| |
Lord Setar
Guess what - that verse was mistranslated. You just ignored the part where Loki went to the original Greek text:
linaloki Homosexual, in Greek, is now: ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos as best as my translating abilities carry me. Now, we'll play spot the word.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Greek ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.
That section that I've bolded is where the words translated to homosexual and company are. Let's look at them closely.
μαλακοὶ, or malakoi, and ἀρσενοκοῖται, or arsenokoitai. Do those look like ομοφυλοφιλικός, or omophulophilikos? On to Timothy.
1 Timothy 1:10, Greek πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,
See ομοφυλοφιλικός? Doubtful. ἀρσενοκοίταις is what shows up. It says arsenokoitais, which I'm told is the same as arsenokoitai. Still isn't omophulophilikos.
To continue with this, I will quote a man who has done much more research on the subject than I could at my age.
Reverend Mel White from www.soulforce.org Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.
Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."
Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."
The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."
Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.
After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.
That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.
So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?
Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."
As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.
In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.
In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.
Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?
We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.
Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.
A big question to ask is this: "If Paul didn't condemn homosexuals before these two verses... And Christ didn't condemn them... and the Old Testament didn't condemn them... But everything else Paul condemned was condemned by the Old Testament or Christ... Where'd he get it from?"
Paul does not condemn homosexuals. Bad translators do.
Another chunk I wrote on Paul's passage in Romans:
There are numerous clues to understanding that passage. First, "They knew the truth of the Creator, but exchanged it for a lie." (I'm paraphrasing from memory, btw.) In that bit, it says that they knew about God but decided to ignore Him. Second, "They worshiped other gods." There's mentions of animals and such, as I recall. So, they knew about God, ignored Him, and started to worship other gods. Idolatry. Third, "So, God gave them to shameful lusts." Now, there's actually two things in that. First, "God gave them [...]" This wording is reminiscent of God turning the heart of the Pharaoh, or even better, removing His Spirit from King Solomon. If we recall the story of Solomon, Solomon was loved and blessed by God. However, Solomon began worshiping other gods. The gods of his wives. God, angered and saddened, removed His Spirit and allowed Solomon to fall into a degenerative path. The second bit, tied in with the Solomon story, is the word lusts. Shameful lusts, at that. Now, Solomon had tons of wives. He gave into their religious ways to please them because of their beauty. Lust. Which we already know is a sin. If Paul's "they" is indeed the Romans, there is a distinct possibility that Paul is referring to orgies. Idolatrous orgies. (Which is something Solomon could've done with his wives, btw...) In the Roman religion, there were many different sexual festivals and feasts. One that I like to liken this verse grouping to is the feast of Bacchus. Bacchus, as some may know, is the Roman equivalent of the Greek Dionysus. He is the god of debauchery and hedonism and, more importantly, alcohol. Wine. Bacchus had a group of women that followed him around the world, the Maenids. Crazy crazy sexual women. Like, by crazy, I mean insane. Anyways, one of the ways the Romans celebrated Bacchus was by getting piss-a** drunk and having raunchy, orgiastic sex. With everything and everyone. In public. I'd personally think that a public drunken orgy is rather shameful, wouldn't you? And it's definitely unnatural.
And? You're ignoring these:
Colossians 2:13-23, NIV When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. Hebrews 7:17-18, NIV The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Okay, the NIV is total BS. When did the Hebrew bible have anything to do with capstone?
Why does the NIV call satan"christ"?
Well, anyways the KJV is the same as the bible 1500 years ago [the Latin version]. What ever translation err they had, they should have corrected in the year 500 [Which was probably rewritten from the year 400]. I heard nothing of this satanic NIV. Also, we do not know 100% even 70% that god allowed homo activities, let's not risk it. BTW the 10 commandment is what he expect of us.
|
 |
