4 ms·

I don’t follow your argument from having read the article. It says the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men. And the 1983 version chan

I don’t follow your argument from having read the article. It says the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men. And the 1983 version changed it from young boys to homosexuality. The author argues the original word was Greek and the text was to denounce Pederasty, which was a strange Greek practice. He also argues this change in word was deliberately made by as part of a larger anti gay agenda

sorokod 7y ago
The original Hebrew ( not Greek ) word in the book of וַיִּקְרָא (aka Leviticus) means male.
- acqq 7y ago
  And the original Greek word in the New Testament (the New Testament's original language is Greek) is also arsenokoitai: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mean/ https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mea... "It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed." But there are different interpretations about what that "those who sleep with men" meant: https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-used-the-greek-word-arsenokoitai.html https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-u... "Despite what some scholars allege, arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual. The best evidence available today indicates that arsenokoitai described shrine prostitutes. That is the learned opinion of Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle Paul and one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century." "Because the Jewish view was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (Deu 23:17) prohibited shrine prostitution, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with a meaning unfamiliar to most of his readers. And because arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek text from AD 57 to AD 1450, to refer to two men or two women in committed partnership, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with that meaning, which would have baffled his first century readers." Regarding the word that the "Latin lexicon from 1483" apparently used to translate the arenokoitai word, the Greek language did have a specific word for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty "The word pederasty derives from Greek παιδεραστία (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"." So we can be sure that that Latin lexicon is wrong. If Paul wanted to mean "boys lover" he had an existing word for that, and didn't have to use "arsenokoitai" ("those who sleep with men").
  - sorokod 7y ago
    Leviticus is mentioned in the article - hence the comments on what is original.
    - acqq 7y ago
      Sure. I don't dispute that the author of the text in the NT was probably inspired by Leviticus. And both Leviticus and NT use "men" there. I don't agree that codefreakxff's claim that "the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men" is correct. Because Greeks had the specific word for that and didn't use it there, but used the word arsenokoitai. Searching even more, this internet poster even argues that the Paul used that rare word (with "men") because he used the more common for "fornicators": https://www.quora.com/How-has-usage-of-the-term-arsenokoitai-changed-over-time-and-does-the-word-appear-anywhere-other-than-the-Bible https://www.quora.com/How-has-usage-of-the-term-arsenokoitai... "Centuries before Paul, the πορν- porn- root referred only to prostitutes & prostitution. But over the centuries, the meaning expanded to include all illicit sexual contact. Paul had already used the word πόρνοι pornoi to mean fornicators. What that meant is that Greek, for all intents and purposes, no longer had a word that specifically referred to having sex for money. That alone was reason to create a new word for it." That actually sounds strange to me, that at Paul's time there was not a specific word for prostitutes.
      - sorokod 7y ago
        >Sure. I don't dispute that the author of the text in the NT was probably inspired by Leviticus. And both Leviticus and NT use "men" there. Cool, just to clarify, the word means 'male', not 'man', and is applied to animals as well as humans.
        acqq 7y ago
        Yes, in Greek too: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄρσην#Ancient_Greek https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄρσην#Ancient_Greek
  - bb88 7y ago
- dogma1138 7y ago
  The original Hebrew version is also not that original. The Hebrew Bible we have was written in the time of the 2nd temple we know that some passages were changed as the Dead Sea scrolls have slightly different versions also in Hebrew and we also know that some books that ended in it were likely written in Persian during the Babylonian exile period and then translated back into Hebrew. The Hebrew bible also omits some Jewish works like the books of the Macabees/Heshmonaim which were likely written in Greek. While the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years its hard to know exactly how many edits and translation it had prior to that. It’s also important to note that as it was a work of litterateur the language could’ve have easily changed. For example a Platonic relationship during the time of Plato was an insult a tongue and cheek jab at the fact that Plato liked to take his students to a cave for some private tutoring; however the use of the term today is drastically different than shtooping young boys.
  - frittig 7y ago
    If you are going to go down that path then you have to ask what is the Bible. I mean, you could say that the "original Bible" is the Code of Hammurabi from 1754 BC and say that the "original Bible" doesn't mention Homosexuality. But as you say, the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years. We can go back about 400 years earlier if we include the Dead Sea scrolls. While there are some differences, so much is the same that there is no reason to assume that Homosexuality was added in at that point. I find it hard to believe that זכר meant anything other than male back when the Bible was written. זכר is use when referring to how people were made (Man and Woman were created), זכר is used when telling Noah what animals to bring on the ark (two by two came to Noah, to the ark, male and female), and when talking about what animals to sacrifice.

sorokod 7y ago

The original Hebrew ( not Greek ) word in the book of וַיִּקְרָא (aka Leviticus) means male.

acqq 7y ago
And the original Greek word in the New Testament (the New Testament's original language is Greek) is also arsenokoitai: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mean/ https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-arsenokoitai-mea... "It’s a compound word: “arsen” means man and “koite” or “koitas” or “koitai”—depending on a verb or a noun—means bed." But there are different interpretations about what that "those who sleep with men" meant: https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-used-the-greek-word-arsenokoitai.html https://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-u... "Despite what some scholars allege, arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual. The best evidence available today indicates that arsenokoitai described shrine prostitutes. That is the learned opinion of Philo, a contemporary of both Jesus and the apostle Paul and one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century." "Because the Jewish view was that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (Deu 23:17) prohibited shrine prostitution, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with a meaning unfamiliar to most of his readers. And because arsenokoitai is never used in any extant Greek text from AD 57 to AD 1450, to refer to two men or two women in committed partnership, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used arsenokoitai with that meaning, which would have baffled his first century readers." Regarding the word that the "Latin lexicon from 1483" apparently used to translate the arenokoitai word, the Greek language did have a specific word for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty "The word pederasty derives from Greek παιδεραστία (paiderastia) "love of boys",[1] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"." So we can be sure that that Latin lexicon is wrong. If Paul wanted to mean "boys lover" he had an existing word for that, and didn't have to use "arsenokoitai" ("those who sleep with men").
- sorokod 7y ago
  Leviticus is mentioned in the article - hence the comments on what is original.
  - acqq 7y ago
    Sure. I don't dispute that the author of the text in the NT was probably inspired by Leviticus. And both Leviticus and NT use "men" there. I don't agree that codefreakxff's claim that "the original version was against sleeping with young boys, not men" is correct. Because Greeks had the specific word for that and didn't use it there, but used the word arsenokoitai. Searching even more, this internet poster even argues that the Paul used that rare word (with "men") because he used the more common for "fornicators": https://www.quora.com/How-has-usage-of-the-term-arsenokoitai-changed-over-time-and-does-the-word-appear-anywhere-other-than-the-Bible https://www.quora.com/How-has-usage-of-the-term-arsenokoitai... "Centuries before Paul, the πορν- porn- root referred only to prostitutes & prostitution. But over the centuries, the meaning expanded to include all illicit sexual contact. Paul had already used the word πόρνοι pornoi to mean fornicators. What that meant is that Greek, for all intents and purposes, no longer had a word that specifically referred to having sex for money. That alone was reason to create a new word for it." That actually sounds strange to me, that at Paul's time there was not a specific word for prostitutes.
    - sorokod 7y ago
      >Sure. I don't dispute that the author of the text in the NT was probably inspired by Leviticus. And both Leviticus and NT use "men" there. Cool, just to clarify, the word means 'male', not 'man', and is applied to animals as well as humans.
      - acqq 7y ago
        Yes, in Greek too: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄρσην#Ancient_Greek https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄρσην#Ancient_Greek
- bb88 7y ago
dogma1138 7y ago
The original Hebrew version is also not that original. The Hebrew Bible we have was written in the time of the 2nd temple we know that some passages were changed as the Dead Sea scrolls have slightly different versions also in Hebrew and we also know that some books that ended in it were likely written in Persian during the Babylonian exile period and then translated back into Hebrew. The Hebrew bible also omits some Jewish works like the books of the Macabees/Heshmonaim which were likely written in Greek. While the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years its hard to know exactly how many edits and translation it had prior to that. It’s also important to note that as it was a work of litterateur the language could’ve have easily changed. For example a Platonic relationship during the time of Plato was an insult a tongue and cheek jab at the fact that Plato liked to take his students to a cave for some private tutoring; however the use of the term today is drastically different than shtooping young boys.
- frittig 7y ago
  If you are going to go down that path then you have to ask what is the Bible. I mean, you could say that the "original Bible" is the Code of Hammurabi from 1754 BC and say that the "original Bible" doesn't mention Homosexuality. But as you say, the Hebrew bible has pretty much remained untouched for 2000 years. We can go back about 400 years earlier if we include the Dead Sea scrolls. While there are some differences, so much is the same that there is no reason to assume that Homosexuality was added in at that point. I find it hard to believe that זכר meant anything other than male back when the Bible was written. זכר is use when referring to how people were made (Man and Woman were created), זכר is used when telling Noah what animals to bring on the ark (two by two came to Noah, to the ark, male and female), and when talking about what animals to sacrifice.