Scary…seems to be getting more and more popular–churches using PC language to not offend anyone? The Gospel of Jesus Christ does offend–as it should. Accept Life, or remain dead in our sins.
I wouls consider NASB and ESV to be the more accurate. NASB is considered 11.5 grade reading level. So it will be a little harder to read, but the translation of the Greek and Hebrew is very aqccurate in applying tense, voice and mood over readability. The ESV is considered 8th grade reading level. and is accurate4 but sometimes sacrifices readability for accuracy. The KJV is grade 13 reading level and that is why most struggle to understand it - plus the older text grammar. It helps if you use the on-line Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary as that will define the words so the english becomes clearer. One other thing - the NKJV is 9.5 grade level so it is a little harder than the ESV but a lot easier than the old KJV. All these are more word for word than thought for thought like the NIV which is also 8th grade but sacrifices accuracy of words for “the big picture”.
Joe, the issue was not location but the act itself. Sin is sin regardless of the location.
Noreen, sin is not a petty detail. To imply something that is being condemned as petty leads to acceptance of an anything goes attitude. Appreciating His love to the believer, should cause a desire in the believer to conform to His standards.
Joe, In Mark 10:6-8 we see the reiteration of the Genesis 1:27 & 2:21-24 commands for the relations to be between male and female. Christ was closing the loophole on multiple relations with the opposite sex. I do note that no comment was made concerning abnormal relations since the Jews clearly understood that was wrong. Also it is contextually invalid to use Gen 2:18 to support homosexuality. In the Bible sexuality is always portrayed as given by God in creation for the intimate union of a man and a woman - both for the bonding of intimacy and the creation of new life. We are called to be a holy people. A holy people will avoid those things that could cause people concern over our actions. To support homosexuality, I would suggest you show the verses that clearly state it is acceptable beyond the bounds of what you claim above. Lastly Lev 18:22 would be the prohibition. Please note, this is a series of statements on moral holiness. They are not connected otherwise and specifically not to pagan ritual - this can be seen from the Hebrew structure and in most texts as they set each line apart as it’s own stanza. Actually if there is a relationship between verse groupings it is verses 19-23 which were codified as the non-incest laws and the improper use of the male’s procreative fluids. The section discusses departures from God’s ideal for human sexuality. See also 20:13. If the choice is between holiness and “questionable” sexual activity, I would choose the holiness route and avoid 1 Cor 6:9-10 as a risk option.
You have an agenda to promote acceptability of homosexuality and intentionally drove all comments that direction from your very first post.. You prefer instead to as you use the term “clobber” fundamentalists.
Once again - if as you state the act is forbidden in one circumstance and you believe it is acceptable under other circumstances or locations, why would you not instead of promoting that act you admit is not holy under certain circumstances/locations emphasize instead what God expects of His people which is holiness?
Why promote something that others/many/some view as not holy and at a minimum is questionable as to your circumstance/location proposition? Why take the low road and not the moral high road?
On your last comment “arsenokoites” - is incorrect - it is males who take males to bed and it is also found in 1 Tim 1:10 in similar context. Yes Paul was fond of new words.
My Genesis 2:21-24 reference was to the relationship of the joining of man and woman and not future man and man - Christ was re-emphasizing that relation - man and woman. My point on verse 18 was that the homosexual cannot use that verse as an excuse because they are alone or do not have a helper.
Leviticus - The section we are dealing with is part of the mosaic moral laws given to the Israelites. They were not just for going into the land, but how they were to behave at all times. What God was asking for was for them to be holy as He is holy.(11:45). This is the emphasis of chapters 17 - 27. This is summed up in 19:18. So if this section is all about holiness as any commentary will tell you, why would you not want to do the more holy thing and avoid the homosexual act regardless of the location?
I am amazed you could not let this rest for Christmas eve/day.
I am just not comfortable with translation type statements “according to Joe”. So lets take another run on the word homosexual. In the OT - Leviticus - it is tied to the word abominable. Your contention is that the act is only abominable when done in involved in idolatry. My point was that rationalizing the location or circumstance is not the issue - the act itself is abominable. The Hebrew word Nebalah when linked to homosexuality identifies it as disgraceful and sinful or at least shameful Judges 19:23-24 (Richards). See uses of that word tied to Rape 2 Sam 13:12 and Achan Josh 7:15. Also in the previously discussed Romans 1 passage, note the use of the word unnatural. That does not refer to worship, but to the sex act. For further detailed use and discussion of homosexuality see Colin Brown Dict of NT Theology vol 2 pages 569ff.
But you may say, these are modern guys and that is not how it was applied back then - so lets look at some early church fathers: Clement of Rome (c. 96) states that “neither fornicators or homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God.” Aristides (c 125) “Some polluted themselves by lying with males”. and again “The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males, or with mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet, they, in turn, impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians”. Athenagoras (c 175) “They do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways”. Clement of Alexandria (c 195) “Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands….O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct!”. Clement has two other good quotes. Tertullian (c 200) “The Christian man confines himself to the female sex” and “The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing”.
Now it appears these church fathers did not accept your use of the words nor your situational loophole. If anyone would have seen that as acceptable it would have been those living at the time of the assembling of our Bible. Source Bercot’s Early Christian Beliefs.
Lastly Malakos is used figuratively as effeminate or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature - this is the meaning behind the joining of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9. Zodhiates Word Study Dict.
But you have still not shown how this behavior exemplifies holiness before holy and righteous God.
You must have nothing better to do in your life if all you do is wait for me to post something. I enjoyed Christmas eve at church and Christmas day with family and friends. Went to church Sunday and so now I will finally get some time to respond to you. Here is part 1
What I have done below is provide the Strongs def and also definitions from other lexicons since you don’t seem to like Strongs (please excuse the Hebrew & Greek text translating as it just doesn’t copy and paste well into English:
Concerning the word “abomination in the Lev passage I offer the following and please note the meaning in part 1b: 8441 hb’[eAT towebah {to-ay-baw’} or hb’[eTo toebah {to-ay-baw’}
Meaning: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
Origin: act part of 08581; TWOT - 2530a; n f
Usage: AV - abomination 113, abominable thing 2, abominable 2; 117
Two things you should recognize from this is that the act itself is ethically an abomination.
Next from our 1 Cor 6 passage: 3120 malako,j malakos {mal-ak-os’}
Meaning: 1) soft, soft to the touch 2) metaph. in a bad sense 2a) effeminate 2a1) of a catamite 2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man 2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness 2a4) of a male prostitute
Origin: of uncertain affinity;; adj
Usage: AV - soft 3, effeminate 1; 4
I realize you want to restrict the use of the word to soft - but that is not how it is used in context - here it is used in a bad sense so the definitions under 2a apply.
malakoi. adjective normal nominative masculine plural no degree from malako,j
[GING] malako,j
malako,j, h,, o,n soft Mt 11:8; Lk 7:25; effeminate, of the passive partner in a same-sex relationship. 1 Cor 6:9.* [pg 121]
i_am_the_jam over 14 years ago
Don’t we all? :P
IncredibleWerekitty over 14 years ago
.>
This is a new one. And that guy looks like he’s on happy pills.
ejcapulet over 14 years ago
I’ll stick with my good old King James Version, thanks.
vjwhet over 14 years ago
There is something that the KJV will always have over any PC ever.
woodwork over 14 years ago
KJ is not accurate, nor is it written in any language understood in modern t imes.
lisab_1964 over 14 years ago
Scary…seems to be getting more and more popular–churches using PC language to not offend anyone? The Gospel of Jesus Christ does offend–as it should. Accept Life, or remain dead in our sins.
ottod Premium Member over 14 years ago
Joe,
Is there a version, understandable by English speakers, that you feel is scripturally accurate?
kab2rb over 14 years ago
The version our pastor uses is not KJV I think ASV and he would never change the way God’s word speaks.
Iwa Iniki over 14 years ago
Another Obama “Change” promise.
Merry CHRISTmas to everyone from me.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Ottod,
I wouls consider NASB and ESV to be the more accurate. NASB is considered 11.5 grade reading level. So it will be a little harder to read, but the translation of the Greek and Hebrew is very aqccurate in applying tense, voice and mood over readability. The ESV is considered 8th grade reading level. and is accurate4 but sometimes sacrifices readability for accuracy. The KJV is grade 13 reading level and that is why most struggle to understand it - plus the older text grammar. It helps if you use the on-line Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary as that will define the words so the english becomes clearer. One other thing - the NKJV is 9.5 grade level so it is a little harder than the ESV but a lot easier than the old KJV. All these are more word for word than thought for thought like the NIV which is also 8th grade but sacrifices accuracy of words for “the big picture”.
noreenklose over 14 years ago
God loves us. Stop arguing each petty detail, and appreciate His love. Merry Christmas to everyone.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe, the issue was not location but the act itself. Sin is sin regardless of the location.
Noreen, sin is not a petty detail. To imply something that is being condemned as petty leads to acceptance of an anything goes attitude. Appreciating His love to the believer, should cause a desire in the believer to conform to His standards.
Have a great Christmas
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe, In Mark 10:6-8 we see the reiteration of the Genesis 1:27 & 2:21-24 commands for the relations to be between male and female. Christ was closing the loophole on multiple relations with the opposite sex. I do note that no comment was made concerning abnormal relations since the Jews clearly understood that was wrong. Also it is contextually invalid to use Gen 2:18 to support homosexuality. In the Bible sexuality is always portrayed as given by God in creation for the intimate union of a man and a woman - both for the bonding of intimacy and the creation of new life. We are called to be a holy people. A holy people will avoid those things that could cause people concern over our actions. To support homosexuality, I would suggest you show the verses that clearly state it is acceptable beyond the bounds of what you claim above. Lastly Lev 18:22 would be the prohibition. Please note, this is a series of statements on moral holiness. They are not connected otherwise and specifically not to pagan ritual - this can be seen from the Hebrew structure and in most texts as they set each line apart as it’s own stanza. Actually if there is a relationship between verse groupings it is verses 19-23 which were codified as the non-incest laws and the improper use of the male’s procreative fluids. The section discusses departures from God’s ideal for human sexuality. See also 20:13. If the choice is between holiness and “questionable” sexual activity, I would choose the holiness route and avoid 1 Cor 6:9-10 as a risk option.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe,
You have an agenda to promote acceptability of homosexuality and intentionally drove all comments that direction from your very first post.. You prefer instead to as you use the term “clobber” fundamentalists.
Once again - if as you state the act is forbidden in one circumstance and you believe it is acceptable under other circumstances or locations, why would you not instead of promoting that act you admit is not holy under certain circumstances/locations emphasize instead what God expects of His people which is holiness?
Why promote something that others/many/some view as not holy and at a minimum is questionable as to your circumstance/location proposition? Why take the low road and not the moral high road?
On your last comment “arsenokoites” - is incorrect - it is males who take males to bed and it is also found in 1 Tim 1:10 in similar context. Yes Paul was fond of new words.
My Genesis 2:21-24 reference was to the relationship of the joining of man and woman and not future man and man - Christ was re-emphasizing that relation - man and woman. My point on verse 18 was that the homosexual cannot use that verse as an excuse because they are alone or do not have a helper.
Leviticus - The section we are dealing with is part of the mosaic moral laws given to the Israelites. They were not just for going into the land, but how they were to behave at all times. What God was asking for was for them to be holy as He is holy.(11:45). This is the emphasis of chapters 17 - 27. This is summed up in 19:18. So if this section is all about holiness as any commentary will tell you, why would you not want to do the more holy thing and avoid the homosexual act regardless of the location?
BTW - I lived in B.A. at one time.
DerekA over 14 years ago
W & R Mounce have it nom Pl Masc tied to malakoi npm also. BTW arre you saying there are not female homosexuals if I were to accept you over Mounce?
But you still prefer to avoid the idea of holiness.
jpozenel over 14 years ago
Wow, it doesn’t get much more “Christmassy” than this!
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe,
I am amazed you could not let this rest for Christmas eve/day.
I am just not comfortable with translation type statements “according to Joe”. So lets take another run on the word homosexual. In the OT - Leviticus - it is tied to the word abominable. Your contention is that the act is only abominable when done in involved in idolatry. My point was that rationalizing the location or circumstance is not the issue - the act itself is abominable. The Hebrew word Nebalah when linked to homosexuality identifies it as disgraceful and sinful or at least shameful Judges 19:23-24 (Richards). See uses of that word tied to Rape 2 Sam 13:12 and Achan Josh 7:15. Also in the previously discussed Romans 1 passage, note the use of the word unnatural. That does not refer to worship, but to the sex act. For further detailed use and discussion of homosexuality see Colin Brown Dict of NT Theology vol 2 pages 569ff.
But you may say, these are modern guys and that is not how it was applied back then - so lets look at some early church fathers: Clement of Rome (c. 96) states that “neither fornicators or homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God.” Aristides (c 125) “Some polluted themselves by lying with males”. and again “The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males, or with mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet, they, in turn, impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians”. Athenagoras (c 175) “They do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways”. Clement of Alexandria (c 195) “Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands….O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct!”. Clement has two other good quotes. Tertullian (c 200) “The Christian man confines himself to the female sex” and “The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing”.
Now it appears these church fathers did not accept your use of the words nor your situational loophole. If anyone would have seen that as acceptable it would have been those living at the time of the assembling of our Bible. Source Bercot’s Early Christian Beliefs.
Lastly Malakos is used figuratively as effeminate or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature - this is the meaning behind the joining of malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9. Zodhiates Word Study Dict.
But you have still not shown how this behavior exemplifies holiness before holy and righteous God.
Bean-O-matic over 14 years ago
I was merely using my time off to catch up on ‘toons and land in the thick of this theological discussion.
Interesting, yes.
Keep it simple.
Is homosexuality a sin? Yes.
Can homosexuals go to heaven? Yes.
Believe the unbelievable. (Grace, His Love, Redemption, True Presence)
Forgive the unforgivable. (As Jesus forgave those who tortured and killed him. As anyone of us can be forgiven.)
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe,
You must have nothing better to do in your life if all you do is wait for me to post something. I enjoyed Christmas eve at church and Christmas day with family and friends. Went to church Sunday and so now I will finally get some time to respond to you. Here is part 1
What I have done below is provide the Strongs def and also definitions from other lexicons since you don’t seem to like Strongs (please excuse the Hebrew & Greek text translating as it just doesn’t copy and paste well into English:
Concerning the word “abomination in the Lev passage I offer the following and please note the meaning in part 1b: 8441 hb’[eAT towebah {to-ay-baw’} or hb’[eTo toebah {to-ay-baw’} Meaning: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) Origin: act part of 08581; TWOT - 2530a; n f Usage: AV - abomination 113, abominable thing 2, abominable 2; 117
Two things you should recognize from this is that the act itself is ethically an abomination.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Part 2
Next from our 1 Cor 6 passage: 3120 malako,j malakos {mal-ak-os’} Meaning: 1) soft, soft to the touch 2) metaph. in a bad sense 2a) effeminate 2a1) of a catamite 2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man 2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness 2a4) of a male prostitute Origin: of uncertain affinity;; adj Usage: AV - soft 3, effeminate 1; 4
I realize you want to restrict the use of the word to soft - but that is not how it is used in context - here it is used in a bad sense so the definitions under 2a apply.
malakoi. adjective normal nominative masculine plural no degree from malako,j
[GING] malako,j malako,j, h,, o,n soft Mt 11:8; Lk 7:25; effeminate, of the passive partner in a same-sex relationship. 1 Cor 6:9.* [pg 121]
DerekA over 14 years ago
And again - how is homosexual activity holy before God?