The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 1 Cor. 6:9-11

I am putting this here, because I can’t reply in the “Must Read” forum.

I read the articles and was reminded of 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

9 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Tom

Tom, you have quoted one of the numerous modern conservative translations that are the ones leaving the older, traditional translation of the KJV, ERV, ASV and YLT, by changing "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" into "men who practice homosexuality". Using the older 1828 Webster's English dictionary, which is the closest to the definitions of the KJV, ERV, ASV and YLT; you do not come up with homosexual. When checking "effeminate", "abusers" in 1 Cor. 6:9, and "delile In 1 Tim. 1:10 you learn what the older translations understood in the verse and "effeminate" means just that, NOT sexual acts; and "abusers" clearly refers to "sodomites" that are clearly defined by Webster:

ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.

RAV'ISHER, n.
1. One that takes by violence.
2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace.
3. One that transports with delight.

DEFILE, v.t. 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary clearly makes arsenokoites/abusers to be "sodomites" and that person is described as an abuser, a deceiver, a ravisher, one that takes by violence or rapes. The word "sodomite" is NOT a synonym for "homosexual", as much as ignorant fundamentalists wish to make it so. Loving homosexual relationships are more than about sex, and the long term relationships that last even after sex has died away show that to be the case.

I find those claiming to be conservatives, are too much ruled by their political social activism by reading "homosexuals' into 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. They also, like the 1977 NASB in Ex. 21:22 which read "miscarriage", was changed in the 1995 NASB to "gives birth prematurely", which leaves the historic understanding as a "miscarriage", which is the common sense translation.

I believe it is the churches claiming to be holding to the fundamentals of the faith, who left the traditional and historic translations of 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 and Ex. 21:22 to be the ones who may be more at fault for the downfall of the west; rather than the liberals. If the so-called conservatives had held to the traditional understanding of these verses, then they church would have credibility to challenge same-sex marriage legalization in civil law as well as church law.

I'm more concerned about the so-called conservative church's departure from Biblical standards than I am about the sin of San Francisco, New Orleans, NYC or even the corruption in Washington, DC.

More serious than sexual perversions and changes in Ex. 21:22; I find is the departure of the church from Biblical standards about women's role and the Presbyterian John Knox wrote clearly about it:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9660/9660-h/9660-h.htm

That booklet by Knox is titled:

The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women, by John Knox, 1558.

That is what has destroyed the biblical family unit, not same-sex marriage. It has infected the churches as well. The rule of/by women is clearly a sign of God's judgment on his people, Isa. 3:12.

I know this will find much agreement in the conservative churches of today.

Let me be crystal clear... IF <---- you are trying to suggest that Scripture, both OT and NT does not openly condemn any and all forms of homosexuality and/or sexual deviation (transgenderism, sexual identity, etc. etc., ad nauseam and further to post such defense of this hellish view, then you will be permanently banned from this forum. IF <---- this is not your intent or suggestion, then disregard this warning.

Pilgrim, I did not "suggest" anything about the LGBTQ+ activist movement's gay theology or agenda. I wrote about the translations of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 as found in the KJV, ERV, ASV and YLT versions defining the words by the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary. Did I err in my understanding of the two verses as rendered in the earlier translations, using the dictionary that is more inline with those translation's dates? You may have made an assumption that may seem reasonable, but only if you read more into my post than what I wrote. I can be clumsy in writing things at times, so if I gave that impression, I apologize. I was commenting on whichever of the modern versions it is that Tom quoted.

The NCC's 1946 RSV was the first translation to combine malakos and arsenokoites, and translate by "homosexuals". Now, after struggling with 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, since 1946, the NCC's 2021 NRSVue footnotes on the words read: "Meaning of Gk uncertain". There did not seem to be an uncertainty in the KJV, ERV, ASV and YLT on the verses in question. The only manuscript variance in the verses is where in 1 Cor. 6:9, some manuscripts give "God's kingdom" rather than the "kingdom of God".

As an example of what I speak of in the modern conservative versions, notice how the 2020 Literal Standard Version, which claims to be an update of the YLT, translates arsenokoites in the only two places found in the Greek Bible, in either the OT or NT:

The YLT renders arsenokoites in both places as "sodomites"; while the Literal Standard Version one time translates "sodomites", and in the second place in 1 Tim. 1:10 as "homosexuals", as if the words were synonymous, which they are not. I find no standard thesaurus that equates the two words as synonymous.

What I actually wrote did not narrow your insistence that Webster's Dictionary eliminated a reference to: " any and all forms of homosexuality and/or sexual deviation (transgenderism, sexual identity, etc. etc., ad nauseam". Thus HOMOSEXUALITY and and all other forms of sexual sins ARE referenced in all of the texts you posted.

Moulten and Milligan The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament is a far more reliable source to determine definitions of NT words vs. Webster's Dictionary. Secondly, historical records of translations of the New Testament contradict your understanding and source material. Interpretations of these texts that teach about sexual aberrations of all forms by notable and reliable men, commentaries, sermons and articles contradict what you are seemingly suggesting. What is true that many (most?) modern "translations" do in fact distort what the NT actually teaches about these sexual abominations and on that basis alone they should be avoided without thought. They are glaring examples of the result of using the infamous but unfortunately predominate use of a Dynamic Equivalence method of translation.

Much of what you wrote above has already been presented here by those who are ensnared by these sexual sins and used to justify their disgusting beliefs and lifestyles and attempts to distort the clear biblical teaching on these matters. Webster's dictionary is often a favorite "proof" that homosexuality is not condemned by God in the Bible. And the hermeneutical gymnastics used are nothing short of insulting and laughable, albeit it is an affront to human logic and God's Word.

I started this thread, yet I am somewhat surprised at where the conversation has gone.

I think Pilgrim did a good job at responding. But I decided to do a bit of research on my own.
I will add a bit of what I found.

Seeing the Whycliff Bible is a very old English Bible, I thought I would start with it.




]

Getting back to the English Bibles in our history, versions of today do not give the same message as the older respected versions. Notice them in comparison -

1611 KJV nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
1881 ERV nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
1898 YLT nor effeminate, nor sodomites
1901 ASV nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men

The KJV was THE English Bible most read until at least 1946, a span of 335 years, and the understanding of the two words in question remained the same, and the 1828 Webster's shows it. On this verse, there is no variation from the TR to our latest Greek Text. No new manuscripts have been found changing the Greek meaning on the two words in question. The site www.onelook.com lists 30 English Dictionaries and I find none that define "effeminate" as referring to sexual conduct. I doubt that the ESV and similar modern versions will be the "standard" for the next 300+ years, and for good reason:

"Not since the Septuagint—the Greek-language version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) produced between the 3rd and the 2nd centuries BCE—had a translation of the Bible been undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb individual proclivities and to ensure the translation’s scholarly and nonpartisan character." https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-James-Version

"The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 Oxford, Gordon Campbell, Oxford University Press 2010.)" https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/

To evaluate that statement about scholars, read the biographies of those men who translated the KJV. I'll trust them more than the scholars of today.
https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/allPhotos.php

When it comes to indepth Bible study, one step in the process will include literal, word for word translations. Yet, even the Interlinear NTs do not always agree:

1. "nor abusers of themselves as women, nor abusers of themselves with men" TR
2. "nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites" 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testament Graece
3. "nor effeminate nor homosexuals" 27th Edition NA
4. "nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals" 28th Edition NA
5. "nor soft ones nor male homosexuals" 28th Edition NA

1. George Ricker Berry, 1897 "The Greek Text is the Standard", with Grk lexicon of some words
*"μαλακός... soft, of garments, Mat. xi.8; Lu vii.25; disgracefully effeminate, 1 Cor. vi.9"
2. NIV/Greek Interlinear, Zondervan, gloss of Greek text by Alfred Marshall, 1958
3. NRSV/Greek Interlinear, Tyndale, 1990
4. NRSV/Greek Interlinear, Tynedale, 2020
5. ESV/Greek Interrlinear, Crossway, 2018

Before going to the NT Greek reference works, we can do a reality check on a translation such as the ESV by using a bit of research and common sense. The words malakos and arsenokoites are given as:
"nor men who practice homosexuality...The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts"

A Christian man wrote online "I will engage in mutual fellatio and masturbation, but not anal intercourse for that would be the sin of sodomy." According to the ESV, that man was correct. Why is the assumption made that homosexual males practice anal intercourse as a rule.

"...the equation of 'homosexual' with 'anal' sex among men is common among lay and health professionals alike," whereas an online survey of 18,000 MSM in Europe 'showed that oral sex was most commonly practised, followed by mutual masturbation, with anal intercourse in third place.' A 2011 survey by The Journal of Sexual Medicine found similar results for U.S. gay and bisexual men. Kissing a partner on the mouth (74.5%), oral sex (72.7%), and partnered masturbation (68.4%) were the three most common behaviors, with 63.2% of the sample self-reporting five to nine different sexual behaviors during their last encounter."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_practices_between_men

The idea that homosexual orientation or relationships are solely about sex is erroneous:

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex."
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation

In the next reply I'll go into the study using the Greek NT references, but in closing this reply, John Calvin's comment on malakos makes sense as it is in agreement with the standard English, "effeminate" -

"By effeminate persons I understand those who, although they do not openly abandon themselves to impurity, discover, nevertheless, their unchastity by blandishments of speech, by lightness of gesture and apparel, and other allurements."

A true Christian understands that his understanding of God's word depends upon the illumination of the word by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Yet, there are common sense steps that can be taken to be safe in one's biblical faith. It must be kept in mind that commentaries, translations, Greek Lexicons and even the marginal cross references in Bibles are created by man, therefore subject to biases, theological presuppositions, cultural influences, etc.

Step one is use a literal translation like the ASV, which more closely translates the original words consistently the same, and search the entire Bible for the English word under consideration by studying each occurrence in context. Letting the biblical writers under inspiration, give the meaning of their words by their usage of them. A prayerful, bare word study in English and then Greek/Hebrew is the surest way to arrive at the truth of God.

Step two is compare some classic, reputable commentaries and compare the arguments, reasoning and common sense used as the arguments made from other scriptures. Some classic commentaries are Matthew Poole, John Gill, Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry for instance.

Step three is go to the Greek/Hebrew behind our English. Start with using the classic Strong's of 1890, not the "new" modified ones. Using Bible software such as www.theword.net you can search for every occurrence of the Hebrew or Greek word and study those in context. Of course the basic definition by Strong's will give a starting point. If you wish to go in depth on definition, as I do, check the highly respected BDAG (Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament) and I'll quote from the 2000 Edition on malakos -

2 pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship..." The definition is given in bold and italics, and the Foreward in the BDAG explains: "When a formal equivalent is sufficient to convey the meaning, as marry in the entry γαμέω, this meaning stands in bold italics without extended definition. Normal italic type is used for suggested translation equivalents. In short, pains have been taken to provide readers with ample resources to form an independent critical judgment." Notice that the word "homosexuals" is not found here! Also, the BDAG used the word "sodomized", so how do most understand that word?

American Heritage Dictionary: "sodomize...To subject to an act of sodomy, especially forcibly."
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sodomize

Webster's New World Dict: "sodomize...To engage in sodomy with; specif., to forcibly subject to sodomy." https://www.yourdictionary.com/sodomize

This BDAG lexicon is one appealed to in many modern translations, but do other NT Greek scholars agree on this definition? I'll give two that disagree -

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers ." Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (10 January 1800 - 21 June 1873) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html

"μαλακοί , soft, voluptuous , appears in this connexion to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh; lexical ground is wanting for the sense of pathici , suggested to some interpreters by the following word and by the use of molles in Latin." The Expositor's Greek Testament
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/egt/1-corinthians.html

In some NT Lexicons you find makakos defined as "catamites" metaphorically or figuratively, not literally. To further check the meaning of the Greek, there is a huge Greek-English Lexicon online and it does not support the BDAG as above. Greek had the EXACT word for a catamite and it is not malakos! The Greek for a catamite can be seen at this link of the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon -

"κίναιδος ...A cinaedus, homosexual, gay, catamite, Pl.Grg.494e, etc.: generally, lewd fellow, Herod.2.74, PSI5.483.1 (iii B.C.), Arcesil. ap. Plu.2.126a. Synonyms: βάταλος, λάσταυρος, μαρικᾶς
2 public dancer (?), PTeb.208 (i B.C.), perhaps also CIG4926 (Philae).
3 pl., κίναιδοι = obscene poems, obscene verses D.L.9.110.
II a sea fish, sea-fish, Plin.HN32.146.
III = κιναίδιον, Gal.12.740,800."
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%82

Paul's word malakos does NOT mean a catamite or homosexual as can be seen also in the LSJ -
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82

At this point, I go back to a word study, but using the exact Greek that Paul used, G3120 and it is found as "soft" as in clothing, Mat 11:8, Luke 7:25 twice; apart from the use in 1 Cor. 6:9 . I find the Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon a help because it gives where the word is used in the LXX which is Pro. 25:15 in place of H7390 and Pro. 26:22 in place of (H3859).

In the study of the word malakos, I'm inclined to believe the change in translation today is dictated by the culture, the conservative reaction against LGBTQ activism, just like in the liberal NRSV, NRSVue and REB; today's feminist culture has strongly influenced those translations in our day. Since most wish to connect malakos to arsenkoites I'll look at that in the next reply.

The second Greek word translations like the ESV include as homosexual is arsenokoites. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 6:9 as "abusers of themselves with mankind" and in 1 Tim. 1:10 as "them that defile themselves with mankind". Remember, how the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary defines those two key words "abusers" and "defilers", which would be the understanding for hundreds of years. The 1828 gives: abuser, deceiver, a sodomite, a ravisher(which is defined as "one that takes by violence" and "one that forces a woman to his carnal embrace), defile(defined as to corrupt chastity, to debauch, to violate) and attention is called to Gen. 34, which is about rape.

The BDAG in its definition as used in the ESV, says that KJV "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9 is "sodomized" by those called arsenokoites. While to "sodomize" can be defined as merely being the passive partner in anal intercourse, most here in America view it defined as:

American Heritage Dictionary: "sodomize...To subject to an act of sodomy, especially forcibly."
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sodomize

Webster's New World Dict: "sodomize...To engage in sodomy with; specif., to forcibly subject to sodomy." https://www.yourdictionary.com/sodomize

The Greek arsenokoites is found nowhere before Paul's use of it twice, and it is not seen for a hundred years thereafter. It appears that Paul coined the word from arsen as man, and koites which is a "couch" or "bed". This word koites is used as represent the marriage bed in Heb. 13:4, and is translated "conceived" in Rom. 9:10. But, the key to the word is how Paul used koites in another of his vice lists:

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." (Rom 13:13 KJV)

There Paul uses the word for rampant promiscuity along with drunkenness and wantoness, so we get a good idea of the word there. We get a further meaning of Paul in 1 Tim. 1 where he lists sins more in categories: "murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" and "for liars, for perjured persons" and he places our word thus: "whoremongers, for arsenokoites, for menstealers".

So we have Paul using koites in the Rom. 13:13 vice list as promiscuity, and in the 1 Tim. 1:10 in the manner of force or violence. I keep referring to the 1828 Webster's for the simple fact that you would not expect a 2000 English dictionary to be as accurate as the 1828 which is closer to the timeframe of the translation. The BDAG definition of arsenokoites is "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast". Remember, according to the BDAG, this is a male who is said to have "sodomized" the effeminate, the one called malakos. NOTICE, the BDAG does not define malakos or arsenokoites as "homosexual(s)". Thayer's Lexicon defines thus:

ἀρσενοκοίτης, ἀρσενοκοιτου, ὁ (ἄρσην a male; κοίτη a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite: 1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; ecclesiastical writings.)

A line in the NET Bible translator's note on malakos in 1 Cor. 6:9 reveals how some will translate to fit their preconceived notion that malakos is a sinner called a homosexual:

"This term is sometimes rendered 'effeminate,' although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior."

The word "demeanor" is defined as behavior or conduct; therefore it is obvious, "effeminate" just did not give the behavior that the NET Bible translators wished to present! This clearly reveals how the various modern evangelical translations render the Greek according to their preconceived notion is must be sin, even if they have to twist the language to make it so.

AGAIN, I do not support the 'gay theology' or 'gay agenda' as seen in the LGBTQ and their perversion of marriage, etc.; BUT, on the other end of the spectrum I just as strongly reject the conservative translations as giving a biased view. That biased view has helped produce the hateful nastiness seen in conservative Christians/churches, which understandably brings up the charge of homophobia.

Earlier I quoted how John Calvin understood malakos and he did not view it as sexual conduct. The Puritan Matthew Poole comments on 1 Cor. 6:9 - "Nor abusers of themselves with mankind; nor such as are guilty of the sin of Sodom, a sin not to be named amongst Christians or men." The sin of Sodom as far as sexuality goes, was attempted rape, and Eze. 16:48-50 gives the sin of Sodom and does not specify any sexual sin.

The claim that the Bible condemns a loving, consensual, enduring 'gay' relationship is nowhere that I can find. The abusiveness of the sodomite is what I find in the Holy Bible. When you read the secular sources of information on this topic, in Paul''s day, you find the abusiveness of sodomy, not a loving gay relationship. No one seems to notice, the Bible nowhere condemns lesbianism, and it must be read into Rom. 1:26 to make it seem so.

I notice that with the adulterer in the Bible, we never hear him spoken of as a male who practices heterosexuality. In the YLT, some form of adultery or adulterer is mentioned in 29 verses, but the term "sodomite" is found in only 2!

Today's culture truly is affecting how the Bible is being translated. This makes it difficult to study oneself out of the maize of confusion.

After reading, I have no clue what you are trying to say. Please, just in simple language, tell me what you are saying. What is your point?

You need to 'read carefully' and prayerfully, and think about what I wrote. The translation quoted in the OP is presenting an erroneous rendering of malakos and arsenokoites. It, the ESV, represents the great number of modern, evangelical translations which I believe clearly distort God's word, if one takes the time to do some real study. After years studying theology from my bookshelves, 30 years ago I went online with Win95 and began to find the vast amount of biblical knowledge that can be found there in debate forums, at first found on Usenet. But, just as with health and medical questions, you need to weed out the 95% of weirdos and whacky types.

If you wish to question a point I made in these 3 large replies, I'll try to give you a respectful reply.

I do not want a LARGE reply from you. I asked for a simple answer. What is the point that you are trying to make? I do not wish to jump through your gymnastics to try to discover your intent. Just a simple answer sir, will do.

And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,…

And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2

The word of God does not speak of any sexual nature or orientation. The Bible only speaks of acts, or conduct. The Bible nowhere condemns a friendship between males that includes sexual expression merely for the genders involved. For the Christian, sodomite conduct is sinful, but not because it is male to male, but because it is abusive. The Bible assumes the M-F norm, marriage, and the traditional family. Since Adam, man has not lived in the creation perfection, and norm; but differences in the fallen world not matching the perfection of God's creation do not determine what is sin.

The OP quotes the ESV that states that men who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, with the footnotes describing what it calls the passive and active roles. The modern concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times, and to equate the term sodomite and homosexual as synonyms is false, a prevarication!

I have consistently determined from your posts that is what you have been implying/stating all along. It is the same garbage and abomination and total wresting of the Scriptures which others here have used to justify deviant sexuality in all forms but specifically homosexuality. As I warned you previously, IF you prove to being condoning such things, particularly with the total contradiction of Scripture then you would be banned from this Discussion Board. Such heretical and false teaching is not tolerated here.

Maybe I have missed it, but I have never actually heard/read a conservative Bible believing local Church or Christian state the kind of things DiscipleEddie has said.

I have however, heard those kind of arguments from liberals, such as Vines.
It reminds me of what is commonly called ‘Progressive Christianity’.
Unfortunately, my niece after leaving an abusive power hungry Church; jumped right into
Progressive Christianity.
She was brought up in that Church as a kid and she was hurt by them. As a reaction, started attending a Progressive Church, and says she has never felt such love

Tom