Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

the bible may not be against homosexuality.

icetiger200
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 9:40:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?
I will start by saying that this is part of the Hebrew scriptures. With that said, it is apart of the Old Covenant. While it is not wrong for Christians to use this scripture, I strongly advise using those of the Greek scriptures, or New Covenant.

The Hebrew word zakar means, according to Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
male

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.
The Greek word arsenokoites is not in the verses of 1 Corinthians 1:9-11. Can you name a Greek lexicon or concordance that is prior to 1950 so we can verify your claim? As it stands, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc are all at odds with your claim.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.
Can you clarify what you mean? The word physiken and physin are properly translated as natural and unnatural.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.
I am not sure that your parallel is very honest. Comparing Romans 1:26 to 1 Corinthians 11:14 is not taking into account the context of the verses. Romans 1:26 is talking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." 1 Corinthians 11:14 could be talking about a number of things. Defining "nature" is up to the reader. Paul could be referring to reason in man, common sense, custom, etc.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.
You need to expand on what you mean. Leviticus is still in the Hebrew scriptures, so it is apart of the Old Covenant. Timothy 1:10 still uses arsenokoites, and it is still translated as homosexuality. You need to reference a Greek lexicon or concordance that says it does not mean that.

Jude 1:7 was referencing multiple things. It would not exclude homosexuality, as homosexuality is quite clearly a sin.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.
There was no love affair. David and Jonathon were never married and neither were Ruth and Naomi. You need to reference scriptures in order to convince people. However, having read and studied the Bible, I can confirm that none of this is in it.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
What are you talking about? Unless we are reading different Bibles, then I see no place where Daniel 1:9 says:
Now God had caused the official to commit physical love to Daniel.

I do see:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel," (NIV)

Clearly you need to identify some problematic areas in your argument and address my refutations.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
icetiger200
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 2:02:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 9:40:52 PM, tstor wrote:
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?
I will start by saying that this is part of the Hebrew scriptures. With that said, it is apart of the Old Covenant. While it is not wrong for Christians to use this scripture, I strongly advise using those of the Greek scriptures, or New Covenant.

The Hebrew word zakar means, according to Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
male

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.
The Greek word arsenokoites is not in the verses of 1 Corinthians 1:9-11. Can you name a Greek lexicon or concordance that is prior to 1950 so we can verify your claim? As it stands, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc are all at odds with your claim.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.
Can you clarify what you mean? The word physiken and physin are properly translated as natural and unnatural.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.
I am not sure that your parallel is very honest. Comparing Romans 1:26 to 1 Corinthians 11:14 is not taking into account the context of the verses. Romans 1:26 is talking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." 1 Corinthians 11:14 could be talking about a number of things. Defining "nature" is up to the reader. Paul could be referring to reason in man, common sense, custom, etc.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.
You need to expand on what you mean. Leviticus is still in the Hebrew scriptures, so it is apart of the Old Covenant. Timothy 1:10 still uses arsenokoites, and it is still translated as homosexuality. You need to reference a Greek lexicon or concordance that says it does not mean that.

Jude 1:7 was referencing multiple things. It would not exclude homosexuality, as homosexuality is quite clearly a sin.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.
There was no love affair. David and Jonathon were never married and neither were Ruth and Naomi. You need to reference scriptures in order to convince people. However, having read and studied the Bible, I can confirm that none of this is in it.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
What are you talking about? Unless we are reading different Bibles, then I see no place where Daniel 1:9 says:
Now God had caused the official to commit physical love to Daniel.

I do see:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel," (NIV)

Clearly you need to identify some problematic areas in your argument and address my refutations.

I forgot about this thread that's why I didn't reply.

R03; Nah, the old covenant new covenant thing doesn't work, Matt 5: 17-20, means the leviticus law holds for the NT.

No argument over 'zakar' what is your point here, because it's quite obscure.

1 cor 6:9... if 1: 9-11 appears it's an error, no one's perfect, and spell checks sometimes do odd things. Though I might have been referencing 11: 14 re long hair being unattural, according to Saulus the liar. Not going back to check the word occurs in 1 cor 6: 9.

Kan, Ken, and other variants are found in Greek and related languages, e.g. Turkish, as what is sometimes termed the diminutive, or familiar, in koine Greek in our passage under scrutiny, this gives ownership of the nature (makes it familliar) to the actor, so it is not physis (general nature) but personal nature, nature of the actor

You seem to misunderstand the comparison, the word 'physis' has a fluid meaning, hence context is important, as are modifications such as suffixes.

No: you still haven't got a reasonable source for the claim Arsenkoites translates as homosexual, the most viable translation from a reading of all ancient sources, would be rapist.

There is no basis to regard homosexuality as a sin, based on the actual text of the bible.

Saul twice describes David and Jonathan as married, once with his blessing, 1 sam 18: 20-21 and once in anger, 1 sam 20: 30 Jonathan stripping naked in front of David is a bit of a give away too.

Daniel 1: 9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

Problem is "favour and tender love" translates "chesed v'rachamim"

Cesed translates is "mercy". V'rachamim is plural and can mean eather: "mercy" or "physical love". It's unlikely the Hebrew reads "mercy and mercy." Therefore "mercy and physical love" is the only viable translation.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 2:55:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.

So, you may not be aware, IceT, but the Bible wasn't parachuted in from a blue sky. The early books were penned by some people called Jews, and I'm not sure if you've heard of them, but they've been living by traditions shaped by the books their ancestors wrote for almost 3,000 years.

So I don't know why you're translating ancient Hebrew out into Koine Greek and thence into English when you could just see how Jews have been interpreting the books they themselves wrote in their own mother tongue.

And unless you think Orthodox Judaism took a sudden departure from the books whose sacraments Orthodox Jews have sometimes died to uphold, I think you'll find that homosexuality is explicitly abhorred between men, and implicitly forbidden between women.

But sure... you could ignore the authors of the texts and pretend the books were written for Greek-speaking European Christians...

...in Hebrew...

...I guess.
AVicu
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 5:14:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.

The bible is one big mess that's why it needs so much translation
icetiger200
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 5:30:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 9:40:52 PM, tstor wrote:
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?
I will start by saying that this is part of the Hebrew scriptures. With that said, it is apart of the Old Covenant. While it is not wrong for Christians to use this scripture, I strongly advise using those of the Greek scriptures, or New Covenant.

The Hebrew word zakar means, according to Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
male

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.
The Greek word arsenokoites is not in the verses of 1 Corinthians 1:9-11. Can you name a Greek lexicon or concordance that is prior to 1950 so we can verify your claim? As it stands, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc are all at odds with your claim.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.
Can you clarify what you mean? The word physiken and physin are properly translated as natural and unnatural.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.
I am not sure that your parallel is very honest. Comparing Romans 1:26 to 1 Corinthians 11:14 is not taking into account the context of the verses. Romans 1:26 is talking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." 1 Corinthians 11:14 could be talking about a number of things. Defining "nature" is up to the reader. Paul could be referring to reason in man, common sense, custom, etc.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.
You need to expand on what you mean. Leviticus is still in the Hebrew scriptures, so it is apart of the Old Covenant. Timothy 1:10 still uses arsenokoites, and it is still translated as homosexuality. You need to reference a Greek lexicon or concordance that says it does not mean that.

Jude 1:7 was referencing multiple things. It would not exclude homosexuality, as homosexuality is quite clearly a sin.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.
There was no love affair. David and Jonathon were never married and neither were Ruth and Naomi. You need to reference scriptures in order to convince people. However, having read and studied the Bible, I can confirm that none of this is in it.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
What are you talking about? Unless we are reading different Bibles, then I see no place where Daniel 1:9 says:
Now God had caused the official to commit physical love to Daniel.

I do see:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel," (NIV)

Clearly you need to identify some problematic areas in your argument and address my refutations.

No reply then?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 9:36:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 2:02:12 AM, icetiger200 wrote:

I forgot about this thread that's why I didn't reply.
Not a problem.

R03; Nah, the old covenant new covenant thing doesn't work, Matt 5: 17-20, means the leviticus law holds for the NT.
That is not at all what the verses at Matthew 5:17-20 are saying. In fact, I would imagine that you would have a hard time finding a Biblical scholar that would agree with you. Without trying to break the balance of the discussion, we have to recognize the three types of laws described in the old covenant. These would be ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law. You seem to be concerned with the ceremonial laws. Since these laws were established to point forward toward the Christ, they were, therefore, no longer necessary. However, the principles are still required.

No argument over 'zakar' what is your point here, because it's quite obscure.
I apologize for not clearly stating my point. I completely misread what you were trying to say and therefore did not give a proper refutation. Which translation are you using to get the rendering of "she is ritually unclean"? Most all translations say something along the lines of:
"that is detestable." (NIV)

1 cor 6:9... if 1: 9-11 appears it's an error, no one's perfect, and spell checks sometimes do odd things. Though I might have been referencing 11: 14 re long hair being unattural, according to Saulus the liar. Not going back to check the word occurs in 1 cor 6: 9.
Arsenokoitai is the Greek word used in 6:9. That still does not fulfill my request for you to provide a concordance or lexicon that verifies your claim.

Kan, Ken, and other variants are found in Greek and related languages, e.g. Turkish, as what is sometimes termed the diminutive, or familiar, in koine Greek in our passage under scrutiny, this gives ownership of the nature (makes it familliar) to the actor, so it is not physis (general nature) but personal nature, nature of the actor
The same word that is in Romans 1:26 is used in Romans 11:21:
"For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." (NIV)

In order to verify your claim, provide a concordance or lexicon that confirms your definition.

You seem to misunderstand the comparison, the word 'physis' has a fluid meaning, hence context is important, as are modifications such as suffixes.
Context is important, which is why I brought it up in my response.

No: you still haven't got a reasonable source for the claim Arsenkoites translates as homosexual, the most viable translation from a reading of all ancient sources, would be rapist.
I can list numerous sources. Try Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. However, I have yet to see you name a source that verifies your claim.

There is no basis to regard homosexuality as a sin, based on the actual text of the bible.
You have yet to provide any reason to think that. The Bible makes it quite clear. I do not try and read into the text.

Saul twice describes David and Jonathan as married, once with his blessing, 1 sam 18: 20-21 and once in anger, 1 sam 20: 30 Jonathan stripping naked in front of David is a bit of a give away too.
1 Samuel 18:20-21:
Now Saul's daughter Mi'chal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him. So Saul said: "I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philis'tines may come upon him." Saul then said to David a second time: "You will form a marriage alliance with me [Or "will become my son-in-law."] today." (NW)

1 Samuel 20:30:
Then Saul became enraged with Jon'athan, and he said to him: "You son of a rebellious woman, do you think I do not know that you are choosing to side with the son of Jes'se, to your own shame and to the shame of your mother?" (NW)

So where are reading that David and Jonathan are married?

Daniel 1: 9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

Problem is "favour and tender love" translates "chesed v'rachamim"

Cesed translates is "mercy". V'rachamim is plural and can mean eather: "mercy" or "physical love". It's unlikely the Hebrew reads "mercy and mercy." Therefore "mercy and physical love" is the only viable translation.
The Hebrew word for "favor" is checed. The Hebrew word for "tender love" is racham. Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance do not EVER translate racham to mean "physical love."

No reply then?
Sorry, I do not live on the forum.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
icetiger200
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 12:54:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 5:30:56 PM, icetiger200 wrote:
At 11/7/2015 9:40:52 PM, tstor wrote:
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?
I will start by saying that this is part of the Hebrew scriptures. With that said, it is apart of the Old Covenant. While it is not wrong for Christians to use this scripture, I strongly advise using those of the Greek scriptures, or New Covenant.

The Hebrew word zakar means, according to Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:
male

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.
The Greek word arsenokoites is not in the verses of 1 Corinthians 1:9-11. Can you name a Greek lexicon or concordance that is prior to 1950 so we can verify your claim? As it stands, Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, etc are all at odds with your claim.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.
Can you clarify what you mean? The word physiken and physin are properly translated as natural and unnatural.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.
I am not sure that your parallel is very honest. Comparing Romans 1:26 to 1 Corinthians 11:14 is not taking into account the context of the verses. Romans 1:26 is talking about what is "natural" and "unnatural." 1 Corinthians 11:14 could be talking about a number of things. Defining "nature" is up to the reader. Paul could be referring to reason in man, common sense, custom, etc.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.
You need to expand on what you mean. Leviticus is still in the Hebrew scriptures, so it is apart of the Old Covenant. Timothy 1:10 still uses arsenokoites, and it is still translated as homosexuality. You need to reference a Greek lexicon or concordance that says it does not mean that.

Jude 1:7 was referencing multiple things. It would not exclude homosexuality, as homosexuality is quite clearly a sin.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.
There was no love affair. David and Jonathon were never married and neither were Ruth and Naomi. You need to reference scriptures in order to convince people. However, having read and studied the Bible, I can confirm that none of this is in it.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
What are you talking about? Unless we are reading different Bibles, then I see no place where Daniel 1:9 says:
Now God had caused the official to commit physical love to Daniel.

I do see:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel," (NIV)

Clearly you need to identify some problematic areas in your argument and address my refutations.


No reply then?

"Oh dear... We can sum up the majority of your last reply in two words. Strawman argument. Though we might also note its tending "towards shotgun argumentation.

Its irtellevent whether dictionaries and lectionaries give definitions if the evidence does not support those definitions. "And there is no historical nor linguistic evidence that supports the definition of Arsenkoiti as 'homosexual'. so your argument resolves to a third fallacy. that of appeal to authority.

Likewise with "Tobeha, the variety of activities and situations to which the word is applied does not support the translation, 'abomination' or 'detestible', howver 'ritually unclean' is entirely supportable.

No its not "'Physuken', used in Romans "11: 21, thats Phusin. The only place in th NT in which Physiken is used is Romans 1: 26-28

Though I will concede I must have been thinking of something else when I referenced the suffix 'Ken. This is incorrect, the suffix is 'En' "the consonant merely links the syllables. En makes the tense active, and as its active this gives possession to the actor.

https://books.google.co.uk...

1 Samuel 18: 20-21 your translation is not supported, the KJV says "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain" unfortunately 'in the one of the' is an insertion. the actual text translates literally as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, twice" and Johnathan is the only other child of Saul, David has a relationship with at that point. The other daughter having been married off to someone else.

1 Sam 20: 30, again your translation is off, its not "choosing to side with" but "Choosing you the son of Jesse, to the shame of yopur mothers nakedness" which is a different connotation entirely."
Hmm... Strongs concordance has racham as: "7355 racham 'raw-kham' a primitive root; to fondle; by implication, to love. What is that if not physical love?

Again with Matthew 5:17-20, your appeal to authority doesn't support your case there are many scholars "that have and do, support from this verse, the interpretation that the OT law still holds. And a literal reading of the text supports this too.
icetiger200
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 12:45:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 9:36:22 PM, tstor wrote:
At 11/17/2015 2:02:12 AM, icetiger200 wrote:

I forgot about this thread that's why I didn't reply.
Not a problem.

R03; Nah, the old covenant new covenant thing doesn't work, Matt 5: 17-20, means the leviticus law holds for the NT.
That is not at all what the verses at Matthew 5:17-20 are saying. In fact, I would imagine that you would have a hard time finding a Biblical scholar that would agree with you. Without trying to break the balance of the discussion, we have to recognize the three types of laws described in the old covenant. These would be ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law. You seem to be concerned with the ceremonial laws. Since these laws were established to point forward toward the Christ, they were, therefore, no longer necessary. However, the principles are still required.

No argument over 'zakar' what is your point here, because it's quite obscure.
I apologize for not clearly stating my point. I completely misread what you were trying to say and therefore did not give a proper refutation. Which translation are you using to get the rendering of "she is ritually unclean"? Most all translations say something along the lines of:
"that is detestable." (NIV)

1 cor 6:9... if 1: 9-11 appears it's an error, no one's perfect, and spell checks sometimes do odd things. Though I might have been referencing 11: 14 re long hair being unattural, according to Saulus the liar. Not going back to check the word occurs in 1 cor 6: 9.
Arsenokoitai is the Greek word used in 6:9. That still does not fulfill my request for you to provide a concordance or lexicon that verifies your claim.

Kan, Ken, and other variants are found in Greek and related languages, e.g. Turkish, as what is sometimes termed the diminutive, or familiar, in koine Greek in our passage under scrutiny, this gives ownership of the nature (makes it familliar) to the actor, so it is not physis (general nature) but personal nature, nature of the actor
The same word that is in Romans 1:26 is used in Romans 11:21:
"For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." (NIV)

In order to verify your claim, provide a concordance or lexicon that confirms your definition.

You seem to misunderstand the comparison, the word 'physis' has a fluid meaning, hence context is important, as are modifications such as suffixes.
Context is important, which is why I brought it up in my response.

No: you still haven't got a reasonable source for the claim Arsenkoites translates as homosexual, the most viable translation from a reading of all ancient sources, would be rapist.
I can list numerous sources. Try Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. However, I have yet to see you name a source that verifies your claim.

There is no basis to regard homosexuality as a sin, based on the actual text of the bible.
You have yet to provide any reason to think that. The Bible makes it quite clear. I do not try and read into the text.

Saul twice describes David and Jonathan as married, once with his blessing, 1 sam 18: 20-21 and once in anger, 1 sam 20: 30 Jonathan stripping naked in front of David is a bit of a give away too.
1 Samuel 18:20-21:
Now Saul's daughter Mi'chal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him. So Saul said: "I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philis'tines may come upon him." Saul then said to David a second time: "You will form a marriage alliance with me [Or "will become my son-in-law."] today." (NW)

1 Samuel 20:30:
Then Saul became enraged with Jon'athan, and he said to him: "You son of a rebellious woman, do you think I do not know that you are choosing to side with the son of Jes'se, to your own shame and to the shame of your mother?" (NW)

So where are reading that David and Jonathan are married?

Daniel 1: 9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

Problem is "favour and tender love" translates "chesed v'rachamim"

Cesed translates is "mercy". V'rachamim is plural and can mean eather: "mercy" or "physical love". It's unlikely the Hebrew reads "mercy and mercy." Therefore "mercy and physical love" is the only viable translation.
The Hebrew word for "favor" is checed. The Hebrew word for "tender love" is racham. Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance do not EVER translate racham to mean "physical love."

No reply then?
Sorry, I do not live on the forum.

I was wondering if you'd like to debate on this subject....or continue things on like this.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 12:49:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 12:45:28 AM, icetiger200 wrote:

I was wondering if you'd like to debate on this subject....or continue things on like this.
I will let you know later if I can do a formal debate.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 12:14:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
The bible may not be against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it.
Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context.

A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean?

Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives.

Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.

In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it.

Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality.

We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying.

But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.

It may not be in the opinion of some, but in reality it is, completely against homosexuality, if only because it is non productive.

After all, it cannot do what sex was designed to do, bring about reproduction. Sex has no other purpose. It was not given us for pleasure. the pleasure was added to encourage us to reproduce.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 9:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 12:45:28 AM, icetiger200 wrote:

I was wondering if you'd like to debate on this subject....or continue things on like this.
I can debate. Let me know when you are ready.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:00:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:18 AM, icetiger200 wrote:
Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'.

That would be an interesting argument. This would pretty much show that even the ancient Greeks were seeing appeal to nature as a flawed argument. Also, no Christian protests when they see the traditional picture of Jesus with long hair, despite that he probably didn't have long hair at all (source: http://www.popularmechanics.com... ) . So why was Jesus's unnaturality OK but not homosexuals' dito?