Finally! We Concluded the Matthew Vines Response on Today's Mega Dividing Line

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Matthew Vines, Romans 1, and the Greco-Roman Background on Homosexuality

Last time we were together we were continuing our response to Matthew Vines and we need to try to conclude that someday and But I did not actually Really feel like we've completed and finished some of the comments that we needed to make on the subject of Romans chapter 1.

Now, you may want to go to sermon audio and Listen to the two-part Bible study series that I'm doing on Romans chapter 1 relevant to this for some of those comments, but Before we continue on with. Mr. Vines attempt to get around the meanings of Especially the term arson a coitus at 1st Corinthians 6 9 I wanted to address Part of the issue that is raised by his comments on Romans chapter 1 if you recall the primary essence of his argumentation Was the Romans chapter 1 is?

About individuals who are not by nature Homosexuals acting in a homosexual way now this went against the actual text itself which talks about adult males burning with desire for one another. That's a clear desire description of male homosexual behavior and Orientation but he then went on to try to say that nature is only just a customary thing.

So he used two different contradictory definitions first He said that they're those people who are by nature homosexuals and that Romans 1 is only talking about people who by nature are not but he then turned around and Attached a completely different meaning of the term nature Contradicting himself.

Now there are numerous other ways that Pro-homosexual activists today are you are are attempting to get around the clarity of Romans chapter 1. I wanted to read a section. This is from an online. This is from the enrichment journal dot AG org.

Robert Gagnon Has written a great deal on this particular subject. I've been listening to a number of his lectures as well and Unlike Matthew Vines who clearly has Basically read Boswell, but not read any of the responses to Boswell.

I have not simply read Gagnon and I'm just simply going with what Gagnon says. When I give you these citations Especially from other authors thanks to the kindness of God's people and certain people out there who keep an eye on the ministry resource list.

These books that I'm gonna be quoting from are sitting on the desk next to me. And they're marked and I've checked the context and You know done due diligence at that point some of these books are not exactly the type of books you necessarily want to have in your Library, but my library has a lot of odd stuff in it as it is.

And my section on homosexuality has grown a good bit over the past two weeks or so with the Discussions that we've been having. So I just wanted to read this because it completely and thoroughly Refutes the assertion that mr. Vines has made that look no one back then knew anything about Committed homosexual relationships, and we didn't know anything about orientation those people back there just didn't know and As Robert Gagnon has said many many times if you hear anyone saying that the person you're listening to clearly has no idea What they're talking about none at all.

I'm gonna read the fifth point of a particular article online from Robert Gagnon. Fifth contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions. There is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships including semi-official marriages between men and between women.

Moreover, we know some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting Even these as unnatural in Plato's symposium circa 380 BC. The comic Aristophanes is said to remark about male-male relationships.

They ie the two men continue with one another throughout life desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity and to become one person from two. His remarks play off of the positive view of same-sex eroticism expressed by Phaedrus and Pausanias at the banquet.

Neither Phaedrus the beloved of Eryximachus also the banquet nor Pausanias who was a lover of the tragic poet and host Agathon a relationship that began when Agathon now 31 was 18 years old Advocate for same-sex hedonism.

On the contrary. They stress an attraction for the soul or mind more than the body and the relationships inducement to moral excellence. Pausanias in particular emphasizes that quote love is neither right nor wrong in itself and quote.

But only right when it is quote done rightly and quote and quote. For the right reasons and quote that lovers who love rightly quote are prepared to love in the expectation That they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common as if having been fused into a single entity With and quote the soul of the beloved.

It is thus evident that Aristophanes reflects Pausanias his view of himself when the former states that men who love males quote are not Inclined by nature. Fusai the same term we find in Romans chapter 1 by the way Toward marriage and the procreation of children yet are compelled to do so by the law or custom namas.

With the result that the two joined males quote live their lives out with with one another unmarried and quote in Plutarch's dialogue on love late first second century AD. Protogenes argues that man-male love is superior not because it is more hedonistic.

But because instead of having as a net result the reaping of the fruits of pleasure. It comes through friendship to the end and goal of virtue. Daphneus defending the superiority of male-female love concedes that homosexual relationships are not necessarily exploitative.

For sexual intercourse that is contrary to nature with males does not do away with nor damage a lover's kindness or amorous goodwill. Yet he declares that even the intercourse that comes about from joining males is done willingly.

It remains shameful since males are with softness. That's malachia, and that's the term that we're going to encounter in first Corinthians 6 again and a feminacy. Surrendering themselves according to Plato to be mounted in the custom of forfeited animals and to be sewed as if to produce children contrary to nature nature in Rome.

The epigrammatist Marshall and the satirist juvenile early second century AD Refer jeeringly to effeminate men who willingly commit themselves as brides to other men. For example Gracchus a man renowned for his family background and his wealth became the bride to a common cornet player and signed semi-official documents.

Lucian of Samasota tells of two rich women who regard themselves as married the masculine magia of lesbos from which lesbianism comes from and her wife Demanassa the Corinthian. Remember Corinth had lots of problems and there you have an example of it.

The astrologer Ptolemy of Alexandria writes of manly women born under a certain constellation who are lustful for sexual relations contrary to nature and take the act of sexual role with women whom they sometimes call their lawful wives.

Clement of Alexandria mentions in disgust women contrary to nature marrying women. Obviously marriage implies commitment yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship.

Some Greek and Roman moralists condemned all homosexual acts on the ground of a nature argument. Literature the first century CE bears witness to an increasing polarization of attitudes toward homosexual activity ranging from frank acknowledgement and public display of sexual indulgence on the part of leading Roman citizens to severe moral condemnation of all homosexual acts if.

Even some sectors the pagan world were beginning to develop absolute opposition to all forms of homosexual practice. What is the likelihood that Paul would have made exceptions for committed? Homosexual unions.

Paul operated of Jewish scriptures and a Jewish milieu that were unequivocally opposed to homosexual practice even of a committed sort for example first century Jewish historian Josephus Stayed the obvious to his Roman readers 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. Several rabbinic texts forbid marriage of a man to a man. One referring to Egyptian practices even forbids marriage of a woman to a woman. Sifra on Leviticus 18 3.

It is hardly surprising then that even Lewis Crompton a homosexual scholar acknowledges this point in his massive work homosexuality and civilization. However, well intentioned the interpretation that Paul's words were not directed at bona fide homosexuals and committed relationships Seems strained and unhistorical.

I stopped for a moment just to point out. That's exactly that is exactly What pro-homosexual Apologists like Matthew Vines and like another man. We're gonna listen to briefly today. It's exactly what they're saying but here is a homosexual scholar saying.

This seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any Circumstance the idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Other Jew or early Christian.

Do you hear that? I Think it's very important that you hear that There is no evidence None whatsoever in history that there was any positive promotion of homosexual or lesbian behavior Amongst the Jews the time of Christ or Paul.

So you would have to pull both the Lord Jesus and Paul Completely out of their milieu and completely out of their context. To say oh well, but they wouldn't have had any problem with this. Nobody in their context was promoting such things.

It is a complete abuse of history To even begin to make that kind of statement. I Worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development.

You catch that you will hear every pro-gay apologist saying they didn't know about what we know about today. That is false now. Don't expect anybody on CNN or MSNBC or even Fox News that matter to challenge that it's just taken as a given anymore.

But it's not true as classicist Thomas K Hubbard notes quote. Homosexuality in this era that is the early imperial age of Rome may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation and quote and Finally Bernadette Bruton a lesbian New Testament scholar if that doesn't tell you immediately that when you hear someone talking about New Testament scholar you need to ask a little bit further as to the Commitments of said person.

Bernadette Bruton a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book about lesbianism in antiquity Also acknowledges his point. She states that quote Paul could have believed. Paul could not have believed in fact what I'm gonna do Never mind.

I think there's a typo in this so I'm going to open the book which is in my hand. And I'm going to get my reading glasses out because it is a small print book. This is page 244 chapter 9. I'm just gonna read you the entire quote here, which is longer than what Gagnon produced.

Further even if Paul condemned only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons many lesbians in the church who feel that they have chosen to love women as well as all by Bisexuals would fall under that condemnation or thereby not helped by this interpretation in Some the category of the innate homosexual who is thereby free of shame and whose sexuality counts as natural does not fit the Roman world and Does not address the self-understanding of many contemporary lesbian bisexual and gay Christians.

I believe that Paul used the word exchange to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and Left it behind Paul uses the plural throughout Romans 1 18 through 32 Showing the communal aspect of the behavior as a people they suppress the truth about God and as a people they change their form Of sexual behaviors in other words.

I see Paul as condemning all Forms of homo eroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. Bernadette Bruton page 244 of her book love between women early Christian responses to female homo eroticism.

So what is her conclusion? What does she say should be the result of all this? We need to reject Paul there you go at least she's honest. We need to reject Paul he was his his viewpoints are culturally mandated and culturally culturally oriented and created by cultural Categories and so we just need to reject him.

So there you go. That's uh, that's that's where it comes from. So I want to add that information Because it I think it's important that you recognize that there is Factual historical evidence behind what we're saying and when they make these claims nobody knew anything about them.

That's a lot. That's a lot. It is it is untrue. And if Matthew Vines has been spending two years Studying this issue. Um, why hasn't he found this information two years? Now one other thing I Was listening to a debate and I believe I'm 99 certain this was the debate between Harry Knox director of religion and faith program at the human rights campaign the human rights campaign is a pro-homosexual organization, it just angers me to no end they use human rights as a pro-homosexual thing, but my good brother Michael Brown debated Harry Knox in 2008 and I I had actually I had actually grabbed a bunch of Michael's material on Isaiah 53 To listen to In the middle of it.

I just accidentally grabbed this too. So I ended up listening to it on a on a ride yesterday and I'd heard it before but listen to it again, and I was struck by listening to Harry Knox's opening statement, and I want to just play a portion of this then we're gonna get back to Matthew Vines some of you're going you aren't never gonna finish this, but I think you'll see Why this is relevant and how it's relevant and how this is illustrative of The fact that you might think that you have come up with answers to the pro-homosexual apologists if you're listening to just Matthew Vines and Then you go listen to Harry Knox and all sudden he's got a completely different view that contradicts is contradicts Matthew Vines.

But you're not gonna ever gonna find them debating their positions because they don't mind they Don't care that they're contradicting each other as long as all of their arguments are against Christian Orthodoxy as Long as all their arguments are contrary to contradictory to Christian Orthodoxy.

Then they don't care if they are contradicting each other. It's the gather all of the arguments you can together even if they're self contradictory and throw it Like you're throwing everything in the kitchen sink and Just hope that if you can then connect that with enough emotion That you'll convince your audience and guess what folks it's working.

It is working just just look around and You will see that it is working now. Let's let's listen to Harry Knox's comments on Romans 1 All right, and what we're gonna do we're gonna listen to his comments and then I'm going to stop it and Then I'm going to play the first section of his rebuttal what happened in between was that Michael Brown got up and Obliterated these comments he did so kindly.

Michael Brown is a much nicer man than I am. He did so generously. But he obliterated his comments with facts with language with linguistics with lexical sources Totally destroyed it and then listen listen to what happens.

Robert Gagnon has said that this happens in all of his debates. It's happened in my debates. It happens in Michael Brown's debates when you finally expose The biblical bankruptcy of the argumentation then you always get the same argument back.

So let's listen to what Harry Knox said in this debate on the subject of Romans chapter 1. In every conversation that I ever have about this I went to the wrong one. That's the beginning of the second one.

I thought it was queued up. Let's go to the right one here and go temples priests copulated with adolescents.

You know, they were homeless kids with nowhere else to go. In hopes of ensuring good harvests and growth in populations threatened by disease and war the lives the feelings and well-being of individual children were sacrificed for what was perceived to be the common good and In the process it became a commonplace of the priestly life to take part in orgies that if they were not good for the children.

Were pleasurable for the adults to leave that part of the story out of your study of Romans 1 is intellectually lazy for you and spiritually life-threatening to your lesbian and gay neighbors. But explanation of Paul's writings in that context though scary and provocative offers you the chance to speak words of real hope and reconciliation to a nation obsessed with sex and Talking about sex in every venue except church.

And please don't forget to go on to study Romans 2 Where Paul begins to admonish us not to judge our neighbors? How badly America needs to hear the message of hope through Christ expressed in 1st Corinthians 6.

So there he goes on from there.

So what is the argument. The argument that he just made was this is all about pederasty. It's all about pederasty now. That is not what Matthew Vines said. Matthew Vines interpretation is completely different than Harry Knox's interpretation.

It's all about adults. Using children even though Romans 1 actually says men. Lusting after other men with one another. The mutuality. It's right there. There's nothing in the text support of this, but that's what he says and Michael Brown gets up points that out.

Demonstrates that. And so what does Harry Knox do when he gets up for his rebuttal? Well, here we go. Whether the person with whom I'm talking values the I don't know why this is starting just slightly after what I'm telling it to.

So I'm going to back it up again. Here beats.

But we cannot and dare not to our own detriment change what God's Word said. Thank you. Thank you Mike. Very good Harry.

In every conversation that I ever have about this hard topic it becomes pretty quickly clear whether the person with whom I'm talking values the experience of the Holy Spirit in my life and Whether they're going to be presumptuous enough to deny that the experience that I have had.

Exists and not just me. My lesbian and gay Christian and Sisters and brothers of many other faiths to so fully embody the beauty of those faiths all over this world that we stand in stark contrast to any rhetorical argument on this.

The love of Christ I pray is simply available to you through my life and apparent to you through my life. I work very hard to make it be so every day and I know that that is something that the church over time has valued as highly as it has the Bible.

What it has sought not to do when it has been wisest is to make an idol of the Bible. So what do you do?

You you become completely subjective you say this is you are questioning the Holy Spirit in me the Holy Spirit. It's in me. You're making an idol of the Bible. No rebuttal. Now now in the first part. He had actually said well the Bible means this.

Then it's shown that he's wrong. That's not what the Bible means. And so what's the response? Well how dare you turn the Bible into an idol and how dare you question that I have the Holy Ghost within me and I'm just reminded as I listen to this exactly what happened to me when I debated burial in on this because remember The this man is a member of the same church as burial in the United Church of Christ.

And what burial in claim that he he receives the same kind of inspiration and revelation as Paul did the Holy Spirit in me says and Yeah, the Holy Spirit contradicts me says in the Bible, but that's no big deal.

Absolutely Amazing. Absolutely amazing. So there you go. You need to recognize all these different kinds of Arguments are out there and We have responses they're factual they're true. They're consistent.

They're defensible. They're documentable. But the time that we will have to be able to say those things in the public square is vanishing quickly unless God is merciful and There are certain people out there that aren't helping with that.

Dr. Al Mohler tweeted a reference to a video of a North Carolina fundamentalist pastor. Who in his quote-unquote sermon I hesitate to call it a sermon. Pastor Charles Worley of The Providence Road Baptist Church.

I'd wonder if someone in channel if it's gonna do this and I forgot to do this. I wonder if someone in channel can look it up Providence Road Baptist Church in North Carolina and See if there's something about the King James version on the website someplace.

Because I just got the feeling listening the man that this just might well be. It's definitely a good old fundamentalist church and If you listen to Charles Worley, he says we're again it and stuff like that.

What the man did is he in the middle of a sermon. Demonstrate exactly what attitude we cannot have we dare not have. That is utterly and completely opposed To the attitude any believing Christian should ever have on this subject, but the problem is the world thinks that's how we all are and We all suffer when people like this.

There are people who oppose homosexuality simply because they are bigots. There are homophobes. There are homophobes out there. There's no question about it. There are people who have in irrational fear.

They've never thought through Romans 1 they've never thought through First Corinthians 6. They might quote Leviticus 18 or 20, but they've never they've never Invested 10 minutes and thinking about the Holiness Code.

They've never even bothered to try to understand Jesus is teaching in Matthew chapter 19 the positive aspect. No, it's just well, the Bible says is wrong. So it's wrong it's just it's a it's a surface level Mechanism for feeding Bigotry and hatred and it's real easy for them to do that because we see the bigotry and hatred on the other side.

So it's like well, it's There you go but he said in this Video which has gone viral and folks if you've got a camera on you and there's a microphone on your lapel. Realize something you're speaking to the whole world.

Think about it. Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long and put all the lesbians in there. Whirly went on to say in his 13th May sermon at his maiden, North Carolina Church. Guess I could have given you the location there.

Sorry about that. Fly over and drop some food do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified. So they can't get out. And I'm not even doing a thick enough accent there feed them and you know in a few years, they'll die out.

You know why they can't reproduce. Well, thank you pastor whirly. Thank you very much for assisting The world in recognizing that there are people who call themselves funny mentalists. Who will use the Bible as an excuse for not thinking things through and for being ignorant.

Thank you very much, sir. We needed that assistance and that help. What an amazing thing. What an amazing thing. So It's all on us folks. It's all on us. To not compromise. To speak the truth, but to speak it in love and to be ready to give an answer.

Not like that man did. But like we are trying to do here like Michael Brown's trying to do like Al Mohler's trying to do. Like so many others are attempting to do in that. In that way am I saying that their website has disappeared or something like that because I saw something about it.

I don't know, but we need to get back to Matthew Vines or we're never ever ever going to finish this. So we've just gotten to the point where we're transitioning out of the Romans 1 material into the first Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9 material.

Our two remaining passages are less involved than the others. So I'll spend somewhat less time on. Hello, our two remaining passages are less involved than the others. So I'll spend somewhat less time on.

Okay, I have no idea why it's doing that. Let's see if we can fast-forward past it.

But with the King James version of this passage, which was published more than 400 years ago and so predates this modern controversy it reads. 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. Nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor violers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Our key words for the discussion here are the words translated as effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These somewhat ambiguous translations in the King James are consistent with how these words were actually translated into English for hundreds of years.

Some kind of immorality or abuse but specifically what kind was never stated. This changed halfway through the last century when some Bible translators began connecting these terms directly to homosexuality.

The first occurrence of this shift came in 1946 when a translation of the Bible was published that simply stated that quote homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Several decades later after the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior came to be more widely understood.

This was changed to say that only practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. But these terms and concepts regarding sexual orientation are completely alien to the biblical world. Neither Greek the language of the New Testament Nor Hebrew the language of the Old Testament.

Nor Latin the language of early Christian translations of the Bible had a word that means or corresponds to the English word for gay the concept of sexual orientation and of same-sex orientation in particular.

Didn't exist in the ancient world.

The English now now I just stopped long enough. Did you catch all the quotes that I gave you just a few minutes ago, which demonstrate that this is? Pure mythology, I mean, it's just it. It's just sad.

I mean I've actually had people contact me who said they had relatives who attended this talk and who were convinced by it. Well, if you can be convinced by this kind of thing and you don't check it out Then you can be convinced by anything.

You're obviously convinced by the sincerity of the person or at least the perceived sincerity and things like that. You're not convinced by facts. You don't you don't check things out for yourself because this is just absurd.

But anyway English term homosexual was not even coined until the end of the 19th century and So translations of these words that suggest that Paul was using these distinctly modern concepts and categories are highly suspect.

But today there are many translations of the Bible, there's certainly not all of them That link these terms in some way to homosexuality Rendering them variously as males who practice homosexuality. Men who have sex with men or male prostitutes.

What is the basis for this shift in translation? The word translated as abusers of themselves with mankind in the King James is a compound word. In the Greek it is arson equities arson meaning male and equities meaning bed generally with a sexual connotation and So the argument is that we can determine the meaning of this term from its etymology.

Male plus bed in the plural form must then refer to men who sleep with other men. Now We have already.

Given the foundation here. We've already given the background. We've talked about this before but obviously it's it's important to point it out again. Because when we went through these texts I pointed out the fact that for example in Leviticus 2013.

Now what what's the term arson equities? Let me read Leviticus 2013 in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek translation that the Apostle Paul Utilized and would have been utilizing in fact the early church to whom he was writing.

This is their version of the Bible. Kaihas on koi mei fei meta arson oz coitain goon icos now you have koi mei fei and Then you have meta arson oz with a man. Koite arson oz and coitain are right next to each other in the text.

And I point out when we went through this before That It seems that the earliest appearance of this term Either is from Paul himself and hence. It's probably a term. He has made up to describe This sin straight out of Leviticus which remember Matthew Vines did not attempt to explain to us That Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are not condemning homosexuality.

All he said was it doesn't matter anymore because we don't believe any of these laws are binding on Christians. But he didn't even bother to try to argue that that's not what he was talking about because it plainly is.

So if the Apostle writing to the church, which is using the Greek Septuagint Uses the very language of the Greek Septuagint in Describing this activity, how can you come up with anything other than? Homosexuality.

Men lying with men in bed men doing with men what you normally do with a woman in bed that's exactly what both texts are saying and as Jeff Neal said this is what this is one of those, you know, we you know, it's funny as Certain people look for ways of inflating their number of debates that they've done who remain nameless.

But One of the debates that I've done which is has never been heard by anybody, but those who were listening that day sort of like the debate I did with the Imam a few weeks ago that only people ever heard it were the people who were listening live.

But Jeff Neal and I were on The radio station here in Phoenix KPXQ and we debated two homosexuals and They didn't record it. Or they lost the tape or whatever. I forget what it was. Yeah, I didn't record it.

And so no one ever got to listen to it again. But one of the things I remember very clearly Jeff saying in that debate in talking about Arsene Coytes Was Arsene Coytes means what men do with other men in bed and that ain't eating crackers.

That was how Jeff Jeff put it. That was it. That was a wipeout debate. It was not even close. It was it was it was just a massive destruction of the homosexual side but no one's ever heard of that again because unfortunately that's what happened, but so This is the information.

It's right there. It's right in front of of our eyes. The source from which Paul is driving this if you allow for any intertextuality in the Bible. If you allow for the relationship of Old and New Testament in the Bible.

It's right there. It's clear. If you want to know what the Bible is actually saying you can know if you don't want to know. Well, you can always just twist it.

But there are several problems with this approach. First simply looking at a words component parts doesn't necessarily tell us what it means.

There are many unless of course they're found right next to each other in the very Scriptural source that Paul would be driving them from many English words where this approach would fail.

For example the words understand butterfly.

Honeymoon and Television which doesn't mean far-seeing none of which is relevant. To arson a coitus because why. Because it does not have an established lexical meaning prior to Paul's usage of it. Therefore you must look at the sources from which Paul derived his technical vocabulary and remember Kai Haas on koi mei fei metta arson oz coitain gunaikos Leviticus 2013 in the Greek.

Septuagint the component parts here. Honey and moon. Really don't tell us anything about that. What that word actually means. In Order to understand what a word means you have to consider how it's used in context.

No, yes, that's true. The problem with the word abusers of themselves with mankind arson a coitus is that it was used extremely rarely in ancient Greek. Uh-huh. In fact Paul's use of it in first Corinthians is considered to be its first recorded use anywhere.

Now it's interesting because there is possibly One previous use. I read you already the footnote on that subject from the same-sex controversy from my study of the term using this these Thesaurus lingua grecae CD-rom many many many moons ago.

And after Paul the few places that it appears tend to be in lists of general vices Which are not the most helpful of contexts. Fortunately, however many of these lists are grouped by category and. This Greek word consistently appears among sins that are of a primarily economic nature rather than those that are primarily sexual.

This and some other contextual data indicate that this term referred to some kind of economic exploitation.

Exploitation. Okay, so so. You've got Paul. You've got him using the Septuagint. There is no question in scholarship of the absolutely intimate relationship that exists between the Apostle Paul and the text of the Greek Old Testament called the Septuagint.

None whatsoever. And you have Malakoi and arson a coitus right next to each other and. And. Yet this somehow is some kind of an economic thing it really. Yeah, all those all those people are translating.

This is homosexual. They they they just got an agenda there. They're just missing it likely through sexual means.

This may have involved forms of same-sex behavior, but coercive and exploitative forms. There's no contextual support for linking this term to loving faithful relationships.

Again Eisegesis taking a concept that would not have existed for the Apostle Paul that is the idea of loving faithful homosexual relationships utterly rejected by all. There is not a a Single Jewish source contemporary with Paul.

Hundred years any direction. 200 years any direction? That could begin to substantiate this. Read it in and turn the text on its head.

That's how you do it. The other debated word in this passage translated as effeminate in the King James is mollicose in the Greek. This was a very common word in ancient Greek and it literally means soft.

It was used as an insult in a wide array of contexts to refer to those who were considered weak-willed Cowardly or lazy and All of those failings were particularly associated with women in ancient times hence the rendering effeminate in A specifically sexual context the word was used to describe general licentiousness and debauchery.

But this wasn't limited to any particular kind of relationship. Men who took the passive role in sexual relations were sometimes labeled this term Which is the basis on which some modern translators connect it to homosexuality.

But so many people were labeled this term for so many different things.

Most of them not even sexual in nature now notice. I notice how he's doing this. I mean this takes this takes some effort to take something so plain so clear so obvious so contextually compelling and to sow confusion.

You have to cut the text in little parts. Don't allow Malakai To be right next to arson a koi tie. Why? Because if you allow the text to stand as it is the two terms Contextually influence your translation of both of them and see it's not because we just have a bunch of mean nasty Fundamentalist Bible translators that are just picking on us loving Monogamous homosexuals about which 99 of us aren't.