*
+
PRIMER4CRITICS - PART ONE
.
/ Subject:
Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 14Mar99 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,
alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman wrote:
A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS/4
>>
4. The Problem With Jude
<snip the whole thang!>
.
> "*** Joe ***" <[email protected]>
replies: There is No problem with
> Jude, however some
people have a problem understanding Jude.
> Jude 1:1 Jude, a bondservant
of Jesus Christ ... <snip epistle>
.
Dear Joe, about
your translation: VERY FRAGGIN GROSS!!!!
.
the one who despises bad translations: textman ;>
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 14Mar99 /
.
> [email protected] (JohnJ)
wrote: Joe, this is not as simple a text
> as it seems and there
are differing views on it. <snip da rubbish>
.
That's right, John.
There are views that have the ring of truth to
them, and there are views
that are false and deceitful. It's not very
hard to figure out which
category yours falls under ...
.
> "In the same manner
as they" seems to be referring back to the angels
> of v6. Some of these
passages have perplexed scholars for centuries,
.
So what? Even a
milligram of spiritual truth is more than enough to
perplex the scholars
...
.
> since v9 is not recorded
anywhere in the O.T. record. Verse 14 hints
> that some of these
remarks are based on Enoch. There is a legend
> recorded about angels
wishing to take daughters of men, 1Enoch 6-8
> which is apparently
based on Gen. 6:1-4. It appears that Jude is
> speaking here using
Jewish legend which his readers would know.
> Therefore, it seems
far fetched to see "strange flesh" as same gender,
> when the legend of
the angels desiring daughters of men has been
> brought into it. It
seems that the Sodomites desiring to rape male
> angels may have been
an element of this sin. It is not a very solid
> Scripture to use in
order to condemn homosexual orientation or a
> caring expression of
it. -- JohnJ: A Christian friend.
.
It is not "far-fetched"
in any way. What Jude is describing is two
separate and distinct
sexual crimes. However, I will allow that the
bare term "strange-flesh"
in and of itself is insufficient to condemn
all homosexual activities.
BUT when verse seven is taken in conjunction
with the rest of the
epistle, THEN it is a powerful and irrefutable
expression of the divine
mind on the matter of homo-expression!
.
the one who reads between the lines: textman ;>
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics/3 / 14Mar99 /
.
>>> JohnJ <[email protected]>
answers: I've clipped the rest of this
>>> silly post. If Paul
did not mean males where you rendered it
>>> "sexual perverts",
why did he write in Greek, "male-bed".
.
>> Dear JohnJ, 'arsenokoitai'
does not mean 'male-bed'. According to my
>> lexicon, 'arsenokoites'
means 'one guilty of unnatural offenses'.
>> Now I have seen definitions
that make reference to this obscure
>> 'male-bed' thingy
of yours, but this obviously harkens back to the
>> original root meanings
of the root words. Which is to say that
>> centuries later, when
the Koine Greek was being used everywhere,
>> the word had developed
new meanings and uses. Thus when Paul uses
>> 'arsenokoitai' he
is obviously NOT referring to 'male-beds', but
>> rather to sexual perverts
in general. If Paul had wanted to be more
>> particular by focusing
specifically on gays, he would have said
>> pederasts (or 'paiderasste')
or sodomites, or something to that
>> effect. So there is
a very good reason why Paul chose the term
>> 'arsenokoitai', and
it certainly wasn't to make reference to
>> something as absurd
as male-beds!
.
> [email protected] (JohnJ)
replies: Strong's Greek Dictionary of the
> New Testament, 1890
Ed. "733...arsenokoites, ...from 730 and 2845; a
> sodomite" "730..arrhen
...or ..arsen.. from 142; male(as stronger for
> lifting)" "2845..koite...from
2749; a couch; by extens. cohabitation;
> by impl. the male sperm"
.
The "male sperm"
you say? ... hehehe ... So let me get this straight:
'sodomite' comes from
'male sperm' which comes from 'couch males'? ...
Is that right? ... hehehe
... Okay then! ...
btw: They had strange
ideas in 1890, I guess?
.
> Thayer's Greek-English
Lexicon: "[arsen], a male; [koite] a bed,
> one who lies with a
male as with a female, a sodomite"
.
> The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology, an
> enlargement and revision
of the German 'Theologisches Begriffslexikon
> Zum Neuen Testament'...1986
"(arsenokoites), male homosexual,
> pederast, sodomite"
.
I think all this
is a good example of the persistence of stubborn and
erroneous interpretations.
This word clearly arises from this idea
'a man who beds other
men'. No one is disputing this. The essential
questions are: How does
Paul use the word? And what does he mean by it?
eh? Does he use it the
way these modern authorities do, to indicate
gays? And only gays?
Or is he using it in a more general manner? Thus
we have basically two
viable options available here: (1)'arsenokoites'
means "one guilty of
unnatural offenses" (Liddell & Scott). (2)
"(arsenokoites), male
homosexual, pederast, sodomite" (NIDofNTT). Or is
it just a matter of taste
which definition we accept as true? No, it is
not! The only reliable
authority to decide the matter is the Spirit of
Truth speaking through
the Believer and the inspired Word of God acting
in his/her heart. And
does it matter if whether or not "gays" is a
better translation of
'arsenokoites' than "sexual perverts"? I think
so. At least it does
if you care about the Lord at all ...
.
> "On this term BAGD
109 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" states, "a male who
> practices homosexuality,
pederast, sodomite 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Ti 1:10; Pol
> 5:3. Cf. Ro 1:27. DSBailey,
Homosexuality and the Western Christian
> Tradition, ’55." LN
88.280 states, "a male partner in homosexual
> intercourse"‘homosexual.’...."
Taken from notes on:
> http://www.bible.org/netbible/welcome.htm
.
> The BAGD is A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
> Early Christian Literature,
edited by Bauer, Ardnt, Gingrich, and
> Danker. Notice, a bisexual
can practice homosexuality, a heterosexual
> can practice homosexuality.
Also, the "homosexual intercourse" phrase
> as 'homosexual' being
used as an adjective. Again, if one is to
> restrict themselves
to just one word to translate 'arsenokoites', it
> is accurately a "pederast"
or "sodomite", NOT homosexuals as the NASB
> and NKJV make it.
.
But John, 'paiderastes'
is the *accurate* translation of "pederast";
*much* better than 'arsenokoites'.
Or are you seriously suggesting that
Paul could not have known
that word, and was thus left to resort to the
more ancient 'arsenokoites'?!
.
> Now, Textman, as to
you making 'arsenokoites' mean "sexual perverts",
> you're off base.
.
But John! Didn't
you earlier say that I am a good translator, and that
"sexual perverts" is
indeed a good match for 'arsenokoites'? Wut? Are
you now taking it all
back? Will you now say that you were just kidding?
.
> I know of two translations
which have "sexual perverts" in 1Cor. 6:9
> and they each one combine
"malakos" with "arsenokoites" to make a
> broad term, "sexual
perverts": the 1973 RSV, and the 1989 REB. They
> do not translate 'arsenokoites'
as "sexual perverts".
.
Here again it is
your logic that is skewed, not mine. It is the
inclusive sense of the
passage as a whole, and Paul's thinking in
general, that justifies
the logic of combining Paul's terms (ie. the
meanings of these neighborly
peoples are likewise, if you get my
drift). But actually,
REB&RSV "slip 'malakos' underneath" (as it were)
because (a) they had
no idea what to do with the damn thing. (b) it is
a long and established
tradition in Christian translations to hide,
suppress, ignore, misdirect,
etc, any and all sexual connotations of
any and all words, whenever
possible, wherever possible, because hey
why shouldn't the Word
of God be as embarrassed about the divine
awareness of human sexuality
as all us good and faithful Christian
type translator guys
... The SWINOZ!
.
> Now, I'm going to paste
in a quote from your other post, and it
> exposes you for just
what you are:
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman
wrote: Well, well, well! I art so overcome, that
>> I art at a loss as
to how to begin. What can we say about such a
>> huge and smelly pile
of bullshit?! Dare we suggest that religious-
>> tolerance.org has
not the faintest glimmer of understanding as
>> regards the unfortunate
epistle of Jude? <snip remainder>
.
> You are nothing more
than a fake cult leader of some type. -- JohnJ
.
That's the spirit! 
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer
on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 15Mar99 /
.
>>> [email protected] (JohnJ)
wrote: Joe, this is not as simple a text
>>> as it seems and there
are differing views on it. <snip da rubbish>
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman
answered: That's right, John. There are views
>> that have the ring
of truth to them, and there are views that
>> are false and deceitful.
It's not very hard to figure out which
>> category yours falls
under ...
.
> [email protected] (JohnJ)
replies: The New Greek-English Interlinear
> New Testament, UBS
4th edition, Nestle-Aland 26th edition(1990) the
> literal translation
of Jude7: "As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities
> around them in the
like manner to these [angels] having indulged in
> fornication and having
gone after different flesh are set forth ..."
.
Say there John,
that's a darn fine translation U gots dere. Can we
have some more please?
"... are set forth [as] an example undergoing
[the] penalty eternal
fire. 1.8 Likewise indeed also these dreaming
ones on the one hand
defile [the] flesh, on the other reject lordship,
and blaspheme glorious
beings." ... Geez, I wonder who that could be?
.
> The Revised English
Bible(1989) on v7
> "Remember Sodom and
Gomorrah and the neighboring towns; like the
> angels, they committed
fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts"
.
A semi-good translation
here, to be sure; but in this case the
clearly intended pointed-ness
of "strange-flesh" is completely lost
to view in the all-embracing
inclusiveness of "unnatural lusts".
So much so that
homosexuality can be denied; when that is *very*
NOT the prophet's intent!
.
> Can anyone point to
where angels engaged in fornication and
> unnatural lusts in
Scripture?
.
Note to Reader:
John is here reasoning from error to error ...
.
> Therefore, it must
be to the apocryphal book of Enoch that this
> refers. Matthew Poole,
17th century, and John Gill, 18th century did
> not believe an actual
apocalyptic book of Enoch existed. Manuscripts
> have since been found
for these books of Enoch, with many found in
> the Qumran caves. They
have recently been re-edited by Matthew Black
> (1970). I am taking
this from The International Standard Bible
> Encyclopedia, Fully
Revised, Vol.1, page156: "The main part of the
> first book is concerned
with the problem of evil. Evil is traced to
> the fallen angels who
lusted after the daughters of men. The fallen
> angels instructed men
in many arts and crafts of civilization.
> Furthermore, all sin
is ascribed to these fallen angels (10:8). They
> are allowed to plague
mankind throughout human history, but Enoch
> foresees their final
doom." Therefore, it is not generally thought
> today that Jude 7 is
referring to homosexuality for now the mystery
> of the background is
clearer.
.
Good Grief already!
The background may be "clearer"; but this has
obviously not helped
the scholars and commentators to understand Jude
any better. No, not one
whit better! Indeed, the only thing that is
clear is that the ubiquitious
bias in favor of perversion is now
allowed to determine
what the scriptures are *really* saying ...
.
> I conclude with the
remark in the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary,
> Rev.Ed. - "If there
is any identification of Sodom with homosexuality
> in the NT, it is in
Jude 7 (cf. 2 Pet. 2:6-8), but it is more likely
> that the 'unnatural
lust' mentioned there is that of mortals for
> angels (Lot's visitors)."
page 433
.
Well John, since
the prophet Jude does NOT say anything about
'unnatural lust' in v.7,
I'd say that the Harper Collins Bible
Dictionary, Rev.Ed. is
an unreliable source at best.
Nor is anything
else said here correct in any way.
.
> But, I'm sure people
would prefer to listen to 'textman' who
> speaks with a filthy
mouth:
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman
wrote: Well, well, well! I art so overcome, that
>> I art at a loss as
to how to begin. What can we say about such a
>> huge and smelly pile
of bullshit?!
.
> Prophet indeed!
-- JohnJ: A Christian friend.
.
"A Christian friend",
you say? Is that 'a friend of Christians', or 'a
Christian, also a friend'?
Art thou a Christian, friend John? Then why
do you place such emphasis
on one word so as to underline and underline
and underline my "filthy
mouth" so as to demonstrate that no prophet
would ever ever stoop
so low as to employ the "BS" word? ... Have you
ever stopped to consider
that perhaps the Lord's idea of who shall be
a prophet may not be
the same as yours? ... I'll wager not.
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer
on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 15Mar99 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 [email protected]
wrote:
>> Dear Joe, about your
translation: VERY FRAGGIN GROSS!!!!
>>
the one who despises bad translations: textman ;>
.
> [email protected] (JohnJ)
answers: Has anyone looked in their
> dictionary to see what
"fraggin" means? I can find "frag", but not
> "fraggin". I can find
it by using search engines on the Internet. I
> suggest all put it
in their search engines and check out the contexts
> where it is found.
This guy is another "Michael Christ"...
> a fruitcake whose verbiage
can snag the ignorant.
.
"a fruitcake whose
verbiage can snag the ignorant" ... LOL ...
Dear John, your verbiage
art verily snagglesome also forsooth ...
btw: Now I don't know
about the contexts presented by your search
engines; but I do know
where textman picked it up. Some years ago I ran
across a certain intergalactic
scoundrel called Lobo. He's the ugliest
and meanest SOB you'd
never want to meet; with pure white skin and wild
black hair and tough
as nails, etc. ... Very NOT recommended!
.
> Joe, you did well to
ask his credentials to presume on translation.
> JohnJ: A Christian
friend.
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer
on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 15Mar99 /
.
>> JohnJ <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Joe, you did well
to ask his credentials to presume on translation.
.
> "*** Joe ***" <[email protected]>
answers: Hi John
> Yes, but I was hoping
that he did. -- Joe #7
.
huh? Wut? U wuz
hoping that he did ... WUT?! Did have credentials,
you mean? As in scholarly
credentials so as to prove me competent to
translate? As in then
your hopes would be realized? ... What?! ... I
think you are both missing
something. Sheesh! Pay attention U guys!
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Primer
on Homo-Hermeneutics/4 / 15Mar99 /
.
>> [email protected]
wrote: <snip> This is a slight improvement;
>> in that the KJV is
a *marginally* better translation than the one
>> you presented previously.
But this too is, alas, woefully inadequate;
>> and indeed a rather
shoddy piece of work. The Inclusive Edited
>> Version is, by comparison,
vastly superior in every conceivable way.
>> After all, who is
more able to translate the words of a prophet than
>> another prophet? Neither
scholar nor bishop nor committee is thus
>> fit to do justice
to the wonderfully synthetic mind of the prophet
>> Jude! ... Therefore,
receive thee the IEV with faith and gratitude;
>> as befits a true disciple
being worthy of the Name:
.
> "*** Joe ***" <[email protected]>
answers: Wow, it is great to have someone
> who reads and speaks
Greek. I have a few questions that maybe you can
> help me with. outoi
de hsan eugenesteroi twn en qessalonikh oitineV
> edexanto ton logon
meta pashV proqumiaV to kaq hmeran anakrinonteV
> taV grafaV ei ecoi
tauta outwV
.
Dear Joe, let me
begin by making it clear that I never claimed to
be an expert in the Koine
Greek, nor am I fluent enough to speak the
language freely and easily.
Nevertheless, it did not take me long to
realize that your Greek
is barbaric and atrocious in the extreme!
No doubt this was deliberate
on your part; but, thanks to a wonderful
friend, your awful words
were made recognizable and understandable.
For those who may be
curious, here is an English translation of Joe's
alleged Greek questions:
"These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that
they received the word with all readiness of
mind, and searched the
scriptures daily whether those things were so"
(Acts 17:11). In other
words, there are no questions here. A pox on Joe
x
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+
/ Subject: Re: Reply
to religioustolerance.org / 15Mar99 /
.
>> On 14Mar99 textman
wrote: REPLY TO RELIGIOUSTOLERANCE.ORG
>>
/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics / 14March99 /
.
>>> Bruce Robinson <[email protected]>
of www.religioustolerance.org
>>> emails textman in
answer to his criticisms of their online essay:
>>> <snip> The longer
that I work in the field of religious tolerance,
>>> the more I realize
that EVERYTHING depends upon your basic concept
>>> of the Bible. If
you believe that it is inspired by God, and thus
>>> inerrant, then everything
else follows: from a Christian's beliefs
>>> concerning equality
of the sexes, concerning homosexuality,
>>> concerning spanking
children etc.
.
>> Dear Bruce, I tend
to agree. However, I must take exception to
>> your direct line from
inspiration to inerrancy. The scriptures are
>> certainly inspired
(ie. written under the guidance of the Holy
>> Spirit), but this
does *not* mean that it is perfect in every
>> detail. Indeed, I
firmly reject the concept of inerrancy; at least
>> in regards to matters
of science and history.
.
> [email protected] (JohnJ)
answers: I suppose the guidance of God
> the Holy Spirit is
less than perfect.
.
It is when you
mix it up with such a silly beast as humankind ... Who
can foul up anything
... Even the grace and mercy and inspiration of
God! ... Check out some
church history if you don't believe me ...
.
> mmmmm a less
than perfect God.
.
I didn't say that,
John. You did. So *please* don't put your ill-
conceived words and thoughts
into my mouth. Okay? ... thx so much
.
> ... You are indeed
a flake and a cult leader of some type. -- JohnJ
.
You're *still*
missing the mark, friend johnny . . .
And you
know what *that* means, right? . . .
:)
.
Please proceed to Primer4Critics/2 up next ...
x
textman
*