[jlisenbe]

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this. Otherwise, I'm done. Your idea has no valid support that I can find anywhere.

[Wondergirl]

I'm okay with you chickening ooooppps bowing out.

[jlisenbe]

Yeah. Right. Everyone here knows better. You have, as usual, nothing more than a personal opinion. You really need to learn to study this material to the point where you can support your POV.

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this.

Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.

[Wondergirl]

Yeah. Right. Everyone here knows better. You have, as usual, nothing more than a personal opinion. You really need to learn to study this material to the point where you can support your POV.

I have. I even went to a Christian college where I learned this.

Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.

I posted factual links. Unfortunately, the information doesn't agree with your OPINION.

[jlisenbe]

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this.


Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.

Just as I predicted.

[Wondergirl]

The most abrupt change in biblical translations referring to same-sex behavior happened in the 1946 RSV.

It was here for the first time in any translation, and in any language that two Greek words in the New Testament, arsenokoitai and malakos, were combined to one word and translated as “homosexual."
https://canyonwalkerconnections.com/...sexual.”

The NASB uses 'homosexuals' for Paul's word "Arsenokoitēs", which, according to gay-friendly websites, is not referring to homosexual as we know it today, because there already was a word "androkoitēs" to describe the real homosexual activity.

So, what did Paul have in mind, when he wrote about and condemned "Arsenokoitēs"? Did he condemn the kind of sexual activity associated with male prostitutes back in the days of the Romans or gay love as we know it today?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...-activity-as-w

[jlisenbe]

But I tell you what. If you can find any reputable translation or lexicon that agrees with you, we can continue this.


Note to other readers. This will not happen. It never does.

To be clear, you would need something like this. It took very little time to find this.

KJ21

for whoremongers, for those who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine

ASV

for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

AMP

for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

AMPC

[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers—and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

BRG

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;

CSB

for the sexually immoral and males who have sex with males, for slave traders, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

CEB

They are people who are sexually unfaithful, and people who have intercourse with the same sex. They are kidnappers, liars, individuals who give false testimonies in court, and those who do anything else that is opposed to sound teaching.

CJB

the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching

CEV

The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won't tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching

DARBY

fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,

DLNT

sexually-immoral ones, homosexuals, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and if any other thing is contrary to healthy teaching

DRA

For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

ERV

It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.

EHV

for sexually immoral people, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is opposed to sound teaching—

ESV

the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

ESVUK

the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

EXB

who take part in sexual sins, who ·have sexual relations with people of the same sex [are practicing homosexuals], who ·sell slaves [are kidnappers/slave traders], who tell lies, who speak falsely, and ·who do anything against [or all who live contrary to] the true teaching of God.

GNV

To whoremongers, to buggerers, to menstealers, to liars, to the perjured, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to wholesome doctrine,

GW

Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings.

GNT

for the immoral, for sexual perverts, for kidnappers, for those who lie and give false testimony or who do anything else contrary to sound doctrine.

HCSB

for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

ICB

who take part in sexual sins, men who have physical relations with other men, those who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God.

ISV

for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching

[jlisenbe]

Let me add, please begin to read your own links. The one above contained this clear refutation of your idea.

The term Paul used that is translated 'homosexual(s)' came directly from the two Greek words in the Greek translation of the Levitical passage (i.e. the Septuagint, which Paul quoted regularly) condemning homosexuality. Paul "coined" the compound word, but it did not come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, "Don't 'bed' [koite] a 'man' [arseno] like you would a woman." Hence, arsenokoites.

Neither did Paul contextualize the act confining it to prostitution or child abuse or pagan idolatry. If he did, and if the author of Leviticus did as well, then a consistent hermeneutic requires that the neighboring sins these texts condemn would only be prohibited in the same context, but would be acceptable otherwise. So incest, murder of a child, adultery, and bestiality are permissible as long as they are practiced outside of the context of prostitution or pagan idolatry. This is obviously an untenable position.

See Romans 1:26-27 where the condemnation of homosexuality does not depend on the translation of a word coined by Paul in his other writings. In the Romans passage, Paul lists men and women abandoning the natural sexual act (heterosexuality) for what is unnatural (homosexuality) as an example of man's abominations resulting from abandoning the truth of God in exchange for a lie, as Paul describes it.

[Wondergirl]

Let me add, please begin to read your own links. The one above contained this clear refutation of your idea.

Am just making sure you read the links I post. :-)

[jlisenbe]

Good. Now if you can just get YOU to read them! [<;

[Wondergirl]

I do. I try to trick you.

[jlisenbe]

If you read the article I noted above, and I don't think for a second you did, you were foolish beyond belief to have linked it since it refuted the very idea you were trying to advance, so the only person you managed to trick was...Wondergirl!!

I will remember this link for future reference in any discussion of this difficult and painful topic.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...-activity-as-w "

[Wondergirl]

Yes, I did read it. I was trying to trick you -- to see if YOU read it. *roaring with laughter* (Ever teach school and use this ploy with your students?)

[jlisenbe]

You're roaring with laughter because you were dumb enough to link to an article that destroyed your own argument?? I certainly hope that was not the case. It's why I prefer to think that you didn't even bother to read it. Take your pick. "Hey, I've found an article that destroys my POV. Now let's see if I can trick someone into reading it." Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You really want to go there?

Ever teach school and use this ploy with your students?

I didn't use "ploys". I taught.

[Wondergirl]

I didn't use "ploys". I taught.

I can only imagine.... *giggles*

[dwashbur]

And how many male scribes have tweaked Bible writings?

Speaking as one who has written and lectured on textual criticism, none that I'm aware of. Recent translators don't qualify as "scribes". No scribes that I have ever seen made any changes to any of these passages. Your quote is wrong and lame. Sorry. If we want to talk about biased translations, that's one thing. But when you start talking about scribes, you're stepping into an area where this discussion doesn't go. The theologically-motivated changes scribes made are very few and very far bettween.
And there is no good reason not to conclude that John of Patmos and John the Apostle were the same person. I have yet to see an argument that doesn't boil down to "I don't think so". That's not scholarship.

[jlisenbe]

DW, are you familiar with William Mounce?

[Wondergirl]

Speaking as one who has written and lectured on textual criticism, none that I'm aware of. Recent translators don't qualify as "scribes". No scribes that I have ever seen made any changes to any of these passages. Your quote is wrong and lame. Sorry. If we want to talk about biased translations, that's one thing. But when you start talking about scribes, you're stepping into an area where this discussion doesn't go. The theologically-motivated changes scribes made are very few and very far bettween.

I'm sorry, dwashbur. I agree, I shudda said translators. It's the prednisode talking instead of the real me.

[dwashbur]

JL:
I've seen his books but haven't read any of them.

[jlisenbe]

I am presently re-reading a book of his titled Why I Trust the Bible. I like his approach. I've also been looking at a translation/study help he put out called the Mounce Bible. It's a reverse interlinear of the NT. I imagine you would find it interesting.