He starts the post by mentioning Gagnon (Gagnon doesn't believe the Bible is completely inspired, especially the writings of Paul, but that's glossed over by anti-gay Bible believers for the sake of embracing Gagnon), "Brownsville Revival" leftover Michael Brown, THAT Mohler and "Fake On-Line Degree" James White who have all been talked about on my own fine little site. He then goes into insulting my comrades in arms in this homosexuality and the Bible debate by saying they're part of a “Christian” QUILTBAG mafia (I'll make that my costume for Halloween). He has my man Brownson's book cover on a post for some reason, a book he never read (I can't really knock him for that because I didn't read it either), and bad stock photos that he thinks drive his points home.
Was the Bible unreliably translated by uninspired men who tried their best or other translators who let their bias bleed into what they translated? Absolutely. There isn't a scholar on either side of this debate who would say otherwise. Was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote? Absolutely. We aren't talking about the words of Paul, we're talking about what happened to those words once they left Paul and fell into the hands of others with the book of Revelations saying what will be the consequences for those who change those words.
I'll just respond to what he wrote on his 5 points and leave you to go to his blog with what I was responding to.
1. Saul, Paul to his Gentile friends, was a Pharisee who became an Apostle to the GENTILES (Galatians 2:8). That’s rather important to this all. Actually, Paul did bow to Greek social convention with terminology and he says so in Galatians 2:15. He used Greek slang and the ironic example is "koitai" which is vulgar slang for f*cking (Paul goes vulgar slang again in Philippians 3:8 saying the Greek slang for "sh*t").
Paul never saw himself as a lofty prophet, just the opposite (1 Corinthians 15:9, Ephesians 3:8).
The fact Paul DOESN'T use any Greek word for a homosexual man or even the slang word for a lesbian (Tribas) common in Paul's day (tribas) proves MY point Paul never meant to condemn homosexuality. If he did, he would first go to words that would have been absolutely clear he was talking about homosexuals (Greek slang Kinaidhos and Kolombaras for passive and masculine homosexuals) and not the mysterious Arsenokoite or the "I have an endless slew of meanings" word Malakoi. Remember, the Hellenistic Jews hearing Paul were as fluent in koine Greek as the Gentiles sitting beside them.
When this blogger writes; "The Spirit wrote in harmony with what he had previously written (which is important to remember)," He's only talking about Romans in the context of idolatry (Romans 1:22,23), that nasty habit man had of worshiping images of Goddesses and animals since he was created.
Now here is why this blogger and almost all anti-gay apologists who breathe think the word means "homosexuals." They say Paul got it from Leviticus 18:22 and to them, this is their "Gotcha!" moment. But this is the problem. If Leviticus doesn't condemn "homosexuality," neither will 1 Corinthians and you can put enough doubt with their claim Leviticus condemns homosexuality as a general rule by going to the actual Hebrew of the Leviticus verse that shows it's not so clear-cut as they want it to be. He links to the verse in the Hebrew that proves nothing and a follow-up link to the poor translation of the verse in the same Hebrew that proves the same nothing. I'm glad he brings up Numbers 31:17-18 and Judges 21:11-12 because it shows the variations of 'arseno' (male) and 'koiten' (beds) found in other places in the Bible have nothing to do with homosexuality, but in fact referenced hetero sex, MY point. I don't picture the Jewish believers pulling the gentile believers aside and saying; "O.K. So Paul is trying to tell you he's getting 'arsenokoite' from one of our ancient books you've never heard of. Thank G-d you had us explain it to you because how would you have known otherwise??? Now pass me the pork ribs I couldn't eat before."
Another blogger made a good point saying; "The idea (Paul got the word from Leviticus) is based upon the existence of the words αρσενος κοιτην in that verse, but this is flawed scholarship. Since αρσενος means male, and κοιτην means bed, ANY Greek sentence that mentions a male and a bed will have forms of those two words in it. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the only verses in the Septuagint containing those words."
"Not all scholars are created equal…"
…and not all are honest... including bloggers like yourself
2. What's funny is Unger starts off his 2nd point by saying; "The Bible decides what the Bible means by the terms it uses, not some pagan writers who come centuries later... "
Yet who does he go to later down on his point? Pagan writings that used the word closest to the time of Paul prove the opposite of what he's saying. The Sibylline Oracles puts the word in the category of SOCIAL injustice.
[This is how it works. If you can't find a context of a Bible word in other places of the Biblical narrative, arsenokoite is put in a vice list by Paul that gives it no context, you then go outside the Bible that uses the word at the closest time of it's Bible usage. There isn't one Bible scholar who doesn't do this]
Now this is where the blog author tries to fool you.
He first links to a part of Aristides Apology 13 in saying it's condemning "homosexuality," but this is only talking about Greek Gods who transform themselves into animals to lay with men AND women. It says more about bestiality or God/human sexual relations than homosexuality. Aristides wrote this to the notorious homosexual Emperor Hadrian as a goodwill gesture in explaining the worship practices of those in Hadrian's empire. It would have been stupid to write a condemnation of homosexuality, what Unger believes Aristides is doing here, to the gay emperor who might have pulled a Harod with John the Baptist act on him. This is all shown by Unger in his further examples below of putting what uninspired writers have to say on the level of the Holy Spirit-breathed inspired writers of the Bible, a favorite practice of Ungers' crowd because they expect and get the hatred of homosexuality from the writings of Catholic Church fathers.
He then says; "That would suggest that the usage of the term is in harmony with the previous uses of the term in the Bible (1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10) as well as outside the bible (Sibylline Oracles 2:70-78, the Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians [which is a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [again, a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], the Acts of John 36, Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor 3.11 [again, citation of 1 Cor. 6:9])."
Well yeah, it would put the term in the harmony it was intended, but the Epistle of Ignatius or Polycarp he names give no indication it's about homosexuality. It's just another word put in their vice lists like with Paul's. The Acts of John 36 text reads as; " ...so also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoitēs, the thief and all of this band…” To put "homosexual" between 'robber,' 'swindler,' and 'thief' breaks the flow in the verse, but sex traders (for profit), also linked to the arsenokoitai word, would make perfect sense here. Notice Unger doesn't bring up other Christian writings like The Epistle of Barnabas who uses the word for pederasty or John the Faster who uses it for oral/anal sex between men and women? Unger will leave these and other sources out because they disprove his entire argument it was unanimous in the Church record the word means 'homosexual.'
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae gives nothing on the word other than where you can find its placement in a vice list from Christian and pagan sources.
Boswell wrote:
"It was during the 4th Century the word became confused and lost its original significance, so by the 6th Century it was used to designate activities as different as child molesting and anal intercourse between husband and wife."
If Unger really cared about the Jewish perspective he's always bringing up, he'd know the Babylonian Talmud uses the word in the context of only pederasty with Maimonides doing the same. What? Did he forget to mention that to you? The Talmud is only second to the Torah itself to the Jews even today.
Nothing this blog writer has linked or written or pointed out what others have written indicates that this word means a homosexual or homosexuality as it stands alone, it just isn't there.
3. "I don't know of one scholar who thinks Paul was; “likely referencing an earlier Scripture about men sleeping with people that weren’t their wives.”
It was neither Helminiak nor Boswell who make it about prostitution and pederasty). I think he's just throwing names out of gay-affirming scholars in wanting you to think he's read their books and found them unconvincing.
I agree with him here in that neither Moicheia nor Porneia would be terms used by Paul to mean homosexual sex.
4. Number 4 says nothing.
"I've convinced myself I'm right, so I must be right. Find me more cheap-looking stock photos!"
- Lyndon Unger.
5. Unger is right and the guy he's refuting on Facebook is wrong. Malakoi (lit; softie) ISN'T in 1 Timothy, but again this proves MY point in grand style by going back to my two points I've put on my blog before.
If arsenokoita' is the "aggressor" in a homosexual relationship and malakoi the "passive" partner in 1 Corinthians, why is malakoi absent in 1 Timothy? An arsenokoitai would be missing the other half of his relationship. If they are a word pair, no other vice list with either malakoi or arsenokoitai, and there are many with malakoi prior to Paul. Many with arsenokoitai after Paul, and never are they paired together.
If
'arsenokoitai' can be the catch-all word for both sides of a homosexual
relationship, why does Paul bother using malakoi in 1
Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when
used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative
aggressor, never the passive. That means it can't apply to both partners
in an act and cannot be a catch-all term for all homosexual activity.
Now, what 5 points again? The blog author needs to take his blog title to heart or take up long-haul trucking because he isn't good at this.
Jewish hipsters think homophobes should Lign in drerd un bakn beygls.
