The Bible and Homosexuality

[aussieguy55]

In the last few days the Anglican archbishop of Sydney Australia spoke where he told those in the church who accepted same sex relationships to leave the church. There now seems a possibility that the church might fracture.  In the NRSV the contentious  passage in 1 Cor 6:9 reads  ⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites. Why sodomites?  In Ezekiel 16 ⁴⁹ “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. ⁵⁰ They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Cristina Richie writes "  The translation as "sodomites" is therefore misleading and too broad. Identities based on geographical regions should j just refer to the people who live there not to various forms of perversion. "Sodomites" should naturally mean 'people  dwelling in Sodom' not people who participate in a type of immorality"  In Luther's German translation he renders this as "boy molesters"  

https://www.academia.edu/2507704/_An_Argument_Against_the_Use_of_the_Word_Homosexual_In_English_Translations_of_the_Bible_The_Heythrop_Journal_51_no._5_2010_723-729

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 (Luther Bibel 1545)

⁹ Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder

The same in other problem verses that are used to condemn homosexualty.

 

Leviticus 18:22 (Luther Bibel 1545)

²² Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.

Leviticus 20:13 (Luther Bibel 1545)

¹³ Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.

1 Timothy 1:10  (Luther Bibel 1545)

¹⁰ den Hurern, den Knabenschändern, den Menschendieben, den Lügnern, den Meineidigen und so etwas mehr der heilsamen Lehre zuwider ist,

Robert Gnuse has examine all the relevant texts

"There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097

Another writer  "Simply put a truly conservative reading of the Bible passage said to address homosexuality does not support their traditional interpretation. The conventional wisdom about the Bible and homosexuality therefore must be challenged and a closer reading of the Bible itself is a good place to start"

https://www.academia.edu/36569843/CHALLENGING_CONVENTIONAL_WISDOM_How_a_conservative_reading_of_the_biblical_references_to_homosexuality_fails_to_support_their_traditional_interpretation

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254079554_No_Kingdom_of_God_for_Softies_or_What_Was_Paul_Really_Sayingquest_1_Corinthians_69-10_in_Context/link/591b4830aca272bf75c7a01c/download

Note page 23 where Elliott does a comparison of Bible translations.  

In the Vulgate it reads "neque molles neque masculorum concubitores "  

A scholar who should know what he is talking about I asked about the Latin translation. "

Mollis, in the clause before that, is essentially a boy who is the lover of an older man. Molles is the plural

 

 

 lIt was an old cultural practice in the Greek world. Lots of adult men had boy lovers whom they mentored and gave patronage to. The boy was supposed to have a choice. I am sure there was plenty of pressure to oblige

A Lutheran academic wrote this in response to my inquiry of Luther's translation  "

Speaking further of Luther’s translation:

 

The Luther Bible (1545) at Leviticus 18:22 reads “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13— same thing, reads “Young boys.”

At 1 Corinthians 6:9 the translation of arsenokoitai (original Greek word) instead of homosexuals, reads, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God. Luther used 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. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. The interesting thing is, the first time homosexual (for arsenokoitai) appears in the Luther Bibel is in the revised translation of 1983.

 

Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages?

 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

Overall people will dissect the scriptures in various ways to find some justification for their actions.  I suppose in time when sex robots become more common people will justify themselves with those things by finding some reason in the scriptures to justify it.  I think any reasonable person who reads the scriptures knows which side of the fence Jesus and Satan have on the issue.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Overall people will dissect the scriptures in various ways to find some justification for their actions.  I suppose in time when sex robots become more common people will justify themselves with those things by finding some reason in the scriptures to justify it.  I think any reasonable person who reads the scriptures knows which side of the fence Jesus and Satan have on the issue.

https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf Read this please, or maybe you're unwilling to see the truth.

[sunstoned]

I'm not sure Jesus ever addressed the subject of homosexuality.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by sunstoned

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure Jesus ever addressed the subject of homosexuality.

Massive anachronism if He had.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages?

I think you've just identified one of the major advantages of having living prophets.

[strappinglad]

Having read the OP 's verses , it dawned on me that it appears that females get a pass on this behavior. I wonder why. I have some theories.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think any reasonable person who reads the scriptures knows which side of the fence Jesus and Satan have on the issue

That is assuming the scriptures both report Christ's POV correctly...and Satan's for that matter...and they have been translated correctly.  I know reasonable people who view what the fence is and which side Christ and Satan are on quite differently.

When we label others as reasonable, it is often because they agree with us to a great extent.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

“Tell me, Brother Baldrick, what exactly did God do to the Sodomites?”

“I dunno, but I can't imagine it was worse than what they used to do to each other.”

I think that clarifies things.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

.....................

Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages?

Scholars, maybe not, but here are some official LDS sources:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng&_r=1 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure Jesus ever addressed the subject of homosexuality.

We cannot even prove that anything contained in the NT was said by Him.  However, if He was a rabbi, He certainly preached Judaism, and Judaism clearly rejects homosexual behavior:

Jacob Milgrom, “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality,” Bible Review, 9/6 (Dec 1993):11ff., online at http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=9&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 , which brought reader replies in BR 10/2 at http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=10&Issue=02&ArticleID=01 .  Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

At 1 Corinthians 6:9 the translation of arsenokoitai (original Greek word) instead of homosexuals, reads, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God. Luther used 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. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. The interesting thing is, the first time homosexual (for arsenokoitai) appears in the Luther Bibel is in the revised translation of 1983.

The problem with the Greek word arsenokoítai (in 1 Corinthians 6:9) is that Paul's letter seems to be one of the first uses of the word.  Consequently there aren't a lot of ancient uses of it from which we can get a good context for the meaning. 

Walter Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, which normally provides a good list of other ancient texts to compare, only provides the following sources:

Fortunately, with the internet, we can find a lot of these sources online, but I had a hard time finding a couple of them in English.  But the ones I looked up were not very helpful, because the context doesn't give us much that is different than 1 Corinthians 6:9.

For example, here's the one from Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica, Book VI, 10, 25:

Quote

 From the river Euphrates, and as far as the Ocean towards the East, he who is reviled as a murderer, or a thief, is not at all indignant: but he who is reviled for sodomy avenges himself even to the death: among the Greeks, however, even their wise men are not blamed for having favourites.

This really doesn't help us at all.

But I did find a fairly detailed discussion on the meaning of arsenokoítai on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange site, here:  What did Paul mean by “Arsenokoitēs”? Was he condemning homosexual activity as we know it today?  One of the answers includes the following:

Quote

The term Paul used that is translated 'homosexual(s)' came directly from the two Greek words in the Greek translation of the Levitical passage (i.e. the Septuagint, which Paul quoted regularly) condemning homosexuality. Paul "coined" the compound word, but it did not come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, "Don't 'bed' [koite] a 'man' [arseno] like you would a woman." Hence, arsenokoites.

You can read further in the link above if you are interested.  All the other lexicons I referenced confirmed that arsenokoítai is a compound word, including the Strong's dictionary:

 ἀρσενοκοίτης, arsenokoítēs ; g733
From     ἄρῥην {g730} and κοίτη {g2845}
Mean     a sodomite
KJV     abuser of (that defile) self with mankind
TGL     75
Note     BDAG: a male who has sexual relations with another male
(Α ἀρσενοκοίτης–ἀρσενοκοίτης Note)
 

The two separate words that form this word are these:

  ἄρῥην, árrhēn
    or   ἄρσην, ársēn ; g730
From     probably from αἴρω {g142}
Mean     male (as stronger for lifting)
KJV     male, man
TGL     75
(Α ἄρῥην–ἄρῥην TGL)
 

And:

  κοίτη, koítē ; g2845
From     κεῖμαι {g2749}
Mean     a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm
KJV     bed, chambering, × conceive
TGL     352
(Κ κοίτη–κοίτη TGL)
 

And that's enough for me to explain why it's difficult to get people to agree on the translation

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by InCognitus

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Having read the OP 's verses , it dawned on me that it appears that females get a pass on this behavior. I wonder why. I have some theories.

Hmm.

well only in the last few decades have women been allowed to be seen as legitimately sexually driven. So there is that. 

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Having read the OP 's verses , it dawned on me that it appears that females get a pass on this behavior. I wonder why. I have some theories.

Middle-ages Jewish commentaries said that God did not condemn homosexuality between females. 

[topcougar]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Booklet-about-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible-Sept.-2016.pdf Read this please, or maybe you're unwilling to see the truth.

I read this. It is interesting but not convincing.  Each section contains accurate citations and then ends with a conclusion, but the conclusions are all a leap from A to Z without to the logical analysis or evidence to support their conclusion. Their conclusions might be right but they are not supported by their scholarship. There remain legitimate questions here. 

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, topcougar said:

I read this. It is interesting but not convincing.  Each section contains accurate citations and then ends with a conclusion, but the conclusions are all a leap from A to Z without to the logical analysis or evidence to support their conclusion. Their conclusions might be right but they are not supported by their scholarship. There remain legitimate questions here. 

Thanks for taking a look! I hope it does one thing though, I hope it puts the doubt in that God is against his children that are gay. These people are not choosing to be gay, they just are. Would you like to be told to love the same sex, if you are heterosexual? Like I've said over and over again, just imagine what that would be like. There are so many variables in human bodies. I'm so tired of the church's concentration on the LGBTQ crowd. The church leaders that do this need to walk away, just walk away. Because everytime there is a talk in conference or the latest outcry about not banning conversion therapy, it just digs at those that are LGBTQ. 

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Having read the OP 's verses , it dawned on me that it appears that females get a pass on this behavior. I wonder why. I have some theories.

The Romans 1:26-27 verse seems to address this:  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
 

[Nacho2dope]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for taking a look! I hope it does one thing though, I hope it puts the doubt in that God is against his children that are gay. These people are not choosing to be gay, they just are. Would you like to be told to love the same sex, if you are heterosexual? Like I've said over and over again, just imagine what that would be like. There are so many variables in human bodies. I'm so tired of the church's concentration on the LGBTQ crowd. The church leaders that do this need to walk away, just walk away. Because everytime there is a talk in conference or the latest outcry about not banning conversion therapy, it just digs at those that are LGBTQ. 

Thanks for sharing. I want to ask a sincere question. If members of the LDS church believe that Prophets speak for God why would we tell them to just walk away if we don't like what are saying? It seems by that we just want to make our own church. I understand how hard this is on everyone; however, in my opinion  we seemed so focused on the now we don't look at the future meaning Heaven. If God doesn't believe in it, that's the end of the discussion. No matter how many men want to say God is wrong. I believe that if Christ came back tomorrow and explained everything to us we would still have people saying He is wrong. Again this is just my opinion and I could be so wrong. 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

Thanks for sharing. I want to ask a sincere question. If members of the LDS church believe that Prophets speak for God why would we tell them to just walk away if we don't like what are saying? It seems by that we just want to make our own church. I understand how hard this is on everyone; however, in my opinion  we seemed so focused on the now we don't look at the future meaning Heaven. If God doesn't believe in it, that's the end of the discussion. No matter how many men want to say God is wrong. I believe that if Christ came back tomorrow and explained everything to us we would still have people saying He is wrong. Again this is just my opinion and I could be so wrong. 

I don't think people are saying God is wrong.  I think what people are saying is the Church leaders have it wrong.  There is a LONG history of Church leaders being wrong on this issue. Even their views are nothing like they were 20 years ago.  The only constant is Church leaders believe you can't be with someone of your own sex, married or not.  

The Bible can be used to prove anything is either right or wrong.  Name a subject and both sides of any opinion can be supported by the Bible.  People have used to Bible to support slavery, genocide, murder, you name it.  So picking apart certain verses is not going to change anyone's view on anything, imo.  The only way I believe you can find what God wants for you is for you is to have a relationship with Him.  

The question I have is, "Why are there so many threads about LGBT issues on a Mormon site? "  It seems like this is one issue that there are a lot of uncomfortable feelings about what might be right and what might be wrong.  We certainly don't have many threads on adultery.  In the eyes of the Church, they are both moral sins.  One, everyone seems to be ok with.  The other goes on for pages and pages.  And almost every single thread on homosexuality is started by a member of the Church.

[Metis_LDS]

I have never lived in America.  I have always wondered why the Church there is so much more political than other countries.  They only thing I can understand was the early Church was not protected by the government from lawlessness.  Then the law was after them for polygamy.  I am looking for reasons but not excuses. 

[Nacho2dope]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think people are saying God is wrong.  I think what people are saying is the Church leaders have it wrong.  There is a LONG history of Church leaders being wrong on this issue. Even their views are nothing like they were 20 years ago.  The only constant is Church leaders believe you can't be with someone of your own sex, married or not.  

The Bible can be used to prove anything is either right or wrong.  Name a subject and both sides of any opinion can be supported by the Bible.  People have used to Bible to support slavery, genocide, murder, you name it.  So picking apart certain verses is not going to change anyone's view on anything, imo.  The only way I believe you can find what God wants for you is for you is to have a relationship with Him.  

The question I have is, "Why are there so many threads about LGBT issues on a Mormon site? "  It seems like this is one issue that there are a lot of uncomfortable feelings about what might be right and what might be wrong.  We certainly don't have many threads on adultery.  In the eyes of the Church, they are both moral sins.  One, everyone seems to be ok with.  The other goes on for pages and pages.  And almost every single thread on homosexuality is started by a member of the Church.

Thanks so much for your thoughts. In my opinion just because the church changes a policy doesn't mean the way we were doing it before was wrong, again just my personal opinion.. I definitely think you are right we have a lot of threads on LGBT issues. I, personally am not okay with adultery and unfortunately have seen the effects of that in my personal life and in wards I have been in.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think people are saying God is wrong.  I think what people are saying is the Church leaders have it wrong.  There is a LONG history of Church leaders being wrong on this issue. Even their views are nothing like they were 20 years ago.  The only constant is Church leaders believe you can't be with someone of your own sex, married or not.  

The Bible can be used to prove anything is either right or wrong.  Name a subject and both sides of any opinion can be supported by the Bible.  People have used to Bible to support slavery, genocide, murder, you name it.  So picking apart certain verses is not going to change anyone's view on anything, imo.  The only way I believe you can find what God wants for you is for you is to have a relationship with Him.  

The question I have is, "Why are there so many threads about LGBT issues on a Mormon site? "  It seems like this is one issue that there are a lot of uncomfortable feelings about what might be right and what might be wrong.  We certainly don't have many threads on adultery.  In the eyes of the Church, they are both moral sins.  One, everyone seems to be ok with.  The other goes on for pages and pages.  And almost every single thread on homosexuality is started by a member of the Church.

Adultery is a slam dunk.  We've already shown how wrong that is and most people know our stance on that issue. This LGBTQ stuff is so popular nowadays, both for people to talk about and for people to actually become one or the other, or to "come out" as one, that most people feel the need to talk about it some more.  Some people think being LGBTQ is okay, and the number of people who think that way appears to be growing, and we as one group of people meaning the Church, know that it is not okay, and has never been okay, even though more and more people nowadays are getting the idea or already have the idea that it is okay.  So we talk and talk and talk about it because apparently some people still feel the need to try to tell people that it is either okay or not okay, which is how we get in these conversations or debates or whatever you want to call them.  Threads to talk about it created by people who want to talk about it and people participating in these threads to talk about it.  If we all knew it was as bad as adultery there probably wouldn't be anybody talking about it anymore, but apparently we are not there yet.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Overall people will dissect the scriptures in various ways to find some justification for their actions.  I suppose in time when sex robots become more common people will justify themselves with those things by finding some reason in the scriptures to justify it.  I think any reasonable person who reads the scriptures knows which side of the fence Jesus and Satan have on the issue.

That is a fairly blatant dismissal of substantive scholarship on the subject.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I have never lived in America.  I have always wondered why the Church there is so much more political than other countries.  They only thing I can understand was the early Church was not protected by the government from lawlessness.  Then the law was after them for polygamy.  I am looking for reasons but not excuses. 

It may not be all of America.  It may be only this board, or maybe just a few boards like this one.  We actually talk about religion AND politics here.  Well, we're not supposed to talk about politics but we manage to do it at least a little bit anyway.

Imagine, though, a place where you can talk about politics AND religion.  Is that really all of America, or maybe just this board and a few others like it.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“Tell me, Brother Baldrick, what exactly did God do to the Sodomites?”

“I dunno, but I can't imagine it was worse than what they used to do to each other.”

I think that clarifies things.

 

Baldrick had access to the family brain cell that day.