Fundamentalist Dialogues part 3

If you remember from last week’s dialogue “V” indicated that he believed that I said previously that “abomination” always means “idolatry, even though I had never said so. Even though I clarified again, you will note below that he apparently has “forgotten” what I wrote and brings up the same things AGAIN.

Following that redundancy, he skips over what I wrote about Romans 1, and jumps to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. This time, I attempt to make it clear to V that his arguments and differing interpretations of scriptural passages aren’t between V and me, but between V and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance as well as Oxford University, which published the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Don’t you suppose that when he realizes that his argument is not only with me but also with scholars recognized and revered by many church denominations that he will recognize that his interpretations were erroneous? Don’t bet on it! He reminds me of one spoken of in the saying, “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the truth.”

If abomination means “idolatry” in every passages, including Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, it is strange that the word “idolatry” does not appear in these passages.
Again, Strong’s 8441, does not mean that “abomination” is only “idolatry.” You say “abomination” means “idolatry” in some places but you do not give one reference.
I would like to know how you can say “abomination” in Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 refers to idolatry? I want one passage that teaches the word “abomination” means “idolatry.”

Also I would like to know of one other passage that “abomination” means “idolatry?” I gave you 7 different things in Prov. 6 which are an abomination, and I can give many more that are described as an abomination, which are not referring to idolatry. This proves that that abomination is that which “disgusting, an abhorrence.” Idols definitely are an “abomination” but many other things are also an abomination.

I know that we are under the New Testament, so I am quoting from the NIV - 1 Cor. 6:9-11
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Now, this is not referring to temple worship, this is referring to any one who has been a homosexual.

The only way God authorizes marriage both in the Old Testament and the New Testament: “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
(Gen. 2:22-25)

Jesus said it in Matt. 19:4-6 “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The apostle Paul wrote: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” (Eph. 5:31)
WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE ALLOWING MARRIAGE WITH THE SAME SEX?

V writes: If abomination means “idolatry” in every passages, including Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, it is strange that the word “idolatry” does not appear in these passages.
Again, Strong’s 8441, does not mean that “abomination” is only “idolatry.” You say “abomination” means “idolatry” in some places but you do not give one reference.

Rev. Y responds: I’ve never said that abomination means idolatry in every passage in the Bible. You asked me that question before. Here, again, is how I replied the last time:
While I’m not saying that abomination necessarily means “idolatry” every place in the Bible I am saying that it does so very often. And it does so in the passages you mentioned, as well as in other passages as relates to what people believe refers to homosexuality.

V writes: I would like to know how you can say “abomination” in Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 refers to idolatry? I want one passage that teaches the word “abomination” means “idolatry.”

Rev. Y. responds: O.K., V: I’ve already answered these questions--you just don’t like the answers. The fact that you can give me several quotes where abomination does not mean idolatry, doesn’t alter the fact that idolatry is also encompassed in the word--in fact, the Strong’s says it “ESPECIALLY” means idolatry. So, if you don’t think it means idolatry, or if you don’t think that the bible uses it to mean idolatry, then your argument is with Strong’s, not me.

Your list in Prov. 6 may demonstrate that there are things that are abominable which do not relate to idolatry, but I’ve never disputed that. That doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not idolatry is an abomination, or rather, whether the word “toevah/toebah” applies to idolatry. Strong’s says it does. You want to say it doesn’t. But then again, your dispute is with Strong’s, not me. I accept Strong’s, and I believe what Strong’s says, and I believe that it applies to the passages in Leviticus previously mentioned. I’ve now offered you a ton of evidence to prove to you that it does. You just refuse to accept it. You are locked into your own opinion, and you will not be swayed by any evidence or proof to the contrary. That’s too bad.

You want more proof? You want other references where “abomination” refers to “idolatry?” How about Deuteronomy 7:25, 7:26, 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 18:9, 18:12, 20:18, 27:15, 29:17 and 32:16. There you have not one or two, but eleven places where, according to the KJV, “abomination” is used with respect to idolatry, and that’s just in one book.

V writes: I know that we are under the New Testament, so I am quoting from the NIV…

Rev. Y. responds: Well, I’m glad to see that you are familiar with the NIV. When I wrote to you about Deuteronomy 23:18, you seemed to have no knowledge of the wording other than the KJV (I’m assuming). You obviously didn’t know what the NIV had to say about it. Well, now that you know that I was telling the truth about cult or temple prostitution, and how it had been misidentified previously as homosexuality does not the evidence I provided make you question your previous stance on the passages in Leviticus? After all, both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as well as Romans 1, speak of the same thing.

V writes: 1 Cor. 6:9-11
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Now, this is not referring to temple worship, this is referring to any one who has been a homosexual.

Rev. Y. responds: I don’t know how many translations of the bible you use, V, but I have around twenty different translations. The reason I have so many different translations is because things read differently from one translation to another, and I may gain new insights from testing one against the other to try to ascertain as close as possible what the original authors might have been trying to say.

Now, things get especially tricky when it comes to determining what was originally meant in the above passages you quoted, specifically the words the NIV translates “ male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.” There can be a great deal of difference from one translation to the next in the way the words in the original languages are interpreted. With respect to the emboldened words from 1 Cor. 6:9-11, the KJV uses “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, while the New King James uses “homosexuals nor sodomites” with a footnote on homosexuals that reads, that is, catamites, the Good News Bible just uses “homosexual perverts,” the New American Bible just uses the word sodomites, the Jerusalem Bible uses catamites and sodomites, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, uses the words male prostitutes and sodomites.

Now I could take you through a discourse on difficulties encountered with respect to the words used in the original language, but you can find that on my website in the section on 1 Cor. 6:9, so I shouldn’t have to repeat it here. It is all there. Suffice it to say, the two words in question are malekos and arsenkoites, the first means “soft,” and the second is really a very rare word, such that most scholars are unsure of what the word means other than it has something to do with “man bed.” Some scholars believe that the word refers, not just to male prostitutes, but specifically to the male temple or cult prostitutes. At least one scholar believes the words refer to pederasts, who are not to be confused with homosexuals. The foremost authority on New Testament words, Vine’s, makes no attempt to define arsenkoites, but merely refers the reader to 1 Cor. 6:9, instead of offering a definition.

That being said, I want to call to your attention to the last and latest translation of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, (copyright 2001). While the wording used in the scripture comes from a NRSV copyrighted in 1989, the notations are new. For 1 Cor. 6:9 & 10, we find this footnote: The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to “homosexuals,” as in inappropriate older translations; “masturbators” and male prostitutes might be a better translation. So there you have it. According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 10 do not address homosexuality or homosexuals.

So, while you might want to make a case for a condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on. You can dispute any and everything I have written on the subject, which is on my website, but your arguments, I’m afraid, will have a hard time standing up against Oxford University and their latest scholarship on the subject.

I make every effort to try to keep up on the latest scholarship as relates to homosexuality so that I tell my people the truth as much as is within my power to do so. I believe it is grave error and sin to malign and reject a whole body of people on just the basis of their sexual orientation, especially when that rejection is based on such scant “evidence,” which I trust you must now have to agree with me is erroneous.

V writes: The only way God authorizes marriage both in the Old Testament and the New Testament : “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
(Gen. 2:22-25)

Rev. Y. responds: The question to you, V, is where is the scripture disallowing marriage with the same sex? The answer is that scripture doesn’t address the subject, one way or another. There is no condemnation of homosexuals in the Bible, nor is there any provision for disallowing homosexual marriage. All the quotes you can offer which refer to heterosexual joining do not in any way preclude the joining of two homosexuals. The Bible simply doesn’t speak to the matter.

Therefore, the issue becomes one of justice. Shall we not aspire to the words of the Prophet, Micah: “(God) has shown you what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (6:8) You may not understand homosexuals, you may not even like the idea of homosexuality, but you are called to treat homosexuals with love and compassion, with justice and mercy.

Should not every person have the opportunity to love and to be loved, to experience the comfort and caring which is offered in family relationship? Homosexuals fall in love and desire marriage for the same reasons that heterosexuals do. Should not any two unmarried adults be allowed to solemnize their covenanted relationships, all for the same reasons? Who has the right to say they shouldn’t?

Rev. Yvette
Freeing the Spirit Bible Commentaries
A Ministry of the Universal Fellowship
Of Metropolitan Community Churches

The Fundamentalist Dialogues

Part 3