Comments on: Man sues Bible publishers over references to homosexuality

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:01:12 +0000

Eddy,
I’ll say one thing for you – your martyrdom skills are well-honed.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:56:17 +0000

Never mind.
Brian, I apologize. I shouldn’t have been foolish enough to attempt to actually engage in a discussion here. I’m checking out. Please ignore my questions that I thought were somewhat connected to yours–and the topic. Jayhuck’s questions demonstrate how foolish mine were.

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:23:56 +0000

You made a philosophical/metaphysical argument by saying “Wouldn’t God have known this? Wouldn’t He have seen the confusion He was causing the homosexuals of the time?” My point was also a philosophical/metaphysical one. Wouldn’t an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God have seen the confusion He would cause his children throughout history by being vague, nebulous or silent on so many subjects? The questions you ask can be applied to several other issues as well. That doesn’t invalidate the questions, but it should drive home the point that the gay issue is hardly the only one that is fraught with problems where the Bible is concerned.
We all know these things: the Bible was written by men, it was written at a particular point and at a particular time in history, etc. I don’t pretend to be a Biblical historian or scholar – far from it – but alot of our different perspectives on these issues have to do with interpretation.
Here are a few more questions;, why wasn’t God absolutely and concretely clear on all these subjects that have divided Christians and set them up to war against each other? Could he not have foreseen the trouble His book would cause? Some things are clear and others are less-clear, why? How there are over 22,000 different Christians denominations with different beliefs?

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:05:24 +0000

What were you trying to say then that you addressed to me in regard to my questions? “One could ask the questions you asked about many things–many things aren’t specifically addressed…” You didn’t attempt to answer the questions and that statement, in particular, seems to say that my questions venture into some nebulous zone of ‘many things’ that ‘aren’t specifically addressed’.
You forgot the smiley face at the end of your command to ‘lighten up!”

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:44:42 +0000

Eddy,
Gees – I never said your questions were invalid! Lighten up!

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:18:49 +0000

Jayhuck-
I’d respond if only I could figure out what point you’re making. For one, though, why is your response an appropriate rebuttal to my comment but not to Brian’s as well?
Brian presented a thoughtful analysis that raised a few questions; I responded with another point of view but it was also thoughtful and raised a few questions. I felt your response, given the tone of our comments, was dismissive.
LOL. It’s perfectly fine to question the intended meaning of arsenokoitae based on how the word was used centuries later; it’s perfectly fine to suggest that ‘some scholars’ support this (who, how many, why); it’s also fine to suggest that it could mean ‘sex with young boys’ or ‘heterosexuals engaging in anal intercourse’ but MY questions are not valid.
This entire thread was about that Holy book and the possible wrong interpretation of the words. A number of the comments went to the cultural context of the time. We should have posted your comment in the first spot and closed the discussion.
Or is this when you say, “I wasn’t really trying to refute your statement, I just wanted to make sure you’re aware that….” If so, that’s as condescending as it gets.

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:53:22 +0000

Eddy,
It is a touchy subject and some of these things in the Bible speak more to the culture at the time than anything else. One could ask the questions you are asking about a number of things in the Bible – many things aren’t specifically addressed in that Holy book.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:39:03 +0000

Brian–
If we follow the logic of your closing paragraph, it would seem that the Bible ignores ‘true homosexuals’ completely…simply doesn’t speak to them AT ALL. With heterosexuals, though, there’s advice on how to live, how to treat your spouse, even what specific sexual behaviors will keep you out of heaven. I wonder why an all-knowing and all-loving God would simply refuse to even speak a word of specific encouragement to someone He placed on such a path.
I’d also wonder why anal intercourse with a woman would keep a person out of heaven but anal intercourse with a man would not. This seems particularly odd to me given that anally raping a vanquished male enemy was viewed as the ultimate in degradation. Wouldn’t God have known this? Wouldn’t He have seen the confusion He was causing the homosexuals of the time? Gee, culturally it’s major bad…and it’s bad to do it to a woman…but those ‘true homosexuals’ didn’t have any of those lust issues…they didn’t need any advisements, any restrictions, any admonishments.
I agree, it is a touchy subject.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:43:55 +0000

This probably wont be responded to because this is so far after everyone else’s discussion but here is something I have found reading.
In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first “effeminate,” a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first “male prostitutes” and the second, “homosexual offenders”. The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, “homosexuals”. In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation “homosexuals” is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as “sexual perverts”; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.
Malakoi literally means “soft” and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, “morally weak.”
Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means “pederast”, a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn’t he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul’s intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as “homosexuals.” Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.
I don’t know, its a touchy subject.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:04:24 +0000

Sandra–
Can you suggest a translation of the compound of ‘male’ and ‘sexual intercourse’ that wouldn’t be a stretch…if it’s not saying ‘homosexual’, do we have any inkling of what it is referring to?