What parts of the Bible ban homosexuality?

It is true that Jesus made no such prohibitions. But* Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.”*

and I Corinthians 6:9-10 *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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." *

Are both pretty clear.

Now, if what you are trying to say is that there are no prohibitions about being a Homosexual as opposed to participating in homosexual acts, then that is technically correct. But pointless, a distinction without a difference.

Here we go again. If you ever learn Greek, you’ll learn that lots of stuff in the various English translations is pretty far from “clear.”

The words translated in the Romans passage as “natural,” and “against nature” are better translated as “characteristic” and “uncharacteristic,” but even so, it does not contain a prohibition on homosexual sex, it says that God made them gay as a punishment for worshipping idols. I repeat, it says that God made them gay. It can’t be a sin if God made them do it.

The Corinthians quotation is mistanslated. Pure and simple. The words incorrectly translated as “effiminate,” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” are malakai (“soft ones,” from the adjective malakos, which means “soft,” and which figuratively has a meaning of “undisciplined” or “morally weak,” but which has no known connotation of effeminacy) and aresenokoitai, the exact definition of which is unknown (it does not appear in Greek literature before Paul’s usage), but which, for a variety of reasons which I’ve explained many times on this board, cannot mean “homosexual.” It’s probably a reference to pederastic prostitution.

Well, you could interpret the ban on “drunkards” to mean that nobody who doesn’t totally abstain from alcohol shall inherit the kingdom of God, too. In fact, IIRC that’s how some teetotaling sects do interpret it.

But since most of us have a cultural presupposition that there’s a bright line somewhere between the categories of “responsible drinker” and “drunkard”, we don’t interpret it that way.

Similarly, as Dio notes, how you interpret “effeminate” or “abusers of themselves with mankind” depends on what your cultural presuppositions are. Our culture tends to classify all people who engage in same-sex sex acts in one category, so we assume that the NT prohibitions ban all those people.

But that’s a bit like the teetotallers lumping all non-abstainers in with “drunkards” and inferring that all alcohol consumption is forbidden. We’d need to know what the perceived categories actually were in the society and time where the text was written in order to have a clear idea of how to interpret it.

I do know Greek, and I know that your ideas about the text are merely incorrect.

Repetition does not establish truth, unfortunately for your position, but I have never noticed that you realized this.

Regards,
Shodan

I was set free by Jesus, but only because he wanted to hunt me down for sport. And Grace and I were just beginning to enjoy ourselves when he caught me.

I don’t see you refuting his points about the translation here.

Since when?

Please show me any and all attestations for arsenokoites mening “homoexual.” Please show me any and all attestations for malakos meaning “effeminate.”

I have, in the past, addressed every single known attestation for arsenokoites and none of them can be said to mean “homosexual.” In fact, there is one attestation where the word is used to refer to sex between men and their wives. Let’s see your case. Make your argument, using classical sources, for arsenokoites meaning “homosexual.”

He didn’t make any points; he just repeated earlier, incorrect assertions. He simply isn’t a very good scholar of Greek.

If you want to take this kind of nonsense at face value because it reinforces your prejudices, fine, but that is hardly a very scholarly approach to a subject.

Regards,
Shodan

I still don’t see you refuting his points about the translation here.

If you could, you would. Or so I believe. So I don’t believe you can.

I take this kind of “nonsense” at face value because you have provided nothing but ad hominems to support your opposition to it and I’d have to be some kind of moron to give that any credit.

He doesn’t know Greek. At least, I don’t remember him ever making that claim before.

Cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite.

As if you were going to read any of them. :shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

Some of these cites (such as the 3rd one) seem to contradict your position in this thread.

These are not attestations, Mr. scholar, these are links to what appear to be tendentious lexicons and concordances (the latter of which are meaningless as cites since all they do is tell you how a given word is rendered in given translation).

When people who study ancient languages ask for “attestations,” they are not asking for links to proposed definitions, they are asking for examples in the actual language and from the actual era. When I asked you for attestations of aresenokoites meaning “homosexual,” I was asking you to show me examples in Koine or any other Classical dialect of Greek in which that word was used unambiguously to mean “homosexual.” It isn’t there. Christians interpret the word that way because theywant to, not because there is any solid evidentiary basis for it.

By the way your second link totally agrees with me about arsenokoites.

Because I’ve already gone through this song and dance multiple times in he past, I’m cutting and pasting this from a post I made in a past thread about this subject. It’s a decent summary.

Literally, arsenos means “male” and koites means “bed.” Put together thet word literally means “male-bedder.” While the compound arsenokoites is not found in any Greek literature before Paul (and he may have coined the word himself), the suffix koites is fairly common and is attached derisively to prefixes meaning things like “whore,” “mother,” “horse” and the like. The general tone and use of the koites in compounds was fairly analogous to “f*cker.” When used in those compounds it always referred to the penetrative partner in a sexual act, never the passive.

Outside of Paul, arsenokoites is found mainly on vice lists which give little context. There are 42 known lists which follow one of two formulations: The most common is Pornoi, moixoi, malakoi, arsenokoitai, kleptai, pleonektai, methusoi, loidoroi. “Prostitutes, adulterers, the (morally) soft, arsenokoitai, thieves, greedy ones, drunkards, (verbal) abusers/profaners.” Less commonly arsenokoitai is followed by andrapodistais kai epiorkrois, “slave traders and perjurers.”

These lists aren’t especially helpful but there are a few instances in greek literature where a more specific context is given. Unfortunately, those contexts are not exactly consistent.

Twice in Greek literature, arsenokoites is used to indicate homosexual rape. Once in Aristede’s Apology where it refers to the rape of Ganymede by Zeus and once in Hippolytus’ Refutatio, where it refers to the rape of Adam by an evil angel named Naas.

There are also two instances where it refers to heterosexual sex…once where it’s used to refer to male prostitutes who service women, and once for men who are accused of practicing the act with their wives.

Speculation varies, the late Yale historian John Boswell thought that it may have indicated exploitive acts…either rape, or sexually mercenary acts. Many believe it referred to male prostitutes, or to the practice of pederasty (which involved teenage male prostitutes). Some of course, will argue that it means “homosexual.” For a number of reasons, it is unlikely that it meant “homosexual” in a modern sense but it is not a question that can be definitively settled from the available evidence other than to say that no proposed definition is certain.

I don’t have to know any foriegn language to depend upon the translations of other experts. Since the Bible has been translated over and over and over, the fact that you and a tiny minority disagree with the vast majority of the true experts in the language means nothing. You may have some passing ability with the language, but I doubt if your skill gets up to professional level.

Others disagree with you:
http://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=32125.0

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Malakosandarsenokoites.htm

In any case, any of the better known generally accepted translations show the passage as relating to homosexual sex. Admittedly there is dispute here, but only among the fringe.

The fact that you have some passing familiarity with the language is meaningless. We depend upon professional translations anc scholars.

Hush - he said we’re not supposed to read them (he certainly didn’t) - we’re just supposed to count them and bow down before the magnitude of his references.
Shodan, I read your cites, and they convinced me you’re wrong.

Are you kidding me with these cites? Christian message boards and blogs citing the same biased lexicons? This is how it always goes with this debate. No one but me is ever willing to go back to the known attestations and make a case from actual evidence instead of just making ame appeals to the presumed authority of some English translations. FYI, Engish is not the only language the Bible gets translated into, and “homosexual” is not the only interpretation given to the word. It is sometimes translated as “child molesters,” for instance.

Pointing at Strong’s is not an argument. Let’s see an argument based on actual textual sources.

Not to mention that his fourth cite first translates “malakoi” as homosexuals and then in subsequent paragraphs changes the translations of “malakoi” to “gentle, silky, delicate” and then goes on to say (again without further attestation) that it refers to the “passive” homosexual partner, homosexual prostitutes, and the very effeminate. All without once actually providing texts reasonably contemporary to the passages in question to support his viewpoint.

Did you read them? I hope not, because if so you have serious reading comprehension issues.

That applies to those who repeat Bible verses as well.