Homosexuality is not a sin!

[beefy]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]English Bible Mistranslation / Homosexuality[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Before anyone deems this post to be heretical, at least read it first. All of it, please.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And by the way, this is not my theological essay.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]English Bible Mistranslation / Homosexuality[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]For years, many documents have described the mistranslation of the Bible into English from the original Hebrew and Koine (ancient Greek) New-Testament writings. Issues of incorrect translation concern many areas, such as: the word "virgin" (Isaiah 7:14); the name "Yahweh" (YHWH); descriptions of angels; the term "Sons of God"; and incorrectly translating forbidden sexual practices. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are several passages often mistranslated as forbidding homosexual activity; however, those Bible passages can be correctly translated by considering many aspects of the Bible, as a whole: literal translation, rarity, priorities, sanity-test and reality-test. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Literal Translation- . In the New Testament, the two verses 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 are often mistranslated as condemning homosexuality in English Bibles (but not in the Roman Latin Vulgate Bible or the 1545 German Bible of Martin Luther). Mistranslation is based on two ancient Greek words "malakoi" & "arsenokoitai" (Greek letters "ARSENOKOITAI " literally, "male-beds"), which was a new word used by Paul (Saul) at the time and not a common term for homo-sexuality. Because Paul was speaking in a religious context, the word "arsenokoitai" has been translated as referring to male-pimps or customers in temple prostitution, a common practice in so-called pagan rituals widespread in Temple Cult worship of the time. [The minor term "malakoi" (used to describe "soft" clothing) is non-sexual and has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), although others state "weaklings" or "morally weak, lazy" men.] [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Rarity of Words- . The ancient Greek word "arsenokoitai" occurs in only those 2 verses, 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10. Logically, if homosexuality were considered a sin, there should be many verses about it, and the word "arsenokoitai" would occur more than twice if it had referred to a major issue, such as homosexuality; the rarity of the word fits the logical translation: the word "arsenokoitai" refers to the rare practice of temple prostitution, not general homosexuality. (See: 73 references to arsenokoit* found in TLG E Feb/2000, ) Yet, precisely because the word is so rare and had no formal definition, the word "arsenokoitai" is crucial in fostering misinterpretation of the Bible: a more common word could not be so easily redefined. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Priorities - . The verses in the Bible follow certain priorities: for example, the words "adultery" or "adulteress/adulterer" (Greek "moixoi" ) occur 47 times in the King James Version; however, the word "arsenokoitai" occurs only 2 times, and the common terms of that time period about homosexual activity are not mentioned in the Bible at all (such as man-boy pairing, Greek "erastes-eromenos"). Condemning homosexuality in Biblical times was not an issue, not a priority, at all. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Sanity- Test - . Since adultery & adulterer are mentioned 47 times in the King James Version, it could be expected that a sin would be mentioned many times in the Bible: the condemnation of lying/liars occurs over 70 times ("liar" 21 times, "false witness" 19, "lying" lips/tongues 31 times); murder is prohibited 35+ times ("murderer" 20 etc.); and stealing is condemned 73+ times ("steal" 23 times, "thief/robber" 50+, except stealing for food: Proverbs 6:30 "Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry." [KJV]). However, the common terms (used in those days) to describe homosexual activity are not even mentioned. It doesn't make sense to translate a few rare words & phrases as condemning homosexuality, when specific sins are mentioned many times in the Bible--it simply doesn't pass a sanity-test. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Reality- Test - . During the time period of 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy^ 1:10,:the word "arsenokoitai" occurred in only a few religious writings, such as a later text describing Adam deceived to have sex with serpent-god Naas. The erotic literature of the period never used the word "arsenokoitai" but used other ancient Greek terms ("erastes-eromenos": man-boy pairing) to describe homosexual practices, and those Greek terms were never mentioned in the Greek texts of the Bible. To try to re-interpret & translate other Bible verses into condemning those specific (unnamed) acts is just not realistic--it doesn't pass a reality-test ("reality_check"). The translation of the ancient Greek New Testament must fit the language & cultures of the time period. The translation must match the reality of that era. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Old-Testament Literal Translation - . The infamous verse Leviticus 20:13, often used to condemn homosexuality, is about a married-man with another male, in the "marriage-bed" as with his wife. See the Latinized Greek for Leviticus 20:13 below: [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Kai hos an koimEthE meta arsenos koitEn [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]gunaikos, bdelugma epoiEsan amphoteroi; [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]thanatousthwsan, enoichoi eisin." [Lev 20:13 in Greek Septuagint LXX].[/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The translation of the Greek term 'gunaikos' is interpreted to mean: wife. Hence, the verse actually forbids male-male adultery, pertaining only to a married man. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Similarly, for Leviticus 18:22, the wording of the original Hebrew is very different from the KJV form:[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]it is abomination." [Leviticus 18:22, King James Version] [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning: [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]So, the Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 mentions: someone + a male + a woman; hence, a forbidden 3-way. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Those 2 infamous Leviticus verses actually mention other women or wives, rather than male-male relationships, as is often the misinterpretation & mistranslation.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]When many aspects of Biblical issues are considered, there is no textual basis for misinterpreting & mistranslating Bible verses to condemn homosexuality: the original Hebrew & Greek texts of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality at all, and so, homosexuality should not be considered a sin by today's society. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Finally, the question arises: In 1611, did the Bible translators/scribes for King James purposely mistranslate Bible verses into English because they had intensely resented King James, with his open homosexuality & various male lovers? The answer might never be known.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In the new book: A Gathering of Angels by Larry Dean.Hamilton, several incidents of God's approval are described in detail, including several spiritual events similar to visions. Note: That book is a true story, not a hypothetical religious sermon, but rather an accurate description of some astounding ways in which God actually works His plan. In:A Gathering of Angels, the author describes many real-life events in vivid detail as they happened, so there was too little room for ideology, and that book contains very few Bible quotations. The book is, in essence, a detailed secret revelation of divine approval for same-sex love. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A Gathering of Angels (by Larry Dean.Hamilton) describes actual spiritual events in modern times, and those incidents match the teachings from the original texts of the Bible, before the King James.Version mistranslated some verses to condemn homosexuality.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]

 

[beefy]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Addendum - . Many of the English-language Bibles have been mistranslated to condemn homosexuality, not only the 1611 King James Version. Below is a list of several English Bibles along with the phrase that translates the ancient Greek word "arsenokoitai" (1 Corinthians 6:9), which many scholars now believe means "male-pimps" or "molesters." Note the year of each Bible & its translation of "arsenokoitai": [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- King_James_Version (KJV 1611) "abusers of themselves with mankind" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Wycliffe_New_Testament (WYC 2001) "they that do lechery with men" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- American_Standard_Version (ASV 1901) "abusers of themselves with men" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- New_Life (NLV1969) "people who do sex sins with their own sex" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- 21st_Century_KJV (KJ21 1994) "abusers of themselves with mankind"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- New_American_Standard (NASB 1995) "nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- New_International_Version (NIV 1984) "homosexual offenders" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Amplified_Bible (1987) "nor those who participate in homosexuality" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Darby_Translation (public domain) "nor who abuse themselves with men" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Young's_Literal_Translation "nor effeminate, nor sodomites" [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- New_Living_Translation (NLT^ 1996) "male prostitutes, homosexuals" [/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Contemporary_English_Version (1995) "behaves like a homosexual" [/FONT]

• [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Holman_Christian_Standard (HCSB 2003) "male prostitutes, homosexuals"[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Whereas the original Greek text of 1 Corinthians 6:9 apparently condemns cult male-pimps and child-molesters, it has been perverted in many English Bibles to condemn all homosexual behavior. [/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Similarly, Deuteronomy 23:17 is often mistranslated, about the prohibition against ritual temple cult/shrine prostitution, specifically by either the "daughters" or "sons" of Irsael, by mistranslating the Hebrew word "qadesh" to be "sodomite" or "pervert" etc. For instance in the Amplified Bible, the verse of Deuteronomy 23:17 reads: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"There shall be no cult prostitute among the daughters of Israel, neither [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]shall there be a cult prostitute (a sodomite) among the sons of Israel." [Deut 23:17] [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Hebrew text contains no word for "sodomite" but uses the male & female forms of the same word "qadesh" ("holy one") referring to either a male or a female holy sex-slave in the shrine ritual.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proper translation of Bible texts requires cultural knowledge of the time period, including pagan temple/shrine rituals of cult prostitution & also knowledge of same-sex relationships during the period. [/FONT]

 

[emiliano]

All this would make good sense if Christianity would consider Homosexuality a sin, but that is not the case, the incline to this behavior is not a sin. What is a sin is the act of having gay sex, not controlling the sexual lust of a man for another man or a woman for another woman; that is what is an abomination in the OT.
The NT is clearer

Rom 1:27
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Rom 1:32
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. ​

 

[Zephyr]

Oh ****, I guess if you want to be a good Christian you should get on that whole killing gays thing. Did Jesus himself say anything about homosexuality? I figure he'd be the guy to go to to figure out how sinful something is.

 

[darkendless]

All this would make good sense if Christianity would consider Homosexuality a sin, but that is not the case, the incline to this behavior is not a sin. What is a sin is the act of having gay sex, not controlling the sexual lust of a man for another man or a woman for another woman; that is what is an abomination in the OT.
The NT is clearer

Rom 1:27
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Rom 1:32
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. ​

Gota love this all loving God of yours. I bet he had a chuckle when he made homosexuals, he's like yay.... finally some blood sports on this planet of mine. KILL THE HOMO'S..... HAHAHAHA. That's sick, your God has some issues.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And how about the women! How do you feel about your "natural use"?

 

[emiliano]

Now once more time: The inclination that is termed Homosexuality is not a sin, a man having sex with another man is an abomination and in the bronze age it was punished by death, the Jews like all other culture left that behind long time ago and so did Christianity, now the punishment is excommunication and separation from God.
“Burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful” God demands morality religion and especially Christianity is not for everybody. I hope that your concerns do not cause you too much stress, it is simple God does not want you in His Kingdom and we don’t want you in our Church.

 

[Alceste]

And how about the women! How do you feel about your "natural use"?

Not terribly impressed, to be honest. :sarcastic

I honestly can't understand why any women are Christian fundamentalists.

 

[Alceste]

God demands morality religion and especially Christianity is not for everybody. I hope that your concerns do not cause you too much stress, it is simple God does not want you in His Kingdom and we don’t want you in our Church.

LOL! You say that like it's supposed to hurt our feelings or something.

:biglaugh:

I can't think of a less appealing prospect than a homophobic afterlife where an omnipotent, violent bigot is king. I'll take death, thanks.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now once more time: The inclination that is termed Homosexuality is not a sin, a man having sex with another man is an abomination and in the bronze age it was punished by death, the Jews like all other culture left that behind long time ago and so did Christianity, now the punishment is excommunication and separation from God.
“Burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful” God demands morality religion and especially Christianity is not for everybody. I hope that your concerns do not cause you too much stress, it is simple God does not want you in His Kingdom and we don’t want you in our Church.

Lets look at the whole thing in context.....
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


So...according to Paul, the following are worthy of death....

But...according to emiliano, they are now only worthy of excommunication...

• Women "changing their natural use" (Again, that phrase "natural use")
• Men "burning in their lust for one another" (BTW there is a difference between love and lust)
• Unrighteousness
• Fornication (Assuming he meant sex outside of marriage, not sex in general)
• Wickedness
• Covetousness
• Maliciousness
• Envy
• Murder
• Debate (Think we all all guilty of this one)
• Deceit
• Malignity (Spreading Lies)
• Whisperers (Gossips)
• Backbiters
• Hating God
• Despiteful (Being full of hate)
• Pride
• Boasting
• Inventing "evil things"
• Disobedience to parents
• Without understanding (Ignorance)
• Breaking covenants
• Not having "Natural Affection"
• Implacability (Stubborn)
• Being without mercy

So, which of these "sins" shall we legislate?:sarcastic

 

[Alceste]

So, which of these "sins" shall we legislate?:sarcastic

Just lusting after men, of course, because that's the only one emiliano is not personally guilty of.

 

[JMorris]

Just lusting after men, of course, because that's the only one emiliano is not personally guilty of.

you dont know that

 

[Alceste]

you dont know that

Haha! That's true

 

[emiliano]

LOL! You say that like it's supposed to hurt our feelings or something.

:biglaugh:

I can't think of a less appealing prospect than a homophobic afterlife where an omnipotent, violent bigot is king. I'll take death, thanks.

I see this thread as an attempt to justify homosexuality, an attempt to Christians’ acceptance of it, elaborate as the arguments are it is clear that what scriptures condemn is gay sex and that Christianity demands repentance and abstinence from such behaviors as a condition to grant membership and fellowship, I don’t want to hurt anybody, I am just telling the truth, we believe that the inclination toward this behavior is not a sin but been a practicing homosexual leaves you out of the Christian Church, further we believe that if you don’t repent and change you are lost to God’s kingdom, we tell it to you: if you continue in your sin you wont be a member in our Church and won’t be in God’s kingdom either, if God does not have had Mercy on you and brings you to repentance you will be a reprobate in this life and a lost soul in the next. I got the feeling that most of these individuals opt for Atheism and that’s OK, but the attempt at justifying this with scripture and claiming that the scriptures have purposely been mistranslate to condemn homosexuals is a straw man, because as I said; the incline toward this unnatural behavior is not what we condemn.

 

[JMorris]

I see this thread as an attempt to justify homosexuality, an attempt to Christians’ acceptance of it, elaborate as the arguments are it is clear that what scriptures condemn is gay sex and that Christianity demands repentance and abstinence from such behaviors as a condition to grant membership and fellowship, I don’t want to hurt anybody, I am just telling the truth, we believe that the inclination toward this behavior is not a sin but been a practicing homosexual leaves you out of the Christian Church, further we believe that if you don’t repent and change you are lost to God’s kingdom, we tell it to you: if you continue in your sin you wont be a member in our Church and won’t be in God’s kingdom either, if God does not have had Mercy on you and brings you to repentance you will be a reprobate in this life and a lost soul in the next. I got the feeling that most of these individuals opt for Atheism and that’s OK, but the attempt at justifying this with scripture and claiming that the scriptures have purposely been mistranslate to condemn homosexuals is a straw man, because as I said; the incline toward this unnatural behavior is not what we condemn.

justify? theres no need to justify homosexuality. just as theres no need to justify heterosexuality. sexual orientation isnt a choice, no more so than race or gender. and we dont have to justify being black, or being a woman now do we?

but i do see you trying to justify your own homophobic beliefs. using religion to justify your own homophic beliefes is just cowardly. why not just come out and say your a homophobe, and that your religion dosent really have anything to do with it? you'd be a homophobe regardless of what religion you were.

 

[emiliano]

Lets look at the whole thing in context.....
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


So...according to Paul, the following are worthy of death....

But...according to emiliano, they are now only worthy of excommunication...

• Women "changing their natural use" (Again, that phrase "natural use")
• Men "burning in their lust for one another" (BTW there is a difference between love and lust)
• Unrighteousness
• Fornication (Assuming he meant sex outside of marriage, not sex in general)
• Wickedness
• Covetousness
• Maliciousness
• Envy
• Murder
• Debate (Think we all all guilty of this one)
• Deceit
• Malignity (Spreading Lies)
• Whisperers (Gossips)
• Backbiters
• Hating God
• Despiteful (Being full of hate)
• Pride
• Boasting
• Inventing "evil things"
• Disobedience to parents
• Without understanding (Ignorance)
• Breaking covenants
• Not having "Natural Affection"
• Implacability (Stubborn)
• Being without mercy

So, which of these "sins" shall we legislate?:sarcastic

First of all I must let you Know that by the time the Apostle Paul wrote these instructions to the Churches Christianity (at that time they were known a Nazarenes or Galileans) were a persecuted newly founded religion with no power to execute anybody, so the death penalties that could be spoken of at this time were spiritual death, a separation from the Church and God, in our time it is the same, if you are an unrepeated practicing gay person you will be ask to repent and change, to abstain from such acts, if you stubbornly disobey you are excommunicated.
So, which of these "sins" shall we legislate?
The Church has legislated in the whole lot of them! It is our right, isn’t it?
It’s funny that you say that because the times that have a popular consultation has been called to please the vocal gay minority, Christian just go to the polling booth and cast their vote/express their opinion. It seem that you guy have a problem with the word NO, but I suppose that that is another constitutional right very dear to you, so there will more in the future, I don’t have to worry about this because in the country that I live saying No once was sufficient.

 

[darkendless]

It seem that you guy have a problem with the word NO, but I suppose that that is another constitutional right very dear to you, so there will more in the future, I don’t have to worry about this because in the country that I live saying No once was sufficient.

Yes, we're used to having the christian minority enforce their will on us. Its ok though, a time will come when we get to vote on their rights, mock them publicly, and actively have a shot at denying them rights like they've done to the poor homosexual community. Sick really.

 

[badger]

As a man of no religion, am I permitted to find the whole concept just personally distasteful? To be honest, I hope you get all the equalities you want, then perhaps you'll stop banging on about it! (As long as it's not made compulsory!)

 

[JMorris]

As a man of no religion, am I permitted to find the whole concept just personally distasteful? To be honest, I hope you get all the equalities you want, then perhaps you'll stop banging on about it! (As long as it's not made compulsory!)

your permitted to find whatever you want distasteful. but just because you find it distasteful shouldnt mean that homosexuals arent given equal rights. i find many things distastefu, christianity being one of them, but i dont go around saying that christians shouldnt be allowed to marry, or practice their religion.

and "bangin on about it"? really? if athiests were being openly discriminated against by law, you wouldnt be out "banging on about it"? all it takes is looking at it from another's point of view, but maybe you arent willing to do that.

(As long as it's not made compulsory!)

thats just retarded. and im trying to be nice about that. something that stupid cant even be debated. its like saying that "give blacks civil rights, so long as we dont ALL have to be black"

 

[badger]

thats just retarded. and im trying to be nice about that. something that stupid cant even be debated.
__________________

I apologise. That sentence was meant to lighten my comments.