For you Hebrew scholars

I don't know about Luther's old German, but the many English translations are consistent. I can't believe that a dozen or more translation committees and the standard lexicons are all wrong.

On the NT Greek side, I recently heard a PhD from University of Texas claim a similar thing. He listed a dozen English translations that "were all wrong." When he was challenged with the latest lexicon (which specifically disagreed with him) he said the lexicon was wrong (!) and referred to an older one. I checked four lexicons, and they all disagreed with this man's position, and all agreed with the standard English translations.

Trust your English translations. They are correct. Homosexuality is wrong. If God wanted to use the word "boy" He wouldn't have said "mankind." There's not a Hebrew or Greek scholar on the planet that disagrees.

 

Philly Deb:
I have heard that it is claimed that in Luther's German Bible, the reference to "mankind" here was translated "knabe," which means "youth" or "boy." That would change the meaning of this to one of child abuse. What is the original Hebrew? Is this true about Luther's translation?


W 'iysh asher yishkab et-zakar
iysh is man
zakar can mean the following. This is KJV translation occurrences:
AV - male 67, man 7, child 4, mankind 2, him 1; 81

 

For discussion. Not a Hebrew person, but Gen. 17.10, 12, 14 and Lev. 12.2 use the same term.

 

Zakar means male - there is no implication of a boy or a young man here. It (I think) is thought that the word actually is derived from a term referring to the male sexual organs.

Probably the reason zakar is used here (instead of "ish") is to emphasize the male gender of the other person.

W'ish asher yishkav et-zakar means "and a man who has sexual relations with a MALE"...

 

There’s no "knabe," in Martin Luther’s translation of Leviticus 20.13
MARTIN LUTHER'S TRANSLATION [LINK]

"Wenn jemand bei einem Manne liegt wie bei einer Frau, so haben sie getan, was ein Greuel ist, und sollen beide des Todes sterben; Blutschuld lastet auf ihnen."

Re-translation into English from German:
If someone lies with a man as with a woman, what an atrocity it is, both are to die in death; blood-guilt is on them.

Rob

 

The claim by the homosexual rights crowd is that the words used in 1 Cor 6:9 (Strongs 733 and 3120) can only be viewed in light of idolatry and pedophilia. I believe the term they're trying to imply is pederasty, which is sexual relations between an adult male and a young servant person for extended periods of time.
However, I consulted four lexicons and they all disagreed (BDAG, Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Louow Nida, and Thayers). There is another Greek term "paidophthoreo" that the Apostle Paul did not use....it specifically means "sex with boys."

So I think the inspired Apostle knew exactly what he was saying....homosexuality in all its forms is terrible sin. The English translation committees have translated the term correctly, and the Greek means exactly what the English says.

 

780 ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), ου (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ Str 733—LN 88.280 male homosexual, one who takes the active male role in homosexual intercourse (1Co 6:9), specifically interpreted as male homosexual paedophilia (nab footnote); possibly a more generic term in first Timothy; sodomites (rsv, nrsv, nkjv), perverts (niv, neb, reb), practicing homosexuals (nab), homosexual (njb), 1Ti 1:10+), note: translations possibly use certain specific terms to infer or allow certain theologies

[Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK780). Logos Research Systems, Inc.]

 

Echoing Humblesmith...

Keep in mind the pervasiveness of homosexuality in the greek culture. That background further reinforces that Paul likely chose the word very carefully, and shoots another hole in the "cultural taboo" argument the gay community argues when dismissing biblical references. Homosexuality was accepted more in Paul's day (in Greek and Roman circles) even than today.

Hard to believe, ain't it? No doubt, being a 1st-century believer was tough business...)

 

Strongs 733 is arsenokoites, defined in the best current Greek lexicon (BDAG) as copied below. Note the specific line buried in the definition: "Paul's strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution or or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service" So BDAG (and three other lexicons that I listed) specifically deny that we can limit the defnition to pedophilia.

BDAG:
"..a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396–98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οτε ρσενοκοται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117–36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125–53)."