Effeminate

No

Originally posted by galveston75
Ok you can understand it as you see. But the Bible is saying something different.

Oh, I forgot you had a secret decoder ring.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Oh, I forgot you had a secret decoder ring.

So can I just ask you now , categorically, do you think the term 'effenimate' (is that how you spell it? ), in the bible refers to homosexuality?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So can I just ask you now , categorically, do you think the term 'effenimate' (is that how you spell it? ), in the bible refers to homosexuality?

I don't know. None of the terms in either Greek or Latin necessarily refer to a homosexual (and, mind you, there are exact words to designate a catamite and sodomite). I think it is plausible that malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to homosexual men, but it is completely undeciable whether it refers to both catamites and sodomites and whether it specifically refers to prostitutes or pederasts, which were the main manifestations of homosexuality.

Quite possibly too it does not refer to homosexuals at all. Paul earlier mentions aldulterors and fornicators and perhaps he is just repeating himself (just as he talks about the greedy avari and the rapacious rapaces, which are virtual synonyms -- at present I only have the Vulgate which is why I quote the Latin here.) It is not implausible that malakoi, in its classical sense, means simply 'lustful' ('malakos' means simply 'soft' but develops a secondary meaning 'weak in will' or 'cowardly' or even 'morally weak'.) The term could designate anything really.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't know. None of the terms in either Greek or Latin necessarily refer to a homosexual (and, mind you, there are exact words to designate a catamite and sodomite). I think it is plausible that malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to homosexual men, but it is completely undeciable whether it refers to both catamites and sodomites an ...[text shortened]... l' or 'cowardly' or even 'morally weak'.) The term could designate anything really.

"The term could designate anything really" .

Yes, that's what I thought.

This seems to be a real problem in the bible,ie. terms that can designate a myriad of things. It is an opportunity for those with their own agendas to read into it (the bible) whatever they want.
This is why I think that any renderings of the bible should be cross-referenced (where possible) to ascertain a better (real) inerpretation of the bible, rather than just reading into it whatever suits your fancy.

(It is quite ironic that I get accused of rendering my own opinions as truth by some posters here, where in fact I am only trying to get at the truth of this and other holy books. I believe that IF there is truth in any tenet of the bible then it should be able to be cross-referenced via other sources and common sense.)

Originally posted by sumydid
So now, to me at least, we are smack dab in the middle of the same debate from the other thread.

And I'll ask the panel:

If effeminate refers to homosexuality; does it mean practicing homosexuals, or, must it include all people, even those whom simply have homosexual tendencies?

This is an absolutely crucial point when it comes to Christian doctrine.

Yes, it is the practicing homosexual that is submissive to anal sex. I hope
I did not make you feel sick. This is all I will say on the matter. Throw-up
if you must.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What is "...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ". Does that phrase refer to gays?

I am not an expert in Koine Greek, but I think the meaning is quite elusive. The Greek has oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai which literally translates as 'the soft and those who sleep with men'. It is a curious expression. Malakos, s the functionality, not the descriptive value, of the line: avoid illicit sex.[/b]

Paul did not want to refer to homosexuality or prostitution explicitly.

That was an interesting post Conrau K.

Paul does not seem to be reluctant elsewhere to refer to either though:

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ ? Shall I take the members of Christ and make [them] members of a prostitute? Absolutely not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body ? For He says, The two shall be one flesh." (1 Cor. 6:15,16)

" and likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their craving toward one another, males with males committing unseemliness ..." (Romans 1:27)

Do you really observe the Apostle Paul to be reticent to spell out clearly what he was talking about in this area ?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"The term could designate anything really" .

Yes, that's what I thought.

This seems to be a real problem in the bible,ie. terms that can designate a myriad of things. It is an opportunity for those with their own agendas to read into it (the bible) whatever they want.
This is why I think that any renderings of the bible should be cross-reference ...[text shortened]... the bible then it should be able to be cross-referenced via other sources and common sense.)

Well, certainly words are multivalent and a person may exploit vagueness or ambiguity to serve their own ideological purpose. Generally though I am optimistic that sustained scholarly research may yield some way forward. Here the problem is more that the terms Paul uses are idiosyncratic. He seems to have invented a word. We basically only have the context of the passage to help us. I am wary of how a lot of translations have viewed this passage, whether translating it against or in favour of homosexuality. I personally prefer the Douay Rheims which retains the obscurity of the phrase rather than try to pin down an exact meaning.

Originally posted by jaywill

Paul did not want to refer to homosexuality or prostitution explicitly.

That was an interesting post Conrau K.

Paul does not seem to be reluctant elsewhere to refer to either though:

[b]"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ ? Shall I take the members of Christ and make [them] members of a prostitute? Absolut ...[text shortened]... e Apostle Paul to be reticent to spell out clearly what he was talking about in this area ?[/b]

Certainly Paul refers to prostitutes and homosexuality elsewhere. So we might ask, why is the language here so obscure? If Paul really is being vague on purpose, I can only think that Paul is referring to a particular type of illicit sex, some subset of homosexuality or prostitution, which he feels cannot be named directly. Possibly that is why some translators have thought that this phrase refers to rape or sexual abuse of some kind.

Another point is that the relationship between the constituent morphemes ('arsen' and 'koitos'😉 of arsenokoitai is ambiguous. Basically it means 'men-sleepers'. It is not clear whether it means 'men who sleep' or 'those who sleep with men'. If the former, it would probably refer to rapists; if the latter, it would refer to homosexuals or prostitutes. The Vulgate seems to think the latter however.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Oh, I forgot you had a secret decoder ring.

No ring here just eyes that see what all the bibles are saying. Do you need glasses?
When you find them then look up all the versions you can find and the word HOMOSEXUAL is in black and white in them. Nothing mysterious there that I can see.

Originally posted by galveston75
No ring here just eyes that see what all the bibles are saying. Do you need glasses?
When you find them then look up all the versions you can find and the word HOMOSEXUAL is in black and white in them. Nothing mysterious there that I can see.

I quoted quite a few translations, reputable ones too, that did not use the term homosexual. Anyway, what do I care about translations? Surely it is the original Greek that counts most.

And you can hardly consider other translations authoritative when the JW organisation considers most translations errant and has produced its own translation which differs substantially from all other previous translations. Aren't you being a hypocrit?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Certainly Paul refers to prostitutes and homosexuality elsewhere. So we might ask, why is the language here so obscure? If Paul really is being vague on purpose, I can only think that Paul is referring to a particular type of illicit sex, some subset of homosexuality or prostitution, which he feels cannot be named directly. Possibly that is why some transla ld refer to homosexuals or prostitutes. The Vulgate seems to think the latter however.

Another point is that the relationship between the constituent morphemes ('arsen' and 'koitos'😉 of arsenokoitai is ambiguous. Basically it means 'men-sleepers'. It is not clear whether it means 'men who sleep' or 'those who sleep with men'. If the former, it would probably refer to rapists; if the latter, it would refer to homosexuals or prostitutes. The Vulgate seems to think the latter however.

Do you think Paul would be condemning men sleeping as a moral deficiency ?

In the Thessalonian letter there are references to "sleep" as a spiritual problem. But I think it is clear that he is using a word picture of moral laxity and lack of spiritual vigilance.

Let us not sleep. Let us be sober and watchful.

But understanding Paul simply to condemn "men who sleep" physically, seems to be asking for an interpretive problem where none is likely.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Another point is that the relationship between the constituent morphemes ('arsen' and 'koitos'😉 of arsenokoitai is ambiguous. Basically it means 'men-sleepers'. It is not clear whether it means 'men who sleep' or 'those who sleep with men'. If the former, it would probably refer to rapists; if the latter, it would refer to homosexuals or prostitutes ...[text shortened]... physically, seems to be asking for an interpretive problem where none is likely.

I am not going to read anymore on this thread. It has no redeeming qualities.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not going to read anymore on this thread. It has no redeeming qualities.

I did not read every post. but i know what you mean.

And you should follow your spirit.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Another point is that the relationship between the constituent morphemes ('arsen' and 'koitos'😉 of arsenokoitai is ambiguous. Basically it means 'men-sleepers'. It is not clear whether it means 'men who sleep' or 'those who sleep with men'. If the former, it would probably refer to rapists; if the latter, it would refer to homosexuals or prostitutes ...[text shortened]... physically, seems to be asking for an interpretive problem where none is likely.

Do you think Paul would be condemning men sleeping as a moral deficiency ?

Of course not. Did I ever suggest that? The point is this: 'arsen' and 'koitos' refer 'man' and 'bed' respectively ('koitos' has absolutely no connection to the Latin coitus, which is also used in English to refer to sex). Obviously in context this means some kind of sexual interaction. But is it referring to the women (or men) who sleep with a man or the men who sleep with women or men? We don't know. If the former, we are looking at prostitution and homosexuality of some kind; if the latter, we are probably looking at rape.

I don't deny that it denotes some of refers to some illicit sexual act but what exactly it is, I cannot tell.