My contention is that “trader” nor “merchant” (poleo in the Greek) nor slave (dulos) is found in any derived or primary form in the word “arsenokoitai” moreover “homosexual” has not a proper greek word at all, The proper word for trader in homosexual slaves would yield a word (roughly) simular to “arsendulopoleo” for ‘”man slave’ trader”

You are correct I will not allow for any economic uses for “arsenokoitai”. You previously stated no one knows this word, now jeremyt read Martin’s article and he knows the meaning? This is odd as dale Martin himself acknowledges that if “arsenokoitai” means what it means literally it is refering to homosexuality, yet he contends the meaning cannot be known (because surely it can’t mean what it literally means).

His article actually states, “The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning”. but the question is what is the meaning, but in reference to meaning he states,”The word “means” according to its function” -Martin doesn’t offer one a meaning-only citing Sibylline Oracle in this “economic” list (which include “steal” and “murder” hardly economic) and the Acts of John ’s economic list (include such economical issues as poisoner, sorcerer, robber)

No, no economics in the word “arsenokoitai”
as previously posted:

We have discussed “arsenes en arsesin”, and now understand arses=men (as opposed to anthropos=mankind)

so arsenokoitai means “men-okoitai” from koite from keimai{lie outstreached})
Arsenokoitai literally meants “men laying outstreched with men” (as ti ending is a plural)

Please offer scholarly work on the greek

“Arsen” as something other than “men”
“koite” if you submit it means something other than (couch/cohabitation) as these are the only uses I am aware in all of Koinaic Greek, and am interested to discover otherwise use as economic/trader/slave etc. (Dale Martin failed greatly in his attempt of a relative meaning, and fled the literal.) I sum this word “means” what it literally (the focus of this discussion) means or it means ‘whatever I say it means.’(Martin’s “meaning”
————
with malakoi

Ive already submitted the literal meaning is “soft man”, even Dale Martin states’ “As I mentioned, a man could, by submitting to penetration, leave himself open to charges of malakia.”

and

“There is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine.”

(except with a masculine ending!!) my previous post/definition stands

Also please address the other passages we discussed as I did, if you contest that this discussion only hangs on the two words “malakoi & arsenokoitai”, explaining why Rom 1 and Lev 18, and Jude are to be dismissed as validly authoritative in the literal meaning and these two words be focused on henceforth.

Have a good trip.

p.s. Dale Martin’s non literal, relative meaning, no solution, self conflicting, article may be found here.

http://clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html

But in dealing with “literal” or “meaning” is of no use- as “meaning” cannot be known (only etymology) and the “literal” compound words must be discarded because “understand” and “chairman” are english words that don’t literally mean to “stand under” or a “man made of chair”, so this ‘logicially concludes’ ancient Greek compound words must submit to English standards of Martins interpretation, says Martin,” all definitions … that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible.”

like “bluebird”, “popcorn”, and “handgun” ??????

- Oh naive reader this is not a real bird, nor corn that pops, nor a gun of the hand-We can never know what these words really “mean” ( Martin would submit)

I haven’t had time to fully respond to your posts as I am about to travel, and have things to wrap up. You wrote a lot regarding my comments and the greek and that deserve a full response. It will get one. Mainly this is going to turn into a discussion of dictionaries.

The discussion is going to focus I think on your assumptions regarding malakoi arsenokoitai, given that it often appears in non biblical literature in lists discussing economic issues and not sexual issues. That is a sexual act with an economic component. Your translation doesn’t appear to allow for that. While I disagree with the translation of “trader in homosexual slaves” you must admit your translation does not fit the list of known uses.

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

I’ll will attempt to his the rest later. Have a very good 2 weeks if I do not get back to you until late July

That is a very good translation of the original texts. I am glad you really took the time to analyze what was actually spoken and recorded. This allows us to learn and grow without mistake in english associations with certain vocabulary. Many people attempt to make scripture apply to cultural notions but this is an excellent demonstration of how, as Christians, we are to see what scripture states even if it may be hard to swollow, as some of it is.

If you look at Christ’s perspective on wealth, the role of women in our culture, and our society’s priorities, you see that culture and scripture do no always connect. The same is true for this topic of homosexuality. If only the local churches would take a firm stand on the issues of scripture and be willing to offend for the sake of the gospel, then perhaps our society wouldnt be struggling as it does. Perhaps then the unchurched would be able to see a difference between “society” and the norms within the Church Body. As it often is presented, culture rules and guides the church rather than the opposite and this hinders that spread of the gospel. We are to be set apart and not of this world. Christ told us how and on which topics, if only we would obey.

Lack of discipline in the church is another example of how the church is lead by society rather than chosing to follow and obey Christ. Because of society, we no longer condemn drunks for being sinful, we merely state they are geneticlly predispose to “alcoholism,” we no longer discipline unruly children for defying their parents, we state they have “oppositional defiant disorder,” we no longer spank our children when they are too loud and inappropriate, they have “Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD),” we no longer state that people should not save sex for marriage, they merely have “a need to express themselves physically”and we no longer reprimand people for vanity by paying thousands of dollars for clothing and not eating for days to obtain the perfect body, we merely state “they have self esteem problems”.

The church refuses to stand on these issues, that is a lack of discipline which transends homes, businesses, hospitals, the media, and our court systems. If Christians wont exercise discipline in their homes, their businesses, or our government, why would they do so in Church? The Christian culture is no longer set apart from the world, but taking notes and becoming “one” with the world. Some “Christians” live, walk, and act no different from the unchurched, the lost!!

Certainly the disciples knew the sacrifices associated with being different, with being followers of Christ. IN other nations around the world even today, people pay the price of being “set apart” with their lives. Yes, they are killed and tortured around the world but still willing to pay the price in order to serve their King, King Jesus. Why arent we? Why arent we willing to loose….what is it we would loose? Would we hear a chuckle behind our backs? Would people look at us as different? And yet…we are not willing…for the one who gave his life….

Then I concluded with a summary of my view on homosexuality accord to a strict literal reading of the valid passages discussed(presented by you)-yielding logical reason for conservative evangelicals (Christians) to confront such sin (and any sin) in church and the world. I was building a concept that evangelism to homosexuals (and others in the list-who are not Christians ie followers of the Bible) is the loving thing -as is church disciple (again to any unrepentent sin)( to confessing Bible followers) . This was in response to a statement about your blog being for the “defendant”. It is loving to disciple wayward members (including pastors) for sin. That is why I expounded my own sin journey to salvation. Attemping to stress sin confrontation is love not damnation.

my point there was, though…

The specific sin discussed thusfar being homosexuality, yet reclaiming Discipline according Scripture(the axiom of this post) is not “targeting homosexuals” persay-It is pleading with people to evaluate their beliefs-specifically, “If I believe the Bible is the Word of God that means I believe….”.

This idea is where we launched with homosexuality per my statement,” Thank you for your comment, I must say after reviewing your site, I think your stance on homosexuality is wrong and against Scripture.” To made this statement is loving church discipline-not to the third step of excommunication in Matt 18, but the first step “Go to the brother… if he repents you have won a brother”

—————————

let me know if you are still unclear about my response

Matt: It has been clear discussed that it was mainly due to the rise Individualism and relativism that church discipline declined.

CD: I think your assessment of why the decline occurred is partially correct. Other reasons were the fact that there was, starting in the mid 19th century, a genuine liberal movement as far as religion. The right (from there perspective) had to fight off heresy and were (and still are) far more focused on people they disagreed with ideologically then non idealogical sinners.

Matt: While I agree that liberalism aided in the decline of discipline, I still hold that specifically the exaltation of the individual, secular hedonism, and relativism are some of the specific reasons for thet decline of discipline. I would also contend that the “right” (from their perspective) saw these as sin not liberalism, idealogically would define method of communion, the preexistance of the imortal soul, the ability of Christ to sin or not ie non essentials of sound doctrine. I can’t agree that the right are more focused on the idealogical then or now. to do so one ould have to dismiss the great revivals of the 18-19th centuries and more recently the work of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham (Graham I have significant idealogical and theological differences with, yet I acknowlege God’s work in his ministry). If we see God as pure and His church in need of purity, then believers must cling to Scripture in order to present ourselves pure ie “fight heresy”= church discipline.

CD: Finally as your comments on liberalism. No I do think that mid 19th century christians of the great revival were not fighting ideological battles within the church. In the 1860s people who denied the resurrection were outside the churches, by the 1940s you had followers of Bultmann categorically rejecting miracles all throughout mainstream American Christianity.

Matt: As to liberalism, the resurrection would surely be counted as a “must” to Christian theology not idealogical. otherwise we don’t have “Christ”ians we have “Yeshua”’s cult. To doubt the resurrection is to doubt the Scripture, then what is Christianity worth w/o a Christ, wo Scripture. If that were the case my “desires” would be vastly different

CD: Well that may be your opinion but no. Before evangelicals basically split off you had conservatives and evangelicals in the same denominations with people who denied the resurrection and most certainly those who denied any sort of inerrancy doctrine. And yes that was the difference, and I think you can see why it was a big deal.

Matt: With you comment on liberalism- so what that the church screwed up and allowed liberalism to seep in. In the beginning it wasn’t so. To determine what the Church is to be we turn to Scripture not recent history.

___________________

So I’m lost. I’m not sure what exactly you are responding to.

However I don’t see how I should choose a figurative interpretation of these passages, the interpretation I choose is the one the author meant when the text was written. Also because i feel that our views on the OT are drastically different I won’t engage you there unless you desire. So in regards to

1. Lev 18:22-You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Hebrew- -et Zakaar lo Tishkab Mishabeey Ishaah Towee ba ah hiy

V-et (with) Zakaar (Male/man) lo(no {negative implication}) Tishkab (T-You/ishkab- primitave (lie/lay)) Mishkabeey (verb-bed {not noun}) Ishaah (

Wife in connection with Ish-husband vs Adam-man) Toweeba ah (root is ta ab {morally disgusting} as a fem act part-is morally disgusting) hiy (it is)

Frankly I’m not sure where you got “on a womans bed” and “ritual impuity”, perhaps a translator could mistake bed as a noun not a verb, but that is a stretch, but to drop “Toweeba ah” (morally Disgusting) and replace it with “ritual purity” (tahoar) from an attempted literal translation is lazy at best, deception at worst especially when “tahoar” is no found in any variant in this passage.

__———————————————-

With Romans 1-

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper…

Again I am not sure where you get you greek translation-

Both the Majority texts ans the Texus Receptus state “arsenes en arsesin” [which you changed/dropped](“es” ending on the first is nomative-”sin” ending on the second is dative (recieve)”men with men” or more literally and vile “men in men” Where you got “pederasty” again I’m not sure as it is not in the text.

Also note, according to YOUR “translation” you imply people must “abandon” the “instinctual natural” to obtain this “perversion” THESE ARE YOUR WORDS also if you finish the passage you note vs28 you must ‘not see fit to (honestly) acknowledge God’ to reach this “depraved” mind which is “not proper”

How can you hold to “abandon the instinctual natural” and obtain a “perversion” which is “not proper” by not “acknowledging God” with a “depraved” mind is God Glorifying and a Cultural issue??

————————————————————

With 1 Cor 6:9

We have discussed “arsenes en arsesin”, and now understand arses=men (as opposed to anthropos=mankind)

so arsenokoitai means “men-okoitai” from koite (couch/cohabitation from keimai{lie outstreached})
Arsenokoitai literally meants “men laying outstreched with men” (as ti ending is a plural)

I am relieved to see some attempt accurate greek with respect to “malakoi” as it is rooted with a concept of soft clothing… yet at this is a list of those who do not enter the Kingdom this can’t be cotton.

So we focus on the “oi” ending we note “oi” is Macsuline Nomitive plural. so literallly malakoi means “soft men”. as it preceeds arsenokoitai I may accept “male prostitutes” but the concept rivals the nomitive with arsernokoitai, the idea is both he who “receives” and he who “pitches”-Simular to modern prison convicts concept that if you don’t “receive” then you aren’t “gay” Paul clarifies this idea and notes both guilty.
————————————-

As 1 Timothy 1:9-10 uses the same word “Arsenokoitai” I won’t repeat myself
by the way… “Malakoi” isn’t in that passage as you stated
_———————————–

With Jude- it is not unclear the city thought these angels were men see Genisis 19:5 “bring the MEN” so we may “know” them, to which Lot replies “don’t act WICKED”
Agian per a previous post ANY DEVIATION from 1 man 1 woman in marriage relations is sin. This is obvious in the Creation account and Matt 19:4-6 when Christ gives his full answer as “male and Female as 1 flesh”
—————————–

With you comment on liberalism- so what that the church screwed up and allowed liberalism to seep in. In the beginning it wasn’t so. To determine what the Church is to be we turn to Scripture not recent history.
————————

In conclusion, I will confess that my flesh yearns to act sinfully mocking with your treatment of God’s Word. But, my heart aches deeply that you have been decieved to hold that which you do concerning homosexuality. I don’t know where you came across those “translations” that convieniently skip words and add words that aren’t there, or where you recieved the definitions you posted; but you are misled. With your checkmates comments and over confident tone

I am prayerful the exposition I gave will cause you to struggle with this issue and dig deep in the Biblical languages to “test” my statements. I have only studied Biblical languages for 5 years and am not an expert, but I do have a working knowledge. This is no debate, debates seek truth between two parties. I have sought to expound on the foundational truth of Scripture, of which if we both claim belief.

What I mean is: after reviewing these texts is is an oxymoron to be a “homosexual Bible Following person” just as much as a liar, glutton, drunk, thief, adulterer or any unrightious…and a “Bible Following Person” Scripture must change us or we must change our beliefs because we can’t change Scripture.

Literally, Scripture calls these lifestyles unaccepable, and demanding repentance. I was a great sinner of many sins, and God changed me in salvation through repentance, for example I was given to porn (which is literally in the list in 1 Cor 6:9 “poroi” -fornicators) but Praise Jesus for 1 Cor 6:11

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.

Through the Washing, Sanctification and Justification (SALVATION) I as a “pornoi” can have eternal life if I am washed. I do not oppose homosexuality because it is “taboo” or a “worse sin” I oppose homosexuality because Scripture does, and It opposed this old “pornoi” too. In realizing that, I realized I needed salvation, Not primarily because “God hates me as a”poroi”" but because he loved this one so much to tell me if I don’t repent I will not inherit the Kingdom, and neither will anyone else in the list, not just homosexuals, all sinners need salvation.

So coming from someone who was on the list I will shout from the rooftops “Get off the list!! Inherit the Kingdom!! be Washed! Be Saved! ” If one makes it off the list, they won’t hold a “private matter” faith. Nor will they hold a “don’t ask don’t tell” concept of (any) sin. They will seek to see people “Washed”. Never mind if some say “It’s rude to tell people they need a washing”. From a Guy who was as dirty as me, I’ll say “the Wash is great! You can never imagine how bad you need one till you get it!, It’s amazing it’s a whole new person! literally”.

Cultural? Personal? Bahumbug! Attention Everyone, I was dirtier than you (probably) You need to be washed, not trying to hurt your feelings here, but boy you stink (almost as bad as I did!!) Com’on Get Washed by Jesus!

My argument had nothing to do with obedience. It asks the question “what is to be obeyed”, what is the content of His laws in his kingdom…. ? You are arguing that scripture condemns homosexuality. You said to prove this is scripture’s intent you read scripture literally. I merely showed that if you read scripture literally (that is you translate what’s written not what the translator wants to see) you don’t end up with a condemnation of homosexuality.

Just because a topic may be hard to grasp or contrary to your desires, CD, doesnt mean it would be a wrong arguement. I encourage you to pray and seek the WILL OF GOD rather thatn “the outcome [you] desire”. The purpose of Christianity is to glorify God, not please man and by pursuing and understanding of scripture that makes life easier does not mean you are pursing holiness. Seek first His Kingdom, (with it comes his rules and legislation). Do not seek to bend his laws and edicts so as to satisfy your own goals and “desires.”

To seek the outcome the one being disciplined desires is rather ironic-no one being disciplined desires it(Heb 12). The point is to be transformed into Christlikeness, not have your “desires” met.

People like Dever assume that people should live according to Scripture as Scripture defines it. Scripture (not Culture) must interpret Scripture. I agree “Not all ministers that are theologically correct are good social workers” yet they still are to watch for the souls of the people as a (under)sheperd

You understand you are begging the question here. You are simply asserting what the goal should be and who is responsible when that is precisely the point being debated.