Romans 1 isn’t anti-gay. It’s jt plagiarized that way. | Hackg Christiany

Contents:

• GAY
• GAYSPEAK AND GAY SUBJECTS AUDVISUAL TRANSLATN: STRATEGI ITALIAN DUBBG
• LEVIC 18:22 MEANS WHAT?A BIBLE VERSE SUPPOSEDLY ABOUT GAY SEX ISN’T SO CLEARJONATHAN POLETTI·FOLLOWPUBLISHED I’M JONATHAN. I BLOG GOD.·6 M READ·FEB 16, 2019--46SHAREHOMOSEXUALY ISN’T CHRISTIAN. WHAT ULD BE CLEARER? JT CHECK LEVIC 18:22. IT DON’T MATTER WHICH TRANSLATN. GOD HAT GAYS ALL OF THEM.
• ROMANS 1 ISN’T ANTI-GAY. IT’S JT PLAGIARIZED THAT WAY.

GAY

Do not be ceived; neher fornitors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men of passive homosexual acts [μαλακοὶ], nor men of active homosexual acts [ἀρσενοκοῖται], [25]. You will notice that the argument om the 1946 project is false based on the 1881 English Revised Versn published Bra and the 1901 Amerin Standard Versn and the history of the term “homosexual.

GAYSPEAK AND GAY SUBJECTS AUDVISUAL TRANSLATN: STRATEGI ITALIAN DUBBG

The olr pre-1946 leral translatns words are very clear, “effemate [μαλακοὶ] [soft men], nor abers of themselv wh men [ἀρσενοκοῖται] [liers wh men], ” and the newer translatns: “men of passive homosexual acts [μαλακοὶ], nor men of active homosexual acts [ἀρσενοκοῖται]. The first known e of the term homosexual English is Charl Gilbert Chaddock’s 1892 translatn of Richard von Krafft-Ebg’s Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practic. So, when the 1946 Project claims that the term homosexual was not ed the Bible before 1946, this is te bee was not a mon word at the time, and had a different meang the early days when the 1901 Amerin Standard Versn (ASV) was published or the 1881 English Revised Versn (ERV).

This is why the 1946 Revised Standard Versn uld now e the word homosexual bee of a better unrstandg of Greek and the word was more mon by then and unrstood as two persons of the same sex havg ongog sexual relatns wh each other.

Executive produced by the director of the 2007 award-wng film, For the Bible Tells Me So, 1946: The Mistranslatn That Shifted a Culture is a new documentary that vtigat how the word “homosexual” was entered to the Bible, how one man tried to stop , and how a team of rearchers recently unearthed evince that challeng eply-held beliefs about LGBTQ+ people and their place God’s kgdom. Unfortunately, the revised versn of the RSV which replaced “homosexual” wh “sexual perverts” wasn’t published until 1971 — 25 years after the mistranslatn occurred. God nmng the practice of homosexualy at 1 Timothy 1:10, and the nmnatn and prohibn of homosexualy New Ttament tim by referrg to the historil example of Sodom and Gomorrah at Ju 7.

LEVIC 18:22 MEANS WHAT?A BIBLE VERSE SUPPOSEDLY ABOUT GAY SEX ISN’T SO CLEARJONATHAN POLETTI·FOLLOWPUBLISHED I’M JONATHAN. I BLOG GOD.·6 M READ·FEB 16, 2019--46SHAREHOMOSEXUALY ISN’T CHRISTIAN. WHAT ULD BE CLEARER? JT CHECK LEVIC 18:22. IT DON’T MATTER WHICH TRANSLATN. GOD HAT GAYS ALL OF THEM.

The fact that Lat has no digeno word for such a person may suggt that a passive participant a homosexual relatnship was not nmned by Roman law so long as he was not a Roman cizen. Homosexual acts between ee mal were regard wh ntempt bee one partner would have to take on the passive role (sertivy) sued only to women and slav (Veyne 1987: 204).

Pl is perhaps simply scribg sexual s general terms verse 24, although his more specific words vers 26–27 suggt that homosexual relatns may be his md verse 24 as well. [15] That homosexual relatns are ntrary to nature, the sense that they vlate what God tend, is munited sayg that women abandoned “the natural e for that which is ntrary to nature” (τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, tēn physikēn chrēs eis tēn para phys, v.

Send, the phrase “ntrary to nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) is rooted Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish tradns that saw homosexual relatns as vlatns of the created orr (see below). Instead, acrd wh Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish tradn, Pl rejects homosexualy as ntrary to the created orr—homosexual activy is a vlatn of what God tend when he created men and women (Hays 1986: 192–94; Malick 1993: 335). Moreover, the ia that perasty is view is ntradicted by the reference to the homosexual acts of women verse 26 (Malick 1993: 339; Byrne 1996: 76), for perasty, by fn, volv men and boys, and evince is lackg that women engaged sexual activy wh girls.

ROMANS 1 ISN’T ANTI-GAY. IT’S JT PLAGIARIZED THAT WAY.

Sheppard (1985) adms that Pl’s rejectn of homosexualy nnot be explaed away but argu that lovg homosexual relatns n be accepted the light of the non as a whole and the regnn that our unrstandg of the Word of God advanc as we ga more knowledge about homosexualy. What Wright argu, and other scholars have followed him here, is that the Ple term arsenokoai [male partner homosexual terurse] is a Ple novatn rivg om the phrase, arsenos koēn the two texts om Levic. Hence, even if were disvered that we are geilly predisposed to certa sful behavurs like alholism or homosexualy, such disveri would not elimate our rponsibily for our actns, nor would suggt that such actns are no longer sful.

Sce J do not directly mentn homosexualy but the apostle Pl do so explicly many tim a nmnatory judgment kd of way, the only reurse for those that favor homosexualy is to unrme Pl’s arguments, by twistg (distortg) the meang of the text.