[Wondergirl]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

Where's the sin?

[Tj3]

Where's the sin?

Homosexuality.

[Wondergirl]

Homosexuality.

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

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

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

[Wondergirl]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.