Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

But He did - not just in the NT but also in the OT. We have already shown you some passages.

---

Your 2009 interpretation of English words. And some of us have told you those words were mistranslated and/or have been equated with current fundamentalist attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Your 2009 interpretation of English words.

---

The historic understanding of Koine Greek. Perhaps you skipped over the post where I provided the translation from one the foremost Lexicons.

Quote:

---

And some of us have told you those words were mistranslated and/or have been equated with current attitudes.

---

Like I said at the time, given the choice between someone's opinion and that of recognized experts in Koine Greek, I must stand with the experts. You and everyone else is welcome to make their choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is unBiblical because her claim is not found in the Bible.

---

That doesn't make it false. Here's another claim that is not found in the Bible: "78+57=135". It's true, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

The historic understanding of Koine Greek. Perhaps you skipped over the post where I provided the translation from one the foremost Lexicons.



Like I said at the time, given the choice between someone's personal opinion and that of recognized experts in Koine Greek, I must stand with the experts. You and everyone else is welcome to make their choice.

---

I already told you, several times, that all you need to do is look at the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the one scholars use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

That doesn't make it false.

---

Based upon that alone, it is unsubstantiated speculation. Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists? And why would anyone want to suggest that God allowed Paul to be given a sinful orientation to keep Him humble, in contradiction to His word?

Please just provide some substantiation for this claim and then we can move forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

I already told you, several times, that all you need to do is look at the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the one scholars use.

---

And I already provided you with the actual quotes from a Lexicon used by scholars / experts / translators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists?

---

Where's the sin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Where's the sin?

---

Homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Homosexuality.

---

BEING homosexual isn't any more sinful than being heterosexual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Based upon that alone, it is unsubstantiated speculation. Why would anyone want to accuse Paul of a sin for which no evidence exists? And why would anyone want to suggest that God allowed Paul to be given a sinful orientation to keep Him humble, in contradiction to His word?

Please just provide some substantiation for this claim and then we can move forward.

---

Can you substantiate the claim that he was heterosexual?

Unlike you, I don't regard sexual orientation as sinful. You seem to think that just by virtue of being attracted to men Paul would been sinning, even if he never acted on it. I don't think Wondergirl take that view. It's my understanding that Wondergirl has suggested not that Paul had sex with a man but that he may have been attracted to a man or men. I don't see any reason to regard that as sinful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

BEING homosexual isn't any more sinful than being heterosexual.

---

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your personal opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.

---

Now we're back to the interpretations of words. We've done this part already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Can you substantiate the claim that he was heterosexual?

---

I don't need to. That is How God made humans - male and female.

When an accusation is made that Paul was guilty of a specific sin, then that is what needs to be substantiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

God told us otherwise. You can, of course disagree with Him, but given a choice between your personal opinion, and God's word - sorry but I will have to take God's word.

---

NOT God's word. It's what you want God's word to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Now we're back to the interpretations of words. We've done this part already.

---

Yes, the experts interpretation, vs the one used by you and Akoue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

NOT God's word. It's what you want God's word to say.

---

I take God's word at what it says. It is quite clear - check it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Yes, the experts interpretation, vs the one used by you and Akoue.

---

No, the experts' interpretation vs. the 2009 definition you want to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I take God's word at what it says. It is quite clear - check it out.

---

Tom, we beat this horse dead already. Akoue gave you the Greek understanding and definitions a day or so ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, the experts' interpretation vs. the 2009 definition you want to use.

---

Let's get back to reality. I posted the information from one of the foremost lexicons, and you have provided your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I don't need to. That is How God made humans - male and female.

When an accusation is made that Paul was guilty of a specific sin, then that is what needs to be substantiated.

---

Right, God made humans male and female. That doesn't speak to sexual orientation.

What sin. By your own account, the BAGD (not BGAD) says that "arsenokoitai" *can* mean males who PRACTICE homosexuality. That's different from have a homosexual orientation. So even if we go with your preferred source, merely being gay isn't a sin; it's the acts that would be sinful. So Wondergirl isn't accusing Paul of committing a sin.