That’s not quite correct. If we look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 (not nice) and the commentaries around the words to explain it, we can find things like the below. Summary: not just being gay but even being effeminate. Additionally, I’ve never heard a single sermon where they were saying the Greek doesn’t actually mean that. They all very much meant it.
Reading exercise if anyone likes walls of text.
English amplified:
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (perversely) effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers [whose words are used as weapons to abuse, insult, humiliate, intimidate, or slander], nor swindlers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
Paul’s Meaning in 1 Corinthians 6:9
First, the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai describe individuals who are engaged in activity that Paul regards to be sin. We see this point in at least two ways. First, these two words fall in a much longer list in 1 Cor 6:9-10. Paul insists that persons whose lives are characterized by these actions “will [not] inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10). There is considerable overlap between this list and the list of 1 Cor 5:11, which describes individuals who are subject to the discipline of the church. Second, the word arsenokoitai appears in one other place in the New Testament, 1 Tim 1:10. In the context of Paul’s argument of 1 Tim 1:10, this word describes a violation of the moral law of God (“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for … men who practice homosexuality,” 1 Tim 1:9,10 [ESV]). These two words, then, describe activities that are violations of the law of God, that exclude one from the Kingdom, and that are subject to the church’s discipline. Paul understands these two words to describe sin.
Second, Paul understands these two words to describe a particular kind of sexualsin. These two words follow three words, two of which denote immoral sexual offenders (“the sexually immoral … adulterers” [ESV]). The word arsenokoitai follows “the sexual immoral” in Paul’s catalog of sins against the Decalogue in 1 Tim 1:10. The context in which the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai appear together, then, shows that these terms refer to a specific type of sin against the seventh commandment.
Third, these two terms together capture the range of male same-sex activity. Some have argued that Paul is only condemning a particular or narrow kind of homosexual behavior, such as prostitution, pederasty, or rape. On this reading, there is space in Paul’s ethic for non-exploitative homosexual activity between two consenting adults. This view runs aground on Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18-31 and it finds no support from 1 Cor 6:9. For one thing, in Paul’s day, the term malakos had already acquired a technical meaning when it was used in sexual contexts.[2] It denoted the passive partner in male same-sex activity.[3] The term arsenokoitai makes the point particularly clearly. As commentaries frequently note, Paul is the first Greek writer who appears to have used this term. It is a compound formed from two nouns meaning “man” and “bed.” Its origins are not difficult to discover. These two terms appear together in LXX Lev 18:22 and 20:13.[4] In fact, in Lev 20:13 the two component parts of Paul’s new word stand side by side. Both these passages in Leviticus roundly and categorically condemn same-sex activity. This background is important to understand what Paul means by the term arsenokoitai. This word must refer to a wide range of male same-sex activity and may properly be translated “bedders of males, those [men] who take [other] males to bed,” “men who sleep or lie with males.”[5] Since it is paired with the word malakoi, the word arsenokoitai may particularly denote the active partner in male same-sex activity. The two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, then, capture, in unqualified and comprehensive fashion, male same-sex activity.
Fourth, Paul is concerned to address sinful sexual behavior in these two terms, but not only such behavior. In Paul’s day, the term malakoi could denote more than just sexual activity. Such persons sometimes “intentionally engage[d] in a process of feminization to erase further their masculine appearance and manner.”[6] That is to say, the word malakos was used to describe “a man who is trying to be a woman,” a man “who significantly blur[s] gender distinctions.”[7] To be sure, Paul’s primary concern in 1 Cor 6:9 is with same-sex behavior. But the apostle is also aware that, in the social context of which he and his readers were part, those who committed themselves to this lifestyle not infrequently blurred the culturally discernible lines between a man and a woman.[8] It is in this sense that one can appreciate the translation “effeminate” for malakoi, even if one opts for another English word that better captures the sense of the Greek word in the context of Paul’s argument.
Those are all really interesting theories, but the simple matter is that if it was referencing homosexuality, there were plenty of appropriate words Paul could have used.
Specifically, erastes and eromenos.
The words Paul used certainly have sexual connotations, but if he meant gay sex, plenty of words already existed for it.
There’s a ton of theories, but no one “knows” exactly what Paul means here. It’s a strange word with almost no parallels anywhere else in history.
The problem with all of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament is that it has been altered over time again and again. While for some texts in the old bible there is good reason to assume them to be reliable, a lot is not.
Especially the New Testament is clearly a product of trying to mix abrahamic faith with pagan beliefs. You can see this in the concept of trinity and Jesus being the literal son of god. This directly contradicts the commandments given to Moses and Allah has rejected it again in the Quran. Also these concepts were not of the time of Jesus, but developed some hundreds year after. It is also contradictory to much the New Testament says about the life of Jesus, as he was explicit not to speak in his name, but in the name of God.
This is very different to the Quran, where already at the time of revelation much effort was made for preservation in the original form, as well as the life of the prophert Mohammed being documented too.
Biblical literalism is an invention of 20th century evangelicalism. It’s not because you find one or two verses which seem to condemn something that this thing should be condemned forever; and in the case of homosexuality, the verses used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality aren’t clear at all. Thus homophobic Christian bigots condemn homosexuality not because they’re Christians, but because they’re bigots.
You choose which rules you want to believe in. Some sects follow all of them, some follow none, some follow all the hateful ones, some follow the basic moral tenets. If your sect doesn’t care about something, you just kinda pretend it isn’t a part of the Bible until it fades into the background. If your sect does care about something, you drag it up as often as you can in sermons to hammer home its importance.
Does your book not say that homosexuality is a sin?
It really doesn’t. English translations of it do, but in the Greek, it pointedly avoids using the words for homosexuality.
The one exception is Romans 1, but it’s a rhetorical argument against the legalism of the Jewish Christians, not against homosexuality.
That’s not quite correct. If we look at 1 Corinthians 6:9 (not nice) and the commentaries around the words to explain it, we can find things like the below. Summary: not just being gay but even being effeminate. Additionally, I’ve never heard a single sermon where they were saying the Greek doesn’t actually mean that. They all very much meant it.
Reading exercise if anyone likes walls of text.
English amplified:
Here’s one commentary: https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/
I think we get the point though. There’s more.
Those are all really interesting theories, but the simple matter is that if it was referencing homosexuality, there were plenty of appropriate words Paul could have used.
Specifically, erastes and eromenos.
The words Paul used certainly have sexual connotations, but if he meant gay sex, plenty of words already existed for it.
There’s a ton of theories, but no one “knows” exactly what Paul means here. It’s a strange word with almost no parallels anywhere else in history.
Why would you trust the Greek translation on that topic? They had a clear bias on the subject that would’ve influenced word choice.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
The only Hebrew verses that discuss homosexuality are even more vague and difficult to translate.
I’m not trying to convert you or persuade you the Bible is actually pretty cool. I’m just telling you what’s in it.
The problem with all of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament is that it has been altered over time again and again. While for some texts in the old bible there is good reason to assume them to be reliable, a lot is not.
Especially the New Testament is clearly a product of trying to mix abrahamic faith with pagan beliefs. You can see this in the concept of trinity and Jesus being the literal son of god. This directly contradicts the commandments given to Moses and Allah has rejected it again in the Quran. Also these concepts were not of the time of Jesus, but developed some hundreds year after. It is also contradictory to much the New Testament says about the life of Jesus, as he was explicit not to speak in his name, but in the name of God.
This is very different to the Quran, where already at the time of revelation much effort was made for preservation in the original form, as well as the life of the prophert Mohammed being documented too.
Biblical literalism is an invention of 20th century evangelicalism. It’s not because you find one or two verses which seem to condemn something that this thing should be condemned forever; and in the case of homosexuality, the verses used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality aren’t clear at all. Thus homophobic Christian bigots condemn homosexuality not because they’re Christians, but because they’re bigots.
It also says that mixing meat and dairy is a sin.
The Old Testament says a lot of things; there’s also a New Testament that focuses on Grace and that the most important thing of all is love.
Those who focus on one “sin” over the actual purpose and teachings are those who are focused on hate.
It sounds confusing. How can we be sure which rules are rules and which aren’t?
You choose which rules you want to believe in. Some sects follow all of them, some follow none, some follow all the hateful ones, some follow the basic moral tenets. If your sect doesn’t care about something, you just kinda pretend it isn’t a part of the Bible until it fades into the background. If your sect does care about something, you drag it up as often as you can in sermons to hammer home its importance.
I got the impression it depends on the translation or adaption, and also the culture at the time it was translated or adapted.