Female Vs Male Homosexuality

[Keith Martin]

I would posit an essential distinction between (a) outside reference books whose purpose is to provide us tools with which we can read languages foreign to us and (b) outside interpretation books that merely provide opinionated commentary on Scripture, no matter how erudite the author. Given that Scripture has been translated from its original languages, we need reference tools to help us discover what God originally intended to say versus what some human beings along the way wanted us to think He had said. However, while historical context is indeed interesting and often illuminating, when it is essential to our understanding, I believe the Author of it all already included it in the text; if it's not there, I believe it's appropriate to consider its absence to indicate that it's superfluous. The most sure path to hearing the Voice of God is to get as close as possible to reading the original manuscripts. Those mentioned reference tools can help us approximate that, but that is as close as we can get in this life, given that He has chosen to allow His Word to be polluted.

We do our best to hear Him, and sometimes we have to rely more on our heart than on our eyes.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The most sure path to hearing the Voice of God is to get as close as possible to reading the original manuscripts. Those mentioned reference tools can help us approximate that, but that is as close as we can get in this life, given that He has chosen to allow His Word to be polluted.

Given that scripture tells us to "beware the lying pen of the scribes" to claim there are no errors in translation is to ignore that very important verse.

We do our best to hear Him, and sometimes we have to rely more on our heart than on our eyes.

To say that the law is not written on hearts yet, and the fulfillment of that is completely future is to ignore that Paul said it was evident in the Gentiles (of the ten tribes) back then. We believe there will be a more complete fulfillment in the future, but for those with a desire to do right (what we call conscience?) listening to the leading of holy spirit and the 'heart' is one way to safeguard your ability to sleep at night.

As a man thinketh in his heart so is he.

 

[rockfox]

If God can’t accurately edit and publish a book then He sure as hell can’t save my soul or raise Himself from the dead. If the Book isn’t accurate then the Author isn’t trustworthy.

Yet it does not contain a dictionary. Oops.

 

[rockfox]

"beware the lying pen of the scribes"

Well the Masoretes sure fulfilled that prophecy.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@The Revolting Man, I completely understand your passion and good intent here, however you do take it too far. It is impossible for any of us to read scripture, or even anything, without relying to some level on the scholarship of others.

• We can read English only because we were taught to by others - our parents and teachers.
• We understand the meaning of complex or archaic English words by relying on dictionaries, created by scholars - this is essential when a word has changed meaning since the publication of the KJV.
• When reading an English bible we rely on the scholarship of those who translated it (and the Holy Spirit choosing to preserve the word through their work - but have to consider which translations He may have inspired more than others...).
• When investigating a difficult issue we rely on lexicons, made by men.

For one example, how do we know that 1 Corinthians 7:2 does not command monogamy? It sure reads that way in the KJV and every other English translation. It is only by examining the Greek that we know two different words are used here that are both translated "own" in English. To find this out, we rely on lexicons, written by men, and have to trust their scholarship.

Where did their knowledge of Greek come from? From studying both scripture and classical secular Greek texts, to determine how different words are used and what they mean. The more rarely a word appears in scripture, the more likely we're going to try and use a lexicon to try and understand it - and the more likely that lexical definition has had to draw on external sources because of the lack of scriptural usage to define the word.

This is still sola scriptura - we are trying to understand scripture alone. However, we all (you included) are using additional sources of knowledge from outside scripture in order to allow us to understand scripture more accurately. That is completely unavoidable - unless you were to raise a baby with no education in language and then hand the completely illiterate child an original Hebrew and Greek copy of the scriptures and let them figure out how to read it with no reference to outside sources...

The debate is not about "do we use outside sources or not". Only "precisely which outside sources should we use". That's a valid discussion, and you have good points to make on it - but if you pretend that you are using no outside sources at all you are fooling yourself and turning what could be a rational discussion into an argument that never needed to happen.

It seems so reasonable when you say it like that but that’s never how it stays. Always what happens is that someone starts saying “context

@The Revolting Man, I completely understand your passion and good intent here, however you do take it too far. It is impossible for any of us to read scripture, or even anything, without relying to some level on the scholarship of others.

• We can read English only because we were taught to by others - our parents and teachers.
• We understand the meaning of complex or archaic English words by relying on dictionaries, created by scholars - this is essential when a word has changed meaning since the publication of the KJV.
• When reading an English bible we rely on the scholarship of those who translated it (and the Holy Spirit choosing to preserve the word through their work - but have to consider which translations He may have inspired more than others...).
• When investigating a difficult issue we rely on lexicons, made by men.

For one example, how do we know that 1 Corinthians 7:2 does not command monogamy? It sure reads that way in the KJV and every other English translation. It is only by examining the Greek that we know two different words are used here that are both translated "own" in English. To find this out, we rely on lexicons, written by men, and have to trust their scholarship.

Where did their knowledge of Greek come from? From studying both scripture and classical secular Greek texts, to determine how different words are used and what they mean. The more rarely a word appears in scripture, the more likely we're going to try and use a lexicon to try and understand it - and the more likely that lexical definition has had to draw on external sources because of the lack of scriptural usage to define the word.

This is still sola scriptura - we are trying to understand scripture alone. However, we all (you included) are using additional sources of knowledge from outside scripture in order to allow us to understand scripture more accurately. That is completely unavoidable - unless you were to raise a baby with no education in language and then hand the completely illiterate child an original Hebrew and Greek copy of the scriptures and let them figure out how to read it with no reference to outside sources...

The debate is not about "do we use outside sources or not". Only "precisely which outside sources should we use". That's a valid discussion, and you have good points to make on it - but if you pretend that you are using no outside sources at all you are fooling yourself and turning what could be a rational discussion into an argument that never needed to happen.

It sounds so reasonable when you say it like that but, and it’s a Sir Mix-a-lot sized butt, that’s not what we’re talking about. The use of concordances and lexicons is not the same thing as saying “We have to know what the original readers thought this meant.” The only thing that matters is what the Text says. You’ve seen how context and historical speculation has been used to to completely abrogate the clear commands of scripture. The feminists use it all the time.

We never, ever need context or historical data We don’t need to know what first century believers thought, what Hammurabi thought or anyone else.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yet it does not contain a dictionary. Oops.

Yet God preserved the Greek and Roman languages in countless neutral sources over a thousand years so we do actually have a dictionary. Oops.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

No, no, no, no, no, no. We don’t need to know anything else but what He told us. Anything else just encourages to go and creative and start explaining things away. If the text doesn’t give us a detail it’s because it’s not important.

I'm sorry. There are no specifics in the text as to what Paul was referring to when he spoke of their women exchanging natural use. Since this is the ONLY text in all of Scripture that could even remotely refer to Lesbianism, you are on shaky ground here. We can't assume anything here, but we do know for a fact that Paul specifically condemned orgies elsewhere in his writings, and he left no ambiguity about it whatsoever. If there were something here to explain away, I wouldn't be one to try to do so. I could care less for Lesbianism; it turns my stomach. I just don't find Romans 1 to be sufficient evidence to condemn it.

 

[Keith Martin]

Given that scripture tells us to "beware the lying pen of the scribes" to claim there are no errors in translation is to ignore that very important verse.

Thank you for a more succinct distillation of my thoughts, @Joleneakamama.

 

[rockfox]

Paul specifically condemned orgies elsewhere in his writings, and he left no ambiguity about it whatsoever

Where?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm sorry. There are no specifics in the text as to what Paul was referring to when he spoke of their women exchanging natural use. Since this is the ONLY text in all of Scripture that could even remotely refer to Lesbianism, you are on shaky ground here. We can't assume anything here, but we do know for a fact that Paul specifically condemned orgies elsewhere in his writings, and he left no ambiguity about it whatsoever. If there were something here to explain away, I wouldn't be one to try to do so. I could care less for Lesbianism; it turns my stomach. I just don't find Romans 1 to be sufficient evidence to condemn it.

I am on shaky ground? You find God’s Word insufficient and I am on shaky ground? You are demonstrating the problems. This passage seems vague to you so label it unclear and look for instruction somewhere else instead of wrestling with it until it’s revealed to you. This is a very big problem. The passage is not unclear. Everything we need to know is right there if we take the time to diss it out and trust that God’s Word is complete and sufficient. I’m shocked that you can’t hear what you’re saying and see the danger in it.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Where?

I Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:21.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I am on shaky ground? You find God’s Word insufficient and I am on shaky ground? You are demonstrating the problems. This passage seems vague to you so label it unclear and look for instruction somewhere else instead of wrestling with it until it’s revealed to you. This is a very big problem. The passage is not unclear. Everything we need to know is right there if we take the time to diss it out and trust that God’s Word is complete and sufficient. I’m shocked that you can’t hear what you’re saying and see the danger in it.

I never claimed that God's Word was insufficient! One verse that offers no specifics, is not enough to condemn the practice. When I want to offer an argument against Lesbianism, I point to the fact that you cannot really claim that since Lesbianism, is never condemned, then it isn't wrong, because of the fact that it is never explicitly mentioned. Unlike polygamy, which is repeatedly mentioned throughout Scripture, without a hint of condemnation, the only thing Scripture says, that can even remotely be tied to Lesbianism, is this single verse, and all it says, is that the women are doing something unnatural, without saying WHAT that unnatural thing is. So yes, my friend, you are on shaky ground, if you are trying to say that Scripture condemns it, but the person who argues that Scripture never condemns it, as an attempt to justify it, is also on shaky ground, since of course Scripture does not condemn the things that never (as far as we know) took place.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between (a) women being sexual with each other, and (b) lesbianism, which is strict homosexuality that excludes both sex with men and male headship.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I never claimed that God's Word was insufficient! One verse that offers no specifics, is not enough to condemn the practice. When I want to offer an argument against Lesbianism, I point to the fact that you cannot really claim that since Lesbianism, is never condemned, then it isn't wrong, because of the fact that it is never explicitly mentioned. Unlike polygamy, which is repeatedly mentioned throughout Scripture, without a hint of condemnation, the only thing Scripture says, that can even remotely be tied to Lesbianism, is this single verse, and all it says, is that the women are doing something unnatural, without saying WHAT that unnatural thing is. So yes, my friend, you are on shaky ground, if you are trying to say that Scripture condemns it, but the person who argues that Scripture never condemns it, as an attempt to justify it, is also on shaky ground, since of course Scripture does not condemn the things that never (as far as we know) took place.

So here’s another piece of shaky ground you’re on, I don’t think the Bible condemns “lesbianism” at all. This verse is clearly talking about something else, something else that I have clearly stateS a half a dozen times. So, to recap; the Bible contains all the information we need to interpret it, and careful reading will save you embarrassment in both your theology and your personal communications.

 

[IshChayil]

Well the Masoretes sure fulfilled that prophecy.

Hey rock can you elaborate?
I think I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here. Are you saying the Masoretes who preserved the Hebrew bible used in all bible translations injected lies?
I'm sure I'm missing something here so just probing to see what that is so I can learn.

I don't think Jeremiah is prophesying in that verse; there is no "beware" in the Hebrew; it basically says this thing already happened. I thought this verse was rebuking scribes who added commentary or some other improper scribal practice within the text in Jeremiah's day.
If we are not to take the Masoretic text as the go-to Hebrew text which superior text replaces it?
shalom

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

So here’s another piece of shaky ground you’re on, I don’t think the Bible condemns “lesbianism” at all. This verse is clearly talking about something else, something else that I have clearly stateS a half a dozen times. So, to recap; the Bible contains all the information we need to interpret it, and careful reading will save you embarrassment in both your theology and your personal communications.

OK, I would have to say the same thing about the other activity that some are saying that this verse condemns. I am repulsed by anal, myself, but again, what that verse describes, is unclear. Whether there is any other verse in Scripture that explicitly condemns that, I am not aware, but I would say that it is much more likely that Paul was talking about orgies, since we know that Paul was consistent in his multiple writings, about condemning the same practices, over and over, and we know that he condemned that practice.

 

[The Revolting Man]

OK, I would have to say the same thing about the other activity that some are saying that this verse condemns. I am repulsed by anal, myself, but again, what that verse describes, is unclear. Whether there is any other verse in Scripture that explicitly condemns that, I am not aware, but I would say that it is much more likely that Paul was talking about orgies, since we know that Paul was consistent in his multiple writings, about condemning the same practices, over and over, and we know that he condemned that practice.

It is not about orgies which would be covered under both adultery and male homosexuality. The passage clearly states that they exchanged the natural use for an unnatural use. The simple explanation is the best.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

It is not about orgies which would be covered under both adultery and male homosexuality. The passage clearly states that they exchanged the natural use for an unnatural use. The simple explanation is the best.

That is hardly a case that this passage could not be about orgies.Paul is most definitely talking about something that was at the time, a current event, yet that prticular activity is not known to have been taking place, to my knowledge.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That is hardly a case that this passage could not be about orgies.Paul is most definitely talking about something that was at the time, a current event, yet that prticular activity is not known to have been taking place, to my knowledge.

This is my point, why would he be talking about a current event? What makes that so self evident? Paul wasn’t only talking to those people at the time but all of us as well. Current events are a ridiculous idea to try and read in to the Bible. We don’t know how prevalent orgies were at the time of Paul. I know we’ve all see the Caligula, and Spartacus and the Rome series but is that really history and do we want to interpret scripture through it? The answer is no. If you want to interpret scripture through history then you have to trust historians, or that that an accurate history was preserved or that HBO presented it correctly. Or that you didn’t confuse Rome with Game of Thrones one night. It’s a bad idea and will lead to error.

 

[FollowingHim]

Paul is most definitely talking about something that was at the time, a current event

why would he be talking about a current event? What makes that so self evident?

I hadn't paid enough attention to this detail before, but the entire passage is written in the past tense ("exchanged", "changed", "gave" etc - not "will exchange", "will change", "will give"). That does certainly suggest it is talking about something that had already happened. Obviously it also represents how God will respond to the same events in future, so is not confined to the past and is entirely relevant to us today. But only by reference to something that happened in the past.

I don't think this actually changes anything in our interpretation of it though, as Roman society was as sexually corrupt as our own. There is nothing new under the sun, as Solomon said.

yet that prticular activity is not known to have been taking place, to my knowledge.

I think it is better to assume that everything was taking place then as now. People are the same in all generations and subject to the same temptations.