T
truagape
Guest
Wolseley made the above quote in another thread and I think its worth investigating. Does anyone else agree?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
What is wrong with the post you quoted? It is correct and is one of the verses in Scripture that clearly shows homosexuals will not be saved.
The Greek word “arsenokoitEs” translates in English to “sodomites”.
T
truagape
Guest
And “sodomites” translates into Greek as what?
T
thistle
Guest
I don’t understand the question. If the Greek word “arsenokoitEs” translates into the English word “sodomites” then the reverse is correct or am I missing something? If you have a point please explain it. Incidentally I don’t even understand the point of your original post.
T
truagape
Guest
I tell you what,read this thread first. Then tell me what you think.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=207863&highlight=truagape
T
thistle
Guest
I’m not reading another thread. You started this thread but you have not made any point. Either make a point or close the thread.
T
truagape
Guest
Fine, then just ignore me. Because every response I have ever made on these forums is making my point. I invite you to read them so that in turn we can have a discussion. I’m not trying to be rude, so if I come across as such I apologize. I just think that it would be wise if you could allow me to answer your question with answers that I have already given.
T
thistle
Guest
You don’t start a new thread and then tell people to read another thread to find your answers. That makes no sense at all. Why not just stay in the original thread. The fact that nobody else has joined this thread probably means they all feel the same.Fine, then just ignore me. Because every response I have ever made on these forums is making my point. I invite you to read them so that in turn we can have a discussion. I’m not trying to be rude, so if I come across as such I apologize. I just think that it would be wise if you could allow me to answer your question with answers that I have already given.
U
Usagi
Guest
It seems (having now read the other thread) that what he’s getting at is this:
The original Hebrew and Greek words referring to homosexual activity do not actually contain a reference to Sodom.
“Sodomite” (and “sodomy,” etc.) are later English words that draw from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to provide a term for activity that supposedly went on in those cities.
Likewise, when the Bible itself refers to the sin of Sodom, various violations of hospitality or care of the poor are mentioned rather than sexual practices. Even in the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the natives’ demand to rape the (seemingly male) angels may be more of a problem because it’s a) rape and b) a violation of hospitality, rather than because same-sex activity would be involved.
Do I have it right, truagape? If so, now that I have laid that out, could you please develop your point directly, instead of forcing other people to tease it out of you?
It’s true that “arsenokoites” does not refer directly to anything involving Sodom, so “sodomite” is merely a colloquial translation. Do you have a position on how “arsenokoites” should properly be translated into English? Is there a greater point to your questions here and in the earlier thread? I am eager to pursue it, if you have one.
Usagi
The original Hebrew and Greek words referring to homosexual activity do not actually contain a reference to Sodom.
“Sodomite” (and “sodomy,” etc.) are later English words that draw from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to provide a term for activity that supposedly went on in those cities.
Likewise, when the Bible itself refers to the sin of Sodom, various violations of hospitality or care of the poor are mentioned rather than sexual practices. Even in the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the natives’ demand to rape the (seemingly male) angels may be more of a problem because it’s a) rape and b) a violation of hospitality, rather than because same-sex activity would be involved.
Do I have it right, truagape? If so, now that I have laid that out, could you please develop your point directly, instead of forcing other people to tease it out of you?
It’s true that “arsenokoites” does not refer directly to anything involving Sodom, so “sodomite” is merely a colloquial translation. Do you have a position on how “arsenokoites” should properly be translated into English? Is there a greater point to your questions here and in the earlier thread? I am eager to pursue it, if you have one.
Usagi
T
truagape
Guest
So are you saying that “sodomite” is inded not a proper translation?
T
truagape
Guest
So are you saying that “sodomite” is indeed not a proper translation?
T
truagape
Guest
You’re right, and I’m sorry.
U
Usagi
Guest
As I said, it’s a colloquial translation.
“Sodomite” is an archaic English word referring to a person who engages in sodomy (which can have a fairly broad legal definition but generally includes homosexual activity).
If “arsenokoites” refers to the same group of people, then “sodomite” is not an incorrect translation, though it’s not one many people would use today.
It’s true that the translation “sodomite” might lead some people to believe that the original word (“arsenokoites” in this case) makes some reference to the story of Sodom, when it does not. So that particular word could be misleading, since it refers to a different Bible story that is not referred to by the Greek word being translated.
Recent translations tend to use more precise multi-word phrases to translate “arsenokoites.” So I’d say that “sodomite” is certainly not the best translation. However, understood in the meaning that small-s “sodomite” had at the time the translation was made (that is, not referring strictly to natives of the Biblical Sodom), it’s not an incorrect or improper translation as far as I know.
If you are arguing for an entirely different translation of “arsenokoites” that is incompatible with the colloquial meaning of “sodomite,” then I could be entirely wrong. That’s why I asked you about the translation you would prefer.
Again, please just make your point and stop trying to work around to it by asking leading questions. We can have a more fruitful discussion that way.
Usagi
T
truagape
Guest
Interestingly the Wyclif translation of 1508 leaves no question as to what their implied reference point is. It presents as it’s translation of arsenokoites, “synn of Sodom.”
T
truagape
Guest
The same group of people who’s sin God himself explicitly defined in Ez. 16:48-50?
U
Usagi
Guest
Well, no. The misunderstanding that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality was already present when the English words “sodomy” and “sodomite” were coined. So those words do not just (or even primarily) refer to “citizens of Biblical Sodom.”
And while I don’t know what “arsenokoites” literally means in the Greek, I know the “koites” part refers to sex (coitus).
So if you are arguing based on the “sodomite” translation that “arsenokoites” refers to the real sins of Sodom (inhospitality and unkindness to the poor), I don’t think that’s very plausible.
Usagi
T
truagape
Guest
With everything that I have ever posted on this topic I don’t see how one might even think that that’s what I’m arguing. What I am saying, isn’t that “arsenokoites” refers to the real sins of Sodom. In fact I’m saying the exact opposite: it’s “sodomite” that dosen’t refer to the real sins of Sodom or the real meaning of “arsenokoites”.
T
truagape
Guest
if this is your premise, then I’m in complete agreement with you. And more importantly, so is the original language of scripture.
- Status