The Christian Attitude Toward Homosexuals and Homosexuality

[Ingledsva]

Jesus also said not to judge by appearances but to exercise righteous judgment.

If we did not judge, criminals would never be prosecuted.

We are not talking about criminals.

 

[Ingledsva]

"9 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, nor homosexuals,"
​

We good now?

Better but still wrong. LOL!

The word they are translating "effemininate actually means "a dandy," like Captain Jack in the Pirate movies. Someone who wants to wear the best clothes, go to the best parties, eat rich food, drink gallons, and not work to get it. It is actually used in a verse about John the Baptist. And obviously no one was suggesting he was effeminate or gay.

Then prove your point. And FYI, the Greek that Paul was familiar with was ancient Greek. So, even if he coined the word, which some suspect he might have, it doesn't affect its meaning, which is confirmed in the following:

It doesn't matter how many later christian texts or concordances you come up with that use it as such.

There is no record of it in ancient Greek - as homosexual.

Paul did not come up with the word. The word, and forms of it, are found in ancient Greek text - NOT ONE of them meaning homosexual.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

So you don't think that Biblical passages that twisted and misinterpreted the teachings of Jesus so as to accommodate the prejudices of early chroniclers don't compromise the trustworthiness of the Bible? If not, then your standards of veracity are far lower than mine, and everyone else I know.

Now did I say that? NO!

 

[Ingledsva]

men can have natural affection for other men...the bible has the example of King David and Johnathan. They had a very close relationship. Were they homosexual? No. Was their close bond wrong? No.
Did they have sex together? No.

Can a man love another man and it not be sexual? Yes.

I believe it says they were lovers.

1Sa 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1Sa 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.


(Geneva) 1Sa 20:30 Then was Saul angrie with Ionathan, and sayde vnto him, Thou sonne of the wicked rebellious woman (perverted rebelliousness,) doe not I know, that thou hast chosen the sonne of Ishai to thy confusion, and to the confusion and shame of thy mother?


1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

2Sa 1:26 I pine for thee my Other, Jonathan, delightfully sweet thy love,wholly exceeding the love of women.




*

 

[Skwim]

The word they are translating "effemininate actually means "a dandy,"

I assume you're talking about μαλακός (malakos). And yes, "dandy" and "effeminate," are related; however, you have the ascription backwards. It's "dandy" that means effeminate, not "effeminate" that means dandy.

1. Dandy
Used widely in late 20th Century England. Refers to men who consider themselves to be arbiters of culture and refinement and wit. Often considered effeminate
Source: Urban dictionary.
​

That said, the meaning ascribed to μαλακός (malakos) in the Bible according to Strong's Concordance is.

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
​

"Dandy" is not mentioned.

It doesn't matter how many later christian texts or concordances you come up with that use it as such.

I know. Principally because they disagree with your assertion.

There is no record of it in ancient Greek - as homosexual.

All it takes to qualify as a word in ancient Greek is to have it used in the language, and it looks like that's exactly what Paul did.

Paul did not come up with the word. The word, and forms of it, are found in ancient Greek text - NOT ONE of them meaning homosexual.

Then please list them AND your source. The following is MY source.

"Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai,[homosexual]
deriving it from the LXX of Lev 20:13 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual
orientation and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church
discipline (1 Corinthians 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11)."
source
​

And because this is a scholarly source---it was done by a professor of New Testament, is fully referenced, and is published in a journal of Biblical Text ---it might do you well to read it, even though I know such an undertaking is highly unlikely.

Now did I say that? NO!

And did I say you did? No! FYI, a question mark (?) at the end of a sentence indicates a question, not a statement.
From Wikipedia:

"The question mark (?; also known as an interrogation point, interrogation mark, question point, query, or eroteme), is a punctuation mark that replaces the full stop (period) at the end of an interrogative sentence in English and many other languages."

​

One other comment. You will note that most of my assertions are accompanied by a source. I do this because I know my word, like everyone else's, generally isn't enough. Take this as a clue as to how I regard your unsupported claims: just so much needful/wishful thinking. So why do I bother with your unsupported pronouncements, because others read these exchanges and it would be a disservice to let them think you're right.

 

[Ingledsva]

The word they are translating "effemininate actually means "a dandy,"

I assume you're talking about μαλακός (malakos). And yes, "dandy" and "effeminate," are related; however, you have the ascription backwards. It's "dandy" that means effeminate, not "effeminate" that means dandy.

1. Dandy
Used widely in late 20th Century England. Refers to men who consider themselves to be arbiters of culture and refinement and wit. Often considered effeminate
Source: Urban dictionary.
​

That said, the meaning ascribed to μαλακός (malakos) in the Bible according to Strong's Concordance is.

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
​

"Dandy" is not mentioned.

I have nothing backward here. A dandy is a person that wants the best clothing, food, wine, parties, etc, and does no work for it - or tries to do as little as possible.

This word is used in a sentence concerning John the Baptist - and they were not saying he might be effeminate

It was used in the fine clothes, manicured, well fed sense - in contrast to the naked, unkempt, ill fed, Wildman John in the wilderness.

Mat 11:8 ..But what went ye out to see? --a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? lo, those wearing the soft (MALAKOS) things are in the kings' houses.

..Luke 7:25 ..But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? Behold, those who are in splendid clothing and live luxuriously are in the courts of kings.

I know. Principally because they disagree with your assertion.

All it takes to qualify as a word in ancient Greek is to have it used in the language, and it looks like that's exactly what Paul did.

Then please list them AND your source. The following is MY source.

"Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai,[homosexual]
deriving it from the LXX of Lev 20:13 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual
orientation and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church
discipline (1 Corinthians 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11)."
source
​

And because this is a scholarly source---it was done by a professor of New Testament, is fully referenced, and is published in a journal of Biblical Text ---it might do you well to read it, even though I know such an undertaking is highly unlikely.

And did I say you did? No! FYI, a question mark (?) at the end of a sentence indicates a question, not a statement.
From Wikipedia:

"The question mark (?; also known as an interrogation point, interrogation mark, question point, query, or eroteme), is a punctuation mark that replaces the full stop (period) at the end of an interrogative sentence in English and many other languages."

​

One other comment. You will note that most of my assertions are accompanied by a source. I do this because I know my word, like everyone else's, generally isn't enough. Take this as a clue as to how I regard your unsupported claims: just so much needful/wishful thinking. So why do I bother with your unsupported pronouncements, because others read these exchanges and it would be a disservice to let them think you're right.

LOL! Your Christian sources are later and incorrect.

There is a FACT here that you keep ignoring!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are NO ancient GREEK uses of arsenokoitai as homosexual - PERIOD!

All know uses have been gathered together.

You can't trade FACTS for later religious mumbo-jumbo.

*

 

[Quagmire]

Then please list them AND your source. The following is MY source.

"Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai,[homosexual]
deriving it from the LXX of Lev 20:13 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual
orientation and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church
discipline (1 Corinthians 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11)."
source
​

And because this is a scholarly source---it was done by a professor of New Testament, is fully referenced, and is published in a journal of Biblical Text ---it might do you well to read it, even though I know such an undertaking is highly unlikely.

It was done by this professor:

Professor De Young has taught for many years at Western Conservative Baptism
Seminary. He has contributed articles on homosexuality to other theological journals
(see nn. 20, 29 below).

A professor who works for Western Conservative Baptism Seminary and seems to have a special focus on homosexuality. Just to put that in perspective.

edit: also, the article is over 20 years old and was published by these folks: http://www.tms.edu/

Doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere other than conservative Christian websites.

 

[Skwim]

I have nothing backward here. A dandy is a person that wants the best clothing, food, wine, parties, etc, and does no work for it - or tries to do as little as possible.

This word is used in a sentence concerning John the Baptist - and they were not saying he might be effeminate

It was used in the fine clothes, manicured, well fed sense - in contrast to the naked, unkempt, ill fed, Wildman John in the wilderness.

Mat 11:8 ..But what went ye out to see? --a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? lo, those wearing the soft (MALAKOS) things are in the kings' houses.

..Luke 7:25 ..But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? Behold, those who are in splendid clothing and live luxuriously are in the courts of kings.



LOL! Your Christian sources are later and incorrect.

There is a FACT here that you keep ignoring!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are NO ancient GREEK uses of arsenokoitai as homosexual - PERIOD!

All know uses have been gathered together.

You can't trade FACTS for later religious mumbo-jumbo.

*

Well, you can go on making all the claims you want, but lacking any supporting evidence you may as well make claims of flying pigs and farting figs. As it is, your unsupported word ain't worth the breath behind it. However you might want to chew on this little fact. As much as you may not like μαλακός being translated as "effeminate" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 seven well known Bibles do just that:

New American Standard Bible

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

King James 2000 Bible

American King James Version

English Revised Version

Webster's Bible Translation

Young's Literal Translation
​

Then there are the 8 bibles that translate ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "homosexual" or "homosexuality"

New International Version

New Living Translation

English Standard Version

New American Standard Bible

Holman Christian Standard Bible

International Standard Version

GOD'S WORD® Translation

World English Bible
​

Plus the nine that translate ἀρσενοκοίτης as

"males lying down with males," (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

"[those] who abuse themselves with men" (Darby Bible Translation)

"abusers of themselves with men" (English Revised Version)

"nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (Webster's Bible Translation, American King James Version, King James 2000 Bible, American Standard Version, King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

"sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation)

​

SEVENTEEN, count 'em, 17! Seventeen of the nineteen Bibles listed (90%) translate ἀρσενοκοίτης as homosexual/homosexuality or regard it with comparable meaning. All of them in effect saying you, Ingledsva, are wrong.

It was done by this professor:


A professor who works for Western Conservative Baptism Seminary and seems to have a special focus on homosexuality. Just to put that in perspective.

edit: also, the article is over 20 years old and was published by these folks: TMS - The Master's Seminary

Doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere other than conservative Christian websites.

Hey, if you have someone else with equal or better credentials who disputes De Young please share. Because if all the Bibles I've listed above are wrong they should certainly be made aware of their mistake.

 

[Quagmire]

Hey, if you have someone else with equal or better credentials who disputes De Young please share. Because if all the Bibles I've listed above are wrong they should certainly be made aware of their mistake.

I'm not questioning his credentials, I'm skeptical about his objectivity (as you would be if it weren't for the fact he's telling you what you want to hear).

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, you can go on making all the claims you want, but lacking any supporting evidence you may as well make claims of flying pigs and farting figs. As it is, your unsupported word ain't worth the breath behind it. However you might want to chew on this little fact. As much as you may not like μαλακός being translated as "effeminate" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 seven well known Bibles do just that:

New American Standard Bible

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

King James 2000 Bible

American King James Version

English Revised Version

Webster's Bible Translation

Young's Literal Translation
​

Then there are the 8 bibles that translate ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "homosexual" or "homosexuality"

New International Version

New Living Translation

English Standard Version

New American Standard Bible

Holman Christian Standard Bible

International Standard Version

GOD'S WORD® Translation

World English Bible
​

Plus the nine that translate ἀρσενοκοίτης as

"males lying down with males," (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

"[those] who abuse themselves with men" (Darby Bible Translation)

"abusers of themselves with men" (English Revised Version)

"nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (Webster's Bible Translation, American King James Version, King James 2000 Bible, American Standard Version, King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

"sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation)

​

SEVENTEEN, count 'em, 17! Seventeen of the nineteen Bibles listed (90%) translate ἀρσενοκοίτης as homosexual/homosexuality or regard it with comparable meaning. All of them in effect saying you, Ingledsva, are wrong.

Hey, if you have someone else with equal or better credentials who disputes De Young please share. Because if all the Bibles I've listed above are wrong they should certainly be made aware of their mistake.

LOL! Evidence! I told you to Google "all know ancient Greek uses of arsenokoites." I did this so you cannot say I'm pushing you to a particular site!!! These sites prove that it is NOT one of the uses for the word.

It does not matter how many later Christian sources copy each other - It is not correct.

As to "malakos" I provided you with two Bible verses straight out of the Bible - I did not change their wording - and obviously they did not translate it as "effeminate!"
They very specifically translated it in the Dandy sense - as "fine clothing" and a "kingly lifestyle!"

Here they are again for you -

Mat 11:8 ..But what went ye out to see? --a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? lo, those wearing the soft (MALAKOS) things are in the kings' houses.

Luke 7:25 ..But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? Behold, those who are in splendid clothing and live luxuriously are in the courts of kings.


Obviously they are using it in the "dandy" - "ne'er-do-well" sense - which is why it ends up in the crimes list. It is only used three times in the Bible.

By the way that "sodomites" (Young's Literal Translation) - look it up in your Strong's - a sodomite is a Sacred Prostitute - not a homosexual. And that is probably where they all went wrong with their translations.



So there you go - you are still wrong.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not questioning his credentials, I'm skeptical about his objectivity (as you would be if it weren't for the fact he's telling you what you want to hear).

When it comes to anything that has to do with examining religion, objectivity is always an unknown and sometimes even suspect. And I do recognize that working for a Baptist organization De Young is more likely to be predisposed toward a literal translation than not, yet reading his paper (not following all of it) he does present research that opposes his conclusion and explains where this research comes up short. So, even though I'm in no position to judge the research, in my opinion De Young does put up a credible, academically proper case. It's the best I've come across. The fact that he champions the "homosexual" interpretation and has written several pieces on it should not be surprising. Anyone having done extensive research into any subject and has come to a firm conclusion would be expected to want to share it, and with a volatile subject like homosexuality in the Bible, no doubt he has been asked to do so several times.

LOL! Evidence! I told you to Google "all know . . . .

. . . . went wrong with their translations.

Not caring what you say anymore.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not caring what you say anymore.

LOL! No one asked you to. It is a debate.


*

 

[Quagmire]

When it comes to anything that has to do with examining religion, objectivity is always an unknown and sometimes even suspect. And I do recognize that working for a Baptist organization De Young is more likely to be predisposed toward a literal translation than not,

It isn't a matter of being predisposed to accepting a literal translation, it's a matter of investment in the traditional translation. The conservative Christian position on homosexuality as a whole is well known and the traditional translation supports it.

yet reading his paper (not following all of it) he does present research that opposes his conclusion and explains where this research comes up short. So, even though I'm in no position to judge the research, in my opinion De Young does put up a credible, academically proper case.

Ah, thanks. And since you were asking previously for a citation from an author with better credentials than De Young who disputes his conclusions, here (from the same article):

J. Boswell
The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary
authors is that of John Boswell. Whereas the usual translation of this term gives it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell
gives it a passive sense.In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites
"linguistic evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that
the word means "male sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes." His
argument is that the arseno- part of the word is adjectival, not the object
of the koitai which refers to base sexual activity. Hence the term,
according to Boswell, designates a male sexual person or male
prostitute

John Boswell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the best I've come across. The fact that he champions the "homosexual" interpretation and has written several pieces on it should not be surprising.

It isn't surprising at all. As a professor at a conservative Christian college, it would be pretty surprising if he didn't.

 

[Skwim]

It isn't a matter of being predisposed to accepting a literal translation, it's a matter of investment in the traditional translation.

Which in the case of Baptists is a literal one.

The conservative Christian position on homosexuality as a whole is well known and the traditional translation supports it.

Yup.

Ah, thanks. And since you were asking previously for a citation from an author with better credentials than De Young who disputes his conclusions, here (from the same article):



John Boswell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which it isn't surprising in that Boswell was a gay Christian.

Here is one of the responses to Boswell 's view (from the same article).

"D. Wright
In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and
Scroggs have come under closer scrutiny.16 Perhaps the most critical
evaluation of Boswell's view is that by David Wright. In his thorough
article, Wright points out several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment
of arsenokoitai.17 He faults Boswell for failing to cite, or citing
inaccurately, all the references to Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the church
fathers, such as Eusebius, the Apostolic Constitutions, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (127-28). Boswell has not
considered seriously enough the possibility that the term derives
either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This is
significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but
the gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male
who sleeps with a male," making arseno- the object.
Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features
of the term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell
claims that compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those
with arreno- employ it as an adjective, Wright believes that the
difference between the two is merely one of dialectical diversity: "No
semantic import attaches to the difference between the two forms"
(131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which the second
half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its object and
where "the second "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its gender."
​

"D. Wright" is James D. Wright.

James D. Wright is an author, educator, and the Provost’s Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Wright also serves as the Director of the UCF Institute for Social and Behavioral Sciences, as editor-in-chief of the journal Social Science Research, and as editor-in-chief of the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, forthcoming in 2015 from Elsevier. He received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin in 1973 and taught at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Tulane University before coming to UCF in 2001. He has published twenty-one books and more than 300 journal articles, book chapters, essays, reviews.

​

In any case, thanks for the info on Boswell.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since homosexuals have been widely persecuted for thousands of years, it would be surprising if the Bible writers (both Old Testament and New Testament Bible writers) did not disapprove of homosexuality.

 

[dgirl1986]

Since homosexuals have been widely persecuted for thousands of years, it would be surprising if the Bible writers (both Old Testament and New Testament Bible writers) did not disapprove of homosexuality.

Fair point

 

[Quagmire]

Which in the case of Baptists is a literal one.

Yup.

Which it isn't surprising in that Boswell was a gay Christian.

Hmmm, didn't know that. OK, so we have one conservative Christian scholar in favor of the traditional translation, and one gay Christian scholar opposed to it.

Looks like we broke even on that one (although Boswell's credentials still pretty clearly trump De Young's).

Here is one of the responses to Boswell 's view (from the same article).

"D. Wright
In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and
Scroggs have come under closer scrutiny.16 Perhaps the most critical
evaluation of Boswell's view is that by David Wright. In his thorough
article, Wright points out several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment
of arsenokoitai.17 He faults Boswell for failing to cite, or citing
inaccurately, all the references to Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the church
fathers, such as Eusebius, the Apostolic Constitutions, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (127-28). Boswell has not
considered seriously enough the possibility that the term derives
either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This is
significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but
the gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male
who sleeps with a male," making arseno- the object.
Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features
of the term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell
claims that compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those
with arreno- employ it as an adjective, Wright believes that the
difference between the two is merely one of dialectical diversity: "No
semantic import attaches to the difference between the two forms"
(131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which the second
half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its object and
where "the second "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its gender."
​

"D. Wright" is James D. Wright.

James D. Wright is an author, educator, and the Provost’s Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Wright also serves as the Director of the UCF Institute for Social and Behavioral Sciences, as editor-in-chief of the journal Social Science Research, and as editor-in-chief of the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, forthcoming in 2015 from Elsevier. He received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin in 1973 and taught at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Tulane University before coming to UCF in 2001. He has published twenty-one books and more than 300 journal articles, book chapters, essays, reviews.

​

In any case, thanks for the info on Boswell.

You're welcome, and impressive credentials for James D. Wright btw, as a Sociologist I mean.

Not seeing anything on his resume' having to do with ancient languages, history, or NT/Biblical studies though.

Looks to me like a tied match so far.

If this keeps up, we may have to take a break from playing dueling doctorates and see what we can make of the evidence ourselves.

 

[Skwim]

Hmmm, didn't know that. OK, so we have one conservative Christian scholar in favor of the traditional translation, and one gay Christian scholar opposed to it.

Looks like we broke even on that one (although Boswell's credentials still pretty clearly trump De Young's).



You're welcome, and impressive credentials for James D. Wright btw, as a Sociologist I mean.

Not seeing anything on his resume' having to do with ancient languages, history, or NT/Biblical studies though.

Looks to me like a tied match so far.

If this keeps up, we may have to take a break from playing dueling doctorates and see what we can make of the evidence ourselves.

Best advice yet! :yes:

 

[Ingledsva]

Hmmm, didn't know that. OK, so we have one conservative Christian scholar in favor of the traditional translation, and one gay Christian scholar opposed to it.

Looks like we broke even on that one (although Boswell's credentials still pretty clearly trump De Young's).



You're welcome, and impressive credentials for James D. Wright btw, as a Sociologist I mean.

Not seeing anything on his resume' having to do with ancient languages, history, or NT/Biblical studies though.

Looks to me like a tied match so far.

If this keeps up, we may have to take a break from playing dueling doctorates and see what we can make of the evidence ourselves.

Actually there is no reason to throw it in.

“He faults Boswell for failing to cite, or citing
inaccurately, all the references to Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the church
fathers, such as Eusebius, the Apostolic Constitutions, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (127-28). "D. Wright”

In reality Lev 18:21-23 are connected and are about Sacred Prostitutes, - the Qadesh. All three lines are about Molech worship through the Temple Prostitutes.

Below is the translation we always see. It has problems as I have shown before – but even taken as is - it is obviously Sacred Prostitutes – NOT HOMOSEXUALS.

Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

NOW – at this point I am adding the Hebrew with the Strong’s numbers – so all can look it up for themselves. It is read from right to left. What looks like a backward “r” at the beginning is “and.”

Note that there is no “as with a” in the sentence. Note also they start it “Thou shall not” – I translate it “and for men, don’t” Also note that “to’ebah” should be translated here as “Idolatry.” And that is why it is a killing offence

(Sorry for some reason the Hebrew keeps being reversed tonight so you just get the Strong’s numbers) H854 – H2145 – H3808 – H7901 – H4904 –H802 – H8411 – H1931
Here is my translation –

Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself, honor Elohiym, I am YHVH!
Lev 18:22 (the one with translation in question!
Lev 18:23 And hence/also with any beasts don't lay carnally, defiling yourself. As/thus also woman shall not be employed to serve beasts in copulation. Unnatural/Bestiality it is!

I left out the verse in question so you can translate it for yourself and see that I am correct.

You will note that in one of the posts above one of the “scholars” noted “sodomite.” This is important because at that time Sodomite meant Qadesh (Sacred Prostitute.)

Look up Sodomite in your Strong’s and go to the number it gives you – you will find Sacred Prostitute. (H6945)

As I said earlier, I believe this word is where later translators go wrong. People hundreds of years later associated “Sodomite” with homosexuals –and from then on we have erroneous translation of Sodomite/Sacred Qadesh as homosexual.

NOW – with all that said, another clue is to go forward to chapter 20:2-5, where it uses the words again and makes it very plain that this is sex in relation to Molech worship.

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

For instance Eli’s sons with the Temple Prostitutes at Shiloh.

1 Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto Israel; and how they had sex with the women that waited at the entrance of the Tabernacle of the congregation.

If you have read your Bible – then you know these foreign Gods such as Molech were brought into the Jewish Temple, along with his Qadesh, the Sacred Prostitutes.
*

 

[Brickjectivity]

Since homosexuals have been widely persecuted for thousands of years, it would be surprising if the Bible writers (both Old Testament and New Testament Bible writers) did not disapprove of homosexuality.

I think it neither here nor there. Persecutions occur in diverse and unconnected cultures. South American archeology shows homosexuals were sometimes persecuted, but this has little bearing upon the Bible canons. Much nearer to Bible cultures you find Greece, where homosexuality was admired. Why not draw from that the conclusion that we'd be surprised if the Bible writers didn't admire homosexuality? After all it has been popular in many places throughout history. When speaking of the Bible, we are talking about thousands of years. A lot happens in a thousand years.