Why "Homosexuality" is a Mistranslation in the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2024
- Live at the 2024 Q Christian Fellowship Conference, Mason chats with Kathy Baldock and Ed Oxford about the 1946 mistranslation of the word "homosexuality" in the Bible.
Check out the documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture: www.1946themovie.com
A People's Theology is a podcast that explores inspiring and liberating theology.
Support Mason's work on Patreon:
/ masonmennenga
Buy merch of your favorite tweet of Mason's:
masonmennenga.com/store
Connect with Mason:
masonmennenga.com
Twitter: / masonmennenga
Instagram: / masonmennenga
Mason Mennenga (he/him/his) is an aspiring theologian, podcaster, TH-camr, and the Internet’s youth pastor.
He received his Master of Divinity from Christian Theological Seminary in 2020 and a Master of Arts in Theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities in 2022.
He enjoys conversation over a drink, being a music snob, stand-up comedy, and long walks on the valley of the shadow of death.
#homosexuality #bible #biblestudy
![What Was it Like Being at HEART of Purity Culture? [featuring Shannon Harris]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X-tfHPVr6Yw/mqdefault.jpg)
![What Was it Like Being at HEART of Purity Culture? [featuring Shannon Harris]](/img/tr.png)
![The Theology of Christian Nationalism [featuring Scott Coley]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kwPAI-CB8oE/mqdefault.jpg)
![พาแม่บินครั้งแรก..เกือบวูบ! ให้เกาหลีเยียวยาใจ I Korea Ep.1 [Seoul] x อุงเอิง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/waL3__dEQBU/mqdefault.jpg)
The Bible's morality lost its credibility at Leviticus 25:44...From foreign nations you may take your male and female slaves for life and pass them down to your heirs as slaves are your money.
Nothing more entertaining than watching people who don't know Greek pontificating about the meaning of Greek words.
I'm a gay atheist (lost my faith because I was shunned by spouse and friends because I hatched as trans) and I have to say, this is supremely interesting.
it is!
Unfortunately it is very shoddy scholarship. The Greek and Latin are very clear that this kind of sexual immorality is a sin. It is impossible to mistranslate it in the way these ideologically driven people do. Besides that, they are wrong about that era Romans and Greeks not condemning homosexual acts. They did. The porneia vases (porn depictions on Greek vases) are an exception not the moral standard they proclaimed.
There is a passage where Jesus respects those who make themselves eunuchs not to have sex and instead focus on the kingdom of God. But the context is not sexuality but the elimination of the possibility of sex (as to become more holy).
Thank you for sharing this talk Mason. Usually emotion gets in the way of intellectual discussion. You have allowed us to see this presented without the hot emotions.
thank you!
So much Bible -beatimg nonsense in this comment section.
The lady is mistaken; there _were_ consensual same-sex relationships back in Paul's day and if you read John Boswell's _Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe_ it will become obvious to you that there were such relationships, only they were usually between men of unequal legal and socioeconomic stations of the type she pointed out. Jesus even blessed one such relationship according to Matthew 8 and Luke 7 by healing a Roman centurion's cherished slave boy. Although such a relationship would be problematic for us today, Jesus didn't even have a problem with it because he merely commended the centurion for his faith.
And Paul, in Romans 1:25-32 seems to condemn everything about homosexuality, he even calls same-sex desires "shameful" and people who have them "handed over, abandoned". Of course I'm convinced that Paul couldn't deal with his own sexuality just from looking at this subpassage together with Romans 7 and 2nd Corinthians 12, and connecting the dots, so I think we can safely ignore this as just Paul's opinion.
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
And when does he tell people not to be gay?
cool story bro how about Matthew 23:1-39
The key word is "therefore". What is the stated reason they marry? How does that reason apply to a man who is attracted to men instead of women? Think it through.
@@MusicalRaichu the "therefore" is referring to the idea that women come from men right? SOUNDS KIND OF GAY FELLAS
Jesus cites that verse and makes that clear, that is the 'pre-fall of mankind' condition 'it (the current situation re: marriage) was not like that in the beginning' and even said Moses allowed divorce, thus saying that initial condition is not what we have now. So that while will be again in the Kingdom, it is not currently what we have, nor can we because 'our hearts are hard' (towards God in this fallen world) though with that said I do believe some do find that person and do experience the true 2 becoming 1, but most people doesn't even know what that means. God also demanded that an entire tribe of Israel divorce their wives and abandon their children.
The Bible is the written thoughts of primitive Hebrew rabbis living in tribes on the Sinai Peninsula during the Bronze Age.
The words democracy, science and critical thinking wasn't part of their language. Why are you incapable of thinking and learning new things?
good thing the video has nothing to do with that
Why are you incapable of understanding the wisdom of the ages? They were as smart or smarter than you and me. They even had bigger brains. There is nothing primitive about the Bible.
There is a simple test to determine what is sinful.
Is the activity honoring God, by fulfilling its primary purpose; or is it being misused for one’s own pleasure or to advance their own vain glory.
Food’s primary purpose is sustenance, it is also enjoyable. The fact it is enjoyable is a secondary purpose. Gluttony is the abuse of pleasure of eating, elevating pleasure above its proper place; therefore, it is sinful.
Intercourse’s primary created purpose is procreation, it is also enjoyable. The fact it is enjoyable is a secondary purpose. Sexual Immorality is the abuse of sexual pleasure, elevating pleasure above its proper place; therefore, it is sinful.
So, it follows that homosexuality is sinful, procreation being impossible, the created purpose is thwarted, thereby corrupting intercourses very nature.
Also, the fact that a divorce is celebrated at the end of the video is very fitting. A woman breaking her vows before God to her husband to fulfill her lusts for another woman, without regard for her children and her witness, is the height of sexual immorality.
Oh dear. The whole idea of sin has become silly. What kind of God is it that you worship even??
did you watch the video?
@@opinion3742 What is your point? That that you think I am wrong about what sin is? Or that there is no such thing as sin?
God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. All things He established for our good and to His glory. All things were established with purpose, in that purpose we find joy and hope. To do the will of the Father in all things is our purpose, according to our design and intended nature. Those things we ought to do, are what end up being the most fulfilling. As well-ordered music is beautiful, so is a sinless life. The Life of Jesus Christ the Lord and Teacher is the example. All sin leads to anguish, just as a violin will be ruined if used as a paddle, so too will we if used for incorrect purposes.
Sin corrupts, sin destroys, and sin separates us from God because it rejects His design.
@@APeoplesTheology Yes, I found the conversation about (1940s) "conversation" to be of little benefit. Their agreements are weak, and their fruits are destructive.
@@jacobojala3767 I don't like the way you interpret ancient writings. Your God is a jerk. Why would you worship such a God?
2 Tim 3:16,17. @John Sutherland As it seems like the OP post was deleted, and we were replying in a sub to that, I wanted to continue with your comment Re: 2 Tim. Yes all scripture is God breathed, but let us look at what that means and what it actually says. Adam was God breathed but was an imperfect human who fell. God breathed does no mean perfect, so we can't assume scripture is perfect. Second what does it mean in respect to the scripture? Well the Bible tells us exactly what it means in this case. It is useful for certain things. Those are absolute, but may not be all inclusive. Once we assume more then it says we are adding to the scriptures. So in no case can we say the Bible is perfect, it is only made perfect in Christ as we are also God breathed and also only made perfect in Christ (and we can see that when Jesus opened the scriptures, which I take is to reveal the real meaning, and not generally accepted meaning) But that's the greatest thing about our Great savior, we only need Him to be perfect.
There are many debunkings of this. Even if you take them at their word that this is a mistranslation (It probably isn't) the case in the bible is not that all sexual acts are accepted except homosexuality. Sex is good only within the confines of marriage which is between a man and a woman. Fornication is most definitely a sin
Expertly put. Sexual impropriety of all kinds is sinful, and the only acceptable marriage is between the two. No wiggle room.
did you watch the part of the video where i asked that very question?
@@APeoplesTheologySorry I didn't. I usually have time to watch a full video like this. No disrespect to you, man
@@aidanmays7825 maybe watch it first before replying
The mistranslation is obvious if you can read Greek.
When I first saw the H word in a Bible ages ago, my reaction was, how is it possible!? It's anachronistic! But I figured the translation must've been based on sound scholarship so went along with it. More recently, however, I investigated the issue on my own and discovered that my original hunch was right. There is no basis for the claim that "the Bible condemns H". So I looked for what other people had to say and found Kathy's 5 hour video (a must-see) and breathed a sigh of relief that I was right. I then independently researched as much as I could of Kathy's claims and it all checks out 100%.
Your claim that it's "only within the confines of marriage which is between a man and a woman" (or, of course, with a concubine) also has no basis. The Bible spans many eras and cultures and marriage practices are assumed to be what the prevailing culture says they are. "Biblical marriage" is illegal today for multiple reasons. "One man one women" was a pagan practice imposed on Christianity after the majority of Christians were Greeks and Romans.
Does that help you see things a bit differently?
The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”)
That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does.
(2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse.
(3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen.
(4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.”
(5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire.
Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view.
(6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage).
(7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse.
(8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it.
(9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves.
(10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love.
Paul talked about it. He didn't use the word homosexual (at least in most translations), but he addressed the issue along with many others. If nothing else, since the scriptures are plain that marriage is between a man and a woman, then the place in the NT where Paul said that neither effeminate nor fornicators would inherit the kingdom applies, as homosexual behavior (not orientation or temptation -- I think) is both of those. Sorry folks, it's verboten, along with some other stuff. So if you are a hardwired homosexual, I guess you'll just have to be celibate (which Paul also advocated) if you want to be saved.
You might consider that to be a rough deal, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. On the upside, you might not have to carry that burden for much longer. Things do look like they are wrapping up soon!
🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
And you guys say that same-sex attracted individuals particularly men aren't allowed to have intimate friendships like David & Johnathan did either because of the biblical necessity to avoid temptation and even the "hint" of "immorality" so that's not just a rough deal but a raw deal.
And your guy promised to be back in his disciple's lifetimes and told the high priest he would see him coming in the clouds, on the right hand of power, and in great glory. He's 1,950 years late now!
Lol I'm not even gonna watch this, just came to say it's clear as day, homosexuality is not okay in the Bible, never was never will be. Stop trying to shoehorn your opinions over Gods word. All these people are going to realize they were dead wrong when it comes time to meet eternity. Next we're gonna say adultury or murder is mistranslated and that stuff is actually okay.
Amen!
Not even going to watch? Not going to listen to the arguments and respond with valid criticisms? You're just going to stick your fingers in your ears as deep as you can and yell "you're wrong" and run away?...... you do you.
@@hasone1848 lol because I know what's right and if someone thinks that's a mistranslation they have issues and are deeply deceived.
@@Russianmafia10 What if you are the deceived one? How did you come to the conclusion that you are 100% right and they are wrong?
Do your beliefs not hold up to what they are saying? I'm sorry to hear you have that much fear.
Beware false teachers..... They come as a wolf in sheep clothing.
You are not speaking to the creators of this video, but to your own reflection in the mirror.
Yes, homophobes and transphobes are false teachers and wolves indeed
Not really.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [G733 arsenokoitēs]
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
{1 Corinthians 6:9-10}
Tremendously terrible scholarship. All of the comments here are right for tearing this apart and debunking this. Ratio well deserved
They should feel disgusted by the fact that the woman at the end there was so inspired by this work to leave her husband and kids behind to embrace a sinful lifestyle.
you must be fun at parties!
This is only one terrible consequence of many of the church's false teaching which is the real culprit here. If they let her marry according to her orientation in the first place, the suffering would have been avoided.
It's not an isolated case. It's common. I knew a gay guy who married a woman because he was advised to, had kids, but living a lie took its toll o him, and in the end left when he fell in love for real with another man.
@@MusicalRaichu Absolutely disgusting
@@brandonw.peebles4225 Isn't it just. Parts of the church are responsible and refuse to repent.
@@brandonw.peebles4225your bigotry and hate is disgusting. You're a Pharisee
What a display of Theophobia. So sad, so wrong.
Listened on the podcast, so wonderful. Came to find the documentary, very excited to watch it. I hope it comes down in price a wee bit.
thanks for watching!
Mason has absolutely no business teaching anything about the Bible.
should he go to seminary to learn the bible?
@@APeoplesTheology just because he went to seminary doesn’t mean he’s right. I know many people who went to seminary and would completely disagree with him.