Has "Homosexual" always been in the Bible?

[TexasBushwhacker]

"The word "arsenokoitai" shows up in 2 different verses in the Bible, but it was not translated to mean homosexual until 1946.

https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

This article is really interesting and makes perfect sense.

[Cartoonist]

1. Very interesting

They changed the word pedophile into homosexual. What liars!

[NCLefty]

2. That's how Republicans continue to fear-monger about LGBT. "Dangers to children+families"

[Mariana]

19. That doesn't make it any better.

Leviticus 20 : 13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

So, if this verse really is about a child molester and his victim, then God's law requires that the victim must be executed right along with the perpetrator!

[markpkessinger]

23. You won't find "arsenokoitai" in Leviticus

Leviticus wasn't written in Greek, but in Hebrew.

[Mariana]

26. That is true, but Mr. Oxford makes a similar argument about those:

So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.”

He conveniently left out the part in Leviticus 20:13 where it requires that the "young boys" be executed along with their rapists. That reflects on his credibility, in my opinion.

[Dirty Socialist]

33. It reflects on Absurd Leviticus' credibility

IMO

[Mariana]

34. If nothing else, Mr. Oxford has made a very strong case

for the position that the Bible has no credibility.

[irisblue]

3. A question

Ed Oxford, from the article , does not know that the Nazis burned the Mangus Hirschfield Institute for Sexual Science in 1933? All that research from 1870 to 1933 is gone.



Source--https://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=13366

[Mariana]

22. I suspect Ed Oxford is engaging in some wishful thinking.

Even if he is right, and all those translations of the Bible are wrong, all he's done is demonstrated that the Bible can't be trusted to actually mean what it says. What else in the Bible has been completely mistranslated?

[cwydro]

4. Does anyone care?

Is it in the Koran? The Torah?

Get back to me on that ok?

[OliverQ]

9. Seeing as The Torah is the

the first 5 books of the Bible, no it's not there either. The only verse people use to condemn gays in the Torah is in Leviticus, and careful study of the verse shows it's a prohibition against the Levite Priesthood engaging in pagan worship rituals.

[jberryhill]

11. It's important to know that the sky man who will be casting unbelievers into the lake of fire

...is otherwise inclusive.

[cwydro]

29. Lol!

True dat.

[FreeState]

5. The term didn't exist until 1868

So it makes sense it wasn’t in it.

[Mariana]

20. The action is described in Leviticus. though.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe men having consensual sex with other men, in the English translations.

Women apparently could do whatever they liked with other women - as long as their hymens remained intact and/or they didn't get pregnant, no one cared. My guess is that since women were essentially property, that what they did among themselves was beneath consideration.

[markpkessinger]

24. Yes, but Leviticus says a lot of things are forbidden . . .

. . . including the wearing of mixed fibers!

[Mariana]

25. Every Christian picks and chooses

which parts of the Bible are important, and which to ignore. It so happens that lots of them think homosexual sex is still a huge deal, while the rule against wearing mixed fibers can be ignored.

[phylny]

69. Every Christian?

Sigh.

[Mariana]

70. Yes.

Do you know any Christian who follows every rule in the Bible, or who believes every story related therein literally happened as written? Of course not. Some fundies say they do, but it's clear that in reality they do not.

There are so many contradictory rules in the Bible, that it's impossible for any Christian to follow all of them as written. Many of those rules are immoral, and a lot are just irrelevant. Some are just plain silly, like the prohibition against wearing mixed fibers mentioned above, or Paul's dictates about Christians' hairstyles.

[tavernier]

28. I'm confused - explanation needed please...

Would wearing a wool sweater with cotton pants be considered an example of mixing fibers?

And if so, where do nylon and polyester stand in the seven layers of hell?

[markpkessinger]

61. No, but a cotton/acryllic sweater would be! ;) n/t

[bdjhawk]

6. In earlier versions of the Bible, many women were deacons

and leaders, but good ‘ol King James (his days version of Roger “tell lies as news” Ailes) had his translators change many of the women to “servants”. In no language in the world does deacon/leader translate to servant. I’m guessing the addition of the term “homosexual” described above was another propaganda translation.

[OliverQ]

8. Do you have a reference for that?

[defacto7]

14. Since King James I only funded the translation

I'm pretty sure he didn't have any personal input. King James I was gay btw. He's buried in Westminster Abbey next to his lover.

[TexasBushwhacker]

46. On the contrary, he funded the new translation

because there were things he didn't like in the Geneva Bible.

"In 1604, the year after he claimed the throne of England in 1603, King James I hosted and presided over a conference pertaining to matters religious, the Hampton Court Conference. While the Geneva Bible was the preferred Bible of Anglican and Puritan Protestants during the Elizabethan Age, King James I disliked the Geneva Bible and made his views clearly known at the conference: "I think that of all [English Bibles], that of Geneva is the worst." Apparently, his distaste for the Geneva Bible was not necessarily caused just by the translation of the text into English, but mostly the annotations in the margins. He felt strongly many of the annotations were "very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits..." In all likelihood, he saw the Geneva's interpretations of biblical passages as anti-clerical "republicanism", which could imply church hierarchy was unnecessary. Other passages appeared particularly seditious: notably references to monarchs as "tyrants".[12] It followed that the need for a king as head of church and state could be questioned also. James had been dealing with similar issues with the Presbyterian-Calvinist religious leaders back in Scotland, and he wanted none of the same controversies in England. Also, if annotations were in print, readers might believe these interpretations correct and fixed, making it more difficult to change his subjects' minds about the meanings of particular passages."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

BTW, the pilgrims on the Mayflower brought Geneva BIbles with, not KJV.

[defacto7]

50. Interesting. Thanks. I only have some limited knowledge

of the subject. Now I'm thoroughly informed. I had no idea he had any direct involvement.

[OliverQ]

7. Nope. Right-wing conservatives have butchered the Bible

to suit their anti-gay agenda. None of the Biblical verses they quote to condemn gays actually reference gay people. Most had to do with Pagan worship rituals and sexual slavery.

[Mariana]

21. So the writer at the link is wrong?

He says the verses in Leviticus refer to child molesters and their victims. Not that that interpretation would be any better, since it prescribes the death penalty for both parties.

[irisblue]

10. Did you read/see this?

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/word-homosexual-first-introduced-bible/

[jberryhill]

12. The part about the talking snake is still the same, right?

[ProudLib72]

60. If you mean the one selling pomegranates

then yes.

[jberryhill]

64. Well, thank goodness it's not homophobic

[Karadeniz]

13. Thank you! The new testament doesn't directly address homosexuality, so I can't see that

It was a high priority item. However, what every parable and the teachings address is soul development and how that fits into the god system. On that basis, a generous, kind, compassionate homosexual couple is every bit as beneficial to society and the god system as a hetero couple with the same traits. However, Jesus's teachings would not condone an older person using a naive youth for his personal pleasure. That would be exploiting and taking away the victim's freedom of choice.

[jberryhill]

51. Jesus meets a woman at a well

...tells her to get him water and calls her a slut.



Is that one translated correctly?

[Maru Kitteh]

65. See,

he really IS a Republican after all!

[Mariana]

71. He was pretty nasty to the Canaanite woman, too

just because of her ethnicity. First he rudely ignored her, then he compared her to a dog begging for scraps, and he refused to heal her child until she groveled and debased herself enough to satisfy him.

[jberryhill]

74. Then he cast demons into some guy's pigs...

Burned down a fig tree and stole a horse.

The ones I really feel badly for are Lazarus' family. Guy died, Jesus brings him back to life, and the guy eventually dies again. His family had to go through that twice.

He could have saved a lot more lives by telling people, "Wash your hands more frequently" but chose not to.

[Mariana]

76. After he killed all those pigs

the locals begged him to leave the area. I wonder how many people went hungry because of the loss of those pigs?

[jberryhill]

77. Ah, but...

This was Israel. Who raises pigs for food? Nobody worth caring about.

[Mariana]

79. You do have a point. This would have been a Gentile village.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” - Jesus

[keithbvadu2]

15. The Bible has been rewritten many times to be politically/culturally correct for the times.

The Bible has been rewritten many times to be politically/culturally correct for the times.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. I understand that

That's why I think people that think that the Bible is the literal word of God are goofy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. The whole belief is goofy.😜

[Blue_true]

41. The same people that think that the bible is the literal word of God also overwhelmingly

support Trump, a man who has defiled every one of god's Ten Commandments many times. The TC was supposedly the word of God on what is sin.

It all made my head spin when I was a child. Then I gravitated to Deism and all around me started to make sense.

[TexasBushwhacker]

43. And many of our founding fathers were deists

When people say the US was founded on Christianity they are WRONG.

[markpkessinger]

62. You are correct that the US was not founded on Christianity, but . . .

. . . not exactly for the reason you suggest. Deism was not a religion or a faith, but a particular philosophy of religious belief that arose among English writers from the early 17th to the mid 18th century. But in fact, most of the founders who are described as "Deists" were actually at least nominally Anglican. But Anglicanism has tended, in the US at least, to be a bit more tolerant of heterodox views by its members.

[jberryhill]

59. Thinking it is the figurative word of God is pretty goofy too

It would have been nice if God to inform us of things like antiobiotics instead of providing detailed instructions on how to eviscerate animals to burn them as sacrifices.

Or maybe something along the lines of “when you eventually find there are people living on a continent far across the ocean, could you please not enslave them, take their stuff and kill them? Oh, and about that slavery thing, let me be clear...”

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. I like the Epicurus quote about god

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I also like what Ricky Gervais says:

[Mariana]

18. Every single English translation of the Bible is wrong?

All of those scholars who interpreted those passages over the centuries were incompetent?

Fascinating.

[TexasBushwhacker]

31. Most contemporary Bibles are translations of translations

I don't know if I would call that I would call that "incompetent". It's just the nature of translating ancient texts.

[Midnight Writer]

36. Yes.

We now have very early "editions" of Bibles in codex and scroll form.

Transcribing by hand, from language to language, from generation to generation, over hundreds of years. Differences are inevitable.

Even the decision of which Books to include in The Bible strongly color the final result.

As for incompetence, they were working from incomplete information (as we still are today). Knowledge moves forward. Is a senior who knows how to use a rotary phone but can't figure out a Smartphone incompetent?

[Mariana]

38. Do those early "editions" back up Mr. Oxford's assertions? nt.

[Midnight Writer]

40. I don't know. I have never seen this particular issue addressed.

[TexasBushwhacker]

48. He's gone as far back as the German translation used by Martin Luther

And in that one the Greek word "arsenokoites" is translated to adult males having sex with young boys rather than homosexual behavior between adult males. Translations in other languages at that time, like Norwegian and Swedish, also translated it as pederasty. Considering that men sexually exploiting young boys was common in ancient Greece, it makes sense that was the activity that was being called out as an abomination.

Perhaps the restriction on eating shellfish was because someone noticed some people would get very ill or even die after eating it. Shellfish allergies can be deadly and they didn't have Epipens in 300 AD.

[Mariana]

49. Does that version say the victims are equally guilty

of committing an abomination, and therefore they must be executed just like the perpetrators? That is what the English translations say.

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. He doesn't discuss that in the article n/t

[Blue_true]

42. Passages in the bible were done to control people or deal with issues of the times.

The notion of a savior that was of special birth and later crucified dates way beyond Christianity in several religions that proceeded Christianity. The notion of God having a chosen people dates to Greek mythology, where gods and goddesses took side in fights and on occasion laid with some people of earth to sometime produce offspring.

[Ron Obvious]

27. I suppose I'm the only schoolboy in here today snickering at the word "arsenokoitai"

It sounds more like a prohibition against anal sex.

[TexasBushwhacker]

30. Kind of like "innuendo"

sounds like an Italian suppository?

[Dirty Socialist]

32. K & R

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

35. WAIT!!

I thought the Bible was the inerrant, infallible Word of God. And now you're telling me that it's been translated different ways? With different words and meanings? Wow. (Walks away, shaking her head.)

[TexasBushwhacker]

37. Well, only about 30% of Christians in the US are "literalists"

That's still too many.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. And 30% of Christians in the US will vote for Trump.

Coincidence?

[Blue_true]

44. A man who has violated every single one of the literal Ten Commandments several times. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

45. And offers no "sincere apology" with crocodilian tears.

A man who probably believes that any guy that gets nailed to a cross is some kind of chump.

And they vote for him.

[NNadir]

47. The translation of the bible played a big role in my spiritual evolution.

I was raised in a very religious family; my mother in particular was very religious.

My father was something of an autodidactic biblical scholar.

My mother's sister, my aunt, converted to be a Jehovah's Witness, and tried to convert my parents.

My father would have none of it, and they both started quoting the bible, in an argument about blood transfusions, which the Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow.

Well, the each cited the same passage, which they identified by naming the book chapter and verse. (I no longer remember which passage.) And their translations were quite different. There was a lot of shouting "That's not what it says!"

I was about 10 or 11 years old.

Despite my upbringing until then, I never took the bible seriously again.

[defacto7]

55. Nice story. It takes me back a few decades.

My childhood experience with multiple translations and paraphrased versions helped me conclude that the bible was not to be trusted. Except for a few ancient human sentiments that predate Abrahamic religion I can't relate to it.

[Xolodno]

52. I love theses threads...they always make me laugh.

How?

Let me throw in a few monkey wrenches....

1. The King James Bible, which most die hard evangelicals rely on, and even some declare is the only version they should use....well, turns out ole King James may very well have been a homosexual. Even rumored to participate in some pagan rituals.

2. Yes, in Leviticus, there is a passage that a man should not lie with another man as one does with a women. With that said, there is nothing there about a woman who lies with another woman.

3. Adultery is a severe violation of property rights.

[Mariana]

72. My guess is that whatever women did amongst themselve

was thought to be beneath consideration by the men who came up with these rules, or by God if one believes he actually dictated them. Women and girls were essentially property, after all. As long as their hymens remained intact, and/or they didn't get pregnant as a result of their activities, no one cared what they did with each other.

[rampartc]

53. pederasty was considered normal

and not as abusive. the older man was expected to teach the younger and to facilitate his entrance to adult society.

the relationship would have been so commonplace in the Hellenistic world (which would have included 1st century Jerusalem) that I am surprised the new testament mentions it at all.

[cyclonefence]

56. For Christians

Do the Old Testament rules even apply? Jesus brought a new testament. I don't think Jesus had one word to say about homosexuality--Paul, I suspect, for sure (that asshole), but how about Jesus? That's all that's supposed to matter to soi-disant Christians. IOW Jesus, if he had nothing to say about it, translates in my book to mind your own business.

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. Not mention, supposedly, Jesus died for EVERYONE'S sins

Did he not? He didn't cherry pick which sins were forgiven and his followers shouldn't. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone - right?

BTW, I'm a lifetime agnostic atheist.

[jberryhill]

66. Which is why you should trust me

No matter what awful thing I do, I have an invisible friend who will forgive me.

This means you should trust me.

[cyclonefence]

68. Me too

but I had a childhood spent in church and Sunday school, not to mention Weds. night prayer meeting.

Jesus' clear and definite message was to love one another. "This is the first and great commandment. Thous shalt love thy god...and the second is like unto it. Love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets."

I am an atheist, but I believe Jesus' message was a very good one. You could call me an atheistic christian or a christian atheist.

[jberryhill]

58. Jesus endorsed the Old Testament

[cyclonefence]

67. I do not question that Jesus was an observant Jew

but I adhere to the words Jesus himself spoke at the last supper:

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

This was a pretty significant event, and I think Jesus probably meant what he said.

I do not believe that Jesus endorsed every law set forth in the old testament, or he would have been out there stoning people for picking up firewood on the sabbath. I do not believe Jesus was a picker and chooser. I do not believe Jesus endorsed the laws about personal conduct set forth in the old testament. I do believe that Jesus endorsed the ten commandments--the word of god, not the supposedly inspired rules set down by men whose ides of holy behavior were based on their own cultural prejudices.

[jberryhill]

75. .

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

-------

What I love about that parable of Lazarus and the rich man is the image of paradise. While having a great time in heaven, one can actually watch and hear the eternal torment of others who didn't make the cut.

Granted, it's a parable, but I rather like the picture Jesus paints of spending my eternity in comfort watching and hearing other people suffer without end.

[cyclonefence]

80. Biblically-endorsed schadenfraude

what could be better?

[Mariana]

73. Jesus said yes, during the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:17-20 - "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Some Christians "interpret" this such that the resurrection was Jesus fulfilling the law, and all things being accomplished, but that doesn't really make sense in the context of this instruction. He was clearly telling his followers that they must follow the Law.

[cyclonefence]

81. All I remember is

Thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the other is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two hang all the laws and the prophets.

That seems pretty definitive and final to me.

Do you believe that Jesus expected his followers to obey all the laws set down in following the law as set down in the ot, did he pick and choose which laws to follow? I prefer to believe that Jesus' message was to love one another, not to love one another except for those others who are homosexuals or are otherwise condemned the ot.

When Jesus told his disciples to "love thy neighbor" and was asked "well, who is my neighbor?" he answered with the parable of the good samaritan; he didn't say to love other Jews who followed the laws set down in the ot.

[Mariana]

82. Jesus contradicted himself quite a bit, according to the gospels.

You've pointed out one such contradiction.

[greymattermom]

78. Ask what is says in the Torah.

Why all these translations? Bible scholars read Hebrew.

[TexasBushwhacker]

83. Bible scholars read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic

The Torah is only the first 5 chapters of the OT and yes, it was written in Hebrew.