Featured Why are gay activists winning?

"Koite" literally refers to a bed but was often used as a euphemism for sex. I am not sure what the translation of this word is for Romans 13:13 in the NIV but in the KJV it is "chambering" which was a euphemism for sex in King James English. The reason that it does not specify that it is heterosexual is because that was understood. We call a sweet potato a sweet potato but we don't call a regular potato a regular potato. Instead we simply call it a potato. It is the same here.

If you look at the proof text provided by the website you give you will notice something. The earliest text they site as using the word in a way that contradicts the Bible translation in The Acts of John where they even admit that there is no definition given but try to prove from the way the word was translated into English that it meant "temple prostitute". (A ploy that is used often this list but more covertly) We cannot understand an authors intent by how someone else translated the text many years latter.

After this we have Aristides' use of the word. Here they claim it was used in a context of rape. This instance wasn't until around AD 125, long after Romans was written. Besides this, in the exert they provide there isn't even one mention of rape as they contend. Instead the context is adultery and bestiality.

The next reference they list and claim to have a contrary use to "homosexual" is with Origen. Origen was born in AD 187, so we can assume that is was probably at least AD 200 before this exposition was written, at least 150 years after Romans was written. Here the author insists that it is used to reference sex between a man and a woman that is not procreative. I only came across one site that cad the actual text of this. In the English translation the word is translated as "non-procreative sexual intercourse" but there is nothing in the context that would seem to warrant this translation and no explanation as to why it is translated thus.

The next such reference is Hippolytus who the author claims used the word in reference to rape, but once again the text that is provided never actually describes the act as rape.

Next we move to Eusebius who wrote close to four hundred years after Romans was written. I found this reference as well and here the word is translated as "trader in homosexual slaves" Here again there is nothing in the context that links the usage with slaves or trading and neither can be found in the root words that make up the word "Arsenokoites".

Here we are some three hundred years after Paul first coined this word and there is not a single instance of the word being clearly used to mean anything other then homosexual. In all of these cases neither direct definition nor context is given that would help define the word, not even the first time it was ever used. This tells me that to the original writers and readers the meaning was clear from the word itself, a word that at it's roots means "male sex". Given that these words were written to a male dominated society, it seems clear to me what the meaning is.

 

Because the Church is silent and is so caught up in being seeker sensitive and following after the world that it's largely impotent and irrelevant.

 

I am not aware of any list written from a conservative perspective. There is an exhaustive list of the use of this word in Greek manuscripts here:

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm

Keep in mind that this list was compiled in support of homosexuality. Even so, it appears to have every known instance of this word. I have not looked at them all in detail but I have looked at all of them through he third century. In all of these, the only thing that gives any indication of the word's meaning is the word itself. Context provides no clue.

Since this was a new word and one not likely to be well known, the audience would have to have understood it's meaning from the context (which provides no help in this case) or the word itself. The root words would have been well known to the audience and from them the audience would have understood that arsenkoites meant a man who has sex with other men and by extension women who had sex with other women. The main contention today is whether it referred to all homosexual sex or to forced homosexual sex. The problem with the latter is that if that was the case, the audience would have not understood that from the text.

I hope this helps.

 

You bring up a very good question that, I believe, we as a whole have been very bad at answering. Perhaps we should start a thread on that topic.

 

Older Bible translations such as the KJV don't contain the words "heterosexual" or "homosexual" cuz neither word was coined until C. 1892 in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," a German-language book for psychiatrists.

And why does it seem gays are prevailing? Because we aren't EVANGELIZING them enough! many devout Christians go outta their way to avoid gays insteada attempting to strike up a conversation or acquaintanceship with them, leading to presenting the Gospel to them, doing one's best to convince them that gay acts are sinful. Part of this is reminding them that the "orientation" itself is not a sin, but ACTING upon such orientation IS sinful. Gos expects a gay-oriented person to control his/her libido same as He does a hetero person.

A Christian should view an encounter with a gay person as an opportunity to steer a lost sinner to CHRIST made available by the HOLY SPIRIT. While we sow the seeds, GOD will make'em grow at His will.

But I'm preaching insteada discussing Bible versions. The KJV used the word 'sodomite', which a gay will quickly point out is a person who engages in a certain sexual practice, which can be performed by either homos or heteros. And we've already duscussed the proper translation of the Hebrew here.

However, the KJV goes on to point out God's condemnation of a man who lies with another man as a man does with a woman. There's NO MISTAKING that language!

 

Baptistboarders,

I really apologize if this post pushes the limits on the rule against discussion of sexually related material, but as the discussion is based on biblical passages and the growing debate among certain sections of society, I think something should be said.

Below I'll mention just the first few points from the lengthy article by David F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ΑΡΣΕΝΟΚΟΙΤΑΙ (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)," Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125–153.

The basis for the translation of ARSENOKOITHS is rooted in the OT:

Lev 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie down with a man (ARSENOS) in bed (KOITHN, i.e., coitally) as with a woman."

Lev 20:13 - "Whoever lies with a man in bed (ARSENOS KOITHN) as with a woman, both have committed an abomination . . . ."

Obviously these passages denounce as sinful the act of males having sex with males as is done with females, without specification whether this is illicit sex or licit sex. In other words, it is the act itself that is an abomination without any qualification. Also, the NT church did not abrogate these OT moral laws as they did the ceremonial laws, as many patristic passages (some of which I mention below) make clear.

Wright's article, which deals a drubbing to the lexical opinions of the gay and now deceased (from AIDS) Yale professor John Boswell, does a thorough job dealing with all the cognate words and etymologies and also the usage in early literature. For example, Hippolytus of Rome (around 150 years after Paul) writes about the founder of the Naassene Gnostics in his Refutatio omnium haeresium (Refutation of All Heresies) 5.26.23: "So Naas committed lawlessness: for he went in unto Eve and after seducing her committed adultery with her. And he also went in unto Adam and had him as a "little boy," which is also likewise lawlessness. Thus began MOICEIA and ARSENOKOITIA." As an ARSENOKOITHS is someone who does ARSENOKOITIA, the usage here is pretty explicit: MOICEIA (μοιχεία) is heterosexual (i.e. adultery), ARSENOKOITIA (ἀρσενοκοιτία) is homosexual (i.e. gay coitus).

See also just a few of the other passages he discusses, including some that reference the Levitical passages above:

Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica (Demonstration of the Gospel) 4.10.6 (PG 22:276; GCS 23:165).

Eusebius, Dem. ev. 1.6.67 (PG 22:65; GCS 23:33). Cf. also Dem. ev. 1.6.33 (PG 22:56; GCS 23:27-28).

Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) 13.20.7 (GCS 43/2:251-2).

Apostolic Constitutions 6.28 (PG 1:984).

Apos. Con. 7.2 (PG 1:1000).

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) 1.29.4 (CCL 1:473).

 

I think Jon has basically blown away the homosexual activists' interpretation (which is based on their presuppositions). I was wishing I could weigh in on that, but all of my Greek lexicons and reference books are packed and shipped, since we're moving.

I do want to add that even without the disputed passages, homosexual acts are sin by virtue of being extra-marital, and thus fitting under porneia (fornication, or any extra-marital sexual activity. This word occurs negatively as sin in 32 verses. Another word which may be applied is aselgeia (lasciviousness), occurring as sin 9 times in the NT.

The only sexual activity allowable Biblically is the marriage bed. And surely no one could doubt that Biblical marriage is only between a man and a woman.

So are the gays winning? Not unless you characterize lies and bias as victory. God always wins.

 

urrent culture. NOT what the lord meant...



The gay activists are gain ground for mainly two reasons...

One is that some in the christian Church have redefined biblical morality to reflect contemporary culture. not what God meant...

Two, satan is the god of this age , so the World will reflect His preverted/distorted message in this area...

 

Your OP title was "Why are gay activists winning?" My post was perfectly legitimate in that it answered that question.

Theological answer: The gays are not winning and they never will. God wins.

Biblical answer: There are many Scriptures other than your disputed ones which condemn homosexual activity.

Political answer: This doesn't concern me much, but as a Bible translator myself I am completely sure that the translators of the modern versions mentioned are not injecting their political views into the Scriptures.

Linguistic answer: Aptly covered by Jon Borland, who you haven't answered yet.

 

Politically they, like other groups, are simply trying to make America life up to the Pledge of Allegiance. What is it about "liberty and justice for all" that people do not understand?

 

This is one thing I agree with you on. (Though I do believe homosexuality is a sin.)

 

Yes, I also believe it is a sin. People are so fast to cast stones at gays and tend to often excuse heterosexuals for their sins of passion.

I have often said, I do not understand homosexuals. I do not understand women and feel sorry for them, all that is left for women is men and I have yet to meet a man who appealed to me at ALL.