Considering the fact that the word "homosexual" was not coined until the 1800s, is 1 Cor 6:9-11 mistranslated?
543824
"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." Leviticus 20:13.\n\nuse that one if you dont believe paul
986726
200 years ago some people quoted bits of the Bible out of context, devoid of the origional meaning, to justify slavery and racism. Today some people do the same mean trick to try to justify their bigotry.\n\nAn example - some say that Leviticus calls being Gay an abomination, they quote one sentence. If peope would read 3 chapters on either side of that one sentence they would see that eating pork and wearing clothing made of 2 or more materials are also called abominations. If they would read further, they would see that stoning children and killing animals on the alter is called for. If they would read the whole book, they would find why it is called Leviticus - God wanted ther Levites among the Isrealites to be quite different from all other people, the laws in Leviticus are intended only for those born into Levite families. Leviticus means "for the Levites". For any non-Levite to follow those laws is the opposite of what the Bible really says to do!\n\nAnother example - the word "homosexuality" is only about 100 years old. If you have an edition that uses that word in the writings of Paul, it is a deliberate incorrect translation, get another version.\n\nBest to read just the gospels anyway - what did Jesus say? \nLove your neighbor\nDon't judge others\n\nIn making you Gay, God gave you the gift of Love. What God has made, let no man put asunder!
839372
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
684657
The sodom story is misread. The real trouble with the city was hospitality. His guests were going to get raped. They don't mention that having sex with men is a bad thing. (prove me wrong if i am). Besides, ive also read that in biblical texts, that sodomy is the relation between a man and a boy. Obviously thats not a good thing.
1169336
If you're asking when the word "gay" came to be associated with homosexuals, particularly males, it emerged from Britain in the late 19th century as a sort of "codeword" for being able to identify each other.\n\nThose were in the days when we didn't have a strong identity in the culture and wouldn't say that "fruit" is a bigoted word to use in connection with homosexual people.
1034675
What is "the church" to which are you referring? The one true church described in the Bible (which BTW is NOT the catholic church, it wasn't around until about 600 AD) would condemn such based on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
763111
The statement is a straightforward liberal commentary on many misunderstandings and false teachings within the Christian community.  I especially liked his point that Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrisy and phariseeism, but nothing about homosexuality.  I think he went over the top a bit by implying that we needed to read Greek or Latin to have a discussion about it, though.
1058918
No...it is an allegorical interpretation from the OT, first introduced by Origen in the 2nd century AD.\n\nActually, I think it was Jerome, in his Latin Vulgate translation, that first WRONGLY interpreted the Hebrew word Hallel (morning star), into Latin as Lucifer, which means "light bearer", and is NOT capitalized as a proper name.\n\nhis MISinterpretation has carried the day for centuries, but it is wrong.
1119181
well, he did not need to say it because Jews were not practicing it!\n\nJesus fulfilled the law, but the law is still used to show us about sin!\n\nHomosexuality is sin! the romans and greeks practiced it so Paul's letters address it!\n\nif you like men, be their friend not their lover!
230810
The entire bible is an expression of people's beliefs.  I think there was something that could arguably have been against homosexuality that was attributed to God, but it's still someones statement of what they think, or wanted other people to think that God said to them.\n\nOne thing to keep in mind about homosexuality in the bible is that when it was written the terms had entirely different meanings.  In ancient Greece and Rome, sex was very much about power (far more than it is now).  In a heterosexual relationship, the man was dominant over the women.  In a homosexual male relationship (and this is all the bible says anything about), one partner was active and the other passive.  Male homosexual relations among people of equal social status were frowned up not because they were 'unnatural,' but because one man was showing submission to the other who was supposed to be his equal.  In parts of ancient Greece at various times, although sexual relationships between adult men were scorned, it was not only acceptable, but conventional for adult men, to engage in sexual relations with boys in their early to mid teens.  In this relationship, the man was the 'active' participant and the boy was the 'passive' participant.  Part of the purpose of the relationship was to solidify the social hierarchy.  When the boy grew up he would likely engage in a sexual relationship with a teenage boy before marrying, typically in his mid 30s.\n\nIn Romans, Paul make reference to women behaving in "unnatural" ways (or something to that effect).  This is often misinterpreted to refer to female homosexuality.  However, it is thought by scholars of ancient history to indicate sexual promiscuity in general.\n\nWhether your take biblical references to homosexuality to be the opinions of individuals or the word of God or Jesus, it is important to remember that at the time these statements were written, the notion of homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were quite different to what they are today.  The people who wrote these statements would likely have been as appalled by modern heterosexual relationships as they were by homosexual relations of their time.  When people point to the bible to say that homosexual relations are forbidden, they often fail to consider the historical context, and realize that it was less a matter of the gender of individual engaging in sexual relations that the power hierarchy it implied.
257768
If, by the word "homophobic", you mean, "one who is afraid of homosexuals", no, of course not. However, I do not approve of homosexuality, because it is runs against what Jehovah God, the universal soverign, approves of as natural. In God word at 1 Corinthians chapter six, verses nine and ten, "men who lie with men" are listed among those who will not inherit God's kingdom. Verse eleven then adds: "And yet that is what some of you were." This also runs counter to the common idea that homosexuals have no choice in their behavior.\n\nI hope that the difference betweeen disapproving of homosexuality and being homophobic are clear.
188420
God made us in His own image.\n\nGod doesn't make mistakes.\n\nA literal reading of the Old Testament has some prohibitions about male homosexuality, but who among us follows the Bible literally anyway?  The Bible has a prohibition about haircuts and shaving - how many of us observe that?  To people who selectively quote Bible verses, ask them if they observe ALL the commandments and prohibitions literally.\n\nGood luck.
1183717
Go to this site. It will give a different view of the bible's statements on homosexuality, or lack thereof. I wish every Christian would read this and challenge themselves to really study it, but, unfortunately most won't. \nhttp://www.godmademegay.com/letter.htm
409522
several places - Romans 1:26 and 27 to name just one.\n\nContrary to suggestions further down the page, I just know where it is cos I have been studying Romans recently - the same as if i had been asked where the New Testament mentions Abraham or Israel! It's not that I have memorised every bit in the bible that talks about homosexuality - i DO NOT hate people who are homosexual!
657293
Now that we have the dead sea scrolls, we can see how much the old testament was mistranslated.  For instance, there is one really good part, where the original text said, "you will not suffer a poisoner to live" as mistranslated into "thou shall not suffer a witch to live".  Thousands of wise women were killed because of that over the years.\n\nThe new testament was mistranslated in several places.  The original Aramaic described Mary, the alleged mother of Jesus, as a young woman.  This was changed to Virgin.  The Quran, even though they had copies of the original text, kept this mistranslation.  Now, instead of a young woman who may or may not have been married, and may or may not have had sex, is described as a Virgin. Thousands were put to death in the early years of the Christian Church and by Muslims, when others of their respective religions have pointed out that she wasn't a Virgin.\n\nSo, yes, it has.
84399
the funny thing is, the original text of the OLD testament didn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin either. the part that's commonly translated to say "a man should not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman, that is detestable" was originally mistranslated on PURPOSE when some homophobic church leaders got together to write the king james version...the original hebrew text translates to "a man should not lie with another man in a woman's bed, that is unclean". so basically there's no restriction on who can have sex with whom, just where they are allowed to do it.
460451
Your question starts with a faulty presupposition.  The King James version has many flaws and does not reflect the best of Textual Criticism that we know today.  That beind said, no significant anti-gay passages were added and the 6 main texts that are used to argue against it are found in the original Hebrew and Greek.