What parts of the Bible ban homosexuality?

Great Debates
141

In that case you’re bending reality to fit your belief system, rather than using reality to help you form a belief system.

It depends on what you believe inspiration is and it’s nature. Even if the authors were inspired what about the many copyists who handmade many copys? What about the translators and there own personal preference and cultural prejudice? The evidence is thousands of copys of the NT alone, no two of which are alike. You have to decide what that means about the nature of inspiration.

142

If we accept this as true it indicates we should not take the the Bible to be the literal word of God.

143

It’s not an overstatement. No one knows what it means. There isn’t much in the way of fruitful scholarly argument about it because there isn’t much data. The word appears mainly on vice lists devoid of helpful context.

It’s hard to find anything good online (usually you just find monkey shit fights between pro-gay sites and homophobic Christian sites), but here’s an article by a professor of Religious Studies at Yale named Dale B. Martin:

“Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences,”

Offline, there is the late Yale historian, John Boswell’s seminal book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

I think the Martin article pretty well sums things up. There really isn’t much data to work with on the subject.

144

Well, dozens and dozens of professional scholars and interpreters have managed to interpret it.

KJV: effeminate - abusers of themselves with mankind
NKJV: homosexuals - sodomites
MKJV: abusers - homosexuals
LITV: abusers - homosexuals
NASB: effeminate - homosexuals
NIV: male prostitutes - homosexual offenders
NRSV: male prostitutes - sodomites

You dismissed my cites as they were biased, yet your first cite is not from a scholarly vehicle but from
The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry (CLGS)

Even so, "From the earliest English translations of the Bible, arsenokoités has suffered confusing treatment. Wyclif (in 1380) translated it as “thei that don leccherie with men” and until the twentieth century similar translations prevailed, primarily “abusars of them selves with the mankynde” (Tyndale 1534; see also Coverdale 1535, Cranmer 1539, Geneva Bible 1557, KJV 1611, ASV 1901; the Douai-Rheims version of 1582 was a bit clearer: “the liers vvith mankinde”). A curious shift in translation occurred in the mid-twentieth century. Suddenly, the language of psychology and “normalcy” creeps into English versions. Although some still use archaic terms, like “sodomite” OB 1966, NAB 1970, NRSV 1989), several influential versions substitute more modem concepts like “sexual perverts” (RSV 1946, REB 1992) or terms that reflect the nineteenth century’s invention of the category of the “homosexual,” such as the NIV’s (1973) “homosexual offenders.” Some translations even go so far as to collapse arsenokoités and malakos together into one term: “homosexual perverts” or “homosexual perversion” (TEV 1966, NEB 1970). Modem commentators also offer a variety of interpretations. Some explain that malakos refers to the “passive” partner in male-male anal intercourse and arsenokoités the “active” partner, thus the two disputable terms being taken care of mutually.2 Some simply import wholesale the modem category and translate arsenokoités as "male homosexual."3 Others, in an attempt, I suppose, to separate the “sin” from the “sinner,” have suggested "practicing homosexuals.“4”

So indeed, the word has a meaning and has been interpreted over and over. I am not saying that the connotation of the word is not debated.

Note that my second cite, one of those you dis for being either a "Christian message boards and blogs citing the same biased lexicons? " is neither. It actually links to your CLGS cite above, showing that they are willing to show the other side of a debate.

My third cite gives interpretations from the following lexicons:
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Walter Baur.
Johannes Louw’s and Eugene Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon
The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, by Arthur L. Farstad
Fritz Rienecker. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament

All of whom have somehow managed to interpret this impossible to interpret word.

From the very earliest Translations the word has been translated along the same lines, for some 700 years and more. Now, suddenly, some people writing for sources like “The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry” dispute it. :dubious:

145

As usual, you offer no argument but appeals to the authority of tendentious and biased Christian translations. No matter how many times you do that, it still doesn’t amount to a cite. Show me these guys’ work. Show me how they arrived at this conclusion.

Usually they’re just translating it that way because that’s how it’s always been translated before, not because they did any actual work on the words.

146

Just because it’s been the same doesn’t mean it was right, just that it was self-perpetuating.

It wasn’t written for CLGS, it was written as an article for a book called . Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture., which is an anthology of scholarly articles. CLGS just posted it on their website. Dale Martin is a professor of Reigious Studies at Yale. He’s a fully credentialed, peer reviewed scholar. This game of appealing to authority is specious at best. Everything in the linked article is cited. What did he say that isn’t accurate? What argument can you make, using original Hellenistic or post-Hellenistic Greek attestations that the word should be read as “homosexual?”

Incidentally, does the word also apply to lesbians? They’re not “bedding” any “males” after all.

147

You have to actually, umm, err- read the cites, you know. For example from the 2nd cite :"*Also Stephen Carlson . Boswell’s Analysis of ArsenokoithV He lists plenty of compound words with koites or arrhen in them (doulokoitês) consorting with slaves, (mêtrokoitês) incestuous person, i.e. with mother, (androkoitês) having intercourse with a man, (arrhenogameô) to marry men, (arrhenogoneô) to bear male children, arrhenomiktês / arsenomiktês) sodomite. Boswell never mentioned the most obvious source for the compound word kai hos an koimêthê meta arsenos koitên gynaikos, bdelygma epoiêsan hampêoteroi thanatousôsthan enoikoi eisin (arsenokoitês) in the first place: Lev 20:13 in the Septuagint (LXX) version. Even the word order is the same.

A quote is in order. "Not only are both parts of the compound used in the Septuagint translation, but they are juxtaposed in the exact same order. Paul has simply used (or even coined) a word that strongly alludes to the Levitical verse. Moreover, this is not a technique unknown to Paul. In 2 Cor 6:14, Paul coopted the compound eterozugounteV (heterozygountes) which normally meant “mismatched” in the Greek world to allude to Lev 19:19 and all of its connotations in being “unequally yoked.” [See Bauer, Gingrich & Arndt] Similarly, Paul probably used arsenokoithV (arsenokoitês) to pick up both the genericity of the the activity (a man lying with a man as with a woman) and its accompanying moral condemnation. "*

From the 3rd cite:

"*First I consulted the many hardcopy, Greek reference works I have in my library. The first, I referred to was A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Walter Baur. This is the standard Greek reference work which we were told to use when I took Greek at Denver Seminary.

…
Next I checked Johannes Louw’s and Eugene Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon…
I next consulted another reference work I have found to be particularly helpful: Fritz Rienecker. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament…Then I checked the lexical notes in The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, by Arthur L. Farstad. …
So, according to a variety of lexicons, it seems both of these words have reference to homosexual behavior or any kind of male-male sex. "*

148

Again. Just somebody quoting lexicons.

The Leviticus hypothesis is cute, but tenuous at best, and rather contradicted by the fact that the word is attested in reference to heterosexual sex. I understand it’s absolutely the best argument the “homosexual” advocates can come up with, but it’s not supported by any clear contextual attestations to that effect, and it certainly does not constitute enough evidence to say that a clear definition has been proven.

It also would seem to leave out lesbians.

149

Here’s a better question -

Is/Was there a word that Paul could have used that would have clearly translated?

IOW - if he meant book, he would have used book, not magazine.

Secondly, the first cite seems to be using a Greek Translation of the Hebrew to back up its point - which should, at miminum, cause you to question the cultural significance at the time - why did the translator decide to translate it that way - since the same thing applies - a different culture translating a different language for its current usage.

If Paul was indeed citing leviticus - then you have to go back to the original Leviticus to determine what Paul intended - but even then, its entirely possible that Paul’s interpetation of Levitacus - or better yet - the point he is trying to make with it - is not neccesarily what the author of Leviticus meant.

FTR - I’m not arguing for any specific translation of the word - I’m simply pointing out (or attempting to point out anyway) How much room for error there is when it comes to deciding “Paul meant X” 2000 years after the fact. Even more so when Paul apparently coined a unique term.

“Probably” - means there is still plenty of room for debate, etc…even the autthor of that statement isn’t sure.

150

Oh, if only we had Jesse Leigh here to set us all straight…

151

Certainly- many experts agree that there’s room for discussion and debate here. But few experts agree with DtC in that the word is untranslatable.

152

If the experts cannot agree on a translation, I think that equates to a word being “untranslateable” - perhaps its a degree of uncertainty - “we think it means x, but we could be wrong, so we’ll go with our best guess”… They (the translators) “have” to insert something into the translation…

I think that does agree with DtC’s point quite nicely.

I also think at this point, we’re picking nits on what 'untranslatable" means… I can translate ‘boofar’ into “foobar” all day long - doesn’t mean I have the correct translation, or that one is even possible.

153

You won’t find many experts who will tell that the definition is known with any certainty. You will find plenty of translaters who will translate it the way they want to. All translations are guesses, though.

One thing’s certain – it couldn’t have meant homsexuality in any kind of holistic sense. It refers to a specific act, it refers only to one partner in the act, and it can be used in reference to heterosexual sex.

The two best contextual attestations we have use it in reference to homosexual rape. The victims in those examples are not guilty of being arsenokoitai, only the rapist. Other compounds using koites always refer to the active or aggressive partner – essentially it was synonomous with “fucker.” Hippokoites, metrokoites, pornokoites – “Horse-fucker,” “mother-fucker,” "whore-fucker. “Male-fucker” is probably one who fucks males, but it’s the one doing the fucking, not the fuckee, and it either excludes women from the definition, or does not mean the act has to be homosexual.

To add a little historical and geographical context little historical context, Corinth was kind an ancient Las Vegas, a very cosmopolitan harbor town which attracted a lot of transients, and where gambling, prostitution and the slave trade were very prominent. It was known as a city of vice, and one of the most notorious vices was the trade in teenaged, male prostitutes (usually slaves).

I think, given that this was the audience Paul was addressing, that this was the practice that he was condemning. This is only my guess, but I think it’s a reasonable and defensible one. I wouldn’t say it’s provable, though.

154

And yet, NOT to derail anything, in our own time, we “the people of the world” have generally decided that slavery in and of itself is a repugnant thing. The people who ran the Underground Railroad are admired and respected now. The British Navy was one of the first military forces to openly attack and seize slave ships on the oceans of the world. Our own Civil War put an end to it here. So. Things change.

155

I wish this tact was taken more often, whether talking about The Bible or America’s founding documents. There are two different arguments. One is what the texts say. The other has to do with the degree we should feel bound to them. But all to often the debates are entwined. I think it’s wishful thinking by some to conclude that The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. But even if it does, I don’t see us, as a society, being bound by that. We walk away from many things that The Bible puts forth. Just look at the restrictions as to what is allowed on the Sabbath, for instance.

I’ll leave it at that, as I am not well versed in scripture.

156

Agree. Even if we ONLY consider the dietary laws in Leviticus, where does that leave us? Most of us violate the hell (pun) out of the “dietaries” on a constant basis. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be the same level of righteous indignation and outrage. Where is the great struggle to crush the lobster eaters and the devourers of clams? How about the godless monsters who eat ham and bacon? Unclean! Foul! Destroy them! :eek:

157

The Levitical Laws are supposedly supplanted by the cross, and the “new covenant,” but some people try to preserve the “man with a man” proscriptions they like so much by inventing a so-called “moral” category of laws which they claim are still in effect and which they can define as suits their whim.

158

But but but but

It’s the Word Of God! It’s all literal! It is not subject to changing times or changing viewpoints or alternate interpretations! It has to be obeyed without question!

I know, I’m being way too obvious.

159

Some do. LIKE THE FREAKIN’ APOSTLE PAUL! G

So when do we throw out the Incest bans that occur in the same chapter of Leviticus because they’re part of the old Law?

160

What’s the method for deciding what’s a “moral” law and what isn’t? I don’t see homosexuality as having any moral component to it. It seems like more of a ritual purity law to me.

Anyway, Jesus said all you have to do is love God and love your neighhbor.