NO to Homos!

The following is a accumulated combination of homosexuality-related information obtained from various sources on the internet.
Joining the list of pseudo-"christian" heretics including the so-called "rev" James D. Cunningham, Patheos, and T E Hanna (tehanna) are the following:

First, the irreverent sassy-ass rambling of a hell-bound heretic ( with editor's comments in [brackets] ):

This site is optimized with the Yoast WordPress SEO plugin v1.7.4 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo

Matthew Paul Turner writes:

Congratulations Indiana. You've done it. Your Christianity is free! That's how your promoting this new law, right - as freedom? Freedom from the gay agenda? Freedom from governmental influence? Freedom from the words of Jesus to love thy neighbors? [and His Luke 14:26 statement of "Whoever does not hate cannot be my disciple"]

And what 'freedom' it is, too. I mean, seriously, your religious bakers no longer have to make butter cream frosting for lesbian mouths [turning into lesbian poop]. Your Jesus-loving construction workers are legally protected to say no to the gay couple who wants to build their first home [forcing hetero-Christian builders to do it when they could instead commission homopervert ones to do it]. All of your faith-based business owners can now safely and legally avoid selling their products to the good people ["good" people?] of the GLBTQ community. That sounds like some amazing freedom. [It is!]

However, I'm still not sure why your state's Christianity is so afraid of gay people [Christian people are not afraid of homogays, but instead despise them]. You guys bake wedding cakes and build houses for Pentecostals [and whoever said that Pentecostals are homogay perverts?]. And you do that without blinking an eye. [ Do bakers have to blink?] I mean, if you're so bent on protecting your state's faith [not the State's faith, the State's allowance for real hetero-Christians to not be harassed by homoqueers], you might consider discriminating against those Pentecostal people who turn the Gospel into magic tricks ["magic" "tricks?', 401k plans, and pony shows [what's a "pony show?"] every Sunday. They seem far more dangerous [Pentecostals never have been dangerous, or even close to dangerous] to your Christianity than gay people who want to get married. [not "married" but instead licensed to sodomize]

But then again, you and I both know this new law has nothing to do with protecting Indiana's religiosities. If that were true, you'd have stopped making wedding cakes and homes for a long list of people years ago. No, this law is about giving so-called [so-called?] Christian business owners the freedom to be jackasses [actually, Matthew Paul Turner is an asshole himself] if they want to. You've given them the right to discriminate against a group of people who have been discriminated against since pretty much the beginning of time [Oh, it is nothing new?]. How does that make you feel? Proud? [Why not?] Lonely? [No] Christ-like? [Duh] But what I dont understand is why. For what cause have you passed this new law? And please don't say you've done this for Jesus. [We will say anything we want, because Matthew Paul Turner is not authorized to boss us around] Just don't go there because there's nothing remotely Jesusish about this law. [We will go wherever we like because Matthew Paul Turner is in no position to speak for Christ nor boss Christians around]

If I'm honest [which is dubious], I actually feel sorry for the business owners who are celebrating this new 'freedom'. Because for one thing, what do they really have to celebrate anyway? I mean, I can only imagine that the thrill of 'Yay, we get to discriminate!' [Yay, Yea, whatever] It won't last long. [It has lasted for over 2000 years already] I mean, come on, you and I both know that discrimination is exhausting over time, even for Christians. [we mount up with wings as eagles, and run without becoming weary]. And they'll not only be fighting their consciences' yes, deep down they know this new law is wrong [No, deep down we know that it is right] but they're also fighting against the grain of an entire culture ["entire culture" of a accursed minority of activist homofaggots?]. Sure, that fight will cause them to feel as proud and haughty [Matthew Paul Turner is the jackass who is haughty] as Puritans for a while because going against the culture does that to religious folk. But soon, that pride will fade and keeping up the passion for avoiding gay patrons will become a great burden. [Not really, it is will become no burden whatsoever] Hate is a terrible weight to carry. [What is burdensome is love of Satan's homodikes and lesbos] And then, at some point, their freedom to discriminate will intersect with their personal lives. They'll learn that somebody they've known and sold things to is gay [No one is perfect] or they'll find out that their son or daughter is gay and then they'll have to choose between their freedom and their emotional connections. [He is loves family more than Me is not worthy of Me]

Is that freedom? [What do you think, idiot?]

But Indiana, mostly I feel sorry for your Christian business owners because you've given them a free pass to stop evolving. [Never have gone for the myth of evolution] That's right. In your attempt to offer their faith-based convictions a little ease, you've actually put them in a kind of prison [I do not see Christian business owners incarcerated in jail] , one that will keep them inside their closed-minded [why not, unless you like being open-minded sticking your head into a full non-flushed toilet] little worlds feeling safe and 'free'; from gay [not "gay" but instead: effeminate] people. You've given them the right to pass on conversing or interacting with a multitude of really good [REALLY "good?"] people. But not only that, you've put up one more roadblock, a divider that will prevent them benefiting from the stories, the experiences, and not to mention, the pocketbooks [ooooooooo!] of some amazing [amazing to who?] people who happen to be gay [not "gay" but instead: effeminate]. And sadly [not sadly, but happily] people who have permission slips to be intolerant remain intolerant.

You've taken a huge step backwards [actually forward] Indiana, a step back that will have consequences [scarey! frightening!] in the years to come, a step back that makes life harder and more cumbersome for all involved [not all, only homoperverts and their patsies], a step back that other people will have to invest time, energy, and money into fighting against in hopes of overturning [Yes!]. You might call it religious freedom, but we both know there's nothing [actually: everything] about it that's religious or free.

I grew up in a church environment that shunned people who didn't believe exactly the same things about God and culture that I believed in. Our community wasn't built on love, peace, and understanding; its foundation was agreement. Disagreements often caused huge conflicts, many of which ended with somebody being asked to leave or leaving angrily on their own. Those people became like ghosts to those of us who remained. We didn't talk to them, look at them, and went to great lengths to avoid them whenever we saw them around town.

I left that kind of religiosity on purpose, because it was emotionally and spiritually suffocating.

A gathering of any kind can certainly fall prey to the behavior of fundamentalism, though it seems to favor groups of people who commune together because of a belief or conviction. Belief and conviction are the two ingredients that make fundamentalism so prevalent among conservative Christians, evangelicals, charismatics, and the like.

But lately, I've encountered the spirit of fundamentalism among those who consider themselves progressive. This isn't new trend, of course, but among progressive Christians, fundamentalisms are difficult to pinpoint because there's a good bit of belief diversity among progressive believers. Assuming what most evangelicals believe isn't a perfect art, but it's certainly much easier to do than trying to assume what progressive believe. Our assumptions about progressives becomes much more accurate when considering the numbers of ways and reasons they challenge conservative and moderate Christians. So while fundamentalist tendencies have always existed among progressives, they tend to remain at a much lower volume than those from our more conservative sects.

But lately, perhaps because progressive Christianity is gaining in popularity or because it's becoming more visible online, the mean spirited, anger-ridden, must-agree-on-everything spirituality that I grew up in has been boiling up among those who identify as progressive Christians, open-minded believers seemingly enraged with self-righteousness and intoxicated by the assumption that they have it right.

While progressive fundamentalism isn't as common as the conservative evangelical variety that we've all encountered, it's happening often enough that we need to start talking about it. Because it's getting louder and more and more laced with God-and-self-inspired hatred. And because many of us progressive types have fought the good fight against American Christianity's better known fundy culture for so long that it would be very easy for us to become tacky, mean-spirited believers [methinks that Matthew Paul Turner is tacky and mean-spirited!] without even realizing it, the kind of people who rally, complain, and shun each other just like those we have called out.

I'm offended but I don't want to be offended. But why do I feel offended?

Having somebody like me as a member of your megachurch can't be easy I fully realize that. It requires a lot of grace, trust, and humor. I'm survivor of church abuse. I still carry baggage. While I've grown a lot, sometimes, when caught off guard, I can quickly fall back into making uncomfortable experiences like the one I was encountering last Sunday all about me, about me being hurt, about me not feeling safe, about my church not considering me. On top of that, I often write about church abuse. So yes, sometimes having me as a member of your church is a big ole pain in the ass. [try derriere instead]

Unless I am misreading the situation we seem to make our wearers a bit self-conscious. At least the girl who wears me is always tugging at my hem. Though I am not an expert on human nature, this appears to indicate some kind of complex.

I have also noted that we miniskirts have the ability to attract a good deal of masculine attention even at church. At first I took pride in the fact that men are fascinated by my pattern and color design. I was embarrassed before he was through.

He claimed that the miniskirt does not appeal to the aesthetic. According to him, there are dozens of other dresses more beautiful than I am. His blanket statement that miniskirts do not make an aesthetic, academic, economic, moral, or spiritual contribution to their wearers left me with a feeling that I was not such a great Christian after all.

He said the only appealing thing about me was my appeal to the flesh. Then he spoke for ten minutes on the carnality of human nature. He publicly accused me of contributing to the lust of the flesh. I felt a hard tug on my hem when he said that!

Last Sunday, my church made me very uncomfortable (and that's OK)

This site is optimized with the Yoast WordPress SEO plugin v1.7.4 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo So, after looking at the Old Testament, and what Jesus said about homosexuality, I continued on my quest through the New Testament, and was surprised to find that every reference that can be linked to homosexuality in the New Testament all came from Paul, minus Jude, whom a few people believe speaks

The Gay Christian My Thoughts. My Journal. My Life.

So, after looking at the Old Testament, and what Jesus said about homosexuality, I continued on my quest through the New Testament, and was surprised to find that every reference that can be linked to homosexuality in the New Testament all came from Paul, minus Jude, whom a few people believe speaks about homosexuality, but most scholars believe Jude is talking about something totally different. There is not enough evidence to link what Jude says to homosexuality.

The first two verses I went to were from two different letters of Paul: one to the Corinthians, and one to Timothy. These two verses are also probably familiar to most evangelicals, as both of these passages are heard quite often. Most of the time, whenever the Levitical Laws are taken out of the argument for whatever reason, the opponents of homosexuality will come back with these two verses:

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. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV)

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers”and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11, NIV)

The 1 Corinthians passage was the most troubling for me. As I read it, I almost wanted to completely give up. I felt like this was more straight forward than the Leviticus verses, and plus this was New Testament, meaning it applied to me more than the Old Testament verses. To top it off, Paul was saying that "homosexual offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God. However, I also remembered how "straight forward" I thought the other passages were, so I kept digging deeper.

I did what I did before, and I started looking at the original words, and just as I assumed, when I did that, things started getting murky.

One of the most interesting things that caught my attention as I started looking was that the word "homosexual" was a fairly new word, and was not even invented until 1892. It was a word invented by psychologists to simply explain male-to-male relationships and attractions.

This led to a huge question: if that word hadn't even been invented until 1892, then is that the most proper translation from the original Greek?

After much reading and studying, I found that the words used to translate to some sort of homosexuality from the original Greek were malakos and arsenokoites. Malakos was translated as "male prostitute", and arsenokoites was translated as "homosexual offenders". But, what I found interesting was that in the 1 Timothy passage (which is why I included it above), arsenokoites is translated as "perverts". That's a big difference. So, why the switch?

What I found out is that, in reality, scholars are not really sure about how to translate these words. These words aren't the most common Greek words, especially arsenokoites. There is a lot of induction that's going out, and inferring of what Paul "probably meant". And, as we saw from the Matthew passage, that can be dangerous and not very reliable.

To top it all off, for me, it wasn't enough and was, quite simply, unfair. I mean, the way I was going to spend the rest of my life and possibly eternity depended on what was being said here, and all I could find was “this is what Paul probably meant. It made me more than a little frustrated. But, I kept digging.

I found out there is no consensus as to what is meant by these two words among Biblical scholars. Malakos is translated as pervert, effeminate, self-indulgent, and male prostitutes. Arsenokoites is translated as homosexual offenders, perverts, sodomites, men who practice homosexuality, and sexual perverts.

I didn't know a lot about Greek language and translations at the time, but I did know that generally, when translators cannot agree on the meaning of a Greek word, it showed what little they knew about the word.

The word malakos was better known than that of arsenokoites. It is seen more often in Greek texts, and it literally means "soft". Sometimes, translators take this to mean effeminate men. I think you know as well as I do that there are some straight men out there who are far more effeminate than some gay men, so if this is the meaning of the word, then homosexuals are not the only people that are in trouble. Eddie Izzard better start praying hard. There are also other times in Greek texts where malakos is translated as being reckless and uncontrolled in the way a person acts.

So, while we don't know the exact meaning of the word today, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that malakos, in the first-century when Paul was writing, meant homosexual men. Arsenokoites is a much more limited word, because the translations are very much closer in nature, but the problem with this word is that many scholars agree, and will admit, that this word is almost impossible to translate. Although malakos was more widely used, arsenokoites can be found in some other Greek works as well; seventy-three to be exact. In almost every other use of the word, even up to the sixth century, the word was used explicitly to talk about male slaves who were bought strictly for the purpose of sex.

This was the moment things began to make sense. This also made sense when compared to the Levitical Law, and with the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. So, it seems more logical that in 1 Corinthians, Paul was actually saying neither male prostitute (malakos) nor male sex slave trader (arsenokoites) would inherit the kingdom of God. Again, this is not talking about monogamous, committed relationships. Paul is talking about people in the sex trade, which I think we would all agree is less than a righteous industry, whether that be today or in the first century.

With this in mind, Scripture was starting to make sense in a whole different way. The Old Testament laws and the New Testament were beginning to intertwine in a new, fresh way. The angry, wrathful God I used to know was suddenly becoming an advocate for human dignity, and all of these passages began to flow together throughout all of Scripture to show that all human beings were equal in status, and that we should live by one basic code: love.

It all started clicking after learning the meanings of these two words, and I was excited about how it was coming together, because Scripture was making far more sense than it used to. It was becoming less of a manual of rules, and more an ethical teaching about how to view others and love another.

As I learned these two words and their contexts, what was once anger at my upbringing was becoming more about excitement to where my life was going, and the things I was learning.

But, I wasn't finished yet! I still had one major passage that I really needed to dive into. We will cover that tomorrow to finish off the Clobber Verses series. As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below! Thanks for reading!

Finally, a sensible truly-Christian anti-homosexual enlightens:

My name is Dr. Edward Dalcour. I am a staff member of the theology department of NWU and a Christian apologist. I write you out of love and biblical obligation.

After reading this blog regarding 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, I was not at all surprise at your lack of critical study on these passages (as well as Lev. and Rom). These kinds of articles are typical, although. You merely cite a couple of Greek terms, which you, as I will show below, incorrectly interpret. Further, you make many textual and historical assertions, as most advocates of a pro-homosexual biblical view do, which you never once provide any lexical or scholarly support to justify your claims so the reader can for himself verity the information that you are presenting.

Of course, it is quite apparent to any first year Greek student or studied Christian who reads your blogs that you do not have any knowledge of biblical Greek or ability to interact with any text exegetically. This is very disturbing. When one presents a false biblical interpretation or view, he not only dishonors the Lord by distorting Scripture, but also, and sadly, affects others.

You said: "I did what I did before, and I started looking at the original words, and just as I assumed, when I did that, things started getting murky." Murky? It is only "murky" to one who does engage in meaningful exegesis of the text. How can you examine the original words, when you have no idea how to do a basic lexical study of words? as demonstrated below.

You then assert that the term 'homosexual' was a 'fairly new word, and was not even invented until 1892.' This is an irrelevant point. Since you are not familiar at all with translational/textual issues, you make this an issue.

The fact is, English translations of the NT are based on the Greek equivalence. As I will point out below, the English terms, "sodomite, homosexual, etc., are terms that biblical translators use to correspond to the original Greek term in context and grammar. The term "atonement," for example, is a sixteenth century English term (invented by Tyndale, 1525) that corresponds to the Greek term KATALLASSŌ (lit., "to reconcile," or, as Tyndale saw, at-one-ment). This is true with every single English term: they are all semantic equivalences to the Greek text.

Then you said: "This led to a huge question: if that word hadn't even been invented until 1892, then is that the most proper translation from the original Greek?"

Umm, so would you now reject the term "atonement" (or other Eng. doctrinal terms) by that same standard?

This brings me to your misuse of the two biblical terms mentioned in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 (ARSENOKOITAI and MALAKOI). I will try to make this brief. First, in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul provides a list of sins in which the ones who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. The context, which you miss, is Christian behavior starting in chapter 5 with the immoral so-called brother. Chapter 6, verses 9-11 read:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAI], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In your assertions of the two terms, MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI, you had stated: "I found out there is no consensus as to what is meant by these two words among Biblical scholars."

Really? What biblical scholars? Again, you provide not one lexical source or scholar. All you do is compare English translations, which contain various meanings all of which have the same connotations.

So I will provide, which you have not done, the proper and verifiable lexical information and scholarly comments. MALAKOS: Yes, it can mean "soft" as in "soft garment" (Matt. 11:8) only used four times in the NT. In fact, every time the term is used in the NT, it is used to denote soft garment, except at 1 Cor. 6:9. However, you error in you understanding of the term *in the context* of 1 Cor. 6:9.

FYI: words are defined by the context in which the word(s) appears, not by the various meanings a term can have. Biblical exegesis is not interpreting words from a Concordance you got at the local WalMart.

The fact is as clearly demonstrated in your assertions, you do not follow any kind of acceptable method of biblical interpretation you merely interpret terms according to your life style and personal theology.

The reason why most translations translate MALAKOI as "homosexual" or "effeminate" is simply because, as noted, the CONTEXT limits the definition of the term to a vile sinful practice. Please note, both MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI in 1 Cor. 6:9 are placed in a list of abominable sins: "fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAI], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

You cannot remove the terms from their context as you do. Note the beginning of the passage: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived." Paul then gives the list of unrighteous acts.

You said: "while we don't know the exact meaning of the word today, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that malakos, in the first-century when Paul was writing, meant homosexual men."

That is simply false. LOUW & NIDA comment on both MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9:

"A male partner in homosexual intercourse". . .

Another recognized lexical source, Thayer-Grimm, show that the meaning of MALAKOI is well established in a pejorative lewd sense years before the Apostle Paul penned 1 Cor:

Like the Latinmollis, metaphorically, and in a bad sense: effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Antiquities 7, 2 [60 BC after 7 BC] under the end; (Diogenes Laartius 7, 173 at the end).

Thus, your so-called research is defective and dishonest. Scholars do not disagree as to the terms meaning in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9 (cf. Gill; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; Robertson; Clark; Reymond; and White, to name a few).

Yes, being a "soft" person is not a sin. But in context of the immediate passages, Paul sees MALAKOI as an unrighteous sinful act, which is agreed by both biblical scholars and lexicographers. You have not studied honestly or objectively for your conclusions merely reflect your own personal views and not the view of Holy Scripture.

Hence, MALAKOI in these contexts denote the "passive male partner" in a homosexual relationship in which the Apostle Paul connects with "fornicators, idolaters,adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers, which to Paul, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So abhorrent to the Lord are these ten sins listed by the apostle that Clark can say: There are here ten classes of transgressors which the apostle excludes from the kingdom of God.

ARSENOKOITÄ’S. Now we get to the other term you misunderstand and incorrectly define.

First, I will present the lexical meaning of ARSENOKOITAI, which is defined by the context in both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. ARSENOKOITAIS is a compound term from arsÄ“n, “a male” and koitÄ“, “a mat, bed” “ a man in bed with another man; or a homosexual, as the dominate partner (in contrast to the passive-soft MALAKOI partner). The Latin Vulgate, which corresponds to the Greek here, reads: masculorum concubitores, literally, "bedfellows of men" or "liers with mankind."

Thayer defines the term as: "One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite:" 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; ecclesiastical writings).

Further, one of the most utilized and recognized lexicons, BDAG (Bauer-Danker), defines the term as “A male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity.

So let us not equivocate in the lexical meaning of the term as you are doing. The meaning in the context of both passages is clearly spelled out for you: "One who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity," a sodomite.

Second, because you are unfamiliar with textual issues, thus misinforming your readers by providing erroneous information, I will present first the source of ARSENOKOITAIS in the Septuagint (LXX, i.e., the Greek OT that Jesus and the apostles used and from which they cited).

The LXX of Lev. 18:22 reads: Kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēs koitēn gunaikeian, and of Lev. 20:13, Kai os an koimēthē meta arsenos koitēn gunaikos . . . In English: With a male you shall not lie the bed/intercourse KOITĒ of a woman, and Whoever lies with a male the KOITĒ of a woman [here both have done an abominable act, they shall be put to death.]

Clearly, Paul's usage of ARSENOKOITAIS looks back on the Levitical phrase ARSENOS KOITÄ’N, which shows unambiguously the source of the term and confirms Paul's intended meaning in 1 Tim. 1:10. The term certainly was tagged by Greek speaking Jews.

In the context of "role playing" in most ancient same-sex relationships (as we know) the MALAKOI is the receptive party and ARSENOKOITAIS the inserters in male-male anal intercourse” it is a matter of historical record. Thus, both in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 unequivocally God condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts.

You further said: "After much reading and studying . . . what I found interesting was that in the 1 Timothy passage (which is why I included it above), arsenokoitai is translated as "perverts". That' a big difference. So, why the switch?

Here you are use a particular English translation (NIV) to attempt to show a discrepancy in translations and thus you make a conclusion. This is an erroneous way of interpretation. If you are trying to obtain a correct meaning of a term (viz. the author's intended meaning), you must consult the Greek text, not find an English translation that works for you.

Note how other translations translate the term:

NASB/Holman: Homosexuals
ESV: men who practice homosexuality
NIV: those practicing homosexuality
KJV for them that defile themselves with mankind (ambiguous)
NKJV: sodomites (this is probably the best translation according to the lexical import of the term!)

Again you ignore the context in which the word appears. 1 Timothy 1 is dealing with false doctrine and false teachers (viz. Gnostic philosophy). Note vv. 9-10:

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAIS] and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching (NASB).

For Paul, these sins are "contrary to sound teaching" You said: What I found out is that, in reality, scholars are not really sure about how to translate these words. I have proved this as again false. You have no idea of what you are saying or how to engage in a proper study of God's Word.

In conclusion, in both 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim. 1 Paul provides a list of sins that Paul defines as "unrighteous." So uprightness are these sins that Paul sees those who practice such things will as not inheriting "the kingdom of God."

Paul cannot conceive a true Christian ever practicing such sins as fornication, idolatry, adultery effeminate [MALAKOI], homosexuality (male to male desire/sex relationship ARSENOKOITAIS], and the others he mentions in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

In 1 Tim. 1:10, Paul list the sin of ARSENOKOITAIS (homosexuality) as being practiced by the "the ungodly and sinners . . . who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, kidnappers, liars and perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

The two terms ARSENOKOITAI’S and MALAKOI (which are rooted in the Levitical Law, as noted above) are unambiguous in Paul's context both in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Your assertions are not only incorrect, but they are dishonest as you provide false information regarding the view of scholars (which you cite none).

Scholarship militates against your view. Biblical scholars are congruent in the definition of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOS in the particular context to which they appear (viz. 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10). You are misleading many by imposing your personal views upon Scripture, which clearly oppose your view.

Paul says to you and those who would see homosexuality as permissible before the Lord: "Do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9). These sins, which Paul lists, are clear characteristics of unbelievers. For the list ends with Paul saying: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

If you truly love Christ, you will not rebel against Him and His word as you are doing and teaching. This is a serious matter. As Paul instructs by God the Holy Spirit:

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you (1 Tim. 4:16)

The homosexual thanks Dr Dalcour for his enlightenment:

Thank you for your scholarly comment, Dr. Dalcour. I hope discussion can continue! Thank you!

Then a pro-homopervert reviler speaks:

Horrid. Anything to protect your own views professor. I am Christian [No, you are not a Christian!] and I totally understand not taking the bible literally [so does everyone else understand the possibility of doing such a damnable thing]– especially as it has been tainted by translation and human hands [obvious the heretic does not believe in divine inspiration of Scripture]. Oh- those letters also defend slavery [why not?], do you take that literally [why not?] Stop cherry picking. [Stop "cherry" "picking" yourself - whatever that means! Does that mean that a surgeon should operate on tonsils or hearts which are healthy in contrast to targeting the gall bladder which needs removal? Should an automotive expert educate himself on tires or radiators instead of concentrating on info pertinent to mufflers or alternators? Maybe study info on drain openers instead of on Windex if clogged drains are the problem?]

1 Timothy 6 New International Version (NIV) 6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.
2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves.

Homosexuality, whether male or female, is spoken about in Romans as unnatural. That's something to consider. How arsenokoitai is used in every Bible as an equivalent to homosexuality is something else to consider. Please stop using The Bible to justify sin.

This site is optimized with the Yoast WordPress SEO plugin v1.7.4 - yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo

A few days ago on one of my Clobber Verse articles, someone by the name of Dr. Edward Dalcour responded to the article in the comment section. He picked apart my article, and said that my research was defective and dishonest. He made it sound like no theologian would ever agree.

This site uses the Google Analytics by Yoast plugin v5.3.2 yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/google-analytics Google Analytics by Yoast May 1, 2013 thegaychristian.com/author/bwallace88" View all posts by Brandon Wallace author Brandon Wallace [The words: "gay christian" is an absurd oxymoron, or self-contradictory phrase]

A few days ago on one of my Clobber Verses: Paul's Epistles" Clobber Verse articles someone by the name of Dr. Edward Dalcour responded to the article in the comment section. He picked apart my article, and said that my research was defective and dishonest. He made it sound like no theologian would ever agree with me, and that I was outright lying about my research into the subject.

Enter Karl Hand. Karl is the lead http://www.cravemcc.com Crave MCC in Australia. He also runs the blog.

He is also a very scholarly [actually: pseudo--"scholarly"] follower of Christ [try "Satan" instead], and we have mutual friends. It is people like Karl that helped me to better understand the [distorted] Scripture in my process of coming to terms with homosexuality. When Karl found out that Dr. Dalcour made it sound like no theologian agreed with me, he decided to write a guest post for me in response to the comment.

Take it away, Karl!

Dear Dr. Edward Dalcour,

Thank you for your blog comment on April 27, and for the spirit of love in which it was written, as well as the shared concern we both have that the Word of God should not be distorted. Brandon and I both have blogs that are aimed at lay-people, not specialists, because we feel strongly that every human being can access the Bible, and that God's Spirit speaks to us when we read the bible. For that reason, we found it was sufficient to summarise a good deal of lexical research that has gone into our understanding, particularly of arsenokoitai. We are, however, delighted that you have provided us with an opportunity to respond in more detail and clarify some of the reasons for our beliefs.

[Editor's Note: Consider how the above pseudo-patronizing sounds familiar with the following:

Acts 24:1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders and with a certain orator, Tertullus, who made a statement to the governor against Paul. 2 And being called, Tertullus began to accuse, saying, 3 Being that we enjoy great quietness by you, and very worthy deeds are done to this nation due to your forethought, in everything and everywhere, most noble Felix, we accept with all thankfulness. 4 But that I not hinder you further, I beseech you to hear us briefly in your fairness. 5 For we have found this man pestilent, and moving rebellion among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, 6 who also attempted to profane the temple, whom we took and would have judged according to our law. 7 But the chiliarch Lysias came with much force, taking him away out of our hands, 8 commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him, you yourself may know about all these things of which we accuse him. 9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so. 10 But the governor motioning to him to speak, Paul answered; Understanding you as being a judge of this nation many years, I cheerfully defend myself as to the things concerning myself. 11 You can know that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, nor making a gathering of a crowd; not even in the synagogues, nor throughout the city. 13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. 14 But I confess this to you, that after the Way which they call heresy, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and in the Prophets. 15 And I have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 16 And in this I exercise myself, always to have a blameless conscience toward God and men. 17 And after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation. 18 Among which certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, not with a crowd nor with tumult. 19 These ought to be present before you and to accuse me, if they have anything against me. 20 Or else let these themselves say if they have found anything unjust in me while I stood before the sanhedrin, 21 unless it may be for this one voice that I cried out standing among them, that concerning a resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you today. 22 And having heard these things, Felix put them off, knowing more accurately of the Way, saying, "When Lysias the chiliarch has come down, I will examine you."

I'm sure you will be aware the NIV, NASB and ESV are not the only translations that have made a decision on this issue. The tradition of English Bibles to see this as a reference to some form of homosexuality can be traced back to Wyclif's translation of the term as €œmen that done synne of sodom, and then by Tyndale as €œabusars of themselves with mankynde, and finally by the RSV as €œhomosexuals. Martin Luther's translation of the term as Knabenschander (child molester), and Louis Segond's French translation as gens de mÅ“urs infÃ¥mes (infamous persons), attest to a long tradition of different understandings in continental Europe, as well as some more ambiguous translations, such as €œperverts or €œsodomotes etc. in the NAB, NEB and NRSV. The United Bible Society's Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (1971) is wisely ambiguous in giving the meaning €œmale sexual pervert.Firstly, I want to raise the concern that you appeal to lexica as authoritative sources, rather than simply tools for Biblical study. For the most part, your argument consists of summaries of three lexica entries: Thayer, Louw & Nida, and BDAG. These are the best available lexica of the New Testament, and I refer to them regularly. However, it must be remembered that a lexicon gives the judgment of either a single scholar or a committee on the meaning of any word. The best lexica gives a list of the ways that any lexeme is used in the known literature, so that the reader can form an educated judgment, and even be critical of the lexicon's own conclusion. The lexicon may also put forward suggested meanings which would account for all the usages, but ultimately the meaning is determined by the usages, not the authority of the lexicon.In fact, New Testament lexica do require extra care, since the New Testament dialect of Greek (Koine) is such a newly discovered, poorly attested, and poorly understood dialect. Generally, Thayer's lexicon alone is not considered appropriate for modern scholarly use because it was published in 1885, and therefore before the Oxyrhynchus papyri were discovered in 1897. Soon after Thayer's publication came the recognition that the Koine dialect was distinct from Attic Greek, and therefore it would be impossible to infer directly from Classical usage to New Testament meaning. Thayer did not know this.BDAG is certainly the most reliable lexicon available for Koine Greek, but it still shouldn't be thought of as an authoritative reference, as its editor, arguably the 20th century's greatest Biblical Greek lexicographer, Frederick William Danker himself points out in his own critical review of the lexicon (see Danker, 2004). BDAG is the third revision of Bauer's 1928 revision of Preuschen's lexicon. Bauer was a rushed revision of an inadequate lexicon by a person who was not a specialist, and the content of these lexica needed to be frequently updated to keep up with new discoveries, research, and the changing English language, first as Arndt and Gingrich (BAG, 1957), then Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker (1979) and finally as BDAG in 2000. Danker talks about the tendency for lexicographers to defer to tradition by keeping cherished €œstained-glass meanings from earlier dictionaries, such as the use of grace for charis, which sounds lovely, but is probably not as accurate as generosity. He also discusses how lexicons can weigh in on theological debates, such as in the decision of BAG (1957) to support the view of Leitzmann that the apostle Junia was a man, and of BAGD (1979) to sit on the fence, until finally in BDAG (2000), it was admitted that there is no evidence whatsoever of Junia being a male name. The lexicon was thereby participating in the debate about the ordination of women, and the theologies and biases of the lexicographers was certainly a determining factor in the conclusions reached. It isn't surprising therefore, especially in light of how controversial the discussion of homosexuality is in the church, that BDAG etc. have decided to take a position on the discussion about the meaning of arsenokoitÄ“s, and have adopted the mainstream position that arsenokoit means homosexual. They are simply following the theological fashion, and the decision of most 20th Century English bibles, by defining these words as homosexual. And that widespread understanding of the meaning is exactly what I would argue against.Biblical Hapax LegomenaTraditionally, theologians have taken a lot of creative license with ascribing meanings to words. In 1961, James Barr took the theological establishment to task by insisting that the scope of meanings of any word must be determined by its usage in literature contemporary to the text in question, and that it's specific meaning in any context is determined by that context.The word arsenokoitÄ“s in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 is a unique word. Scholars call these words hapax legomena (once spoken). That means its only used in that single context in any Greek documents of its time, and for centuries to follow, it is mainly found in documents quoting Paul, and in other vice lists, including one such list in the Sibylline Oracles (2nd 5th century), but there is nothing for at least three hundred years after the writing of Paul that could shed light on the meaning of the word. Since the criterion linguists use to establish the meaning of a word is its usage in the literature, and the context, and yet arsenokoitÄ“s is a hapax legomenon found in a list, theres no way to know what such a word means. We are able to make hypotheses, but we can't test them.Use of root words to establish meaning. Because language is constantly evolving, you cannot use the origin of a word to determine its meaning. Don Carson (1998:28-33) has described this as the root fallacy the idea that a word can be understood by finding out about its origins. The classical example which Carson cites is the word "nice", which derives from the Latin root word nescius, which means ignorant. Everyone knows that the meaning of this word no longer has any relationship to ignorance. Carson gives a long list of examples of New Testament passages being misinterpreted because of this fallacy theologians are not renowned for their good grasp of linguistics.The interpretation of arsenokoitÄ“s is a blatant example of this fallacy. Arsenos means man or male, and koit means bed or couch (usually in reference to sexual intercourse). As John Boswell has described (1980: 341-44), this could lead us to two different hypotheses about the meaning of the word. It could mean a male person who has sex, or a person who has sex with men. Since arsenokoitÄ“s is a masculine noun, the second option would lead us to define the word as a man who has sex with men, whereas the first option could mean any man who has noteworthy sexual behaviour. Either interpretation allows for the possibility that this refers to a professional male-bedder or man-bedder, i.e. a sex-worker, or a member of pagan fertility cult. This possibility recommends itself because a large portion of 1 Cor 6 (verses 12-20) deals with the question of Christians and participation in prostitution. Boswell therefore concluded that the word should be taken to mean male prostitute.In addition to the possibility suggested by Boswell, the term could be like the English word ˜butterfly", which bears no semantic relation to its root word butter at all. In this case, arsenokoitas might have nothing to do with men and sex. Ultimately, the meaning of the term is impossible to determine by its roots.Use of sentences to define a wordI notice that you also refer to a recent argument, which was first proposed by David Wright (1983) that arsenokoitÄ“s was coined by Paul who joined together two words from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to refer to people who violate the Levitical prohibition: meta arsenos oun gunaikos, (with a man do no lay down a couch [ie a sexual act] of a woman) and 20:13 meta arsenos koitÄ“n gunaikos, (with a man, a couch of a women).From a scientific viewpoint, it doesn't matter how hypotheses are formulated, so long as they can be proven. However, stringing words together out of a sentence seems like an unlikely story. Returning to my example of butterfly, imagine a linguist in the year 4000 trying to figure out what it means, when there is only one reference to it in a list of words. The combination of "butter" and "fly" hasn't made a great deal of sense, so she looks for sentences that contain both words: There is a dead fly in my butter , I saw a stick of butter fly across the room, They served the in-flight meal with bread and butter. Perhaps linguists would conclude that a butterfly is either an airborne condiment, or table-spreads with dead insects in them. This is basically the same situation we are in with the word arsenokoitas. We would need more information to be able to decide what it means.The Use of Context to Define a Word For all these reasons, for many years I was happy to say that I had no idea what the word arsenokoitÄ“s meant. However, just last year Alan Cadwallader published an article suggesting that it would be helpful to read the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as an integral part of 1 Cor 5-6. He suggested that those chapters should be understood as a unity, and that therefore, all of the words used in the vice list of 6:9-10 should be understood as referring to the man in 1 Cor 5:1 who has taken his father's concubine, and therefore must be cast out (excommunicated) from the Corinthian church. Reading 1 Cor 6:9-10 again, it struck me that this is an excellent point. The reason that Paul is listing the kind of people who cannot inherit the kingdom of God relates directly to his argument in 5:9-12 that such a person must be driven out of the local assembly. This explains why the list of vices in 6:9-10 only refers to sexual sins and sins of greed. The man who has taken his step-mother is a "man-bedder" in the sense that he has invaded another man's marriage bed and stolen a woman from it. Paul is arguing at length that a sexual predator like this cannot be understood as a member of the kingdom, and must be driven out.However attractive I find this argument, both because I think the hypothesis is formed on much more solid contextual grounds than the root-fallacy, or spurious references to the Septuagint of Leviticus, but also because I think such an argument preaches well, and gives a biblical basis for creating church environments that are safe from sexual predators. I have to admit that like all hypotheses, this one is unprovable. And yet, since it is the best hypothesis we have to date, I'm happy to conclude that the word arsenokoitÄ“s would be best translated as sexual predators in any future Bible translation. Apart from the root words of arsenokoitaas, and their use in two sentences, there are no reasons to think that the word refers to homosexual actions, and as I have argued, these can both be used to formulate hypotheses about the meaning of the word arsenokoitas. Without any real immediate context (apart from a list), or a body of literature in which Paul's contemporaries use the term, it is actually impossible to understand who Paul had in mind when he used the term. Our best guesses will have to suffice, and we are humble enough to know that our best guesses are not the whole story.

Yours in Christ,
Karl Hand

May 1, 2013 at 2:29 pm May 1, 2013

The Dr. (at 4:29 pm) responds:

Thank you for the response.

First, I really do not have the time to go back and forth on an issue that has not really been disputed in recognized scholarship.

Thus, you have not provided one recognized biblical scholar that holds to the converse of what I pointed out. All you did was

1) make a tersely comments regarding BDAG and asserted that Thayer, Louw & Nida, and BDAG are not really reliable sources in that a [scholarly] lexicon [only supposedly] gives [erroneous] judgment of either a single scholar or a committee on the meaning of any word and

2) cite two liberal theologians Barr and Boswell, which is a case of appealing to authority. However even Boswell agrees that his interpretation was marginal. Boswell acknowledges that most interpret the composite term ARSENOKOITAIS as active, meaning those who sleep with, make their bed with, men' (cf. Masters Seminary Journal (3.2.193-194), 1992.

Also, your assertions do not show that the lexical sources provided are faulty and it does not show the derivatives of semantic ranges and meanings of terms cannot be realized though the “collection” of cultural and scholarly data€”you should know better.

Second, you have not provided one lexicon that disagrees with the standard ones I provided. Thus, your assertion is merely based on own theology not on a lexical sources i.e., the standard lexical meaning of the two terms ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI are consistently defined: ARSENOKOITAIS means, (Thayer): One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite: 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; ecclesiastical writings).

Note that most lexicons also provide the historical information of term as well as other usages. Are you seriously suggesting that we just cannot trust the collection of lexical evidence?

Further, your assertion of the hapax legomena (once spoken). . . there is nothing for at least three hundred years after the writing of Paul that could shed light on the meaning of the word. That is false. You provide not one example of this; you only assert it as true.

In terms of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI, as I provided pre-first century information which you ignored. The particular units that make up the two are exampled in both secular literature and the LXX you should know this.

Further, as pointed out, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 have a defining context (abominable sins–“such as you were”) and they are consistent with other places in Scripture that show that man-man desire, lust, sex, etc. is unnatural and abominable to the Lord.

Also, homosexual behavior in Leviticus is not limited to prostitution, pederasty, or any other subclass of homosexual immorality.

As Malick rightfully says: It is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women (The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Bibliotheca Sacra (150.600.484, 1996). Thus the term includes as well as condemns all such activities.

Thus, since the source of Paul's usage was the LXX of Leviticus 18 and 20, it is in error to restrict the term to such as narrow meaning of prostitution (as Boswell asserts) As Carson and others (Gill; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; Robertson; Clark; Reymond; and White) point out.

Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service. Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature', p. 135 (3rd ed. 2000). As I demonstrated in my first response, the scholarly and lexical support sees ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI as acts of abomination. So citing Barr and Boswell does not help you at all.

Barr was one of the most liberal theologians who is known to be critical on the biblical inerrancy (viz. J.J. Paker). Thus, it is not surprising that you do not cite any *recognized bible scholars* in support of your views.In fact, you did cite D. A. Carson showing how many make exegetical fallacies true. Carson, as you know, is a noted biblical scholar he comments in many works on the issue of homosexuality.

For example in his book Collected Writings on Scripture, he observes the fallacy that many so-called Christians who are pro-homosexual assert regarding a limitation to the term ARSENOKOITAIS, as you also erroneously do: It is seen in its most pathetic garb when considerable exegetical skill goes into proving, say, that the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexuality but not homosexuality itself (though careful handling of the evidence overturns the thesis), or that the Bible's use of head in passages dealing with male/female relationships follows allegedly characteristic Greek usage, and therefore, means source (when close scrutiny of the primary evidence fails to turn up more than a handful of disputable instances of the meaning source in over two thousand occurrences).

It finds new lease when popular evangelicals publicly abandon any mention of on the ground that allegedly the term no longer communicates - without recognizing that adjacent truths (e.g., those dealing with the fall, the law of God, the nature of transgression, the wrath of God, and even the gracious atonement itself) undergo telling transformation. Did get it? In sum,1)

You have not refuted any argument or any scholar or lexicon provided, you merely made new and old assertions based on liberal destructive scholarship (Barr Boswell).2) Instead of interacting with the standard lexicon provided, you merely implied that we just cannot trust any lexicons (how convenient), but yet you cite none in disagreement to the standard ones.3) You have not provided any recognized scholarly support opposing the view that homosexuality is biblically wrong and abomination to the Lord in Lev, Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10.4)

You have not presented any at all meaningful exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10–in context. Yo have not even attempted to comment of the context of those passages.5) You have not presented any textual explanation of the plural usage of ARSENOKOITAIS in 1 Cor. 6:9 and ARSENOKOITÄ’S and MALAKOS 1 Tim. 1:10 in the context surrounding the passages.6) And you have not responded to the historical information of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI (from secular sources, LXX, the Latin, etc.) The biblical teaching is that both ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI in the context of where they appear mean a homosexual activity in all forms.Hence, it is Biblically condemned in all forms.

I am sure you not ignorant of the vast amount of biblical commentary that does so. Thus, if one is a practicing homosexual, he/she needs to repent before the Lord. Paul in concert with the OT (viz. Lev. 18 and 20), wrote as the Holy Spirit carried him along, homosexuality (both ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI) are vile and abominable sins before a perfect God as Paul says: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAIS],nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards,nor revilers, nor swindlers,will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you (1 Cor. 6:9) God will not be mocked by misinterpretations of His Word by those who want to make the Bible fit their life-style. If you claim you love God, then, turn from unholy practices €œcontrary to Scripture which dishonor God.I will not be able to interact anymore on this topic, for I am in the middle of several projects. I pray that God will open the eyes of all homosexuals reading this to the truth of Scripture.If you have any particular questions you may email me at http://critical-discipleship.blogspot.com.au Critical Discipleship
mail to: edward@christiandefense.org
http://www.christiandefense.org/Article_Homosex.htm

Edward

Donna the Heretic responds:

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the Bible has been translated numerous times. [Into languages other than the original. So what?] Each translation was filtered through the beliefs and events of the time the translation was done. [So is that supposed to be proof that each scribe who carefully translated capriciously wrote done random jibberish only partly or totally non-related to identical word transliteration?] Since we make mistakes [Speak for yourself; Do not include others in your scurrilous and non-substantiated accusations!] when translating any modern language to another modern language [how about ancient language into modern language?], it stands to reason [No, it stands to your non-substantiated and wannabe guess] many mistakes have been made through the centuries. Books have been removed that might give us greater insight [or greater misinformative confusion] into the meanings of many words [many? how about only a few? or none?] in the Bible. Unless a person can truly ["truly?"] read the Bible in its original form [and what scraps of papyrus and parchments forms is that?], we [Again, speak for yourself; Do not include others in your non-substantiated conjecture!] will never be absolutely positive of everything in it.

From where I sit, people who are determined the Bible condemns homosexuals [No, the Bible condemns homosexuals whether people are determined to believe it or not], pick and choose what they want to enforce and what to ignore [as you are hypocritically picking and choosing what you want to discuss]. This is wrong. [Not necessarily wrong to be discriminatorily choosey at times] Either follow every little detail of the Bible [sounds like a great idea] or take it as a guideline on how to live [also sounds good} instead of explicit instructions [Why not take it as explicit instructions? Who are you, and what is your authorization, to order everyone to not take the Bible literally?]. Mainly ["Mainly?] remember a couple of things:

1) God is love [and hates both wickedness and the wicked who impenitently do wickedness] and we [speak for yourself and do not speak for others who you have no authority to speak for] are supposed to love our fellow man.
2) We [speak for yourself and do not speak for others who you have no authority to speak for] are not supposed to judge our fellow [Paul commanded us to judge those inside the church] man-only God can do that [God, many times in Scripture, commissioned His servants to even lethally judge].

One last thing, I am not a member of LGBTQ. I am heterosexual [not completely, being that you are supporting the homosexual premise, and only those compliant with Christ's anti-homosexual doctrine and thus who God calls have the right to establish a relationship with Him]

The Wycliffe Bible doesnt relate arsenokoitai to Sodom and Gomorrah. [There are other versions of the Bible] They also seem to ["seem" to?] equate Malakos to their interpretation of Romans 1:26-27: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this two-fold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. [Augustine does not take into consideration God's hatred against evil and evildoers by that statement] - Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine

Karl, I found this very helpful, so thank you for your exemplary response to the technical questions of translation; particularly highly contested translation.
As I rule, I usually dismiss anyone who tries to pull recognized scholarship' rhetoric, [and I usually dismiss anyone who reviles recognized scholarship with the smart-ass word "rhetoric"] which seems to code the ideological commitments made in ones reading habits. It is especially sad when used to promote a narrow [narrow is the path that leads to life] and patriarchally [so now you in your feminist sexist prejudice attack males?] preserved cannon [you mis-spelled canon] among the community of believers, who, supposedly ["supposedly?] seek to wrestle and labour with the word, whatever that might mean. [whatever, whatever, whatever?]

In any case, thank you again for your thoughtful response.

Im a bit torn here.

Mr Dalcour probably needs to read John Lees “A History of New Testament Lexicography, it is in the ‘Studies in Biblical Greek series published by Peter Lang, edited by none other than D.A Carson. It presents a fairly dismal picture of the state of Koine Lexicography.

So, yes, it is OK to question lexicons. They are in fact just the opinions of particular scholars. Nevertheless, they are pretty well informed scholars.

While, yes, usage is the best indicator for lexical meaning, in the case of a hapax, you have to look somewhere else. Or perhaps to similar usage.

The key weakness of Karls argument is that there are other compound uses of ‘koites, and in each of them, the first half seems to have an adverbial force; sleeping with slaves, slave-koites, sleeping with many, many-koites, sleeping with ya mum, mum-koites. USAGE seems to determine that you can compound words IN THIS CASE.

So we dont have here a situation like ‘Butterfly at all. What we have is something more like Maneater, meateater, veggie-eater.

The action is the same. The object is different.

Again, yes, the best kind of data for usage is data close to the time of writing. But we dont have much. But we do have evidence of early church fathers using arsenokoites to condemn homosexual practice. Sometimes the Fathers read Paul wrong and import anachronistic readings back into the Bible. But a lot of the time they dont. And their understanding of Koine was a lot better than yours or mine.

(I mean really, how many people, even scholars, speak Koine fluently. You could count them on your hands I would think, Randal Buth/ Christophe Rico, thats all Ive got).

Now, I would freely admit that this isnt the best lexical data we could have. But it is what we have. And with that data, some kind of reference to sexual activity between two men seems to be what is being referred to. The LXX connection is simply icing on this particular cake. (Paul seems to be pretty influenced by jewish moral categories, even if he reshapes them.. Im looking forward to Brian Rosners new book on this issue).

Perhaps a new batch of papyri will be uncovered that show a different usage to this closer to the first century. Perhaps, but it hasnt yet

Now, the anti-law apostate blatters:

I really dont think [And does it matter what you think?] it matters who is right or wrong because it isnt an issue of Salvation. [On the contrary, the doctrine involving homosexuality is very much an issue of salvation] Even [Oh, then there is a possibility?] if it is sin (Which I am not convinced it is), so is going 5 miles over the speed limit so you can get to church a few minutes early on Sunday morning. [Try going 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit and see if it matters to a squad-car cop] Is that sending men and women to hell? No, it isnt. [Yes, it is, and the cop will give you a hefty fine for breaking the speed limit] Because “For by grace you have been saved through faith, [so you can now live in homoperversion and thus defy the Law] and that not of yourselves [it is of ourselves, being God does not break the Law by being homosexual]; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast [why should anyone boast about evil works of homosexuality which will get them into Hell?]; Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV No amount of sin, whether great or small, is keeping us out of heaven. {Wrong, heresy breath. Your sin, committed as an impenitent sinner, will indeed keep you out of Heaven!] Thats why we have grace [to live like the Devil?] in the first place. To save. [To only save those who obey the doctrines of Christ instead of despise them] Because we are not good enough on our own so we need Christ to come and save us [Christ will not save you who do not want to be good enough to deserve forgiveness, and won't even admit that you need it, and needing it in contrast be willing to and actually getting it are two different things]. Salvation is a matter of what we did with Jesus. [Wrong. Salvation is a matter of what we do with Christ and Christ's holy doctrines]. The bible [Why did not not capitalize the word Bible?] doesnt say if you confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that homosexuality is a sin, you will be saved. [Yes it does, in so many words. And there is no need to surreptitiously revise the exact wording of Bible verses to vainly try to legitimize your homopervert proclivities] It says “If you confess with your mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your hearts God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. [ You will NOT be saved if you despise and disobey Christ's anti-homosexuality doctrine!] NKJV Romans 10:9 Believing in Christ and confessing Him as Lord is what saves us. [No, we are justified by our own works of supporting Christ's anti-homosexual doctrine, not by faith alone] Not our [speak for yourselves and not for others] understanding of human sexuality [you're understanding of your perverted type of human sexuality is neither understanding nor legitimate, and that is what will exclude your from entering Heaven upon your thankful demise].

OK I really need to figure this arguement out, big time. Im gay, in a carrying, committed gay relationship, recommitted to Christ, and I need to know Im going to Heaven.

I need to take a walk and read all of this over a few more times.

Do you think it would be helpful to have Karl respond to Edward Delcours last post? [Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth]

Ok I can get my head around this for the moment;heres where I am:

I dont know if my committed gay relationship with my lover offends Gods or not as I really dont know what to believe after reading all of this. But this is what I know:

1. Im praying because Im really confused. Im asking God to reveal the truth to me. [He has already revealed the Truth to you in His Word]
2. I dont experience conviction about it [which doubting means that you will not receive anything from the Lord, according to the epistle of James], and I do have conviction about other things
3. I am going to Heaven [no you're not, if you refuse to be convicted concerning Christ's anti-homosexuality doctrine], I am the righteousness of Christ [no you're not if you reject the Bible's anti-homosexuality doctrine] because the Lord is near to all who call Him [and He is far away from those who reject His Law]. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him [which saving fear you do not have]. He will also hear their [their, and not your] cry and save them [ them, not you]. The Lord keeps all who love Him [and those who do not love His anti-homosexuality doctrine do not love Him]. Palm 145:18-20 [You are not going to Heaven in your non-acceptance of Christ's clear and plainly-stated anti-homosexual doctrine, and thus you are not the righteousness of Christ, and the Lord is not near you but ignores your adhering-to-homosexuality prayers, will not fulfill your desires as you wallow in homosexual perversion whether you demonically fear Him or not, and you do not love the Lord because you do not do the anti-homosexual thing He has clearly told you to do]
I fit the criteria of the Psalm! [You do not fit the criteria of the Psalm] It doesnt say for only those who are heterosexuals [it does in so many words], or only those who fall on the correct [so there is a "correct" side of the argument?] side of this argument intellectually or only those who can understand these things [you are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding - if you want to]. NO! It says ALL regardless. [NOT all will be saved, and especially not homosexuals who will not give up their pro-homosexual inclinations] And I know that I love God [you dishonestly do not love the anti-homosexual God who you actually despise] and I cry out to Him every day for Him to guide me [it does you no good], protect me [it does you no good], and save me [it does you no good]. [Cry out all you want for guidance and protection and to save you, but He will do none of that in your apostate adherence to homosexuality] That is my truth. [That is your fatal and accursed falsehood]

Heroes of the anti-homosexuality cause?

Fred Phelps, Scott Lively, Phil Robertson Duck Commander, plus many others!

The proposed Minnesota Constitution Marriage Amendment should not have read: "Marriage Shall Consist of the Union of ONE Man and ONE Woman" but instead (as even Secretary of State Mark Ritchie had suggested): "Marriage Shall Consist of the Union of Man and Woman."

The framers of the mis-worded Marriage Amendment were, several times, previously warned to not insinuate inclusion of anti-patriarchal polygamy within the textual wording of the Amendment, but instead they, in their feminist sexist arrogance or indifference, stubbornly disregarded that -- ignoring the fact that much of Old-Testament geneology was based on harem polygamy of major Biblical patriarchs (e.g. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) and even St Paul merely ordered [obviously-male-only] bishops and deacons to monogamously "be the husband of one wife" in his New-Testament epistle to Timothy.

Being that the Creator Himself, as indicated in the Bible, is the originator of humanly-understood alphabet lettering, words, languages (or "tongues") . . . and that He, according to Holy Writ, divinely inspired and inspires those who comply with and belong to Him that knowledge . . . the righteous (who agree with His non-and-anti-homosexual Christian doctrine) not merely "guess" but actually know the exact and precise meanings of such Greek words as malakoi and arsenokoitai.

By sheer logic, for example, the blessed and Heaven-bound elect assuredly realize that the Greek word malakoi in the sexual-surroundings context of First Corinthians 6:9 does not mean "soft" clothing, "soft"-skinned, soft-bodied non-muscular (clearly non of which are Hell-deserving) -- but instead obviously is an abstraction meaning the homosexual attitude of a passive partner in a potential or on-going same-gender two-person erotic human connection, and the Greek word arsenokoitai in the sexual-surroundings context of First Corinthians 6:9 is another abstraction which only and always means same-gender erotic bodily connections of whatever types and extents between two humans (be that lips-kissing, hugging, hand-holding, some other fondling, or active-or-passive genitals manipulations of various kinds).

Not simply do the elect of the Lord know for absolute certainty the previously-stated meaning of the two aforementioned Greek words and their obviously-congruent and accurate-with-English-words-translated correlation, connection and equivalence, but those elect non-compromisingly act on that absolute certainty by physical actions pertaining not only to themselves but (and as is reasonably expected) toward any and all others besides themselves (whatever such may be).

On Judgment Day, and even before that, Almighty God will enforce His definitions of the plainly-given-and-stated easily-and-correctly-understood-by-common-sense-rational-saints semantics of Leviticus 20:13 and First Corinthians 6:9-10....despite the devious verbal and written, heretical and apostate, connived pseudo-"christian," aberrantly-philosophical meanderings of misrepresentative pro-homopervert word-twisters, doubters, disputers, and naysayers.