The Myth of Sodomy

[Quoth The Raven]

You do realize that the old testament is in Hebrew and the new testament is written in Greek right? The same people are not translating everything. Are you aware that there are many interpretations of the old texts that are written even in our generation?

Unless you have became a Greek and Hebrew scholar in the last month, Your attempt at legitimatizing homosexuality and saying it is acceptable according to the bible is really unbelievable.

Thanks for straightening us all out Flappycat. You have solved all the issues now.

You need to go on myth busters next. opcorn:

Actually, what Flap is saying here is nothing I haven't read before, so obviously he's not the only one who can come up with an alternative to the traditional interpretation. You don't need to be a Greek or Roman scholar to be able to form an opinion...there are plenty of people out there who interpret the words as printed in their bible in English to come up with all sorts of theories about how old the world is based on a passgage here, or that the fact that the creation of people is mentioned twice in Genesis is where the other people that conveniently meant that Cain didn't have to marry his mother came from.

androsodomy
A man who has anal sex with a male partner.
sodimize
To commit sodomy upon another person or to make someone participate in an act of sodomy, especially by force.
sodomist
One who practices sodomy.
sodomite, sodomite
1. Someone who is guilty of sodomy.
2. A person who engages in anal copulation (especially a male with another male).
sodomitical
A reference to, or of the nature of, sodomy.
sodomy
1. Unnatural copulation; bestiality.

Again the word sodom has Nothing to do with the word sodomy?

You do realise that the word sodomy and it's meaning is pretty much certainly derived from the tradition interpretation of the story in question, don't you? In which case it's no surprise. Obviously the word Sodom is the root of Sodomy, however all that means is that someone who believed the traditional take on things originally came up with the word and it became part of the language. That's what happens with language. People make it up. Sometimes out of nothing,sometimes as a bit of fun and sometimes out of prejudice, which can include wanting to show we think that something someone does that we don't agree with is worthy of the condemnation of god.

 

[Flappycat]

Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

This is really a general statement on sexual impurity.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator---who is forever praised. Amen.

This is in line with the Bible's constant warnings about Mammon and worldly wealth.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Still no reference to sexual orientation.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women an were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I don't know what translation you're going by, but more literalistic translations state "dishonor their bodies among themselves." This is pretty much in line with Paul's views on masturbation. In fact, this comes directly from Young's Literal Translation.

1Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes no homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The word "homosexual" didn't even exist, in any language, until the Eighteenth Century. I find it highly unlikely that Paul was so ahead of his time that he used a word that wouldn't be around for another seventeen centuries.

Leviticus 18:22

Old, priestly law. Means nothing.

You're going by the most inaccurate translations conceivable. Look, consider the possibility that Paul wasn't a humongous jerk, alright? He was really a nice, old guy. His feelings on chastity were a little restrictive, though. Anyway, opinions will be opinions, and I will leave Paul's opinions to Paul.

 

[lunamoth]

Luna, Corinthians and Romans are not levitical laws. This is in the New Testament and are the laws that apply today.

Implying that the bible has one set of morals for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals would imply that a gay man going straight would be a sin. Are you really saying that? There is no basis for your personal belief in the bible.

Did you read my post and try at all to understand what I was saying before you made this reply?

 

[lunamoth]

Further Rev Rick, why don't we see thread after thread calling to outlaw divorce or sexual intercourse between adults outside of marriage? We don't even have laws against adultery. I don't see any laws on the books against these very clear Biblical injunctions.

So why are you so bent on outlawing gay marriage?

 

[Onan]

Sodomy was a way of birth control. It was outlawed by the children of Israel because it would be hard to form an army if no one was having kids. I don't believe this law was ever given by god but was something that had to be done. It was a law for a certain people at a certain time.

It was also a sin to waste your seed. If you guys remember Onan was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground instead of knocking up his dead brothers widow.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Implying that the bible has one set of morals for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals would imply that a gay man going straight would be a sin. Are you really saying that? There is no basis for your personal belief in the bible.

But there is basis for someone else's personal belief simply because they choose to see it as such because they've deciding that it helpfully supports their own personal beliefs on the subject?

 

[Reverend Rick]

You're going by the most inaccurate translations conceivable.

New International Version is the most up to date and widely accepted version on the planet. I have more versions. You already struck down KJV.

New American Standard

1Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (b)effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(b)I.e., effeminate by perversion



Amplified version

1Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (mislead); neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, Nor cheats,-----swindlers, and theives; nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers, will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

Of course Paul never uttered the word homosexuality. He spoke Greek.

Do you want me to break it down for you in Greek? I can.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Sodomy was a way of birth control. It was outlawed by the children of Israel because it would be hard to form an army if no one was having kids. I don't believe this law was ever given by god but was something that had to be done. It was a law for a certain people at a certain time.

It was also a sin to waste your seed. If you guys remember Onan was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground instead of knocking up his dead brothers widow.

Actually, as I understood it, the sin of Onan wasn't so much that he was a tosser, but that he wasn't fulfilling his responsibilities to get his dead brother's wife pregnant.
But as something to scare the kiddies,'Don't play with yourself or god will kill you', is probably effective if they've been raised in the right environment.

It could be argued that much of the bible is a case of instruction for a certain people at a certain time. There are a lot of people who don't believe that, and also a lot of people who seem to pick and choose what's eternally relevent and what's not, based on their personal prejudices.

 

[Reverend Rick]

But there is basis for someone else's personal belief simply because they choose to see it as such because they've deciding that it helpfully supports their own personal beliefs on the subject?

Feathers, you are the most kindest, nicest, person in this forum by far.

Some folks study the bible and other ancient texts and practice them verbatim.

While others can read anything they want and come up with whatever they like, that is born from ignorance and not deep study. Some religions don't pick and choose what they like and discard the rest. The bible is most definitely not politically correct. To try and change it so it is, would be a perversion. Imagine if every generation changed it to their liking? When the Lord and Master came for us, he would be greatly dissatisfied.

When you commented on my question, you kinda implied that we could just pick and choose what we like. Is that the state of religion today? Everyone doing their own thing and no judgement day to deal with?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Further Rev Rick, why don't we see thread after thread calling to outlaw divorce or sexual intercourse between adults outside of marriage? We don't even have laws against adultery. I don't see any laws on the books against these very clear Biblical injunctions.

So why are you so bent on outlawing gay marriage?

Because we don't have folks that want to talk about heterosexual marriage on this forum. Of course adultery is against the law. Do it in the military and your career is toast. Do it in the civilian world and you might not be entitled to your share of the goodies if you divorce.

Matthew 5: 31
"It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." But I tell anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

I will make it real plain. You get married once and except for death or adultery on your mates part, if you remarry, you are an adulterer plain and simple.

 

[Flappycat]

New International Version is the most up to date and widely accepted version on the planet.

This doesn't make the translation accurate, though. You really shouldn't argue by argumentum ad populum. It is dishonest. I have already covered this matter in my original post. Paul condemned masturbation and probably self-mutilation (tats, piercings, etcetera), not homosexuality. There was nothing about homosexuality in the NT until around the time of the Black Death. We weren't the only group that was treated as culprits, here. Remember, there was talk of a Jew who wandered about spreading the plague to naughty, young men.

New American Standard

Again, the original text didn't say anything about homosexuality, and this didn't appear in the text until a few centuries ago.

1Corinthians 6:9-10

Again, the original translation did not say anything about homosexuality.

Do you want me to break it down for you in Greek? I can.

Let's hear it, then. The Greek word, malakoi, translates literally as "those who are soft." It doesn't make any sense for Paul to condemn people for being "soft-hearted," does it? Now, unless you would like to speak to controvert that, I submit the possibility that Paul was referring to slothfulness. This interpretation fits in much more logically with talk of thieves, swindlers, perjurers, etc. The word arsenokoitai translates literally as "male-bedders" or "male beds," which is probably a reference to prostitution. However, "arsenokoitai" may also be a reference to brothel owners or pimps, but it is a very vague term. I will research it further, if you wish.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You do realize that when you dismiss three groups of modern day biblical scholars and their versions of the bible that is pretty arrogant. Do you really think you know more about the Greek language than they do? These three separate groups of biblical scholars and doctors translated the whole bible and discussed these issues and agreed upon the interpretation. Three groups, three translations, actually four of you count KJV. You know more than they do about the greek language?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Because we don't have folks that want to talk about heterosexual marriage on this forum. Of course adultery is against the law. Do it in the military and your career is toast. Do it in the civilian world and you might not be entitled to your share of the goodies if you divorce.

Matthew 5: 31
"It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." But I tell anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

I will make it real plain. You get married once and except for death or adultery on your mates part, if you remarry, you are an adulterer plain and simple.

Um, no. Not legally you're not. Legally, you're a person who went through the proper paperwork and got your divorce decree, which legally dissolved your marriage, leaving you legally free to marry another. I especially like the bit about it only being death or adultery on your spouses part that's absolved you from adultery, too. I expect my grandmother didn't remarry after divorcing the husband that threw acid on her in the church hall because as he hadn't died or shagged the neighbour, she was concerned about the fact she was an adulteress in the eyes of god for not staying with a man who constantly abused her.
The post you quoted was referring to law. That funny stuff the government makes and the courts interpret, not what it says in Matthew, because that isn't the law of the land.
I think you'll find if you have a look that adultery as even grounds for divorce was removed from law in a lot of places quite a while ago. No doubt it's still floating around in a few places, but in some places there are still laws on the books stating idiotic things like you can't give your giraffe ice cream on a Sunday and it's illegal to bath your lion in the main street. Until quite recently we had a law against homosexuality still on the books in Tasmania, but no-one enforced the thing, because it was twaddle and everyone knew it, it just hadn't been gotten around to being done away with cos no-one took enough notice of it to remember it was there.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This doesn't make the translation accurate, though. You really shouldn't argue by argumentum ad populum. It is dishonest. I have already covered this matter in my original post. Paul condemned masturbation and probably self-mutilation (tats, piercings, etcetera), not homosexuality. There was nothing about homosexuality in the NT until around the time of the Black Death. We weren't the only group that was treated as culprits, here. Remember, there was talk of a Jew who wandered about spreading the plague to naughty, young men.

Again, the original text didn't say anything about homosexuality, and this didn't appear in the text until a few centuries ago.

Again, the original translation did not say anything about homosexuality.

Let's hear it, then. The Greek word, malakoi, translates literally as "those who are soft." It doesn't make any sense for Paul to condemn people for being "soft-hearted," does it? Now, unless you would like to speak to controvert that, I submit the possibility that Paul was referring to slothfulness. This interpretation fits in much more logically with talk of thieves, swindlers, perjurers, etc. The word arsenokoitai translates literally as "male-bedders" or "male beds," which is probably a reference to prostitution. However, "arsenokoitai" may also be a reference to brothel owners or pimps, but it is a very vague term. I will research it further, if you wish.

For effiminate I get malakia, malakos, softness, enervation (debility) disease or uncertified affliction, a catamite.

For abuser, arsenokoites, a sodomite, abuser of (that defile) self with man kind.
also koite, a couch by extens. cohabitation; by impl. the male sperm:----bed, chambering, x conceive.

I submit, Paul was talking about a homosexual.

 

[lizskid]

Flappycat has a major point in the vast interpretations of the Bible, throughout history and today. All of those words, while, in my heart, inspired by God, were, indeed recorded by men. AFTER the oral histories were passed down, and changed over a long time. Remember the telephone game? Well, also taking into accounts language translation issues and inaccuracies, political/social agendas in the compliing of the Bible, censoring of it even after it was originally complied, etc., I'm not sure anyone would be living God's actual word if one lived the word of the Bible to the letter.

There have been many a seminary that taught the historical perspective of Leviticus, and other supposed condemnations of many practices, etc. Those historical perspectives often lead one to believe or understand, if not believing it, that those condemning verses and sound bites, were not meant as interpretted today when related to homosexuality and Sodom. The words to condemn were specifically chosen and changed from original wording to meet a need at a given time, to address a given social issue. The word abomination was not even there, nor was it's predecesor, but was PLACED there at a much later time.

Humans are human, and, thus, imperfect. What we (as a species) recorded and interpret today is a beautiful, inspired piece of literature. However, I would not use it to condemn anyone in acts other than in the global sense of faith, love, helping others, and the like.

Interpretation is the key here, and people will never agree. The Bible, while something I cherish, is a living type document, applicable to many circumstances at many different times. To equate it with absolute truth is dangerous and perhaps false, just as to equate Sodom in an absolute manner with sodomy, in any toher way than base word origin is.

I would much rather focus on those global lessons in the Bible, which are consistent throughout.

 

[Flappycat]

Unlikely. One of the most elite military units in Greece at the time was composed entirely of male couples, and the modern stereotype of homosexuals as "weak" or "effeminate" would have mystified most people at the time. Therefore, a word that translates as "soft" would not have caused anyone in Corinth to think "oh, a gay man." Furthermore, it's unlikely that Paul was condemning people who had diseases, for Jesus was legendary for showing kindness toward this same group. As for boy prostitutes, Paul would have been more likely to have sympathized with this group, for they were probably victims of exploitation in most cases, rather than willing professionals. Your interpretation just doesn't fit into the historical or sexual context, and the word that translates as "soft," again, is more likely to refer to people who are slothful and lazy.

You know, arsenokoitai is a pretty mysterious word, and it could well have been a provincial term among the people that Paul associated with. His use of this apparently colloquial term tends to support the theory that the Epistles were never intended to be taken as general commandments or specific instructions. If it were so important to Paul for people living two-thousand years later to go by this, he would have explicated it in terms that were in common usage at the time and had been used in the past. His use of what is apparently gutter slang does not make a convincing argument for taking the words written in Corinthians as instructions for common people or as to how we ourselves should behave toward others. For the sake of argument, I submit the possibility that Paul was referring to rapists or abusive lovers, given that "male" can also potentially mean "abusive," such as in "manhandling." If we're taking kotai to mean something regarding sexual intercourse, then here is what I suggest as a better translation of this passage from Corinthians. Another argument favoring this is that rapists and abusive husbands are not condemned elsewhere in the passage, which would be a curious ommission given the seriousness of such a crime.

" 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malingerers, nor abusive lovers, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "

Words in bold were retranslated from the American Standard Version. By my translation, the work is much more consistent, and there is less deviance from the literal meanings. I also think that it's more appropriate to historical context by this interpretation.

 

[Onan]

" 9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malingerers, nor abusive lovers, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. "


Words in bold were retranslated. Based upon the American Standard Version. By my translation, the work is much more consistent, and there is less deviance from the literal translation.

Kirk Cameron on his series "the way of the master" went as far as adding the word homosexual to this verse. I about fell over and would love to know if he just added it himself or if there is really a version out there that has the word.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Kirk Cameron on his series "the way of the master" went as far as adding the word homosexual to this verse. I about fell over and would love to know if he just added it himself or if there is really a version out there that has the word.

Three versions have the word homosexual.

Amplified
New American Standard
New International Version

 

[Flappycat]

From www.BibleGateway.com

Version Information

While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The New American Standard Bible present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1995 printing.


Publisher's website: http://www.lockman.org/

The same blokes also jotted out the "Amplified" version. They claim to be true to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic language of the originals, but they don't acknowledge the widespread controversy over the word arsenokoitai, and they take too much liberty in the translation of malakos. In the Amplified version, in fact, they leave out malakos altogether, apparently on the theory that "those who participate in homosexuality" covers both. They claim to have translated it literally, but...they don't.

NIV isn't as horridly out of line with the original text, and it actually sounds like they were tying themselves in knots to accurately represent it. However, they're still acting on the prejudice that Paul was condemning homosexuality. They'd find their work a lot easier if they'd forget everything they think they know about the subject and actually try to get the story straight. The text would make a lot more sense, and it would flow a lot more smoothly if they would just consider the possibility that they've had it all wrong and that Paul was just a nice, old man who wanted to make the world a better place.

 

[Ðanisty]

Again the word sodom has Nothing to do with the word sodomy?

The word sodomy comes from the word sodom, not the other way around. The definition of the word sodomy is just as corrupted as the original story.

Of course Paul never uttered the word homosexuality. He spoke Greek.

The Greeks didn't even understand sexuality in the same we we do now. Homosexuality wasn't an issue with them and I'd be really surprised if they had a word for it. The Greeks never really defined and labeled their sexuality the way we do.

You do realize that when you dismiss three groups of modern day biblical scholars and their versions of the bible that is pretty arrogant.

Well, it's no more arrogant really than to think these three groups are the only people who know Greek.

Do you really think you know more about the Greek language than they do? These three separate groups of biblical scholars and doctors translated the whole bible and discussed these issues and agreed upon the interpretation. Three groups, three translations, actually four of you count KJV. You know more than they do about the greek language?

But how do you know that their interpretations and translations weren't colored by what they had already been taught? I think I would only want to read a bible translated by someone who nothing about the bible. That's the only way to really know the exact translation.