[Tj3]

Isn't that more pederasty than homosexuality?

Actually that verse covers both homosexuality and pedophilia nicely, leaving no out.

[Wondergirl]

Actually that verse covers both homosexuality and pedophilia nicely, leaving no out.

Depending, of course, on one's interpretation...

[Tj3]

Depending, of course, on one's interpretation..........

Depending upon whether one wishes to accept the definitions of the words and the context.

[Akoue]

Wondergirl,

I thought you'd be interested to know that the word translated "sodomite" in 1Cor.6.9 is, in Greek, "arsenokoitai". We've had exchanges about this before, so I thought you'd be glad to know that it isn't in fact clearly talking about sodomy at all. "Koitai", as you probably remember, means "lewdness", which, in this context, could mean a lot of different things.

[Akoue]

Oh, WG, one other thing...

Since in the same clause we are told that male prositution is prohibited, it seems reasonable that arsenokoitai is here referring to the men who go to male prostitutes. Neither the prostitutes nor their Johns will inherit the kingdom.

[Wondergirl]

Oh, WG, one other thing...

Since in the same clause we are told that male prositution is prohibited, it seems reasonable that arsenokoitai is here referring to the men who go to male prostitutes. Neither the prostitutes nor their Johns will inherit the kingdom.

As a side note, during Martin Luther's time, arsenokoitai meant "masturbator." Lo and behold, by the time the 20th century rolled around, masturbation had become an accepted behavior, so Bible translators retranslated the word to the newest hot button term, "homosexuals."

[Akoue]

As a side note, during Martin Luther's time, arsenokoitai meant "masturbator." Lo and behold, by the time the 20th century rolled around, masturbation had become an accepted behavior, so Bible translators retranslated the word to the newest hot button term, "homosexuals."

Good point. And you're exactly right. "Arsenokoitai" was used in reference to mastrubation in the ancient world with some regularity.

Seems to me that if one really wants to be a biblical literalist, then one is obligated to undertake the difficult and time consuming task of mastering ancient languages and of studying, in great depth, the history of the Bible's composition, redaction, and transmission. The manuscript tradition is riddled with contrary readings. And in many cases, the earliest copies of the texts are not in Greek but in Coptic, Armenian, and Latin. Flipping to a concordance is no substitute for hard work. Neither is the frequent use of a search engine.

But, then, as you've no doubt heard me say before, I think it's kind of silly to read the Bible literally since it doesn't even read itself literally.

[Tj3]

Wondergirl,

I thought you'd be interested to know that the word translated "sodomite" in 1Cor.6.9 is, in Greek, "arsenokoitai". We've had exchanges about this before, so I thought you'd be glad to know that it isn't in fact clearly talking about sodomy at all. "Koitai", as you probably remember, means "lewdness", which, in this context, could mean a lot of different things.

As interesting as your private opinion and speculation is, I find the views of recognized experts in Greek to be far more compelling. For example, here is what BGAD has to say regarding the meaning of this word in Greek, in this context - "A male who practices homosexuality". The same word is translated elsehwere in scripture as follows:

1 Tim 1:10
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV

The same recognized source also defines malakos as - "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."

A catamite is defined as:

n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. )

[Akoue]

Not quite sure what "private opinion and speculation" means. But, then again, I don't much care. This stuff is common knowledge among classicists and NT scholars. But do as you see fit. Reminds me a bit of your reaction to asking: reject his expertise as a biologist, and along with it the chance to learn something, and instead cling to a source that fits your agenda (in that case it was the Discovery Institute, as I recall).

If anyone else is interested, you can just look up "arsen" and "koitai" in the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It's the standard lexicon used by people who actually know Greek and work on this stuff. The term "arsenkoitai" is rather unusual, and some people think Paul may have coined it. In the context of the passage Tom has been all excited about, it pretty clearly refers to the people who pay male prostitutes--a common practice at Corinth and for which Corinth was well-known throughout the ancient world. (It was also famous, or infamous depending on your point of view, for having the best female prostitutes.)

[Akoue]

As interesting as your private opinion and speculation is, I find the views of recognized experts in Greek to be far more compelling. For example, here is what BGAD has to say regarding the meaning of this word in Greek, in this context - "A male who practices homosexuality". The same word is translated elsehwere in scripture as follows:

1 Tim 1:10
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV

The same recognized source also defines malakos as - "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."

A catamite is defined as:

n. A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. )

Wow, that was a pretty substantial edit.

Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".

[Tj3]

Wow, that was a pretty substantial edit.

"Edit" ha ha.

Boy prostitutes did have sex with men. That's why they were called "malakoi".

Homosexual pedophilia. Something that one other person on here said doesn't exist.

[Wondergirl]

Homosexual pedophilia.

Sure, homosexual = male with male; pedophilia = old guys with boys, often temple slaves kept for that purpose (and they cost a bundle to enjoy--ooops, worship with--too). That's how they worshipped their gods back then.

And most of those were straight guys having sex with each other or old straight guys doing a power and money thing.

[Tj3]

Sure, homosexual = male with male; pedophilia = old guys with boys, often temple slaves kept for that purpose (and they cost a bundle to enjoy--ooops, worship with--too). That's how they worshipped their gods back then.

And most of those were straight guys having sex with each other or old straight guys doing a power and money thing.

Homosexuals are males having sex with males. When men do this they are not "straight". They may be "bi-sexual", and they may be "homosexual", but not straight.

I would also be interested in how you know whether these men 2,000 ago were straight or homosexual. Are you older than you let us believe?

There is no such thing as a "homosexual straight man".

[Akoue]

Homosexuals are males having sex with males. When men do this they are not "straight". They may be "bi-sexual", and they may be "homosexual", but not straight.

I would also be interested in how you know whether these men 2,000 ago were straight or homosexual. Are you older than you let us believe?

This is not at all how people thought of it in ancient and Hellenistic Greece. You're being anachronistic.

[Tj3]

This is not at all how people thought of it in ancient and Hellenistic Greece. You're being anachronistic.

So you read the minds of 2,000 year old men?

It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.

[Akoue]

"Edit" ha ha.

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.

[Tj3]

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.

When I edit them within a 30 second timeframe to add additional text to complete the message? Come on, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. You might have a point if it was an hour later, but a matter of second or even a minute or so - no, that is getting way too picky. In any case, you saw the whole message as we can see, and you had full opportunity to deal with the content.

[Akoue]

So you read the minds of 2,000 year old men?

There are no 2,000 year old men, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner notwithstanding. But I do actually study the history and language of a period before holding forth about it.

It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.

It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text. And you can't make it "reality" by fiat. Words have meanings; words and meanings change over time. The NT was written nearly two thousand years ago, in a now dead language. You can't reasonbly expect to understand it without studying the languages in which it was written and the historical context in which those languages were used. This is why people study philology.

[Tj3]

There are no 2,000 year old men, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner notwithstanding. But I do actually study the history and language of a period before holding forth about it.

As do I, but you are saying is effectively that what we read is not what they were thinking.

It sure does matter, if you're interesting in what Paul was saying. Understanding the meanings of words at the time at which they are written is indispensable for understanding any ancient text.

Since neither you nor I nor anyone else can read the actual thoughts of 2,000 old men, we have to go by what the text says, in context. Claiming that they did not write what they were thinking is not a compelling argument.

[Wondergirl]

It does not matter whether they thought of it this way or not - it is reality.

It is YOUR reality, no one else's.