by line I’ll just make a few general points.
You assertion that the Bible is “unambiguous” in its condemnation of homosexuality is flat out false. It’s not clear at all, for reasons I’ve aleady stated. I’ve posted in detail about arsenolkotai and provided links. All other verses which are cited to condemn homosexuality are just as subject to vigorous dissection and debate. It seems almost comically illogical for you to deny the uncertainty of those verses while in the midst of a debate about it. Your not a Methodist are you?
Your nice little array of English translations does not really address the arsenokoitai debate. It cites a passage about people turning from their spouses to same-sex affairs. It may seem clear in meaning to you, but what it means to you is not the point of the thread. The OP asked how pro-gay Christians reconcile seemingly anti-gay Bible verses with acceptance of same-sex relationships. The question is about what they think and how they interpret the Bible, not whether they’re objectively right or wrong. How concservatives interpret these passages is irrelevant to the conversation. They weren’t asked for their interpretation.
As it happens, liberal Christians have addressed the Romans quotation in a number of different ways, not the least of which is simply to dismiss it as culturally biased personal opinion of Paul’s, not a product of divine inspiration. It may strike you as offensive for other Christians to reject absolute inerrancy in the Bible or to cherry pick scripture for that which resonates with their own spiritual intuition, it may even strike you as heretical, but what is that to them. You read the Bible your way and they’ll read it their way. The OP inquired only as how to they read it, though.
Finally, I fail to see how I have distorted the Greek translations in any way. Yes, there was “English stuffing” in translation of a single word, malakoi. Don’t take my word for it. Look up the word up in an online Greek Lexicon. Hell, take a course. The word was “stuffed” because it was ambiguous, it required an interpretive translation. Such is the nature of translation. You can’t always convey a word for word translation (in Greek to English it’s almost impossible) and sometimes an idiom or word which conveys a range of meaning in one language will not convey that range in another. “The soft” had a moral connotation in Greek that it does not have in English. That range did not include effeminacy or homosexuals or “men who give themselves up to other men” (or whatever that particular monstrosity consisted of).
I’m not particularly interested in trying to persuade you to one view or the other but I must tell you that when it comes to simply translating Greek, I’m right and you’re wrong. Don’t take my word for it. Learn some Greek.
I do have one more question, though. I’d still like to know why a loving God cannot accept homosexuality. Can you explain that to me please?
Only by taken out of the larger context and text, and without not just the 9+ verses that this was taken from, but from the totality of Paul’s writings on love, marriage, sex, relationships and family affairs.
Paul wrote that:
It was best for a person to remain single in order fully accomplish one’s ministry without distraction. (Read 1 Cor 7:32-38)
He was also concerned about the possibilty of engaging in sex without the benefit of marriage and cautioned about the risk of “fornication.” (Cited in the next verse that you clipped)
He was a realist and knew that not everyone had the constitution to make the sacrifice of celibacy in order to pursue a spiritual life. And so, he recommended marriage rather being ‘inflamed with passion’ and the risks of being single when there was a strong desire for marriage/sex. (Once again, cited)
Within that reasonable context he advocated a healthy sex life with open communicions between husband and wife and sensitivity towards each other’s sexual needs and appetites.
Paul remained single but harbored no resentment towrds thise who chose to marry, and had a healthy positive view of sex. (Within the confines of marriage)
I’m going to call it a night. I do want to clarify this though. I don’t remember saying anything like this in this thread, or anything close to it. (I won’t take the time to check) I think those were DocCathode’s words, ascribed to me: (I think…) “But when Diogenes gives a translation, based not on doctrine but on comparisons to other Greek sources, he’s ‘twisting the words’ or ‘forcing his own interpretation’ or ‘putting word’s in Paul’s mouth’.”
My response was: “Nor have I accused Diogenes of any of those things.”
An interesting question. Maybe we’ll continue the discussion tomorrow. take care.
I’m not a Methodist, although that’s not relevent as I’ve not opined on matters of doctrine. I took the time to search the links and one of them is a personal web page of a (albeit sincere and obviously intelligent) guy who is apparently gay. Likewise, the other cite is a non-scholar site with an obvious bias in favor of an accepting biblical view of homosexuality.
I am not a fan of Google. For all it’s utility, it has bred a generation of “Armchair Google Geniuses.” Often, in the heat of the discussion, google cites are thrown up here and elsewhere. Give me 15 minutes and I’ll find google cites that confirm Christ can be found in lawn gnomes. On this MB, there are a couple posters (not you) who I’ve noticed are absolute experts on virtually every topic and are extremely prolific in their use of Google. On a few occasions I’ve seen them run up against someone who was clearly in command of the subject at hand. In every instance they beat a hasty retreat. I’ve learned that Google often masks a lack of knowledge. Lastly, isn’t one of the first things we learned about the internet is that there is much dubious information? Virtually anyone who can make a web page can appear to be an expert. In this case you’ve cited people who IMO have at least the potential of a clear bias. I have no quarrel with that. But that bias is a good thing to know when ascribing credulity to their positions. In contrast, any given scholar can have a bias that is hostile to homosexuality. Still, every translation I have, including the Interlinear bibles, is clear on the topic of the biblical view of homosexuality. (Please note that I am not (read:not) casting aspersions on you, but rather I am more than cautious in accepting a google cite as authoritative)
Words are tricky things. But I read, (and re-read…) the OP and I don’t see the OP asking for views from only pro-gay Christians. The word he/she used was “someone” and it seems to me, IMHO, that the OP was interested in the dichotomy of homosexuality in the context of a Christian lifestyle, not how pro-gay Christians practice their faith guilt free. I don’t think the OP excluded any POV. Am I missing something?
My “array” of English translations were to point out the various ways Romans 1:26, 27 were rendered. To answer your question on the word, arsenokoitai
(From 1 Cor 6:9,10) the two literal interlinear translations that I own render the word “liers with males”, and “homosexuals.” Further the word malakoi is rendered “soft men.” I used Romans randomly, and I’ve not seen any disputes as to it’s accuracy. I didn’t include the other texts for brevity and the simple fact that I don’t type. Regarding the text at 1Cor 6, these scholars have rendered the words “liers with males” and “homosexuals.” Are we at the point where we say, “My scholar can beat up your scholar?”
So you understand my bias, I am not a gay basher and feel it is entirely unChristian to attack homosexuals. I prefer to let the bible, and any given writer, speak for themselves. I use mutilple translators to ferret out biases, and just because I find it interesting.
IMO, in the end we must look at the translations, and to several if there is doubt. It is worth noting the credentials of those translators, and any discernable bias thay may have. In addition, it is important to note the context, and weight of the texts, as well as the continuity throughout the bible. In the bible homosexuality is condemned within the context of the Mosaic Law. This condemnation is re-affirmed in the NT, by Paul in strong terms. The overwhelimg amount of translators render the words in extremely similiar ways. Ways that are consistent with the overall context.
So, there is considerable obstacles to overcome if one were to seek to “legitimize” homosexuality from a biblical POV. We’re not just talking about nuances or a single rendereing of a word. We’re talking about numerous references, and themes. I just don’t think that the weight of the evidence supports the claim.
I am not offended in any way. I am aware that some people who identify themselves as Christians reject Paul’s writings. I have a dear friend who thinks he’s a woman hater and refuses to consider his writings.
I think the issue of faith is one that is deeply personal. I also think it is entirely unChristian to sit in judgement of another, or another’s practice of their faith. It is inappropriate, IMO, for one Christian to “attack” another on doctrine. I do think however, that if one professes to be Christian it is incumbent to take the time to read the bible. (regularly!) Often (quite often) throw around scrpitures without a clue about what they’re saying. Even in this thread the comment, the comment about sex being seen in a negative way was not thought out (IMO) and in the full context of the verses around it simply wasn’t true. Quite the contrary! Paul advocated a healthy sex life with excellent communications and empathy. I appreciate that you haven’t done that and do in fact take the time to research the topic at hand. (Whether we agree or not)
I didn’t say you did.
Noted above…I did look up the word and noted it. I own a lexicon as part of the interlinear bibles I have. I didn’t cite it earlier because I chose to render the text in Romans instead of 1Cor. It is rendered “soft men”, although that doesn’t detract from either the overall meaning or nuance. The overall rejection of homosexuality as part of Christian tenets is still well established IMO.
Well…I think you are interested to persaude me…I mean that in good cheer. I will not be learning Greek any time soon. (Unless I fall in love with a Greek woman…) Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude me from utilizing (numerous) credible translators when it is appropriate.
An excellent tpoic of discussion for later perhaps.
For God’s sake, Raindog, Google isn’t my source, my knowledge of Greek is my source, a knowledge which you don’t have and you persist in posting incorrect translations. malakoi is an adjective meaning “soft,” period. When it’s pluralized as in the passage in question it means “the soft” with an inferrence that it is referring to people (like the “good, the bad and the ugly”). There is no “men” contained in the word, and the word did not carry a connotation of effeminacy or homosexuality.
I’ve explained arsenokoitai to a fare-thee-well already. I can’t teach you Greek in a ,message board post. Suffice it to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about and I do so it’s irrational for you to argue about it. You haven’t done anything to rebut me except dig up more incorrect translations. All I can do is keep telling you those translations are wrong. I’ve explained why in detail. I’ve posted links, not because they were my source (they weren’t) but because it was all I could find online which discussed the issue.
You don’t have to take my word for any of this. Learn Greek. Study how koites is used in compounds, and research how arsenokoites is contextualized subsequent to Paul.
The Bible is NOT clear about homosexuality and saying over and over that it is does not make it so. (I asked you if you were a Methodist as a joking allusion to a recent vote in which Methodists decided by a bare majority that no argument was possible about the morality of homosexuality to Christians). Arguing about the language is one thing, but at least be prepared to offer some real knowledge of the issue. Don’t just keep posting bad translations as if that proves anything about the Greek…
Any scholar who would render ‘arsenokoitai’ as ‘homosexual’ isn’t worthy of the name. ‘Homosexual’ is a modern word, expressing a modern concept. It was coined just a few decades ago, and the very concept of sexual orientation is scarcely older. Paul could no more have meant to be talking about homosexuality than he could have meant to be talking about calculus.
I consider myself vaguely Christian in the sense that my worldview often remains rooted in Biblical and Catholic (not quite the same thing ) concepts. How do I justify it? Well, mostly I justify it by coming to the conclusion that Paul quite often had his head up his rear anatomy. Was he a great man? An inspirational man? Almost certainly. Was he still a man with no claims on the divinely revealed truth of his words? So far as I’m aware. We’ve had a lot of great men throughout history that were dead wrong on certain things (Newton and alchemy, anyone?) either because of prejudice, circumstances, or a host of other factors. Why should I buy into Paul without justification?
The Bible itself was put together according to the whims of various Councils, and what was included was often quite arbitrary. My personal opinion and the way I justify things goes as follows:
Everything not Gospel is up for refutation, since they make no claims towards being the word of Christ.
Everything in the Gospel is up for interpretation, since Lord knows we’ve got enough other Gospels floating around claiming to be the word of Christ.
No- actually it’s celibacy-positive. A major notion on Jewish thought is that Gen 1 & 2 almost mandate marriage & family, thus someone who did not marry & procreate was sinning (“Be fruitful and multiply”, “It is not good for man to be alone…”). What Paul was doing was affirming that one could be single & celibate & still be in good standing with God. It is good for a man & woman to unite sexually in marriage but it is also good for a man not to touch a woman. There is an Orthodox Jewish practice of shunning the touch of any opposite sex person until marriage- that’s not anti-sex but pro-virginity till marriage tho I as a hugger do think it’s a rather extreme stance
It is (was) not my intent to attack you. I’ve noted that you have some knowedge of Greek. I don’t mean to disrespect you, and as I’ve noted I appreciate your energy. But my Google reference was due to these words from you:
*"I wouldn’t call myself an expert or anything but I have a couple of years of college Greek under my belt as well as independent pursual of Koine (my college Greek was Attic but it’s pretty close to Koine).
Here are a couple of links I found discussing malakoi and arsenokoitai…"*
Continuing below…
Is it necessary for me to learn Greek to come to an accurate knowlege of what the bible has to say on this topic? Are not credible translations available to me? And, is it not appropriate that a serious student would examine numerous translations to ferret out biases and inconsistencies? Have I not done that? In fact I have 3 more versions here (Douay, Moffat, Phillips) that I didn’t cite that were amazingly similiar to the dozen or so renderings of Romans 1:26, 27 that I posted. (Which incidentally you didn’t address, prefering to focus on 1 Cor 6:9,10)
It is possible that a translation is wrong. Maybe a few are. Maybe there are some biases. I particularly like the interlinear bibles because they render the text word for word, without regard to utility or readability. Yet you would have me believe that they are all wrong. Not just wrong philosophically. Wrong word for literal word.
And I should accept that all of these experts, scholars; are wrong on the word of a guy who is admitedly not an expert and has a couple years of college Greek? I don’t mean to disrespect you, but I’m not sure you could teach me Greek if I was inclined to take your advice and learn the language.
You have explained in detail and offered me Google links and your own knowedge of Greek. You are admitedly not an expert or a scholar on the subject. I’m also not sure that 2 years of college Greek would even make you fluent. (Depending how often you speak it now, and how long ago you were in college) I am a student. I’m a student of the bible and expect to have the status of student for the rest of my life. (albeit a serious student…)Whatever “knowedge” I have to offer is in this context. I am open to be re-educated by you or others if my understanding is wrong. But, you will need to offer me, as well, something more substantive in the way of knowledge to disabuse me of my errent “knowledge.”
And while you feel the bible is not clear on the matter of homosexuality, I haven’t heard anything from you that compels me to believe that the Bible, Paul or the dozen or more scholars and experts that I have read are wrong about the matter.
) concepts. How do I justify it? Well, mostly I justify it by coming to the conclusion that Paul quite often had his head up his rear anatomy. Was he a great man? An inspirational man? Almost certainly. Was he still a man with no claims on the divinely revealed truth of his words? So far as I’m aware. We’ve had a lot of great men throughout history that were dead wrong on certain things (Newton and alchemy, anyone?) either because of prejudice, circumstances, or a host of other factors. Why should I buy into Paul without justification?