Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
If it is a religious thing, why can atheists get married?
If marriage is a religious practice, then why can ship's captains and justices of the peace marry people? Sorry, I won't pray for you because I believe prayer is a pointless exercise in futility.
I don't understand why the heterosexual community would think that allowing gays to marry would destroy their marriages.
Yeah, people like that give the rest of us straight guys a bad name.
I'm a Bible student with a desire to discover how man may have changed the Word of God from the original messages. This isn't Bible Study; it's Bible criticism (analysis) at the deepest level.
This is not presented as an argumentative statement but a serious discussion of the Word and how it evolved.
This is one side of the topic; and not all the information. This information is not commonly known. I assume everyone has basic Word 1.0 by now. This is maybe a Word 7.0 version -- entering the deepest Word. I'm presenting one side of a topic with a theory:
Theory:
Man altered the Bible to condemn homosexuality as a sin. God and Jesus do not condemn homosexuals and never made it a sin to be gay. That was done by man later.
This is not an argument for homosexuality. This is a study of the Word of God. My sexual orientation is not the issue here.
I will present evidence of some mistakes in translations, interpretations; I show when the origin of condemning homosexuals began, where gay people are in the Bible accepted for who they are, and conclude with a simple logic. The Bible cannot mean now what it did not mean then.
There are two major considerations in dealing with what translations can reasonably hope to handle.
First, translation accuracy: although you may not be aware of this, it is not easy to make translations that reflect the genuine meaning of the original – especially of material old enough for language and cultural change to have made its meaning uncertain. When that meaning is flatly not known but only reflected by how it has traditionally been translated, errors are particularly hard to avoid.
Second, context: the Scriptures were written for people and circumstances that have dramatically changed. No longer (mostly) are whole populations relocated or exterminated; no longer (mostly) are large populations of slaves used to support the ruling classes; no longer (mostly) do families consist of a single husband with multiple wives who are insulated from society; no longer (mostly) are women worth nothing except as child bearers.
Assumptions that underlie these following features also underlay the texts of the Bible, as did many other differences. Care must be taken not to distort the Scriptures to make them fit modern contexts for which they were not intended.
For example; many words had different meanings then and now which we can get mistaken. The modern definition for a man is very different than what a man was when the Bible was written; that is one example, we have to understand, to know God's Word.
**********
Many Christians typically use the NIV or KJV versions of the Bible. They generally interpret passages literally using modern meanings of words, and believe that Paul was inspired by God to write epistles which are without any errors in the English translations and paraphrased versions.
The KJV condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind", which criticizes male-male intercourse. However, the NIV appears to go well beyond the content of the original Greek by attacking "homosexual offenders" -- that is, both gay males and lesbians.
Essentially all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians appear to prefer the NIV translation and believe that this verse condemns all homosexual activity.
They view it as being valid today as it was in the first century AD.
They also believe that 1Corinthians 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals.
I will take a scripture from Paul to show he was not talking about homosexuality, by referring to the key ancient Greek words using ancient Jewish and secular evidence. I will revise the scripture with the best original meanings of the key words. It will make sense if you remember the historical time Paul was addressing, and the people of that time it was intended for.
**********
Two ancient Greek words had a profound influence on today's Bible. Malakoi was changed to mean effeminate (homosexual prostitutes). Arsenokoites became homosexuals period. These were not their biblical and/or secular meanings at the time the Scriptures were written.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul is the first writer we have on record as using the words together.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai]"
Perhaps you know the scripture this way:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
"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 nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Let us explore the historical context of these key words. You might be surprised to know their original meanings when the Bible was written around 2,000 years ago for the events of that day.
I can see how the translators and editors of our Bible could have made an honest mistake. Arsenokoites is a Greek compound word. Areseno means man, and koites means bed and/or sex; so literally translated man+sex.
Compound words in language rarely mean the sum of the parts literally. Take for example the English words butterfly, flywheel, ladybug, mankind, ladykiller, or chairman. Literally they say butter that flies, a female bug, a kind man, a man who kills women, and the man in charge of the chairs perhaps. Compound words usually have a totally new meaning than the literal interpretation we see with a hasty cursory glance.
This is why to really learn the meaning of an ancient Bible word we must often seek evidence in secular writings to know the meaning of the word at the time is was written. This is the way we determine what God was truly saying to us and perhaps we can overcome errors made my man.
Arsenokoites must have indicated a sin which confronted Paul’s readers, with which they were so familiar that it was not necessary for him to define the word. The best historical definition for its meaning is pagan shrine prostitution which included priests, young boys and girls donated to the pagan temples; a practice very common when Moses and Paul were alive and for thousands of years.
How do we know this? Many secular scholars of that day (during the time of Christ); all said it was about pagan prostitution in the temples without exception to our knowledge. Here is one excellent example of many:
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, 20 BC - AD 40
"The prohibitions of the Levitical Holiness Code informed its meaning, arsenos koiten condemns shrine prostitution, given the context of Leviticus 18 and 20." -- Philo, Special Laws, III, IV, 23-24
Philo lived at the same time Jesus lived. During the life of Christ, Philo understood Moses, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to be condemning shrine prostitution. Philo's understanding that the arsenokoit stem refers to shrine prostitution is 2000 years old. It is not a modern argument from gays and lesbians.
If the arsenokoit stem from Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koiten, gave us the Greek word Paul used in I Corinthians 6:9 then understanding arsenokoites as a reference to shrine prostitution was a common understanding in the first century, when Paul used the word in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10.
"Arseno" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males (explained later with quotes of how it happened).
Regarding Leviticus 18 and 20
God ended the Holiness Code Laws at the death of Christ or we all are going to hell for eating shrimp too. There are 636 laws in the Holiness Code and we don't obey them and God never says all mankind has to. Christians were never told to obey Moses law; only the Ten Commandments are re-affirmed in the New Testament. Leviticus 18 and 20 are in that code.
**********
Malakoi had different meanings in the ancient world before and after Christ.
Pericles, 495-429 BC, in his funeral oration, lauded the Greeks because they cultivated knowledge without malakia, meaning softness. Here malakia referred to intellect, not homosexuality. (Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC, Book Two, Chapter VI)
Plato, 427-347 BC, in The Republic, has Socrates opine that too much music effeminates a warrior, causing him to be malakoteroi, soft, feeble, sensitive. Plato expressed an ancient Greek concept, that too much music made a man soft, (Plato, The Republic, 360 BC, Book III)
Aristotle, 384-322 BC, in Nicomachean Ethics, used malakos to describe lack of restraint and excessive enjoyment of bodily pleasures.
Josephus, AD 37-100, used malakos to describe men who appeared soft or weak through lack of courage in battle or who were reluctant to commit suicide in defeat or who enjoyed too much luxury. (Wars of The Jews, 7.338; Antiquities of The Jews, 5.246; 10.194)
Epictetus, AD 55-135, used malakos to refer to soft-headed persons, whom he regarded as unable to absorb true philosophy. (Epictetus, Discourse 3:9)
Dio Chrysostom, AD 40-120, used malakos to refer to those made soft by too much learning. (Dio Chrysostom 49:25)
The citations in this thread indicate that the malakos word group was not used by our ancestors as a general reference to gay men and lesbians. Therefore it is incorrect to translate the malakos word group as homosexual. All six sets of verses in the Bible (Or seven if you're a Catholic) used to condemn homosexuals are similar distortions from the most ancient Scriptures backed up with numerously known secular writings that we have to study and determine the original Word of God..
English translations did not translate malakoi to mean homosexuality until the Amplified Bible in 1958. Papal documents were centuries earlier.
Therefore:
At our best we cannot be totally sure what malakoi meant at the time the Scriptures were written. An educated guess is general moral weakness. There is no evidence biblical or secular in the ancient writings to say the exact biblical definition. We can be pretty sure it did not mean consenting adult homosexuality for the term was never used for that in any secular documents known up to the beginning of the 5th century; the Catholic Church changed "natural born eunuchs" to only mean birth defects in the 8th century to explain the verse in Matthew. That is documented.
Other words were available for homosexuals such as born eunuchs. We can be very certain of the original meaning of arsenokoitai for pagan shrine prostitution and perhaps child sacrifices burned alive worshiping the fertility goddess Moloch and other pagan idols practiced during the times of Moses and Paul.
The best historical definition for malakoi is general moral weakness, without any connection to homosexuality and arsenokoitai was for those who practiced in pagan religions including orgies
If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste". That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
**********
So what did Paul Really Say?
I Corinthians 6:9, (revised with the original word meanings added)
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men of general moral weakness [malakoi], nor those who participate in pagan shrine prostitution...[arsenokoitai]"
All Scriptures in the Holy Bible condemning homosexuality were distorted this way later by man. It would take a book to explain how it all happened to all the scriptures. However; if it happened to one then the future editors were probably compelled to make all the scriptures conform. When Paul refers to homosexuals in his verses, his scriptures are based today on the mistakes made with those two key ancient Greek words.
**********
We have drifted greatly from the original meaning of God's Word. With each new paraphrased version of the Bible we got much stronger with our interpretations. It isn't hard to see how it happened.
Leviticus 18:22
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew Scriptures.)
NOTE: The leap from addressing the Children of Israel in the Holiness Code only, to mean all homosexuality is absolutely forbidden for all of God's people by the later paraphrases herein. This was added by man later. And we now include lesbians which were never mentioned in the Old Testament books at all. It makes no sense for God to condemn male gays and not lesbians too.
NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
MSG (The Message, 1993): Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include all homosexuals and lesbians.)
NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
That is how the modern Bibles interpret those words to make clobber Scriptures condemning homosexuality. We continue to re-write the Bible with new paraphrased editions that attack more clearly. There is no gay agenda except survival under extreme discrimination; there is perhaps a serious anti-gay Christian agenda at work here.
I have always been greatly amused how people can think only 2-3% of our population can be such a threat to family values and society as a whole. Just because we all agree does not make it the true will of God.
**********
But what about the sin of Sodom against the male angels?
Sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
Dr. William Brownlee, Claremont Graduate School
Dr. Brownlee, 1917-1983, an internationally renowned expert on the Hebrew language and the Dead Sea Scrolls said this about the Sodom story:
"The oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9 [and] ‘sodomy’ in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless [not anal sex]." This heterosexual conservative scholar declares that sodomy has nothing to do with homosexuality. When alive he was considered the best scholar in Hebrew and the Old Testament in the world and he led the Dead Seas Scrolls Project researching the ancient Word of God.
Even most conservative scholars agree homosexuality was not the sin of Sodom; God decided to destroy Sodom and four other cities before the angels arrived. The men of Sodom were wicked and at best bi-sexual. They practiced pagan shrine prostitution.
**********
This may be the greatest mistake ever told with the Bible.
When did this error begin?
If condemnation of homosexuals did not exist when the Bible was written it had to have a beginning somewhere. It did by the Catholic Church* almost 400 years after Christ. Prior to that there is evidence homosexuals were accepted in the Christian churches following the death of our Lord Jesus and in society for over 1,000 years before.
On May 14, 390, (1) an imperial decree*** was posted at the Roman hall of Minerva, a gathering place for actors, writers and artists, (2) which criminalized for the first time the sexual practice of those whom we call "homosexual" men -- this had never happened before in the history of law. The prescribed penalty was death by burning. This law was promulgated by an emperor who at the time was under a penance set by St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan,[3] and the law was issued in the context of a persecution of heresies.
*** "All those whose shameful habit it is to condemn the male body to sufferan alien sex in the manner of women, for they appear to be in no way different from women, shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people." (Code of Theodosius, 9.7.6.)
Homosexual men at the imperial court had been powerful opponents of Catholic doctrine during the fourth-century conflicts over the nature of Jesus Christ, known as the Arian controversies.(3) Unknown thousands of men died burned at the stake. Later on the Catholic Church changed the punishment to castration, first by crushing the testicles for unknown how many numbers of condemned men by the Church in power. We have continued the concept of homosexual sin to modern times.
1. Rev. M. Hyamson, ed. and tr., Mosaicarum et romanarum legum collatio, London, 1913 (reprint Buffalo, 1997), pp. 82-83. (Coll. leg. mos. et rom. 5.3.1-2)
2. Columbia Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New York, 1993, s.v. Minerva, p. 1782
3. Wilhelm Ensslin, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Theodosius des Grossen, Munich, 1953. In: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Year 1953, No. 2
A power struggle over biblical doctrine between the Catholic Church and eunuchs working for nobles and the emperor started it all, and we falsely continue the condemnation of homosexuals today.
**********
Eunuchs
In Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus answers questions posed by Pharisees about divorce, leading to a question whether it is not perhaps better not to marry. He responds to it with a short discussion in Matthew 19:12 that the King James Version (1611) translates this way:
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
There is overwhelming evidence that natural born eunuchs were homosexuals (both male and female) at the time of Christ. The majority of eunuchs at that time were naturally born that way. A man at the time of Christ had to have the power to reproduce, or had to desire a woman. That was the definition then of a man. Those who were half-men, or gay men, were known as born eunuchs.
Jesus made three distinct examples of eunuchs for a reason. We can only try to understand it.
Notice that the very next event in Jesus’ ministry following this statement in Matthew about eunuchs is when Jesus welcomed the children in his midst. You remember, when the disciples attempted to stop the children from getting too close to him, and Jesus stopped them and said:
“Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the realm of heaven belongs.”
Notice Jesus takes two of the most vulnerable in society and shows them love. Jesus first addressed the outcast and then Jesus addressed children. So what is Jesus saying in the midst of all of this? What is it that Jesus wants us to understand in a more clear way? What did Jesus say? Well it’s pretty clear; Jesus said: “Love Wins!”
**********
The Centurion
Jesus perhaps was very clear on this topic.
Matthew 8 and Luke 7: The Roman Centurion and his Pais (Not just his servant?)
Few heterosexual couples rate a mention in the New Testament, so the fact that there’s not much discussion of same-sex relationships is not unexpected. But one gay relationship perhaps made it into the book, or rather the books, of the New Testament:
Jack Clark Robinson, one of many researchers, has done a thorough study of this biblical story. There are two passages that may jointly reveal God’s attitude towards homosexuals. Both tell a story that can reflect Jesus’ actual attitude toward homosexuality but, because of translation, does not: Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.
In these two, a Roman centurion came or sent word to Jesus begging him to heal someone he cared about. Jesus said he would come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said he did not deserve such an honor – he believed that if Jesus just said the word, his servant would be healed. Highly praising the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed.
In Matthew, the word that the centurion used for his sick servant was pais. This word could mean ‘son’ or ‘boy,’ ‘servant’ or ‘slave,’ or ‘junior/younger male partner.’ There is overwhelming secular evidence written in that period that non-related men with a younger pais was a lover. Roman soldiers could not marry until 197 AD, and many had boys. It was their way to purchased boys from parents like wives. A boy was free to marry or be sold from the age of 14 by Roman law. A pais is also mentioned in the Bible up to the age of 18 or so. Possibly a pais lover was at least a born eunuch showing no interest in girls first.
Luke is more specific in his description of the sick man; he calls the man the centurion’s entimos doulos. The word doulos generically means ‘slave;’ it could not mean son or boy. Entimos means ‘honored and intimate’, so the combination would produce the contradiction of ‘honored slave,’ meaningless unless it applied to a ‘junior or younger male partner.’ Thus the meaning of pais in Matthew is limited to the partner in a same-sex relationship (reputedly, the shield bearers for Roman soldiers were their lovers). This was the only example in the Bible where anyone asked for healing for a slave of any kind,
Some argue that boy and slave are the same; however, this could be a reach of a modern definition.
Jesus was not only healing for a conquering overlord, he was healing perhaps his younger male partner of a lesser age than the Roman. This is from the meaning of the original Greek words of the Scripture. Of course we were not there to know for sure and it is subject to interpretation.
Jesus’ response ignores the man’s powerful, hated position and the possible implied sexual relationship; instead he highly praises the greatness of the man’s faith. We have to remember the customs of the ancient times are not the customs of today. No one is advocating a man/boy relationship here; just studying the story of the Centurion. Let me make that clear. Those were very ancient times with different ways from today. Many had short life expectancies due to battles and diseases.
The original Greek is very easy to understand but the translations changed somewhat leading to the probability of a blurring of the ancient meaning of the words. Later interpretations surely didn't see this angle until people could research the Greek using computers themselves.
**********
Who can be Saved and Enter Heaven?
Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth and his first letter to Timothy both include lists; 1 Corinthians include a list of actions that will keep someone from inheriting the Kingdom of God, and 1 Timothy includes a listing of unrighteous people. Homosexuals are not in these lists. They were added to scriptures by man later to be condemned and unworthy of our Lord. This was man's motive; not God's.
Jesus also made a list that appears to be very comprehensive.
Matthew 15:18-20
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): “…those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man…”
Jesus said nothing about born eunuchs or homosexuals there.
There is another verse where Jesus includes eunuchs
who follow Him; they shall be in Heaven.
Isaiah 56:4-5 (King James Version)
4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Man changed God's messages and it was predicted.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their inching ears want to hear."
2 Timothy 4:3
Most scholars agree on the pagan influence giving us Hell, Heaven, and angels when the ancient Jews were in captivity in Babylon. We reluctantly still refuse to use modern technology to correct major errors compared to the Hebrew and Greek books available on software. Mostly the Bible is accurate; we have the ability to correct new errors in scripture as discovered.
[*I make no claims why the Catholic Church translated the Word this way. The Church has done wonderful things in the world for the poor for centuries, etc.]
********************
What we do in the United States is a model to other countries. Gays are executed in the Muslim world; in Uganda a law is close to passing that can mean life imprisonment or death to be gay, or HIV+. Christians cannot be silent on this horrible error any longer.
If there ever was a time for bold courageous Christian Honesty; now is that time.
I respectfully submit to you:
The Bible cannot mean now what it did not mean then, in His original Word.
Last edited by apologist 007; 12-10-2009 at 08:26 PM..
Reason: more info, typos
The impetus for the Uganda Gay Bill came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".
The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.
"You may think that this bill targets only homosexual individuals," said Sylvia Tamale, dean of law at Uganda's Makerere University, speaking at a public dialogue on the bill in November. "If passed into law, it will stifle the space of civil society. The bill also undermines the role of the media to report freely. We are all potential victims of this bill."
Uganda is no different that anyplace else Christianity goes, bigotry and savagery always follow...Remember who else had an agenda to rid the world of homosexuals? Most of us consider him one of the most evil men that lived, but then he too was Christian...His name was Hitler.
In my opinion evangelical Christianity is pretty much on a par with fundamentalist Islam....Two of the most evil scourges on this earth in modern times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homosexual Sin; Man's motive, not God's
