Rewriting the bible

[MobBoss]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9&version=9
1 Corinthian 6:9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

You must have the wrong passage with the second one. You have 2 Corinthians 6:9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=9;

As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;

Think before you post next time.

At a club for kids that I help at my church, whenever memorising scripture you must remember the address where the scripture is found. Remember that when quoting the bible.

ROFL. Now thats classic.

EDIT: I really should read this thing some time, instead of just looking up random passages, but then I guess most people do that. It's awfully long

I 100% recommend reading it prior to making unfounded allegations against it.

 

[Sidhe]

I did above and this was cleared up before by someone pointing out I'd cocked up, read the thread carefully. This thread should be dead anyway.

I see your showing you grace and humility again Is this lording it over people a trait you generally find gells well with Chrsitianity? Anyway I gotta go watch the football, I apologise Mob Boss for making a mistake, there that's twice perhaps you can show some humility in future and remind us what it means to be Christian, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[GenMarshall]

Here is what the Douay-Rheims Bible states on 1 Corinthians 6:9

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53006.htm

And from the New American Bible:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm

Neather the two Catholic Bibles state homosexuals. The D-R refers to fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers which homosexual persons fall under (As well as married heterosexuals having affairs, pornography, masturbation, or any offenses against chasity). The NAB mentions sodomites which is just an umbrella term for homosexuals (Though IMO kind of a redundant since homosexual acts falls under adultery)

 

[The Last Conformist]

The word translated "homosexuals" in Sidhe's first quote is arsenokoitai. Perhaps someone familiar with Greek can comment on it?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Since homosexuality as a psychological phenomenon was unknown at that time, no one could condemn homosexuals as we understand it - as men sexually attracted to other men. At that time, probably those who were actually homosexual just covered it up and married women. Those who engaged in same-sex activities likely as not were heterosexual as we understand it. In the Greco-Roman world this type of activity was widespread and somewhat ritualized, and as a result such activity would almost always be coupled with adultery, pedophilia, or idol worship.

 

[MobBoss]

Since homosexuality as a psychological phenomenon was unknown at that time, no one could condemn homosexuals as we understand it - as men sexually attracted to other men.

Boloney and pure hooey. Men having sex with other men is pretty much the same today as it was 2000 years ago. What makes you think men couldnt be sexually attracted to other men in biblical times?

At that time, probably those who were actually homosexual just covered it up and married women.

Like those who comitted adultery also tried to cover it up?

Those who engaged in same-sex activities likely as not were heterosexual as we understand it. In the Greco-Roman world this type of activity was widespread and somewhat ritualized, and as a result such activity would almost always be coupled with adultery, pedophilia, or idol worship.

So, if adultery, pedophilia and idol worship are still sins today, why not homosexuality? Especially when the bible says it is an abomination for a man to sleep with another man as he would a woman?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

When I mean that homosexuals covered it up, I mean they hid their orientation and didn't act on it, not that they just lied about it. Remember, the idea that some men were inherently attracted to men and not women sexually is an idea that is fairly recent, and the idea that it is beyond one's control even more so. I think that a lot of homosexual behavior then was like some say it is now - men engaged in it just for sex and no more.

 

[Tycoon101]

Now I FINALLY can make the case that the Bible condemns homosexuality! Hooray!

I don't know if these translations are correct. But I really do not care. If they condemn homosexuality then good. If they don't then it is a pity.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Boloney and pure hooey. Men having sex with other men is pretty much the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

Mechanically, yes, but the sociopsychological context was very different. What would now be considered exploitative man-teen relationships were considered laudable*, while what today would be considered a healthy adult-adult relationship** was seen with suspicion.

* They're not wholly jocular when they say Western civilization is founded on pederasty.

** Well, except by benighted religionists.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Now I FINALLY can make the case that the Bible condemns homosexuality! Hooray!

I don't know if these translations are correct. But I really do not care. If they condemn homosexuality then good. If they don't then it is a pity.

I don't see how that matters. If homosexuality is wrong, then it doesn't matter if the Bible condemns it or not. If it isn't then it isn't relevant what the Bible says.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Where does it say sodomites in reference to Corinthians 1 6:9?

Young's Literal Translation (YLT), I think.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Now I FINALLY can make the case that the Bible condemns homosexuality! Hooray!

I don't know if these translations are correct. But I really do not care. If they condemn homosexuality then good. If they don't then it is a pity.

It hadn't occured to you to, like, look for yourself for such passages?

Young's Literal Translation (YLT), I think.

Rev. Dr Marshall's interlinear also translates the word as "sodomites", FWIW.

 

[Masquerouge]

Boloney and pure hooey. Men having sex with other men is pretty much the same today as it was 2000 years ago. What makes you think men couldnt be sexually attracted to other men in biblical times?

But homosexuality was not seen in the same fashion that we do now, a fashion that mostly comes from the Victorian era.
Before that sexuality was mostly viewed in terms of passive/active: that was much more important than gender issues.
Romans actually condemned to death passive roles in a sexual act between two mens, while the active person was not even charged.

So of course maybe the Hebrews did not share that viewpoint, but one thing is certain, the current stigma on homosexuality is actually recent in our western societies.

 

[Masquerouge]

Now I FINALLY can make the case that the Bible condemns homosexuality! Hooray!

I don't know if these translations are correct. But I really do not care. If they condemn homosexuality then good. If they don't then it is a pity.

The Bible condemns a lot of things. Read the Leviticus, or ask any fundamentalist Jew: clothes made out of two different kind of material, restrictions on the animals you can eat, males with damaged genitalia can not enter temples, ...

Selecting the things the Bible condemns because they suit your agenda is rather silly.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Additionally, sex between men was sometimes part of religious ceremonies. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any religion still around that makes such behavior part of any ritual. It was also considered part of education not just in Greece but in some tribal societies.

 

[Sidhe]

But homosexuality was not seen in the same fashion that we do now, a fashion that mostly comes from the Victorian era.
Before that sexuality was mostly viewed in terms of passive/active: that was much more important than gender issues.
Romans actually condemned to death passive roles in a sexual act between two mens, while the active person was not even charged.

So of course maybe the Hebrews did not share that viewpoint, but one thing is certain, the current stigma on homosexuality is actually recent in our western societies.

The hammer and nail clause: essentially your not punished unless you are the recipient of gay acts, rather odd, but interesting.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT), I think.

What's literal about it? I can see you might interprit it one way, but equally mankind has always been take to mean womankind, it admonishes rapists here maybe?

 

[classical_hero]

The word translated "homosexuals" in Sidhe's first quote is arsenokoitai. Perhaps someone familiar with Greek can comment on it?

This is taken from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramiac Old Testament. Basically this word come from Leviticus 18:22.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158

Furthermore, these Levitical laws provide the background for the teachings of Paul (the Jew Sha’ul) on the issue. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul actually used a most unusual word,αρσενοκοιτης arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greek αρρην/αρσην arrhēn/arsēn = male). This was not the normal term from the Greek culture. But the Levitical law explains where Paul obtained his binding New Testament prohibition. In English, Leviticus 18:22 reads:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

In the Greek Septuagint from which Paul often quoted, it reads:

και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos bdelugma gar estin)

The important parts of the verse are in Bold. Paul being a Pharisee would have been well versed in understanding both versions of the Old Testament since he did spend most of his time going to the Gentiles and they would have been proficent in the Greek verion so they would have understood what it meant.

 

[ybbor]

This is taken from the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramiac Old Testament. Basically this word come from Leviticus 18:22.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158


The important parts of the verse are in Bold. Paul being a Pharisee would have been well versed in understanding both versions of the New Testament sinc he did spend most of his time going to the Gentiles and they would have been proficent in the Greek verion so they would have understood what it meant.

interesting, very interesting.

I assume you meant Old Testament

 

[Erik Mesoy]

What's literal about it? I can see you might interprit it one way, but equally mankind has always been take to mean womankind, it admonishes rapists here maybe?

No, I meant that the translation as a whole is called "Young's Literal Translation", just like one of the others is called the "King James Version".

 

[Sidhe]

yeah I kind of got that after the fact Erin mentioned something about it but it slipped my mind, apologies for misinterpritng your point.

Should be called Young's personal interpritation.

I guess there's a point here somewhere, but it's not the point I thought and it's no where near as much of a concern as I had thought. I'm not at all pleased that people can write a new word in between text to give the impression that they have interprited the bible in such a way seems a bit false to me but hey, that's religion, not the first time, no doubt won't be the last.

Thanks for all the points here.