After looking at the Old Testament, and what Jesus said about homosexuality, I continued on my quest through the New Testament, and was surprised to find that every reference that can be linked to homosexuality in the New Testament all came from Paul, minus Jude, whom a few people believe speaks about homosexuality, but most scholars believe Jude is talking about something totally different. There is not enough evidence to link what Jude says to homosexuality.

The first two verses I went to were from two different letters of Paul: one to the Corinthians, and one to Timothy. These two verses are also probably familiar to most evangelicals, as both of these passages are heard quite often. Most of the time, whenever the Levitical Laws are taken out of the argument for whatever reason, the opponents of homosexuality will come back with these two verses:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV)

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers”and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11, NIV)

The 1 Corinthians passage was the most troubling for me. As I read it, I almost wanted to completely give up. I felt like this was more straight forward than the Leviticus verses, and plus this was New Testament, meaning it applied to me more than the Old Testament verses. To top it off, Paul was saying that "homosexual offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God. However, I also remembered how "straight forward" I thought the other passages were, so I kept digging deeper.

I did what I did before, and I started looking at the original words, and just as I assumed, when I did that, things started getting murky.

One of the most interesting things that caught my attention as I started looking was that the word "homosexual" was a fairly new word, and was not even invented until 1892. It was a word invented by psychologists to simply explain male-to-male relationships and attractions.

This led to a huge question: if that word hadn't even been invented until 1892, then is that the most proper translation from the original Greek?

After much reading and studying, I found that the words used to translate to some sort of homosexuality from the original Greek were malakos and arsenokoites. Malakos was translated as "male prostitute", and arsenokoites was translated as "homosexual offenders". But, what I found interesting was that in the 1 Timothy passage (which is why I included it above), arsenokoites is translated as "perverts". That's a big difference. So, why the switch?

What I found out is that, in reality, scholars are not really sure about how to translate these words. These words aren't the most common Greek words, especially arsenokoites. There is a lot of induction that's going out, and inferring of what Paul "probably meant". And, as we saw from the Matthew passage, that can be dangerous and not very reliable.

To top it all off, for me, it wasn't enough and was, quite simply, unfair. I mean, the way I was going to spend the rest of my life and possibly eternity depended on what was being said here, and all I could find was “this is what Paul probably meant. It made me more than a little frustrated. But, I kept digging.

I found out there is no consensus as to what is meant by these two words among Biblical scholars. Malakos is translated as pervert, effeminate, self-indulgent, and male prostitutes. Arsenokoites is translated as homosexual offenders, perverts, sodomites, men who practice homosexuality, and sexual perverts.

I didn't know a lot about Greek language and translations at the time, but I did know that generally, when translators cannot agree on the meaning of a Greek word, it showed what little they knew about the word.

The word malakos was better known than that of arsenokoites. It is seen more often in Greek texts, and it literally means "soft". Sometimes, translators take this to mean effeminate men. I think you know as well as I do that there are some straight men out there who are far more effeminate than some gay men, so if this is the meaning of the word, then homosexuals are not the only people that are in trouble. Eddie Izzard better start praying hard. There are also other times in Greek texts where malakos is translated as being reckless and uncontrolled in the way a person acts.

So, while we don't know the exact meaning of the word today, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that malakos, in the first-century when Paul was writing, meant homosexual men. Arsenokoites is a much more limited word, because the translations are very much closer in nature, but the problem with this word is that many scholars agree, and will admit, that this word is almost impossible to translate. Although malakos was more widely used, arsenokoites can be found in some other Greek works as well; seventy-three to be exact. In almost every other use of the word, even up to the sixth century, the word was used explicitly to talk about male slaves who were bought strictly for the purpose of sex.

This was the moment things began to make sense. This also made sense when compared to the Levitical Law, and with the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. So, it seems more logical that in 1 Corinthians, Paul was actually saying neither male prostitute (malakos) nor male sex slave trader (arsenokoites) would inherit the kingdom of God. Again, this is not talking about monogamous, committed relationships. Paul is talking about people in the sex trade, which I think we would all agree is less than a righteous industry, whether that be today or in the first century.

With this in mind, Scripture was starting to make sense in a whole different way. The Old Testament laws and the New Testament were beginning to intertwine in a new, fresh way. The angry, wrathful God I used to know was suddenly becoming an advocate for human dignity, and all of these passages began to flow together throughout all of Scripture to show that all human beings were equal in status, and that we should live by one basic code: love.

It all started clicking after learning the meanings of these two words, and I was excited about how it was coming together, because Scripture was making far more sense than it used to. It was becoming less of a manual of rules, and more an ethical teaching about how to view others and love another.

As I learned these two words and their contexts, what was once anger at my upbringing was becoming more about excitement to where my life was going, and the things I was learning.

But, I wasn't finished yet! I still had one major passage that I really needed to dive into. We will cover that tomorrow to finish off the Clobber Verses series. As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below! Thanks for reading

My name is Dr. Edward Dalcour. I am a staff member of the theology department of NWU and a Christian apologist. I write you out of love and biblical obligation.

After reading this blog regarding 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, I was not at all surprise at your lack of critical study on these passages (as well as Lev. and Rom). These kinds of articles are typical, although. You merely cite a couple of Greek terms, which you, as I will show below, incorrectly interpret. Further, you make many textual and historical assertions, as most advocates of a pro-homosexual biblical view do, which you never once provide any lexical or scholarly support to justify your claims so the reader can for himself verity the information that you are presenting.

Of course, it is quite apparent to any first year Greek student or studied Christian who reads your blogs that you do not have any knowledge of biblical Greek or ability to interact with any text exegetically. This is very disturbing. When one presents a false biblical interpretation or view, he not only dishonors the Lord by distorting Scripture, but also, and sadly, affects others.

You said: "I did what I did before, and I started looking at the original words, and just as I assumed, when I did that, things started getting murky." Murky? It is only "murky" to one who does engage in meaningful exegesis of the text. How can you examine the original words, when you have no idea how to do a basic lexical study of words? as demonstrated below.

You then assert that the term 'homosexual' was a 'fairly new word, and was not even invented until 1892.' This is an irrelevant point. Since you are not familiar at all with translational/textual issues, you make this an issue.

The fact is, English translations of the NT are based on the Greek equivalence. As I will point out below, the English terms, "sodomite, homosexual, etc., are terms that biblical translators use to correspond to the original Greek term in context and grammar. The term "atonement," for example, is a sixteenth century English term (invented by Tyndale, 1525) that corresponds to the Greek term KATALLASSŌ (lit., "to reconcile," or, as Tyndale saw, at-one-ment). This is true with every single English term: they are all semantic equivalences to the Greek text.

Then you said: "This led to a huge question: if that word hadn't even been invented until 1892, then is that the most proper translation from the original Greek?"

Umm, so would you now reject the term "atonement" (or other Eng. doctrinal terms) by that same standard?

This brings me to your misuse of the two biblical terms mentioned in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 (ARSENOKOITAI and MALAKOI). I will try to make this brief. First, in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul provides a list of sins in which the ones who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. The context, which you miss, is Christian behavior starting in chapter 5 with the immoral so-called brother. Chapter 6, verses 9-11 read:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAI], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In your assertions of the two terms, MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI, you had stated: "I found out there is no consensus as to what is meant by these two words among Biblical scholars."

Really? What biblical scholars? Again, you provide not one lexical source or scholar. All you do is compare English translations, which contain various meanings all of which have the same connotations.

So I will provide, which you have not done, the proper and verifiable lexical information and scholarly comments. MALAKOS: Yes, it can mean "soft" as in "soft garment" (Matt. 11:8) only used four times in the NT. In fact, every time the term is used in the NT, it is used to denote soft garment, except at 1 Cor. 6:9. However, you error in you understanding of the term *in the context* of 1 Cor. 6:9.

FYI: words are defined by the context in which the word(s) appears, not by the various meanings a term can have. Biblical exegesis is not interpreting words from a Concordance you got at the local WalMart.

The fact is as clearly demonstrated in your assertions, you do not follow any kind of acceptable method of biblical interpretation you merely interpret terms according to your life style and personal theology.

The reason why most translations translate MALAKOI as "homosexual" or "effeminate" is simply because, as noted, the CONTEXT limits the definition of the term to a vile sinful practice. Please note, both MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI in 1 Cor. 6:9 are placed in a list of abominable sins: "fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAI], nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

You cannot remove the terms from their context as you do. Note the beginning of the passage: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived." Paul then gives the list of unrighteous acts.

You said: "while we don't know the exact meaning of the word today, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that malakos, in the first-century when Paul was writing, meant homosexual men."

That is simply false. LOUW & NIDA comment on both MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9:

"A male partner in homosexual intercourse". . .

Another recognized lexical source, Thayer-Grimm, show that the meaning of MALAKOI is well established in a pejorative lewd sense years before the Apostle Paul penned 1 Cor:

Like the Latinmollis, metaphorically, and in a bad sense: effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Dionysius Halicarnassus, Antiquities 7, 2 [60 BC after 7 BC] under the end; (Diogenes Laartius 7, 173 at the end).

Thus, your so-called research is defective and dishonest. Scholars do not disagree as to the terms meaning in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9 (cf. Gill; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; Robertson; Clark; Reymond; and White, to name a few).

Yes, being a "soft" person is not a sin. But in context of the immediate passages, Paul sees MALAKOI as an unrighteous sinful act, which is agreed by both biblical scholars and lexicographers. You have not studied honestly or objectively for your conclusions merely reflect your own personal views and not the view of Holy Scripture.

Hence, MALAKOI in these contexts denote the "passive male partner" in a homosexual relationship in which the Apostle Paul connects with "fornicators, idolaters,adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers, which to Paul, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So abhorrent to the Lord are these ten sins listed by the apostle that Clark can say: There are here ten classes of transgressors which the apostle excludes from the kingdom of God.

ARSENOKOITÄ’S. Now we get to the other term you misunderstand and incorrectly define.

First, I will present the lexical meaning of ARSENOKOITAI, which is defined by the context in both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. ARSENOKOITAIS is a compound term from arsÄ“n, “a male” and koitÄ“, “a mat, bed” “ a man in bed with another man; or a homosexual, as the dominate partner (in contrast to the passive-soft MALAKOI partner). The Latin Vulgate, which corresponds to the Greek here, reads: masculorum concubitores, literally, "bedfellows of men" or "liers with mankind."

Thayer defines the term as: "One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite:" 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; ecclesiastical writings).

Further, one of the most utilized and recognized lexicons, BDAG (Bauer-Danker), defines the term as “A male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity.

So let us not equivocate in the lexical meaning of the term as you are doing. The meaning in the context of both passages is clearly spelled out for you: "One who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity," a sodomite.

Second, because you are unfamiliar with textual issues, thus misinforming your readers by providing erroneous information, I will present first the source of ARSENOKOITAIS in the Septuagint (LXX, i.e., the Greek OT that Jesus and the apostles used and from which they cited).

The LXX of Lev. 18:22 reads: Kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēs koitēn gunaikeian, and of Lev. 20:13, Kai os an koimēthē meta arsenos koitēn gunaikos . . . In English: With a male you shall not lie the bed/intercourse KOITĒ of a woman, and Whoever lies with a male the KOITĒ of a woman [here both have done an abominable act, they shall be put to death.]

Clearly, Paul's usage of ARSENOKOITAIS looks back on the Levitical phrase ARSENOS KOITÄ’N, which shows unambiguously the source of the term and confirms Paul's intended meaning in 1 Tim. 1:10. The term certainly was tagged by Greek speaking Jews.

In the context of "role playing" in most ancient same-sex relationships (as we know) the MALAKOI is the receptive party and ARSENOKOITAIS the inserters in male-male anal intercourse” it is a matter of historical record. Thus, both in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 unequivocally God condemns same-sex desire and same-sex acts.

You further said: "After much reading and studying . . . what I found interesting was that in the 1 Timothy passage (which is why I included it above), arsenokoitai is translated as "perverts". That' a big difference. So, why the switch?

Here you are use a particular English translation (NIV) to attempt to show a discrepancy in translations and thus you make a conclusion. This is an erroneous way of interpretation. If you are trying to obtain a correct meaning of a term (viz. the author's intended meaning), you must consult the Greek text, not find an English translation that works for you.

Note how other translations translate the term:

NASB/Holman: Homosexuals
ESV: men who practice homosexuality
NIV: those practicing homosexuality
KJV for them that defile themselves with mankind (ambiguous)
NKJV: sodomites (this is probably the best translation according to the lexical import of the term!)

Again you ignore the context in which the word appears. 1 Timothy 1 is dealing with false doctrine and false teachers (viz. Gnostic philosophy). Note vv. 9-10:

Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAIS] and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching (NASB).

For Paul, these sins are "contrary to sound teaching" You said: What I found out is that, in reality, scholars are not really sure about how to translate these words. I have proved this as again false. You have no idea of what you are saying or how to engage in a proper study of God's Word.

In conclusion, in both 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim. 1 Paul provides a list of sins that Paul defines as "unrighteous." So uprightness are these sins that Paul sees those who practice such things will as not inheriting "the kingdom of God."

Paul cannot conceive a true Christian ever practicing such sins as fornication, idolatry, adultery effeminate [MALAKOI], homosexuality (male to male desire/sex relationship ARSENOKOITAIS], and the others he mentions in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

In 1 Tim. 1:10, Paul list the sin of ARSENOKOITAIS (homosexuality) as being practiced by the "the ungodly and sinners . . . who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, kidnappers, liars and perjurers and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

The two terms ARSENOKOITAI’S and MALAKOI (which are rooted in the Levitical Law, as noted above) are unambiguous in Paul's context both in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Your assertions are not only incorrect, but they are dishonest as you provide false information regarding the view of scholars (which you cite none).

Scholarship militates against your view. Biblical scholars are congruent in the definition of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOS in the particular context to which they appear (viz. 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10). You are misleading many by imposing your personal views upon Scripture, which clearly oppose your view.

Paul says to you and those who would see homosexuality as permissible before the Lord: "Do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9). These sins, which Paul lists, are clear characteristics of unbelievers. For the list ends with Paul saying: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

If you truly love Christ, you will not rebel against Him and His word as you are doing and teaching. This is a serious matter. As Paul instructs by God the Holy Spirit:

Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you (1 Tim. 4:16)

Dear Dr. Edward Dalcour,

Thank you for your blog comment on April 27, and for the spirit of love in which it was written, as well as the shared concern we both have that the Word of God should not be distorted. Brandon and I both have blogs that are aimed at lay-people, not specialists, because we feel strongly that every human being can access the Bible, and that God's Spirit speaks to us when we read the bible. For that reason, we found it was sufficient to summarise a good deal of lexical research that has gone into our understanding, particularly of arsenokoitai. We are, however, delighted that you have provided us with an opportunity to respond in more detail and clarify some of the reasons for our beliefs.

I'm sure you will be aware the NIV, NASB and ESV are not the only translations that have made a decision on this issue. The tradition of English Bibles to see this as a reference to some form of homosexuality can be traced back to Wyclif's translation of the term as €œmen that done synne of sodom, and then by Tyndale as €œabusars of themselves with mankynde, and finally by the RSV as €œhomosexuals.

Martin Luther's translation of the term as Knabenschander (child molester), and Louis Segond's French translation as gens de mÅ“urs infÃ¥mes (infamous persons), attest to a long tradition of different understandings in continental Europe, as well as some more ambiguous translations, such as €œperverts or €œsodomotes etc. in the NAB, NEB and NRSV. The United Bible Society's Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (1971) is wisely ambiguous in giving the meaning €œmale sexual pervert.

Firstly, I want to raise the concern that you appeal to lexica as authoritative sources, rather than simply tools for Biblical study. For the most part, your argument consists of summaries of three lexica entries: Thayer, Louw & Nida, and BDAG. These are the best available lexica of the New Testament, and I refer to them regularly. However, it must be remembered that a lexicon gives the judgment of either a single scholar or a committee on the meaning of any word. The best lexica gives a list of the ways that any lexeme is used in the known literature, so that the reader can form an educated judgment, and even be critical of the lexicon's own conclusion. The lexicon may also put forward suggested meanings which would account for all the usages, but ultimately the meaning is determined by the usages, not the authority of the lexicon.In fact, New Testament lexica do require extra care, since the New Testament dialect of Greek (Koine) is such a newly discovered, poorly attested, and poorly understood dialect. Generally, Thayer's lexicon alone is not considered appropriate for modern scholarly use because it was published in 1885, and therefore before the Oxyrhynchus papyri were discovered in 1897. Soon after Thayer's publication came the recognition that the Koine dialect was distinct from Attic Greek, and therefore it would be impossible to infer directly from Classical usage to New Testament meaning. Thayer did not know this.

As John Boswell has described (1980: 341-44), this could lead us to two different hypotheses about the meaning of the word. It could mean a male person who has sex, or a person who has sex with men. Since arsenokoitÄ“s is a masculine noun, the second option would lead us to define the word as a man who has sex with men, whereas the first option could mean any man who has noteworthy sexual behaviour. Either interpretation allows for the possibility that this refers to a professional male-bedder or man-bedder, i.e. a sex-worker, or a member of pagan fertility cult. This possibility recommends itself because a large portion of 1 Cor 6 (verses 12-20) deals with the question of Christians and participation in prostitution. Boswell therefore concluded that the word should be taken to mean male prostitute.In addition to the possibility suggested by Boswell, the term could be like the English word ˜butterfly", which bears no semantic relation to its root word butter at all. In this case, arsenokoitas might have nothing to do with men and sex. Ultimately, the meaning of the term is impossible to determine by its roots.Use of sentences to define a wordI notice that you also refer to a recent argument, which was first proposed by David Wright (1983) that arsenokoitÄ“s was coined by Paul who joined together two words from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to refer to people who violate the Levitical prohibition: meta arsenos oun gunaikos, (with a man do no lay down a couch [ie a sexual act] of a woman) and 20:13 meta arsenos koitÄ“n gunaikos, (with a man, a couch of a women).From a scientific viewpoint, it doesn't matter how hypotheses are formulated, so long as they can be proven. And yet, since it is the best hypothesis we have to date, I'm happy to conclude that the word arsenokoitÄ“s would be best translated as sexual predators in any future Bible translation.

Apart from the root words of arsenokoitaas, and their use in two sentences, there are no reasons to think that the word refers to homosexual actions, and as I have argued, these can both be used to formulate hypotheses about the meaning of the word arsenokoitas. Without any real immediate context (apart from a list), or a body of literature in which Paul's contemporaries use the term, it is actually impossible to understand who Paul had in mind when he used the term. Our best guesses will have to suffice, and we are humble enough to know that our best guesses are not the whole story.

Yours in Christ,

Karl Hand

May 1, 2013 at 2:29 pm May 1, 2013

First, I really do not have the time to go back and forth on an issue that has not really been disputed in recognized scholarship.

Thus, you have not provided one recognized biblical scholar that holds to the converse of what I pointed out. All you did was

1) make a tersely comments regarding BDAG and asserted that Thayer, Louw & Nida, and BDAG are not really reliable sources in that a [scholarly] lexicon [only supposedly] gives [erroneous] judgment of either a single scholar or a committee on the meaning of any word and

2) cite two liberal theologians Barr and Boswell, which is a case of appealing to authority. However even Boswell agrees that his interpretation was marginal. Boswell acknowledges that most interpret the composite term ARSENOKOITAIS as active, meaning those who sleep with, make their bed with, men' (cf. Masters Seminary Journal (3.2.193-194), 1992.

Also, your assertions do not show that the lexical sources provided are faulty and it does not show the derivatives of semantic ranges and meanings of terms cannot be realized though the “collection” of cultural and scholarly data you should know better.

Second, you have not provided one lexicon that disagrees with the standard ones I provided. Thus, your assertion is merely based on own theology not on a lexical sources i.e., the standard lexical meaning of the two terms ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI are consistently defined: ARSENOKOITAIS means, (Thayer): One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite: 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. (Anthol. 9, 686, 5; ecclesiastical writings).

Note that most lexicons also provide the historical information of term as well as other usages. Are you seriously suggesting that we just cannot trust the collection of lexical evidence?

Further, your assertion of the hapax legomena (once spoken). . . there is nothing for at least three hundred years after the writing of Paul that could shed light on the meaning of the word. That is false. You provide not one example of this; you only assert it as true.

In terms of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI, as I provided pre-first century information which you ignored. The particular units that make up the two are exampled in both secular literature and the LXX you should know this.

Further, as pointed out, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 have a defining context (abominable sins–“such as you were”) and they are consistent with other places in Scripture that show that man-man desire, lust, sex, etc. is unnatural and abominable to the Lord.

Also, homosexual behavior in Leviticus is not limited to prostitution, pederasty, or any other subclass of homosexual immorality.

As Malick rightfully says: It is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women (The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Bibliotheca Sacra (150.600.484, 1996). Thus the term includes as well as condemns all such activities.

Thus, since the source of Paul's usage was the LXX of Leviticus 18 and 20, it is in error to restrict the term to such as narrow meaning of prostitution (as Boswell asserts) As Carson and others (Gill; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown; Robertson; Clark; Reymond; and White) point out.

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, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service. Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature', p. 135 (3rd ed. 2000). As I demonstrated in my first response, the scholarly and lexical support sees ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI as acts of abomination. So citing Barr and Boswell does not help you at all.

Barr was one of the most liberal theologians who is known to be critical on the biblical inerrancy (viz. J.J. Paker). Thus, it is not surprising that you do not cite any *recognized bible scholars* in support of your views.In fact, you did cite D. A. Carson showing how many make exegetical fallacies true. Carson, as you know, is a noted biblical scholar he comments in many works on the issue of homosexuality.

For example in his book Collected Writings on Scripture, he observes the fallacy that many so-called Christians who are pro-homosexual assert regarding a limitation to the term ARSENOKOITAIS, as you also erroneously do: It is seen in its most pathetic garb when considerable exegetical skill goes into proving, say, that the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexuality but not homosexuality itself (though careful handling of the evidence overturns the thesis), or that the Bible's use of head in passages dealing with male/female relationships follows allegedly characteristic Greek usage, and therefore, means source (when close scrutiny of the primary evidence fails to turn up more than a handful of disputable instances of the meaning source in over two thousand occurrences).

It finds new lease when popular evangelicals publicly abandon any mention of on the ground that allegedly the term no longer communicates - without recognizing that adjacent truths (e.g., those dealing with the fall, the law of God, the nature of transgression, the wrath of God, and even the gracious atonement itself) undergo telling transformation. Did get it? In sum,1)

You have not refuted any argument or any scholar or lexicon provided, you merely made new and old assertions based on liberal destructive scholarship (Barr Boswell).2) Instead of interacting with the standard lexicon provided, you merely implied that we just cannot trust any lexicons (how convenient), but yet you cite none in disagreement to the standard ones.3) You have not provided any recognized scholarly support opposing the view that homosexuality is biblically wrong and abomination to the Lord in Lev, Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10.4)

You have not presented any at all meaningful exegesis of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10–in context. Yo have not even attempted to comment of the context of those passages.5) You have not presented any textual explanation of the plural usage of ARSENOKOITAIS in 1 Cor. 6:9 and ARSENOKOITÄ’S and MALAKOS 1 Tim. 1:10 in the context surrounding the passages.6) And you have not responded to the historical information of ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI (from secular sources, LXX, the Latin, etc.) The biblical teaching is that both ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI in the context of where they appear mean a homosexual activity in all forms.Hence, it is Biblically condemned in all forms.

I am sure you not ignorant of the vast amount of biblical commentary that does so. Thus, if one is a practicing homosexual, he/she needs to repent before the Lord. Paul in concert with the OT (viz. Lev. 18 and 20), wrote as the Holy Spirit carried him along, homosexuality (both ARSENOKOITAIS and MALAKOI) are vile and abominable sins before a perfect God as Paul says: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [MALAKOI], nor homosexuals [ARSENOKOITAIS],nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards,nor revilers, nor swindlers,will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you (1 Cor. 6:9) God will not be mocked by misinterpretations of His Word by those who want to make the Bible fit their life-style. If you claim you love God, then, turn from unholy practices €œcontrary to Scripture which dishonor God.I will not be able to interact anymore on this topic, for I am in the middle of several projects. I pray that God will open the eyes of all homosexuals reading this to the truth of Scripture.If you have any particular questions you may email me at http://critical-discipleship.blogspot.com.au Critical Discipleship

mail to: edward@christiandefense.org

http://www.christiandefense.org/Article_Homosex.htm

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the Bible has been translated numerous times. [Into languages other than the original. So what?] Each translation was filtered through the beliefs and events of the time the translation was done. [So is that supposed to be proof that each scribe who carefully translated capriciously wrote done random jibberish only partly or totally non-related to identical word transliteration?] Since we make mistakes [Speak for yourself; Do not include others in your scurrilous and non-substantiated accusations!] when translating any modern language to another modern language [how about ancient language into modern language?], it stands to reason [No, it stands to your non-substantiated and wannabe guess] many mistakes have been made through the centuries. Books have been removed that might give us greater insight [or greater misinformative confusion] into the meanings of many words [many? how about only a few? or none?] in the Bible. Unless a person can truly ["truly?"] read the Bible in its original form [and what scraps of papyrus and parchments forms is that?], we [Again, speak for yourself; Do not include others in your non-substantiated conjecture!] will never be absolutely positive of everything in it.

From where I sit, people who are determined the Bible condemns homosexuals [No, the Bible condemns homosexuals whether people are determined to believe it or not], pick and choose what they want to enforce and what to ignore [as you are hypocritically picking and choosing what you want to discuss]. This is wrong. [Not necessarily wrong to be discriminatorily choosey at times] Either follow every little detail of the Bible [sounds like a great idea] or take it as a guideline on how to live [also sounds good] instead of explicit instructions [Why not take it as explicit instructions? Who are you, and what is your authorization, to order everyone to not take the Bible literally?]. Mainly ["Mainly?] remember a couple of things:

1) God is love [and hates both wickedness and the wicked who impenitently do wickedness] and we [speak for yourself and do not speak for others who you have no authority to speak for] are supposed to love our fellow man.
2) We [speak for yourself and do not speak for others who you have no authority to speak for] are not supposed to judge our fellow [Paul commanded us to judge those inside the church] man-only God can do that [God, many times in Scripture, commissioned His servants to even lethally judge].

I am not a member of LGBTQ. I am heterosexual [not completely, being that you are supporting the homosexual premise, and only those compliant with Christ's anti-homosexual doctrine and thus who God calls have the right to establish a relationship with Him]

The Wycliffe Bible doesnt relate arsenokoitai to Sodom and Gomorrah. [There are other versions of the Bible] They also seem to ["seem" to?] equate Malakos to their interpretation of Romans 1:26-27: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this two-fold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. [Augustine does not take into consideration God's hatred against evil and evildoers by that statement] - Saint Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine

Karl, I found this very helpful, so thank you for your exemplary response to the technical questions of translation; particularly highly contested translation.
As I rule, I usually dismiss anyone who tries to pull recognized scholarship' rhetoric, [and I usually dismiss anyone who reviles recognized scholarship with the questionable word "rhetoric"] which seems to code the ideological commitments made in ones reading habits. It is especially sad when used to promote a narrow [narrow is the path that leads to life] and patriarchally [so now you in your feminist sexist prejudice attack males?] preserved cannon [you mis-spelled canon] among the community of believers, who, supposedly ["supposedly?] seek to wrestle and labour with the word, whatever that might mean. [whatever, whatever, whatever?]

Mr Dalcour probably needs to read John Lees “A History of New Testament Lexicography, it is in the ‘Studies in Biblical Greek series published by Peter Lang, edited by none other than D.A Carson. It presents a fairly dismal picture of the state of Koine Lexicography.

So, yes, it is OK to question lexicons. They are in fact just the opinions of particular scholars. Nevertheless, they are pretty well informed scholars.

While, yes, usage is the best indicator for lexical meaning, in the case of a hapax, you have to look somewhere else. Or perhaps to similar usage.

The key weakness of Karls argument is that there are other compound uses of ‘koites, and in each of them, the first half seems to have an adverbial force; sleeping with slaves, slave-koites, sleeping with many, many-koites, sleeping with ya mum, mum-koites. USAGE seems to determine that you can compound words IN THIS CASE.

Again, yes, the best kind of data for usage is data close to the time of writing. But we dont have much. But we do have evidence of early church fathers using arsenokoites to condemn homosexual practice. Sometimes the Fathers read Paul wrong and import anachronistic readings back into the Bible. But a lot of the time they dont. And their understanding of Koine was a lot better than yours or mine.

(I mean really, how many people, even scholars, speak Koine fluently. You could count them on your hands I would think, Randal Buth/ Christophe Rico, thats all Ive got).

Now, I would freely admit that this isnt the best lexical data we could have. But it is what we have. And with that data, some kind of reference to sexual activity between two men seems to be what is being referred to. The LXX connection is simply icing on this particular cake. (Paul seems to be pretty influenced by jewish moral categories, even if he reshapes them.. Im looking forward to Brian Rosners new book on this issue).

Perhaps a new batch of papyri will be uncovered that show a different usage to this closer to the first century. Perhaps, but it hasnt yet

I really dont think [And does it matter what you think?] it matters who is right or wrong because it isnt an issue of Salvation. [On the contrary, the doctrine involving homosexuality is very much an issue of salvation] Even [Oh, then there is a possibility?] if it is sin (Which I am not convinced it is), so is going 5 miles over the speed limit so you can get to church a few minutes early on Sunday morning. [Try going 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit and see if it matters to a squad-car cop] Is that sending men and women to hell? No, it isnt. [Yes, it is, and the cop will give you a hefty fine for breaking the speed limit] Because “For by grace you have been saved through faith, [so you can now live in homoperversion and thus defy the Law] and that not of yourselves [it is of ourselves, being God does not break the Law by being homosexual]; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast [why should anyone boast about evil works of homosexuality which will get them into Hell?]; Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV No amount of sin, whether great or small, is keeping us out of heaven. [Wrong, heresy breath. Your sin, committed as an impenitent sinner, will indeed keep you out of Heaven!] Thats why we have grace [to live like the Devil?] in the first place. To save. [To only save those who obey the doctrines of Christ instead of despise them] Because we are not good enough on our own so we need Christ to come and save us [Christ will not save you who do not want to be good enough to deserve forgiveness, and won't even admit that you need it, and needing it in contrast be willing to and actually getting it are two different things]. Salvation is a matter of what we did with Jesus. [Wrong. Salvation is a matter of what we do with Christ and Christ's holy doctrines]. The bible [Why did not not capitalize the word Bible?] doesnt say if you confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that homosexuality is a sin, you will be saved. [Yes it does, in so many words. And there is no need to surreptitiously revise the exact wording of Bible verses to vainly try to legitimize your homopervert proclivities] It says “If you confess with your mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your hearts God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. [You will NOT be saved if you despise and disobey Christ's anti-homosexuality doctrine!] NKJV Romans 10:9 Believing in Christ and confessing Him as Lord is what saves us. [No, we are justified by our own works of supporting Christ's anti-homosexual doctrine, not by faith alone] Not our [speak for yourself and not for others] understanding of human sexuality [you're understanding of your perverted type of human sexuality is neither understanding nor legitimate, and that is what will exclude your from entering Heaven upon your thankful demise].

OK I really need to figure this arguement out, big time. Im gay, in a carrying, committed gay relationship, recommitted to Christ, and I need to know Im going to Heaven. [No, you have not re-committed yourself to Christ, being that you admitted that you are homogay and in a "committed" [homogay] "relationship"]

I need to take a walk and read all of this over a few more times.

Do you think it would be helpful to have Karl respond to Edward Delcours last post? [Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth]

Ok I can get my head around this for the moment;heres where I am:

I dont know if my committed gay relationship with my lover offends Gods or not as I really dont know what to believe after reading all of this. But this is what I know:

1. Im praying because Im really confused. Im asking God to reveal the truth to me. [He has already revealed the Truth to you in His Word]
2. I dont experience conviction about it [which doubting means that you will not receive anything from the Lord, according to the epistle of James], and I do have conviction about other things
3. I am going to Heaven [no you're not, if you refuse to be convicted concerning Christ's anti-homosexuality doctrine], I am the righteousness of Christ [no you're not if you reject the Bible's anti-homosexuality doctrine] because the Lord is near to all who call Him [and He is far away from those who reject His Law]. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him [which saving fear you do not have]. He will also hear their [their, and not your] cry and save them [them, not you]. The Lord keeps all who love Him [and those who do not love His anti-homosexuality doctrine do not love Him]. Palm 145:18-20 [You are not going to Heaven in your non-acceptance of Christ's clear and plainly-stated anti-homosexual doctrine, and thus you are not the righteousness of Christ, and the Lord is not near you but ignores your adhering-to-homosexuality prayers, will not fulfill your desires as you wallow in homosexual perversion whether you demonically fear Him or not, and you do not love the Lord because you do not do the anti-homosexual thing He has clearly told you to do]
I fit the criteria of the Psalm! [You do not fit the criteria of the Psalm] It doesnt say for only those who are heterosexuals [it does in so many words], or only those who fall on the correct [so there is a "correct" side of the argument?] side of this argument intellectually or only those who can understand these things [you are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding - if you want to]. NO! It says ALL regardless. [NOT all will be saved, and especially not homosexuals who will not give up their pro-homosexual inclinations] And I know that I love God [you dishonestly do not love the anti-homosexual God who you actually despise] and I cry out to Him every day for Him to guide me [it does you no good], protect me [it does you no good], and save me [it does you no good]. [Cry out all you want for guidance and protection and to save you, but He will do none of that in your apostate adherence to homosexuality] That is my truth. [That is your fatal and accursed falsehood]

Heroes of the anti-homosexuality cause? =

Fred Phelps, Scott Lively, Phil Robertson Duck Commander, plus many others!

The proposed Minnesota Constitution Marriage Amendment should not have read: "Marriage Shall Consist of the Union of ONE Man and ONE Woman" but instead (as even Secretary of State Mark Ritchie had suggested): "Marriage Shall Consist of the Union of Man and Woman."

The framers of the mis-worded Marriage Amendment were, several times, previously warned to not insinuate inclusion of anti-patriarchal polygamy within the textual wording of the Amendment, but instead they, in their feminist sexist arrogance or indifference, stubbornly disregarded that -- ignoring the fact that much of Old-Testament geneology was based on harem polygamy of major Biblical patriarchs (e.g. Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) and even St Paul merely ordered [obviously-male-only] bishops and deacons to monogamously "be the husband of one wife" in his New-Testament epistle to Timothy.

Being that the Creator Himself, as indicated in the Bible, is the originator of humanly-understood alphabet lettering, words, languages (or "tongues") . . . and that He, according to Holy Writ, divinely inspired and inspires those who comply with and belong to Him that knowledge . . . the righteous (who agree with His non-and-anti-homosexual Christian doctrine) not merely "guess" but actually know the exact and precise meanings of such Greek words as malakoi and arsenokoitai.

By sheer logic, for example, the blessed and Heaven-bound elect assuredly realize that the Greek word malakoi in the sexual-surroundings context of First Corinthians 6:9 does not mean "soft" clothing, "soft"-skinned, soft-bodied non-muscular (clearly non of which are Hell-deserving) -- but instead obviously is an abstraction meaning the homosexual attitude of a passive partner in a potential or on-going same-gender two-person erotic human connection, and the Greek word arsenokoitai in the sexual-surroundings context of First Corinthians 6:9 is another abstraction which only and always means same-gender erotic bodily connections of whatever types and extents between two humans (be that lips-kissing, hugging, hand-holding, some other fondling, or active-or-passive genitals manipulations of various kinds).

Not simply do the elect of the Lord know for absolute certainty the previously-stated meaning of the two aforementioned Greek words and their obviously-congruent and accurate-with-English-words-translated correlation, connection and equivalence, but those elect non-compromisingly act on that absolute certainty by physical actions pertaining not only to themselves but (and as is reasonably expected) toward any and all others besides themselves (whatever such may be).

On Judgment Day, and even before that, Almighty God will enforce His definitions of the plainly-given-and-stated easily-and-correctly-understood-by-common-sense-rational-saints semantics of Leviticus 20:13 and First Corinthians 6:9-10....despite the devious verbal and written, heretical and apostate, connived pseudo-"christian," aberrantly-philosophical meanderings of misrepresentative pro-homopervert word-twisters, doubters, disputers, and naysayers.