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

[Anonymous]

So, I came across this article that has an interesting revelation. Apparently the Greek words "arsenokoitai" and "malakos" referenced in several places in the Bible (notably, Corinthians 6:9-10) was not translated as "homosexual" until modern times. The first reference to this translation as "homosexual" was found in 1946. The second in 1983. Prior to that, the former was translated more as "pederast" or "sexual abuser".

The 1946 New Testament Revised Standard Version (RSV) was the first time these words were translated as "homosexual" which seems to be when the current anti-LGBTQ sentiments began.

The two that researched and found this, both wrote up their discovery from their own perspectives:
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 and
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/word-homosexual-first-introduced-bible/

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

sorry, "know" them.

[Anonymous]

This is hardly a discovery. The consensus I’ve always heard is that the terms are clearly references to some sort of sexually immoral behavior, but as we all know “homosexuality” as a concept didn’t exist until the 19th century. (Dudes were doing it with dudes before that, obviously, but importing the idea of homosexual into our reading of the past is bad and wrong.)

[Anonymous]

Also the terms are usually translated “sodomite” in English and the meaning of that is changed too! See, for instance, “King James and the History of Homosexuality.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

[Anonymous]

Also if you read the bible in other languages, it's different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

No. they were trying to RAPE male guests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

Isn't it a sin to offer your daughter up for non-consensual sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon. Genesis 19, 1-30. Send out your men so that we may "now" them?? Pretty clear cut since Lot offered his daughters and they mob weren't interested in them.

1. That does not necessarily mean an orientation, just a preference of the moment.

2. The most notable thing is that they were Lot's guests. This may have been the motive for the preference. It's also possibly (probably) why its such a heinous act - a violation of middle eastern codes of hospitality.

Right. And God decided to destroy the city for a violation of "hospitality"?

Ha ha. We all know what they wanted. They wanted to "know" them. Now tell me that means something other than what it obviously means in the Bible.

They were trying to rape the guests. That is the definition of "sexual abuser".

OP - that is a very interesting take on it. I am a life long Christian, but I am still learning new things about the Bible. The pastor at my church delves deeply into the text and gives us the context and original meaning, and it's given new meaning to some of the versus that I have read since I was a teenger. I don't know if what you wrote is true, but it's interesting and food for thought and more analysis.

I do think, however, that any main stream pastor won't touch this with a 10' pole.

Yes, they were men wanting to have sex with the male guests. Lot offered his daughters but they didn't want them. Clear as day what the offense in God's eyes was.

No. they were trying to RAPE male guests.

Right. Presumably it would have been o.k. if they were female since Lot offered his daughters.

[Anonymous]

Leviticus 18:22 is pretty explicit on this point.