An interesting revelation: Homosexuality references in the Bible are recent and modern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

Yes there was a great deal of sexual wickedness, and God didn't wipe out a whole town because some men were inhospitable to strangers. The mob wanted to commit buggery, that was the problem.

One more time. The previous verses make no reference to sexual immorality.

In the common reading adopted by translators the sin is vague. In the clever reading (which you can't get if you know no Hebrew) of ancient rabbis, its cruelty to the poor - especially to those who would help the poor.

This is very interesting. I'm a Protestant, and actually, this makes a lot of sense because most of what Jesus talked about was greed and helping people, not about homosexuality.

Today's Christians place way too much emphasis on sexual sins rather than the more serious sin of greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

"Slightly different" is probably very unlikely to have "sexual perversion" substituted for what was originally "inhospitality" or "not giving to the poor."

[Anonymous]

Seems to me a lot of arguing about what a bunch of goat-herders told some other goat-herders 1900 years ago like it matters.

Funny how we just can't treat each other the way most of us seem to know is decent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

"Slightly different" is probably very unlikely to have "sexual perversion" substituted for what was originally "inhospitality" or "not giving to the poor."

I do believe that there was a lot of morphing of many of the Bible versus in 2000 years, traversing different cultures and languages, not just time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

ITA.. and that is why it's important for pastors and Bible teachers to have studied not just the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but understand the cultural context of what was written.

As to what is the most accurate translation?.. That's the problem, that it seems like there really isn't one. There are some Bibles that have notes and commentaries about the versus that attempts to explain the cultural context, etc. These are usually study Bibles.

I was once told by a pastor that the Bible paraphrases a lot from the original text,, in part, because there is no direct translation in English of those words, and sometimes, that slight paraphrasing and nuance can change the meaning of the verse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

ITA.. and that is why it's important for pastors and Bible teachers to have studied not just the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but understand the cultural context of what was written.

As to what is the most accurate translation?.. That's the problem, that it seems like there really isn't one. There are some Bibles that have notes and commentaries about the versus that attempts to explain the cultural context, etc. These are usually study Bibles.

I was once told by a pastor that the Bible paraphrases a lot from the original text,, in part, because there is no direct translation in English of those words, and sometimes, that slight paraphrasing and nuance can change the meaning of the verse.

OP here. Did either of you read the links from my OP? The scholars that wrote those articles explained why they translated the words differently than what was written in the RSV from the 1940s. I think it is a compelling argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

ITA.. and that is why it's important for pastors and Bible teachers to have studied not just the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but understand the cultural context of what was written.

As to what is the most accurate translation?.. That's the problem, that it seems like there really isn't one. There are some Bibles that have notes and commentaries about the versus that attempts to explain the cultural context, etc. These are usually study Bibles.

I was once told by a pastor that the Bible paraphrases a lot from the original text,, in part, because there is no direct translation in English of those words, and sometimes, that slight paraphrasing and nuance can change the meaning of the verse.

OP here. Did either of you read the links from my OP? The scholars that wrote those articles explained why they translated the words differently than what was written in the RSV from the 1940s. I think it is a compelling argument.

PP here.. No, I didn't have time, only just enough to read the short posts and respond. I was going to read it later... but I just read it the first paragraph, and yea, it's very compelling...

Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations.

And this goes back to the Roman practice of men having sex with house boys, and it makes sense why you find the same kinds of verses in the NT when they were under Roman rule.

Thanks op for posting. This is really interesting. I'll try to read more later....

[Anonymous]

I grew up with the King James Version. I really don't see what the RSV has to do with any of this. It was supposed to translate the KJV into readable understandable language, not translate the original texts written in Greek. And of course if you're going to say some translations got some passages wrong, then many others can be wrong too. Slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up with the King James Version. I really don't see what the RSV has to do with any of this. It was supposed to translate the KJV into readable understandable language, not translate the original texts written in Greek. And of course if you're going to say some translations got some passages wrong, then many others can be wrong too. Slippery slope.

And indeed.. there are many passages in the Bible that did not translate that well. And that is why when you read the bible, you need cultural/historical context and some side note/commentary as you are reading that explains some passages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

"Slightly different" is probably very unlikely to have "sexual perversion" substituted for what was originally "inhospitality" or "not giving to the poor."

No, but if you go back to the OP, the contention is not to blame the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah on the grave sin of a host abusing his guests, but that the quoted sin "arsenokoitai" was one of pederasty and/or abuse of control or power over another in a sexual situation (whether rape, paying for sex, or paying to control another during sex). In the original Greek, there was no mention or implication that the gender of the victim was relevant. In addition, the intent of the sinner, was paramount. So, not only was it not originally to be about male-male sexuality, it also wasn't about a consensual relationship between equals that did not include a power or control disparity between partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up with the King James Version. I really don't see what the RSV has to do with any of this. It was supposed to translate the KJV into readable understandable language, not translate the original texts written in Greek. And of course if you're going to say some translations got some passages wrong, then many others can be wrong too. Slippery slope.

Well, even the KJV did not specifically castigate homosexuality. From the author's comment in the article posted in the OP:

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

WHAT WAS USED BEFORE HOMOSEXUAL SHOWED UP IN THE RSV VERSION?

King James Version triumphed the land and they used the phrase, “Abusers of themselves with mankind” for arsenokoitai. If you asked people during that time no one really wanted to tackle it. So that’s why I’m collecting Bibles, Biblical commentaries and lexicons, in order to show how theologians dealt with these passages.

So, the original KJV from the 17th century did not use the term homosexual or any reference to homosexuality. That was done in later incarnations of the KJV which did not evolve until after the mid-20th century. The current anti-homosexuality platform has been a reinterpretation of the Bible over the last 70 or so years. Prior to that, even the earlier translations of the various versions of the Bible did not include a proscription for homosexuality.

I still contend that the current anti-homosexuality stance of the church is a modern reinterpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, you should all read the text. The LORD had already decided to wipe them off the face of the earth for the sin that already existed in them. They were not punished specifically for the episode with Lot and the guests and any inhospitality. It was the sexual sins rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah already that brought God's condemnation down, and it was this sin that led to every thing else recounted in this event. Makes it much harder to argue that the sin was inhospitality.

I am looking at 18:20, and it says "chatatam" from the root Het, sin. Nothing specifically sexual. Where are you reading something about sexual sin in that verse?

Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

AGAIN, you are quoting a translated version, not the original Greek text, which can be slightly different. I am learning more and more of the slight differences and nuances from the original text to English from my pastor's sermons, and I am a 40+ year, every Sunday, Sunday school teacher, sing in the choir, church goer. There is a lot of "lost in translation" in the current Bible. People need to understand cultural context, as well.

Well to be fair, we have to read a translation since few if any of us can read ancient Greek. Do you have an opinion on which of the many translations of the Bible is most accurate?

ITA.. and that is why it's important for pastors and Bible teachers to have studied not just the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but understand the cultural context of what was written.

As to what is the most accurate translation?.. That's the problem, that it seems like there really isn't one. There are some Bibles that have notes and commentaries about the versus that attempts to explain the cultural context, etc. These are usually study Bibles.

I was once told by a pastor that the Bible paraphrases a lot from the original text,, in part, because there is no direct translation in English of those words, and sometimes, that slight paraphrasing and nuance can change the meaning of the verse.

OP here. Did either of you read the links from my OP? The scholars that wrote those articles explained why they translated the words differently than what was written in the RSV from the 1940s. I think it is a compelling argument.

PP here.. No, I didn't have time, only just enough to read the short posts and respond. I was going to read it later... but I just read it the first paragraph, and yea, it's very compelling...

Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations.

And this goes back to the Roman practice of men having sex with house boys, and it makes sense why you find the same kinds of verses in the NT when they were under Roman rule.

Thanks op for posting. This is really interesting. I'll try to read more later....

And relates to what is still seen today in Afghanistan where the sexual abuse of boys still happens. You can see how that cultural experience that is talked about in the Bible has migrated not that far away and is still being practiced today.

The obsession with condemning homosexuality is just another way that men with naughty sexual thoughts are trying to justify that they aren't *that* bad and it makes them feel superior. Anti-homosexuality is clearly a modern construct to control people, get their votes and divert attention from all the cheating and affairs that many "Christian" men are having.

[Anonymous]

when you say "modern construct," how are you defining "modern." Sodomy came to mean as early as the 13th century what it means now, unnatural sexual acts including homosexual acts. It doesn't mean lack of hospitality or failure to be nice to the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bible is chock full of translations that serve the interests of the translators.

+1 Plus a lot of scrolls were manufactured to be sold, and not authentic.