[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


| Rules | Log | Tor | Bunker |

File: de9c4942dd0184a⋯.png (35.66 KB,966x583,966:583,1_Cor_6_9_Interlin.png)

20816c No.855359

What is the proper translation of arsenokoitai? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use this word, so we must be able to discern its meaning. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t define it and it appears Paul coined this word for the first time in his writings. How does it affect our understanding of the Bible?

First, to orient ourselves, let us view the word untranslated in context. The word appears twice in the New Testament, both in Paul's writings. First in 1 Cor 6:9 and again in 1 Tim 1:10. The context may give us clues as to how to interpret the true meaning of this word.

1 Cor 6:

>9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, ἀρσενοκοῖται,

>10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

>11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1 Tim 1:

>8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.

>9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,

>10 fornicators, ἀρσενοκοῖται, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching

>11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Both times it is placed in a list next to sexual sin.

Now lets take a deeper look at the Greek.

arsenokoitai appears to be a compound of two different Greek words.

“arsen” means man; “koitai” means bed. So if we make a literal English gloss of the word we get: manbed or bed-men. Now that’s not common English, so let’s see how those two words are used elsewhere in the Bible.

Arsen is easy enough. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus says "the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male[Arsen] and female,'

“Koitai” or “koite” or “koitas” depending on if its a verb or a noun, can be found three times elsewhere in Paul's writings. Twice in Romans, verses 9:10 and 13:13; and again in Hebrews 13:4.

Romans 9:

>Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had koitēn children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac.

Romans 13:

>13 let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in koitais and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy.

Hebrews 13:4

>Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the koitē be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

In all three times, the word is used in reference to sexual relations. First, Rebecca conceived children. Then, Paul advises us to keep us away from sexual promiscuity. And finally, Paul advises us to keep the marriage bed undefiled.

Further context aid may be found in Leviticus as Paul was a Greek speaking Jew. He was most familiar with the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which of course was in Greek.

Lev 20:

>13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

In the LLX, we read "ἄρσενος κοίτην" transliterated as arsenos koítē right next to each other. These are the same two words Paul compounded together to coin "arsenokoitai."

It seems therefore we can safely conclude when Paul uses arsenokoitai, he means men in bed intimately together.

Now let’s look at how the word has been translated both now and in the past:

1599 GNV:

<buggerers

KJV:

<abusers of themselves with mankind

NASB:

<homosexuals

NRSV:

<Sodomites

It seems there is an odd man out here. The KJV renders the word as "abusers of themselves with mankind." Why does the KJV differ so much from both earlier translations and modern translations? How are we supposed to understand this phrase?

If we slow down the English, I think we can see the KJV rendering is the same. Abusers/misusing, themselves/their bodies, with mankind/the male gender. Also note that “abuse” can have a sexual context, as in to commit sexual assault.

Same for the other use of the word arsenokoites in 1 Timothy. Only there the KJV reads "defile" and not abusers, but it means the same thing.

Paul calls out arsenokoitai in the Corinthians as being unable to inherit the Kingdom of God. Then says they were "washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." It seems to me therefore, homosexuals can be saved. Can anyone explain if I am understanding this word incorrectly and where I went wrong?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdc938 No.855362

File: ac608c684409586⋯.gif (246.03 KB,500x475,20:19,1505147523330.gif)

Does the writer of your explanation which you have brought here, have no fear, that he would be willing on such a basis to charge God's elect with abominations? I hope not. Please get right with God, OP.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

001f7c No.855363

Sodomites can indeed be saved. The KJV is correct. Abusers of themselves with mankind are sodomites.

>Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

>If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

However, The majority (99.9999%) of sodomites are reprobates and degenerates. This means that they have been given over to a dark mind by the Lord himself and are therefore unable to be saved. But there are as said before a few which are confused and lost to which there is still hope for.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855365

>>855363

>But there are as said before a few which are confused and lost to which there is still hope for.

Anon, are you sure that's the case, and those people are not just giving themselves to be abused for reasons other than being given up by God to unnatural lust?

Remember what is said in 2 Peter 2:9, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:"

I have faith in the Lord who knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations. There is such a thing as reprobates, as earlier said. And God foreknows who is saved. See also what Paul said in the epistle to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 10:13

>There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

It makes no sense that God would give someone who is elected for salvation over to a reprobate mind. We even learn from Hebrews 4:15 that Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." So do people think to include sodomites in that "we"? What about 2 Peter 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:13?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4a6fb5 No.855366

>>855359

>Rebecca when she had koitēn children

Rebecca was bedding children? That pervert!

>>855363

>The majority (99.9999%) of sodomites are reprobates

Who are you to make this claim?

>and degenerates

No Anon, absolutely all of them are, they have degenerated severely from God's intention for creation. This is why they are so strongly condemned and in need of such particularly radical change.

>This means that they have been given over to a dark mind by the Lord himself

This is blasphemy

<Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

>therefore unable to be saved

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? God has declared His wish that all men should be saved and you have neither right nor power to abrogate that decree. God has the power and the willingness to save whosoever He desires and He will see it done. No sin is greater than the power of God.

<All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855367

File: e6d32b3646509f4⋯.jpg (29.36 KB,600x541,600:541,a42520a01.jpg)

>>855366

>This is blasphemy

You must never have read Romans 1 before.

Romans 1:

>24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

>25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

>26 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:

>27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

>28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

See where Paul writing in the book of Romans said God gave them over to vile affections? To someone who has read Romans chapter 1, that is clearly what the above poster is referencing. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the Bible, anon.

<Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Yes exactly. God protects the rest of us who are not given over to that. When someone is given up by God to vile affections, those were already within them, but now they are no longer protected as they were before. As it says in James 1:17,

<Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

>God has the power and the willingness to save whosoever He desires and He will see it done.

And how do you claim to know for certain, as if you were God, who will be saved?

>No sin is greater than the power of God.

No one said that. If God sovereignly decides to give someone up to be burned in hell, that is God's prerogative. We Christians aren't universalists here believing that every being will be saved. Sorry to burst your virtue signalling bubble, but that isn't the case.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

001f7c No.855368

>>855366

>This is blasphemy

I forgive your reviling. Please read Romans 1 KJV

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

001f7c No.855369

>>855367

I love the KJV in the picture, anon. How it is one column with giant print. Do you know where one can be bought? Thanks.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855370

>>855369

Unfortunately I don't. It is just an image I pulled from the internet a while back.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855371

File: 5536ba449e2c736⋯.jpg (57.36 KB,590x332,295:166,0002b.jpg)

>>855369

I do happen to know that Local Church Bible Publishers, which is the independent place I try to get Bibles from, has giant print editions though. But where to get the single columns, I have no idea.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

001f7c No.855372

>>855370

>>855371

Understood, anons. But thank you both anyways.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855373

>>855372

Oh no problem. I'm the same person by the way. You can tell because within each thread, the ID (hex) number generated corresponds to the same IP address. But it's not the same number between threads.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

001f7c No.855374

>>855373

Ah, forgive me. I did not pay attention to the IDs.

:)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

79a126 No.855375

>>855367

>God protects the rest of us who are not given over to that. When someone is given up by God to vile affections, those were already within them, but now they are no longer protected as they were before.

Whoa whoa whoa. So the default state of humans is homosexual and God makes us straight? Now THAT is a hard saying.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855376

>>855375

No, the opposite. It says in Romans 1:24,

<Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

So we see that the reprobate are given over to that which is inside them. It says nothing about the rest of us.

>So the default state of humans is homosexual

What makes you say that? In Romans 1 it explicitly states that sodomy is "against nature." You must be misunderstanding something. I wonder why. Maybe it's intentional? Intentional misunderstanding? Like you just don't like the truth, so you intentionally misunderstand things and turn them to the opposite of what is actually said, solely in order to resist what the Bible says?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855377

>>855375

>>855376

And let me post that Scripture again even though it's already copied once above just so you can't pretend you did not see it.

Romans 1:26

<26 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:

So we see here that it is them that change the natural use into that which is against nature. It has nothing to do with the way man is created or his default nature, as we see here. God is not the author of sin.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d28e68 No.855378

>>855376

>What makes you say that?

I'm just following your words to their logical conclusion. If God affirmatively protects us from homosexual temptation, those afflictions were already within them a person given up by God, that means our default state, without God's intervention, is homosexual.

I think you're the one misunderstanding here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdc938 No.855379

>>855359

>Then says they were "washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." It seems to me therefore, homosexuals can be saved.

Both premises of this conclusion fall independently of each other. Just because it says some at Corinth had done some of those things does not mean that some at Corinth had done all of those things.

We see in 1 Corinthians 10:13, that there had been no temptation which they, the Corinthian church, were taken with that was "uncommon to man." Here is the quote:

>13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

This means that sodomite lust could not have been among the temptations taken by any of the Corinthians. Therefore, we see that regardless of what your translation says, it would not be a contradiction because Paul merely says that some Corinthian church members had done some of those things, not necessarily all of them. So your conclusion positively falls short.

Furthermore, it says in 2 Peter 2:9,

>The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

So we see that God, the Lord knows how to protect the godly from temptations. In this passage, Peter had just gotten finished writing about how Sodom and Gomorrha had been destroyed by God, and how we learn God had protected Lot from this temptation, one that is not common to man.

Over in Romans 1, we see a clear, undisputed description of sodomite lust. There, it says in Romans 1:

>26 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:

>27 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

>28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

This is the only time that the term "against nature" is used in the entire Bible. Notice what Paul repeated here in Romans 1. He said that God "gave them up" and "gave them over" to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. The root word for not convenient has a lexicon definition as "μὴ καθήκοντα" i.e. "what is abominable or detestable." Those things which are not convenient clearly refers to the act of sodomy described in Romans 1:26-27. God giving someone up to that which is against nature would be the opposite of what we see described in 1 Corinthians 10:13, which says that there has no temptation taken them at Corinth except for what is "common to man." We also accept rationally that sodomy - the crime against nature - is not common all men: and hence logically the temptation to sodomy is not common to man. Therefore, we know that 1 Corinthians 10:13 must exclude those at Corinth from ever having had this temptation.

Furthermore, it says in Hebrews 4:15, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." That should, I trust, close all argument. (cont'd)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

fdc938 No.855380

>>855359

Now let's look at the translation of your word. We see that Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1525) and every Bible up until and including the KJV used the same terminology, and none used the term homosexual, which is a recent invention.

As to what the word means, your elaboration already sufficed. It means someone who, for whatever reason, allows themselves to be abused by a male. This could be a prostitute of any type. We also see that in both lists, the word in question is placed next to a slavery-related sin. In 1 Corinthians 6:10 (KJV) it says thieves after this entry. In 1 Timothy 1:10, it says menstealers after this entry. This context suggests that this term is related the context of human trafficking, such as prostitution. People who would willingly give themselves over to prostitution would be said to be defiling themselves, according to a word description like this.

If theoretically Paul had meant to signify sodomite then the actual word for it was not chosen in either place in either passage. Actual usage of terms that indisputably refer to sodomy occur in other passages. So this >>855359 explanation for the modern and your translation of this word does not account for its non usage in the Greek here or explain why Paul didn't just use that term in 1 Corinthians 6:9, if it was what he meant. For this reason, the translation is inaccurate; It would possibly be used by an uncharitable person to accuse the church at Corinth; and indirectly, Jesus Christ, as well, as we see in Hebrews 4:15.

>and where I went wrong?

The answer here is slightly more nuanced: In starting out with the purpose of justifying modern perversions, and rebelling against what Scripture says, the start of this error began. The end-goal of saying that sodomites are somehow ok is a very bad goal to be wresting and twisting Scripture around for, especially when the Lord condemns it as an abomination so strongly throughout his Word.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

12de38 No.855381

>>855378

Romans 1:26 says otherwise. Speaking specifically of the reprobate in question in the passage, it says they changed themselves. It says these mentally depraved people changed their own behavior to go against nature. This passage has nothing to do with people like us who are outside of that. It's specific to the reprobate. God gave them up, in the end, to corrupt themselves. He neither created them or us that way (no one is born that way), nor did God positively force anyone to do it (he is not the author of sin). Rather than any of these things, the wicked (not Christians) had that vile sin within them, and once the wicked rejected God, because of their rejection then God gave them up to those lusts. As for the vast majority of us, to whom that passage does not apply, we simply never had that within us at all because it is not in our nature. Hopefully that makes sense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]