Don’t Rain on My “Gay-Parade” & The Impotence and Subterfuge of Homo-theology

Part I.

Don’t Rain on My “Gay-Parade”

Someone emailed, shared, and asked:

Robert, I got myself in trouble after church yesterday for making a truthful comment which was overheard by a mother whose daughter recently decided she is a lesbian and came to church yesterday with her “girl friend.”  I was accused of “hate speech” and inquired: “How can I talk about something I hate without using what you call ‘hate speech’?”  She pointed out that laws against hate speech are intended to keep people from calling things a sin that are not sins.  “But sodomy is a sin”, I replied, in “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”.  This assertion she followed by producing quotes from a so-called “gay theologian” I never heard of, to whom she has resorted to handle her personal distress over her daughter’s behavior and her daughter’s wish to remain involved with a Christian group which rejects that behavior.  Her position was one of bluster and bravado but I could feel the emotional pain it tried to hide.  Until her daughter’s recent declaration I have always considered this woman to be a strong Bible-believing  Christian.  I have no idea how to minister to a person facing this dilemma and even less how I would deal with it myself.  What do you suggest?

I sometimes wonder if God is sending Islam today like he once sent the “wolf of the north” to Israel in order to punish the West for the current world-wide LGBTQ hysteria.  The Law requires death by stoning for for sexual perversion just as it required death for idolatry.  The amazing thing is that the feminists and gays are so supportive and welcoming of Islam in spite of what the Muslims profess and what they are actually doing to women and gays.

----------------------

My reply:

First of all, I think you need to reassess your position and purpose.  You are not supposed to “minister to” people in sin.  You are supposed to rebuke them.  Had this woman spoken to you with tears welled up, respectfully, sincerely, and inquired, softly, “But what am I to do...?” that would have been quite different.  However, your answer would have been the same, though it would have been tendered with compassion.

I would have replied, “Ma’am, do you have a Bible?”  Presumably she was holding one and would have showed it.  I then would have said, “Do you believe that the Bible is the veritable, unimpeachable, unchanging Word of God?”  If she said anything other than a firm “Yes”, I would have said, “Then we have nothing else to speak about, and I had not been speaking to you anyway and it was rude of you to inject yourself into a conversation to which you were not invited”—and then turned my back without giving her opportunity to reply.  Had she said “Yes”, then I would have continued:

[The rest will be my discourse (as if I were you) without quotation marks, since it is understood that this is your (theoretical) reply to her, and it is no longer dialogue.]

----------------------

Truth is not based on your “feelings”; and reality is not determined by how you want things to be.  I find it alarming to learn that you are a communist and that you resort to mentioning (a “veiled threat”...?) so-called ‘hate speech’ laws (which have been unconstitutionally passed by subversive, antichrist politicians) simply because you hear something that you don’t like.  I don’t like hearing what you are saying.  Why do you think that you have more right to speak than I?  In fact, I did not go up to your face and speak to you things that I knew that you would not like.  I was holding a private conversation and you overheard what I was saying to someone else.  I find it very alarming that you are a communist who does not believe in the U.S. Constitution, and that you are a humanist who does not believe in the Bible.  You also show that you are confused if you think that the so-called ‘hate speech’ laws were passed to prevent people from calling things ‘sin’, which are not sin.  Does the legislation to which you refer actually use the word ‘sin’...?  Do you really think that the politicians, who passed such pseudo-laws, have the right to violate the U.S. Constitution and call God a liar?  Such things that you, for some perversely selfish reason, think are not sin, were denounced and punished as sin by our nation for over 200 years; by the nations of Europe for over a millennia, and are clearly declared by God to be sin.  I find it alarming that you side with them and not with God.  Why do you even come to church with such a sinful heart?  Do you think that God cannot see it?  Do you think He is fooled?  Do you also believe that it is not a sin for a mother to kill the fetus—which is a person, according the Word of God—living inside her? because she prefers to hide her sin which caused the fetus to be conceived or because she, being irresponsible, wants the child to pay the ultimate price for her own irresponsibility, because that child would then “cramp her lifestyle”...?  Do you think that God must change with the times or be “left behind”...?  You do understand that Christians go to church in order to worship God and learn better how to obey Him, not to force God to accept our sin and worship us...?

I suggest that you go home and pray and ask God to forgive you of your sin, to reveal truth to you, and to empower you to obey Him.  Then look up every passage that mentions the words “Sodom”, “sodomy”, “sodomite”, “unnatural affection”, “unseemly”, “lusts”, “man + lieth”, “fornication,” etc.  Do you have a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance...?  God commands us to meditate upon His Word day and night, to study to show ourselves approved, that there is safety in a multitude of (godly) counsellours—yet like the wicked King Saul, you have chosen instead to seek the witch of Endor to tell you what you want to hear because you reject what God has commanded.  Is your “Bible” some special modern “version” that has redacted those passages that God-haters don’t like and corrupted and falsified the Word of God to agree with their perverted minds and sinful actions?

God is Immutable.  He is Holy.  He is Perfect.  He does not change.  Morality does not change.  What God declared to be sin and abominations 4,000 years ago still are today and always will be.  Do you mean to tell me that you think that at some point in time “rape” will be a “wonderful experience” that will be not only lawful, but encouraged and celebrated?  What about pedophilia?  What about incest?  What about necrophilia...? —it would seem that many deranged persons would like this idea since they would not be hampered by troublesome legal issues such as “consent”.  What about cannibalism? adultery? fornication? free murder of fetuses, infants, or adults?  Where do you draw the line and by what authority do you think that you are the one to draw it? and how can you be so sinfully deluded into thinking that your presumed authority supercedes God?  God drew all such lines.  They are unmoveable boundaries.  They are sacred.  They are not open to “new interpretation”.  Do you even understand the concepts of “God”, “Lord” or “Holy”.

[I would leave out any mention of Jewdyism (which, as you know, is Talmudism and not the Hebrew faith of the Old Testament) or Islam.  A Christian’s obedience to God, and morality, has nothing to do with pagan antichrists and only serves to muddy the waters (of already CONFUSED people) and form a bond of “inclusionism” and “confederacy” and inadvertantly gives the false impression of semi-legitimizing those religions.  God does not need false religions—His enemies—“in His corner” defending Him.]

God has sent you strong delusion to believe a lie.  That is evident by your attitude toward me in publicly attacking me, a professor and minister (a man of God and someone who is your elder), rather than quietly taking me aside and asking for counsel.  The spirit of Jezebel is not a sign of God in your life.  Your abhorrent appeal to a godless totalitarian socialism that punishes and attempts to stamp out what is considered (by people who hate the true God) to be the “hate speech of the day”—which once it has its ugly, immoral, all-intrusive foot in the door, will expand and morph to outlaw everything in the Word of God and everything upon which our nation was founded—your attitude is antichrist.  Scripture says that he who would be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.  You have just chosen sides, but it is not God’s Side.  But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!  “It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God”...!  Those who love and fear God obey Him.

Would you really go to the Devil to try to find a way out of obeying God? —WHY THEN do you go to Satan’s ministers for them to help you devise some polluted notion in the impotent attempt to justify abominations so that you can “feel better” about your sin?  It is delusion.  The delusion will end when God’s Judgment begins—and then there shall be no recourse.  Will you attempt to force God to appear before an immoral world tribunal—or before Satan’s court—to “try God” for “hate speech” and sentence Him, to what...? —to Hell...?  That would be funny were it not so blasphemous.  Are you really that deluded?  God cannot change.  He is Perfect.  He is Holy.  No one can force Him to change.  He is Omnipotent and controls all.  He cannot and will not compromise.  He will not alter that which goeth out of His Lips and He is eternally the same.  No one can thwart His Will.  No one has any authority or power to accuse or judge or sentence Him.  You have chosen the LOSING side.  “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.”  That is not something that you do yourself.  That is something that the Holy Spirit does to you, if you are truly one of God’s sheep ordained unto salvation.  If you are not, then by all means, fill ye up the full measure of God’s Wrath unto which you were appointed.  

“20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!  21Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!  22Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!  24Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel.  25Therefore is the Anger of the LORD kindled against His people, and He hath stretched forth His Hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets.  For all this His Anger is not turned away, but His Hand is stretched out still.” (Isaiah 5)

Upon threat of destruction, God forbids us to add to or diminish from the morality (every Command) that He established in the Law (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32).  God’s Law was NOT abolished.  Christ said that He did not come to abolish the Law and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law.  Again, do you think that “rape” will ever become an acceptable and wholesome activity?  I am not referring to what savages may “think” is acceptable and wholesome, I am referring to those who recognize the traditional, Biblical concept of morality (which is the only morality) that God established forever.  Morality never changes.  God never changes.  His Word / Law is an extension of His Own Mind and Holiness.  God will not—cannot change to please sinful man.  God will not accept sinful man unless man repents of (turns from, stops) his sin and asks for Mercy through Christ’s Sacrifice (bringing forth fruit meet, or suitable, or demonstrative of true repentance).

True Christianity is not a mental delusion; why then do you want to have such and call it “Christian”...? —to feel better about your own sinfulness?  Again, that delusion will end when Judgment irremediably begins.  I would spare you that.  I, being a white Christian, would never for a moment think of going to a meeting of the Nation of Islam for “feelings of inclusionism” and warm fuzzies.  Why then do you expect you and your daughter to be able to enter a place that is supposed to be a Holy Place of the worship of the true God—and then instead of worshipping God, you expect God to worship you, sin and all...?  It is an abomination.  No one who unrepentantly engages in any sin has any business being in church.  God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice, because Cain not only rejected God’s morality and refused to repent, but Cain even then in that “worship service” offered something other than what God commanded—which was also a declaration of independence from God as well as an assertion of his own delusion of godhood; and it was a declaration that he did not believe that his sins were “sins” and that they did not need to be covered by blood.  If a person thinks that he does not have to obey what God commanded, he then deludedly and blasphemously believes that he is higher than God; and that is self-worship (a false god, idolatry).  Instead of church, why don’t you find a “feel-good” motivational seminar?

You are on very, very thin ice.  Christ said that whoever “loveth father, mother, son, or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me... cannot be My disciple”.  Being Christ’s disciple and being a Christian are synonyms.  You cannot be a Christian and not be Christ’s disciple.  Being either entails leaving the old life and conforming to His, learning of Him, obeying Him, immitating Him, becoming like Him.  This cannot be done by rejecting the morality that God established.  Those who reject the morality that God established reject God, do not even know God, and the Truth is not in them (I John 2:4).

Christ never coddled or embraced sin.  He rebuked it and so are we to.  Those who refuse to repent are to be excommunicated—by church, society, and family.  That sounds upleasant but that’s why it is called Judgment and not “a birthday party”.  Those who refuse to repent and those who refuse to excommunicate those in unrepentant sin bring Judgment on the entire church, all society, the whole family.  Those who love death need to separate themselves from the living: for to not do so is mass murder of those who are not in sin.  The purpose of excommunication—rejection, shunning, disfellowshipping, refusing to have anything to do with such persons—is for sinners to repent and be restored, and to PREVENT FURTHER AND GREATER Judgment on that individual (as well as all those around those sinners).

“To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)  Sin blocks fellowship with God—and He does not even want... will not receive your worship! (Matthew 5:23,24)  Those who are in unconfessed, unrepentant sin, those who turn from hearing God’s Law—God will not hear their prayers.  Furthermore, He will judge those in unrepentant sin, if they are His children; but if they sin without repentance and receive not His chastening, that is a sign that they are not His children, but bastards (Hebrews 12:8). 

God will also judge His children who have any interpersonal relationships with those in unrepentant sin, and those with whom God has forbidden us to associate.  Those who flagrantly parade their sin and abominations in public, in broad daylight, in God’s Face, and arrogantly declare that it is “not sin” and “not an abomination” are themselves antichrist and them God shall destroy.  Those of God’s people around them (who have not separated as God commanded) will also suffer Judgment when God’s Wrath falls because like Lot and his family, so God calls all of us to “Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues [Judgment]” (Revelation 18:4).  The protection of Psalm 91 does not apply to those who fellowship with sin and even declare that it is not sin, but a form of “wonderful self-expression”.  Well, Hell is God’s form of “wonderful self-expression” for such abominations.

The purpose of discipline is remedial and reformatory.  God chastens His sinful children, as godly parents should, to bring them to repentance.  That is the purpose of excommunication, for the sinner to repent, knowing he is under God’s indictment and shunned by the community of the righteous.  Punishment is punitive and terminal.  Those who ignore chastening shall instead receive Punishment.  Those who do not excommunicate wickedness from them, amputate from society those who are in blatant, vile, unrepentant sin, shall themselves be excommunicated and cut off by God—ETERNALLY: for His Spirit was never in them.  Quarantining from society those with a communicable disease (leprosy, EBOLA, AIDS, Hepatitis C, Tuberculosis) is not pleasant to the very small percentage of people with the disease—but it would be far-more “unpleasant”—hateful, murder of the rest of society to not do so.  So it is with vile sins for which God commanded the death penalty.  To not do so makes you the enemy of God and brings His Judgment on all around you; all in your family, church, community who do not excommunicate you for embracing abominations instead of excommunicating them yourself.  Take the teeth out of the law and there is no reason for anyone to obey it.  Then, all society will ignore the Law—but God is Holy, He is a True Judge and a Perfect Bookkeeper.  By putting yourself in a situation where you force an entire church, an entire community to either shun you or ignore (or embrace your sin) drags others into the pit with you.  Is that really your desire?  Are you a psychopath, with no conscience, utterly devoid of God?

Chastening is love, even though it seems unpleasant.  It IS unpleasant.  No one on either end of a spanking enjoys it (except maybe a handful of perverse people whom you unbiblically decree are not “abominable”).  But if a person is truly converted he will obey God and realize that chastening, spanking is LOVE, for it works the peaceable fruits of righteousness in those who are exercised thereby—that is, those who are truly converted and repent under chastening (Hebrews 12:11).  It is the Goodness of God that leads the sinner to repentance (Romans 2:4)—and that Goodness is the chastening itself!

“5...My son, despise not thou the Chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: 6For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.  7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?  8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” (Hebrews 12)

The opposite is also true: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” (Proverbs 13:24)  GOD makes the rules.  Those rules never change.  Embracing what God declared to be perversion and abomination is not merely an individual sin—it is contributing to the destruction of God’s House; it is participating in the rape of Christ’s bride.  It is war against God.

I suggest that you either repent of your sin or find another religion; for in continuing in the delusion that you are a Christian, not only brings more Judgment upon yourself, but it helps to destroy Christendom (and that will severely INCREASE your Eternal Judgment by God*).  The humanistic philosophy of meliorism (an extension of the false doctrine of “the basic goodness of man”) is an antichrist myth.  The world is not getting better; it is getting worse—it is on its deathbed: like an emaciated AIDS patient wasting away in hospice, while under the delusion that he is as healthy and strong as he ever was—and getting stronger.  This nation—all of Christendom—was founded upon the Law of God, the morality established in the Word of God (which is the only morality).  However, what you embrace and pretend to be “wonderful”, with which you blaspheme the Word of God claiming that it is not sin, was punished by the Puritans.  The Puritans were the backbone of the founding of this nation, and represented the continuing legacy of the Protestant Reformation.  Was every single one of their doctrines without error? of course not—but they knew what sin was and they obeyed God.

[* Note: Neither salvation nor perdition are “merit oriented” or “works based”.  However, the DEGREE of blessing of the regenerated elect or the DEGREE of Judgment upon the unconverted IS merit-oriented.  You reap what you sow.]

What will you do?

“Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16) 

If so, it is because you hate the truth and you hate God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit Who are the Truth.

“How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him.” (I Kings 18:21)

[Baal worship included sexual perversion of all types.]

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

----------------------

The above is the end of what I would have replied to her, had she closed her mouth long enough and been able to listen; which in and of itself would have been extremely rare.  Had she attempted to interrupt, I would have resorted and segued into what I mentioned above about “...then we have nothing more to speak about...” and ended it abruptly.  Proverbs 26 says,

“4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” 

This seems to be a contradiction, but it is not.  The resolution is that you answer when the fool is willing to listen and is teachable.  Otherwise, it is folly on your part to continue.  No human can force acceptance of ideas into another person’s mind (and that is not our job, but that of the Holy Spirit).  Trying to convince someone who is closed minded or spiritually dead is like trying to push a grape through an anvil (try it sometime and see how it works; let me know if the anvil ever accepts the grape).

----------------------

And yes—all the evil that is overcoming Christendom, from the Talmudist subversion and inviting in all other antichrists and abominations, the Third-World invasion into Christendom and God’s people amalgamation with them, forever corrupting themselves into Babylon (“confusion by mixing”), the homopervert militancy, and Islam... THEY ALL, like the Huns and the Mongols and the Black Death are the veritable Scourge of God.  God is indeed culling His herd—culling out the diseased of His flock.  He will spare only those with clean hands and pure hearts who are truly converted by the Holy Spirit and who “walk in the Spirit” so that they do not “fulfill the lusts of the flesh” (which are the violation of all that God commanded)—who constitute a very tiny remnant.  Revelation tells us that the only ones who will survive the coming Wrath will be those who have the Testimony / Faith of Christ Jesus and who keep the Commandments of God.  Obeying God’s Law plays no part in salvation.  Obedience to all that God commanded (every jot and tittle; none having passed away) is the by-product of true conversion: regeneration.  

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (II Corinthians 5:17)  

Those who have been truly regenerated are raised from death unto LIFE; from deadness unto God to being alive unto God; from living in wickedness, committing whatever sins and abominations are pleasing to self—to obedience to God and doing that which is pleasing in His Sight.  However,

“26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of Judgment and Fiery Indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10)

[Note: Knowledge of the Truth is not conversion.  It is mere information.  Someone “window shopping”, then moving on without any committment; leaving Truth behind and forgetting about it.]

If Islam is one way in which God has determined to deal with Christendom’s sin of homo-acceptance and homoperversion, then indeed this is the epitomy of “the cure being worse than the disease”—and they both end in a horrible death!    “April showers bring May flowers”—and sadly, the flowers now seem to begin to ROT in June—but one day, like the chaff and tares, shall be cast into the fire!

God save Your people!

----------------------

Part II.

“Follow up” or

The Impotence and Subterfuge of Homo-theology

My friend replied:

My female adversary sent me the URL for the “gay theologian’s” post, in which he thinks he has justified homosexuality from Scripture.

https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27?fbclid=IwAR1qgSkz5SWfYxXZOsIdVJNYvyTKhCizUSILLlC8rgcxq3fbS0P5jLWLl9w  

----------------------

My comments:

[First I shall address the issue, then I shall present a summary of the Biblical position, then I shall continue to dismantle, piece, by piece, the false doctrine and fraudulent presentation thereof.]

He isn’t justified... but JUST-AS-FRIED...!

This “gay theologian’s” argument at this link is as IMPOTENT and TRANSPARENT as Steven Hawking’s self-impressed “argument” to prove there is no God.

Such an argument as presented here only holds power over the ignorant who do not know how to think or research and who do not know the Word of God and who are easily distracted by false inferences of logic, blatant logical fallacies, spurious Greek translations, irrelevant information, and a plethora of words that serve as nothing other than “filler” and distration.  This is not merely one-eyed theology—but imagine squinting and then trying to see through your eyelashes through one singular pin hole (out of several hundred) of your peripheral vision in those exercise eye glasses that are black plastic with small holes in them—in a dark room with a single lit candle that is behind you!

All his talk of Bible translations, languages, dates, etc., is SMOKE, a RED HERRING.  That and his “talking” to other people (who may or may not be qualified in anything and who may or may not have done thorough research, and who most-probably don’t understand the etymology or use of words in their own language) about a singular word in an old non-English Bible or two and also what someone “thinks”, about something.  This is not based on facts, but subjective impression that is a massive non sequitur.  Remove all that from his article and there is about 10% of “argument” based on the Scriptures itself—and that 10% is spurious, focusing on one word and not the WHOLE of Scripture, both the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words, CONTEXT, and the clear Scriptural Model.

While it is a mildly interesting study if you use the mere bit of information that he presents, to serve as a springboard into your own study, it is all entirely irrelevant as to the real issue concerning whether or not homoperversion is a sin!  This is a “bait and switch”.  Even if what he says about the singular Hebrew and singular Greek word were true (which it is not), this singular word does NOT constitute the entire Biblical argument condemning homoperversion.

His premise or abstract of sorts, at the beginning of his article states, “The word arsenokoitai shows up in two different verses in the Bible, but it was not translated to mean homosexual until 1946.”

While this may be true (if their study was actually thorough and complete and they reviewed every single English Bible and they honestly reported the data) it has nothing to do what the HEBREW and GREEK words mean, and it has nothing to do with whether God condemns homoperversion.  The entire intention of his “argument” in this weak article, and in his entire “gay-theology”, is summed up in title of a book that he is writing with a woman: “ Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay”.  The Bible became “anti-homopervert” when Moses and the other prophets and apostles penned what God put in their minds to write!  That would be a very short book.  But, “gay theology” is fiction, so many words can be used to fill a book, to distort and fabricate their position, stuck together with a bunch of non-essential filler and irrelevance.

In fact, he mentions a singular Greek word—he even is able to type the word out and use it a few times (in its English transliteration), but he never defines it, never examines its etymological root, never shows how else it is used in Scripture.  The Hebrew word he never even manages to mention.  And this is supposed to be accepted as “scholarship”.  Any Christian (clergy especially) who confusedly imagined that this article had ANYTHING to do with Biblical scholarship ought to get on his knees now, ask God to forgive him for his sin, and resign from his position (until he actually learns the Bible and learns how to think and study) since clearly he is spiritually blind!

Even if what he says about a singular Hebrew and a singular Greek word were true (which it is not), it would be tantamount to if young David, with a singular stone, had put a SCRATCH on Goliath’s shield, and then smugly and triumphantly (in his own mind) gone off imagining that he had won the battle!  

The singular (unnamed) Hebrew and signular Greek word are the “bait”, in the “bait and switch” con, like someone on the street showing you a beautiful appliance or watch, and then you purchase one, he reaches under the table and gets you a product in a box, you open the box and look and it looks like the one that was on display or demonstrated—but then when home and you try to use it or examine it closer, you find out that it is a cheap imitation, not the real thing.  With the Hebrew word you don’t even get a look at the display model so you don’t even know WHAT you are buying!
First of all, just because the Bible does not condemn something, does not mean that it is “free game” and acceptable behaviour.  As far as I know, no verse of Scripture says, “Thou shalt not eat humankind as thou eatest animalkind”.  Man is NOT an animal, and therefore, those who understand that man is not an animal, but who are “cannibal theologians” could argue that the dietary laws that God established do not apply to human flesh, and therefore, humans can be eaten and they are delicious and that Paul himself said “when you are bidden to a feast eat whatever is set before you without questioning it”.  However, if a cannibal invites you to a feast, you should decline (even as if a homopervert so invited you); and were you foolish enough to go, I think it might be good to ask, “Is this your mother-in-law or someone else that you don’t like—does this mean contain any human?”, before you join in the feast.  However, Paul did NOT infer that you should not ask what any food is because Christ’s Death and Resurrection did NOT change clean from unclean; it did not change the dietary laws—not one jot or tittle.  The issue of which Paul was speaking had NOTHING to do with UNLAWFUL, UNCLEAN animals.  It had to do what lawful, clean animals that had been sacrificed to idols before the flesh was sold in the marketplace.

[For more details on this, see my booklet, So, You Call Yourself A Christian... (78pp., 5.50 + P&H), which, should convince those Christians (those few who actually may be concerned that they may be sinning against God, having believe the false doctrine that Christ’s Sacrifice abolished anything except the death sentence that was against us, and that it replaced nothing other than the blood sacrifices for atonement, those few who may actually be concerned to order and read and prayerfully consider it).  It covers Peter’s Vision (which had nothing to do with the dietary laws being abolished) and most every other New Testament passage that confused people use in their unbiblical claim that the dietary laws were abolished.  If you are  a child of God then what you put in your body DOES matter, because your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit—and a pig should no more be introduced into that temple than it would have been offered as a sacrifice on an altar to God because God declared the pig to be an abomination!  Those who are not so concerned have no concept of Holiness or Judgment—nor God’s Lordship.  They also are governed by a hubris that imagines that they already know everything and they could not possibly be sinning against God (even though the evidence indicates otherwise).  Likewise, joining with a prostitute causes you to be one with that prostitute (not in every single way, and merely so joining does not mean that it constitutes marriage, as a few very confused persons falsely infer) and that so joining causes defilement.  Homoperversion causes defilement.  Joining (in any way, by marriage or association or “fellowship”) with aliens causes defilement.  God said if we defile His temple, our bodies, that temple He will destroy—not by fire out of Heaven, but via other forms of Judgment, whether immediate or over time (disease, accident, injury, national invasion, etc.).  The dietary laws did not save anyone’s soul from their sin or procure God’s forgiveness.  That spurious argument is another massive non sequitur.  God clearly declared that eating what He forbade (and clean and unclean was not “arbitrarily” determined) defiled such a person and made him abominable.  Not eating unclean animals did not save your soul any more than not committing adultery did—and Christ’s Death did not abolish either Commandment.]

Scripture does not mention every last possible form of perversion and sin (it was not God’s intention to give sinful man any “new ideas”).  Scripture mentions lawful, moral, holy practices, and gives examples of those that are sin and abominations, and then the logical inferences can be drawn to apply to every situation.  This, it seems, is only intuitive to those who used to do puzzles like, “What in this picture does not belong?” or “What in this picture is like other things in this picture?”  Those with perverse minds must have had trouble with the toddler’s pre-school learning toy of fitting bright colored square, round, or other-shaped blocks into the appropriately shaped holes in a box.  

Furthermore, this inferential application model is rejected by those who cherish their sin and refuse to repent—but for some strange reason still want to entertain the delusion that they are “Christians”.  Why do they have such delusion or desire? —partly because deep down they know that they are sinners and still fear God’s Judgment (but are hoping to find a believable “excuse” that justifies their sin and thus, they hope God is pretty stupid and will be fooled with their argument).  However, also, Satan deludes such individuals so that they will be Trojan horses within the Christian church to destroy it from within by corruption.  Bad doctrine, like lies, need more and more to cover the former—and like rotten teeth, if not removed entirely, will cause the rest to fall in domino effect.

From Genesis to Revelation the only appropriate relationship for sexual contact / intimacy is one adult man with one adult woman who are lawfully* married.

[* —which does not infer a “State license” as the State has no such authority from God.  Similarly, clergy do not have “authority” to marry, though a minister may officiate at a service for the “show” and to solemnize the occasion.  A man has the authority to marry a woman if they both fulfill the Biblical qualifications for a lawful marriage (of the same race, not too closely related within the family, the woman cannot be currently married to someone else, or “put away”,** each be of appropriate age, etc.).  

** A woman who is “put away” is actually still married, since the marriage has not been severed, the woman has merely been kicked out.  There is great confusion in this because the translators did not understand and they often interchange the words “put away” and “divorce” as synonyms, when they are not.  Divorce was permanent severance with a Bill of Divorcement (proof of the severance).  Putting away was merely kicking the woman out, shunned, but still lawfully married and unable to enter any other relationship without being guilty of adultery.  See my, The Christian Israelite and Polygamy...& Other Controversial Topics Concerning the God-Ordained Roles of Man and Wife, 80pp., 6.00 + P&H, for an in-depth study (this book does not promote polygamy, it presents what the Bible says about it.

The marriage is made possible by the man desiring marriage, the woman and her father or closest male relative consenting to the marriage (the terms of dowry having been fulfilled), and the man and wife consenting to be man and wife and living together as man and wife.  The marriage is sealed by the consummation thereof, some time after the newly wed couple leave the party.]

NOWHERE, in Scripture, is the homopervert / gender-confused notion of human relations ever established as acceptable, or even mentioned in passing as normal or lawful (though the opposite is clearly established).  Only men can be a husband—and only to a woman; and only a woman can be a wife—and only to man.  The words woman / wife can be used interchangably (when context so infers); the words man / husband can used interchangably (when context so infers).  But note carefully (and this is a “bait and switch” tactic used by the “gayologian” / “homopervertologian” in his “argument”)—just because the word ‘woman’ “can” be used in reference to a ‘wife’ in certain situations, if the qualifications are met, does NOT mean that the word ‘woman’ means ‘wife’ in every single possible instance; they are not general or reflexive synonyms.  All beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles.  All wives are women, but not all women are wives.  Of course, those with perverse minds challenge truth and reality in everything, and thus, removing the bricks of the foundation, society is collapsing.

God created Adam and Eve—NOT “Adam & Steve”.

God destroyed the world with the Flood because all* flesh had corrupted itself.

[* Note, in Hebrew and Greek the word “all” does not refer to every last one (the entire population), but to the entire sample of that population that is the topic of discussion.  In this case, it DOES refer to the vast majority, but still not to every last one.  Clearly Noah and his sons had not corrupted themselves.  Clearly Abraham’s father Lamech (who died 5 years before the Flood—though God announced the coming Flood to Noah 120 years in advance, giving him that much time to prepare the ark) and Noah’s grandfather Methuselah (who died a month or so before the Flood’s arrival) had not corrupted themselves.  Clearly Noah’s wife and his sons’ wives had not corrupted themselves.  

This corruption is everything happening before our eyes now (Christ said, “as in the days of Noah”): rampant interracial crossing, fornication, perversion, violence.  Similarly, someone, in a time of despair, might declare, “everyone hates me” or “no one cares about me”.  Such a distraught person is not talking about everyone in the world (the overwhelmingly vast majority who do not even know of him); nor is he talking about everyone who knows him.  He is referring to all those who fit that description, and the quantity of such persons in his life who fit that description are either the overwhelming majority, or their influence or interaction is such that it makes life seem unbearable at that moment of despair.  The “all” could be considered an exaggeration, but not necessarily; the true explanation is one of a limited group, but all who constitute that group.

Someone emailed me a picture of a rainbow and the comment by some mainstream ministry under it that the rainbow is a symbol of “Promise” not perversion.  My comment concerning that was:

Yes, the new agers hijacked the symbol of the rainbow first... then the homoperverts.  But what the sappy mainstream, nondoctrinal Christians with rose-colored glasses UTTERLY IGNORE is the entire reason WHY God gave the rainbow to begin with...!  I don’t mean what the Promise was, but what event was, which the rainbow followed, and what the reason for that event was.  That event was the worldwide flood, because man had corrupted himself with every sin, including every form of sexual perversion—including homoperversion!  Even as Passover, the symbol of the rainbow in the sky is a two-edged sword: it reminds the elect of God’s deliverance and Promise—but it is also equally a reminder of the destruction that results from violating what God commands.

The homoperverts also do not realize that the rainbow is not “fireproof”.  It is merely waterproof.  God placed the bow in the sky as a sign that He would not again destroy all life on the entire globe (except those in the ark) with a flood of water.  However, God did say that He would one day again completely cleanse the earth by fire!  Homoperverts, like any other person who has not REPENTED OF SIN and confessed Christ, is not fire-proof.  One cannot confess Christ without repenting of sin; such is a meaningless “confession”.  Not repenting of sin is a rejection of God’s Lordship and a rejection of Christ’s Lordship.  God owns us, body, soul, and spirit (by both act of creation and act of redemption to those who are of the redeemed).  We are God’s sons / servants, and figuratively Christ’s bride.  Since modernly children, servants, and wives have liberated themselves and imagine they are their own person, independent of their head, it is any wonder that the majority of Christians, likewise, have polluted concepts of their own independence and liberation from God and Christ.  They want their cake and to be able to eat it too; the best of both worlds: They irrationally imagine that they can accept Salvation and reject Lordship.  It doesn’t work that way.  “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and all they that dwell therein.” (Psalm 24:1)  “Behold, all souls are Mine...” (Ezekiel 18:4)  “19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (I Corinthians 6)]

In Abraham’s day (Genesis 19), the perverts of Sodom (hence the pejorative name that has derived therefrom) wanted to have carnal knowledge of Lot’s male visitors (who were not “young boys” and who, unbeknowst to the sodomites, were angels—actually God Himself, an anthropomorphism, if you read chapter 18 with comprehension to recognize the Triune God’s appearance in the form of men and / or angelic beings).  

[For an in-depth study of this event, see my book, Sacred Truth Expository Commentary on Genesis / Judges, 711pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H.]

Lot saw the two men and somehow realized (even as had Abraham in the previous chapter) that they were messengers from God (he, like Abraham, bowed himself down on the ground before them) and knowing that they were not safe on the streets of Sodom, offered to take them into his house.  They said they would simply spend the night on the street.  Lot, knowing their danger implored them to accept his hospitality; which the two “messengers” did.  The perverse men of the town confronted Lot, banging on the door of his house, and declared that they wanted to “know them”, which did not imply invite the newcomers over for tea and cookies and ask where they were from, what they did for a living, if they were married, had any children, etc.  Lot, not knowing what to do, as the situation escalated, offered his virgin daughters* to the men.  The clear implication of Lot so offering his daughters to these men, shows the sexual intent of the men concerning the visitors whom they believed to be other men (not mere boys).

[* This, of course, is impossible for us to fathom.  Most Bible “experts”, in ignorance chalk this up to some great moral failure on Lot’s part.  However, Lot knew that these were MESSENGERS FROM GOD.  This was sort of a test, it seems, as when God commanded Abraham to offer up his only son, Isaac!  Contrary to what most think, it seems possible that Lot made the RIGHT choice.  Again, consider Abraham offering Isaac.  Now, it may seem that Lot should have asked the Messengers (celestial angels) from God what to do.  

Isn’t hindsight about what you think that someone else should have done, “wonderfully safe” for you to declare, when you know all the information that other person did not know, but which he needed to know, in order to make the right decision?  

Lot confronted the men, who became violent.  Maybe Lot only said something to “buy time”, at least time enough to shut the door and bolt it; and then ask the messengers from God what to do.  The situation exploded upon him, in his face, with the door open.  It was a sacred duty to care for kinsmen “strangers” (travellers, sojourners, etc.).  As these men were under his roof, Lot was responsible for their well being.  Furthermore, these were messengers from God!  WHOM should Lot fear more...? the men outside his door or God...?  Put yourself in the “lifeboat” situation and pretend that you are Lot.  There’s only room for 2.  Lot and his daughter were in it.  The MESSENGERS OF GOD were in the water, and face drowning or being eaten by sharks.  Whom do you value more? yourself and your own family, or the messengers of God?  Remember, Elijah asked for the very last handful of flour and oil that a widow woman and her starving son were going to eat as their last meagre meal and then die during a time of famine.  Scripture calls Lot “just” (righteous).  He sat at the gate of the city, attempting to be a moral influence—and for this the men despised him, as they inferred in their verbal assault at his door.  Lot only had a moment to react, the men were going to force their way in had he not said something.  The angels then intervened and physically pulled Lot back in and shut the door, and then blinded the perverts.  I am certainly not suggesting that anyone offer their daughters up.  Again, Lot maybe had no intention of so doing and was just trying to appease them so he could slip back inside and bolt the door.  Some may say that he should have offered himself, not his daughters.  Again, hindsight is wonderful, but logic is better.  Had he offered himself how would he have gotten back inside to defend his visitors and daughters?  While indeed this is different than God telling Abraham to offer his son, the parallel is godly men who actually recognized God’s Lordship and the sacred duty to obey and also to defend God’s messengers.]

During the times of the Judges (chapter 19) a very similar thing happened and for the same reason.  A sojourner and his small company was found on the street of an Israelite city within the tribe of Benjamin and a man who lived in the city knew that the travellers would not be safe on the street, for the same reason, and took them to his house.  A similar scenario presented itself by perverts of the town beating on his door, and reprehensibly the man offered to the savage perverts who wanted to “know” this male visitor, the visitor’s concubine (possibly without the visitor knowing it)—whom they abused all night to the point that she died!  THIS SHOWS the intent of the men: unnatural lusts.

[For an in-depth study of this event, see my book, Sacred Truth Expository Commentary on Genesis / Judges, 711pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H.]

Skipping through the epistles to the Book of Jude we read:

“6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the Judgment of the Great Day.  7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of Eternal Fire.  8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”

The angels that sinned (rebellion against God) who left their first estate [that is, “celibacy”] and abducted Adamite women are compared to the perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah (and the other 2 cities) which God destroyed by fire as a prelude and escort into their eternal home in Hell (to be joined by others like them, though they may not have a fiery exit).  The angels who abducted Adamite women sired the Nephilim or giants, with whom certain Canaanite tribes intermarried (see my S.T.E.C. on Genesis / Judges).  As I explain in my book, What the Devil? —What the Hell?, 800pp., 40.00 + P&H, Scripture does not say that angels cannot reproduce.  That is a misreading and false inference.  Regardless, sodomy has ever referred to homoperversion, not merely pedophilia: which is the same thing, but merely a different form; you cannot separate the two (though perverts try to split hairs).  

“Giving” themselves over to fornication might be better rendering “Exchanging” themselves; the Greek #3923 par-ice-fer-o (long o) is a giving that is mutal, simultaneous, alongside.  Fornication is #4203 porn-yoo-o (long o) and means, “utterly whorish perverse”.  It is also interesting that “strange” in “strange flesh” is ironically the word “heteros” (short o), which means “different”.  However, the frame of reference is not from a male perspective, but from a combined perspective of either angels or men going after something other than God had allowed them.  In the angels’ case, it was humans.  In the case of the Sodomites, it was going after individuals of the same sex.  It is also interesting that this passage serves as a warning to all those who would commit similar abominations, that their end shall be Hell.

Dominion might be better rendered, Lordship and dignities, possibly “purity”.  The Greek word is #1391 doxa, which is normally translated as “glory, honour, praise, worship”.  However, “purity” is not far-fetched since that’s what God’s glory is, “pure power or energy”.  Doxa’s root is #1380 dok-eh-o (the last o is a long o sound) and means, “to think; by implication to seem (truthfully or uncertainly):—be accounted, (of own) please (-ure), be of reputation, seem (good), suppose, think, trow”.  Trow is an old word for trust, that is, responsibility, duty, obligation.  Thus, “honor” seems to be better than “dignities”.

Moving on in our summary: 5 verses in the Old Testament in the KJV translate a Hebrew word as “sodomite(s)” even though sodomite [#5467, sed-om (long o)] is not the Hebrew word that is used; but that is the general implication, and extended meaning, not the precise literal meaning.  The meaning of #6945 qaw-deysh is more precise, that of a temple male prostitute.  The literal meaning of the word is “devotee”—but clearly a devotee to something that is evil since God forade it.  However, the word then took on a more general, common usage, a technical implication.  This is the case with MANY words in Hebrew, Greek, English, or any language, often, to the point that the original meaning is lost entirely, or those who are not adept at thinking cannot imagine how the word transitioned from the original meaning to the extended or secondary or implied meaning.  

“17There shall be no whore^#6948 of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite^#6945 of the sons of Israel.  18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore,^#2181 or the price of a dog, into the House of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (Deuteronomy 23)

Here, in context, the word translated sodomite is shown to be identical with the money or hire of a dog; the whore* of the daughters of Israel of v.17 corresponds to the hire of a whore* in v.18; and like wise, sodomite of the sons of Israel of v.17 and the price of a dog in v18.  Dog was a slang term for male prostitute.  It was the practice of pagan cultures for such male temple prostitutes to dedicate to the pagan temple (their “pimp”) a portion of the money they earned for sex.  God forbade His people from learning and practicing the abominable ways of the Canaanites in the land, or any other peoples’ pagan ways—and this included any sinful Israelite who earned a living as a prostitute (without being discovered by anyone but his or her select clientele) not offering to God any portion of that unjust gain (which would, in the offerant’s mind, legitimize his or her sin).  Male prostitute is juxtaposed to female prostitute.  This relationship does NOT infer that there is a “legitimate” form of man and man sexual relations (as there is a “legitimate” form of man and woman sexual relations).  The parallel exists only on the illegitimate plane, and the inference infers a greater form, a “progression” of moral degredation from one to the other.

[* It would have been better had the translators used 2 different words for whore in these two verses, since the Hebrew words themselves are entirely different words.  The word translated whore in v.17 is the female form of the word translated sodomite (“devotee”); the word translated whore in v.18 more specifically means “adultress, whore, etc.”, so the word in v.17 may have been translated prostitute and the word in v.18 as harlot or whore.]

Regardless, simply because a word is used based upon its extended, secondary, eventual usage, does not invalidate such usage, it refines the precise meaning as used at that time, in that specific context.  Clearly the word “devotee” is not a nasty word.  But what the word is being used to describe is nasty; and thus, since the Bible is not perverse and is for audiences of all ages, it therefore refines words, not only for more tender ears—but also for the consciences of all not to be soiled by more blatant word-pictures in the mind (but WITHOUT intending to play down the vileness of the sin in any way).  Thus, Scripture refers to a man “humbling” or “defiling” a woman, not “raping” her.  Only a fool would think that this “humbling” referred to anything but sexual conquest.  It was not a “spelling bee” in which the woman was humbled, proving that her vocabulary prowess was inferior.  I would estimate that possibly 50% of words in Scripture (and in English) are so used in secondary meanings, rather than in the precise literal etymology of the word itself.  The leg of a chair (or the last leg of a journey), the mouth of a river or a jar, the wings of a garment, the butt of a joke, the head of a bed or staircase, the eye of a storm, etc., would be clear examples of this.  This is the “stuff” of which humor is even made, including its lowest-considered form, the pun.

Also, this brief, impotent apologetic attempt of queerology ignores all the other passages of Scripture that do not employ the singular Greek word that he thinks is a silver bullet (or magic laser ray-gun) that disintegrates the whole of Bible theology and history; other passages that use other words, and use vivid description to explain what it is that is reprehensible and forbidden by God.

The article starts out with diversion and bait and switch, and that is how it continues to the end.

The author claims that the Greek word (#730 ar-sen-ok-OY-teyss, which is the main form) arsenokoitai was not translated as “homosexual” until 1946.  He mentions the many different Bibles, from different languages, some very old ones that he has collected:

“So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish... you name it.  Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve collected over time.”  

However, what he does not mention is:

1. if any of these Bibles translated any other word as “homosexual” (which he says was a word that the Germans invented in 1862).

2. how all of these other translations render the passages that he discusses.

3. if these other verses translate Scripture so as to claim that homoperversion is not a sin.

Thus, he mentions an impressive amount of different Bibles as his “documentation” or “ammunition” and yet only actually tells us how two or three translate a singular Hebrew or a singular Greek word—and he cherry picks those very few versions and those very few verses because he thinks that they prove his point (which they do not).  What about all the other languages?  What did the French say? the Gaelic? Czech? Polish? —you name it? —most major European languages...?  Surely with an arsenal as vast and numerous as that, he should have been able to spit out like a burp gun verse after verse.  Yet all are silent.

He claims indirectly that the singular Hebrew and singular Greek word means “boy” and not “man”.  However, the fact that some German or Scandinavian Bible translated the word as “boy-molestor” (knabenschander) is a sleight of hand, bait and switch—either ignorance, “want-to-believism”, and / or deception.  How a word was translated (rightly or wrongly) into another language DOES NOT change the meaning or implied meaning, and specific meaning in context of the word in the original language!

Just because a German translation or two rendered a Hebrew or Greek word as knabenschander does NOT mean that is what the Hebrew or Greek word MEANT.  The fact that “queer” means “homopervert” today, does not change what it meant in the year 1700.  Also, often the translators who translated into the language of the people, not the language of the academics, would render a word that was most-commonly understood in the minds of the people.  IF outright homosexuality was practically unknown in Germany at that time—but there was an abundance of Roman Catholic priests molesting little boys, is it too much for the imagination to figure out why the translators may have so rendered the word?

John Wycliffe in his translation of the Bible (first edition appeared in 1382, which was at the end of the transition of Old English to early Middle English) at times renders the word “child” as brat...! At that time, the word did not have the negative meaning that it does today.  Even of the word brat had a negative connotation in 1382, it would not have changed the word’s meaning in Koine Greek of the first century, nor in ancient Hebrew!  Understand also, that many words in Classical Greek are the exact same word in Koine (prononced “coin-A”, which was “Common” Greek, today also referred to as Biblical) Greek—but mean something different.  Even as “gay”, “queer”, “queen”, “faggot” and other words mean things completely different today than then did even 70 years ago.  While those words still can mean the original, I doubt that any sane straight male who just walked into a bar and was given a surprise birthday party, would blurt out, “I’m feeling so gay right now!”  Words are corrupted by perverse minds.  Those perverse minds hijack the words for their own use, polluting them so that no moral person wants to use them—and then they even begin to attempt their “revisionism” and distorting and / or hiding the true historic meaning of the word.

However, a most-damning issue is that arsenokoitai does NOT mean what he claims it means in English—and NEITHER does it in Greek! as he attempted to prove by the few German translations that rendered it “boy-molester”.

He points out the two passages that use the Greek word #733 arsenokoitai (ar-sen-o-koy-tahee; short o) around which he builds his case—and yet for some odd reason he does NOT QUOTE EITHER!  He only quotes a fragment.  That is singularly odd, is it not...?  If he thinks that he discovered the pièce de résistance and coup de grâce and fait acompli to vindicate homoperversion don’t you think that he would proudly display the verses in all their glory, and parade them around in a victory lap for all to see?  Let’s look, first of all, at these 2 passages in their entirety:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God?  Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind^#733...” (I Corinthians 6:9)

“9Knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind^#733, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (I Timothy 1)

Note that #733 arsenokoitai is in “good company”: fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and whoremongers!  

Actually, the word effeminate here is a poor translation; maybe in 1611 it meant more than it does today.  Not every man is rough and rugged with a gravelly voice and a 5-pounds-per-square-inch handshake!  And it is not a sin to not be a mountain man, SO CLEARLY the word #3120 malakos (short o; of uncertain affinity or root family) means something more, in the context as used in I Corinthians 6, than merely “soft”.  It can also refer to “soft clothing” (when paired with a word for clothing).  Possibly it refers to transvestites.  Some sources indicate that it refers to men used as pagan temple prostitutes (but that would be reduntant due to the meaning of arsenokoitai).  

Regardless, these mind-sets / behaviours are all toxic peas in a pod.  They are all sexual immorality.  

Note also that the same people who champion “homopervert rights”, and who claim that homosexuality is not a sin, are also usually in favor of most ANY relationship that God forbade: adultery, fornication, whoredom, lasciviousness; “free sex”, living together, one-night stands, etc.   Adultery, fornication, and whoredom can all refer to out-of-kind sexual contact.  Whore and whoremongers are usually the first people so degenerate that they cross all moral boundaries that God established: race, gender, age, number of “partners” at once or over time, even dead or living!  Most of the time that the children of Israel committed whoredom in Scripture, it was with alien peoples.  The primary meaning of the word adulatery (adulterate, “to introduce impurity, pollute”), the act, and of the word bastard, the product of the act, refer to out-of-kind union.  Esau is called a fornicator and profane person (Hebrews 12:16).  What was Esau’s sin to be so called?  He married two Canaanite women, women of a race that God perpetually cursed and with whom He forbade any type of friendly interaction.  A key is also found in the meaning of the Greek word rendered profane person, which actually means, “he who crosses a threshold”—which, indeed, Esau did: out of God’s Family into the family of God’s enemies, and Jacob became a “stranger” (#5235, nehker / noker, related to #5237 nokriy, which comes from #5235) to Esau when Esau so sinned.

It also needs to be pointed out that some falsely claim that homosexuality is not a sin, only “practicing” homosexuality is a sin.  This is a polluted, unbiblical notion.  That is merely a smokescreen and one step closer to legitimizing it.  All sin begins in the heart, even if not committed.  That is what the 10th Commandment* refers to and that is to what Christ referred when He declared, “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).  Having homosexual thoughts and urges is a sin even if you don’t act on them.  Acting on them, of course increases the sin and increases the judgment, but the thoughts and urge and spurious notion of “orientation” or “identification” itself is sin.  Thinking of murdering your enemies is a sin.  Thinking of having sex with your dog or horse or goat or a corpse or a child or an infant or a fire hydrant is a sin!  THE MIND needs to be transformed and renewed and purified by God’s Holy Spirit.  That which comes out of a man defiles a man because the mind is defiled.  Acts do not make the nature—the nature makes the acts.

[* See my book, Ten Commandments for You^th, 440pp., 6.25 x 9.25, pb., 25.00 + P&H.]

Throughout Christendom’s history of nearly 2,000 years, homoperversion has always been considered a vile sin, up until the modern era of DEGENERATION and IMMORALITY of every kind.  It truly is mind-numbing that THIS (the utter degeneration of moral society) is the “manure” in which the toxic weed of homoperversion has been fertilized, cultivated, and raised—and in which it has flowered! and yet perverse minds (even some claiming to be “Christian”) anti-intellectually imagine that something “holy” can grow out of something that is so filthy and corrupt.  Scripture never mentions homoperversion (regardless of what you want to call it or what Scripture referred to it as) as “holy” or “acceptable” or something even to “tolerate”.  God did not tolerate Sodom and Gomorrah or the other 2 entire cities that He destroyed.  Sodomy and sodomites have historically been known from that city, and they have not been known as “boy-molestors”—though the two often go hand in hand.  Nowhere, Old or New Testament, is a man and a man in bed together or being a “family” or “married” ever considered a working model.  It is called an abomination.  

I imagine next that the homoperverts and liberal polluters of the Word of God (like the author of “The Shack”) will next claim that God Himself is a homopervert.  

“15Unto the pure all things [that are pure] are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.  16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1)

The gayalogian also goes on and on that one of his German Bibles from the 1800s—ONE of them, translated Leviticus 18:22 (according to his German friend who rendered it into English) as: “Man shall not lie with ‘young boys’ as he does with a woman”.  Again, he does not tell WHICH German Bible this was (translator, publisher, city, etc.).  The verse reads in the KJV:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

He then infers that it is the same thing with Leviticus 20:13, but again does he quote the FULL verse, even though he pointed out that his friend was translating such passages for him word for word.  Let’s read the whole passage:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

He then said the same word “boy molester” was used in his Luther Bible.  He then envisions a “conspiracy theory”, which requires either “ten league jumping boots” or Dorothy’s magic red slippers from the Wizard of Oz, and claims that the anti-Gay agenda was fomented by Americans!  His “logic”...? —because the word homosexual was invented by the Germans in 1862 (whether this is true or not would require more time than I have to devote to this, and it is a meaningless point) and therefore the Germans should have been the first to use that word in a Bible (which is a false inference).  He then concludes that the company that paid for the (unnamed) 1983 German Bible that allegedly first used the word homosexual in a German translation was the same company that owns the NIV Bible.  

[The NIV New Testament Bible (which predated the German Bible by a full decade) was copyrighted by the New York Bible Society International in the 1973 New Testament printing and as the New York International Bible Society in the 1978 complete printing.  The translation was begun in the 1950s and the New York Bible Society became the funding sponsor.  The NYBS was founded in Manhatten in 1809 by a group of Christian men including Henry Rutgers (of Rutgers University) for the spiritual needs of the city.  They also soon provided Bibles to the military, prisons, hotels, hospital rooms, to new immigrants on Ellis Island, and even went door to door throughout New York City to make sure that every family that wanted a Bible had one.  They changed their name to Biblica / International Bible Society in 2009 and are headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado.]

However, the author does not mention that although the NIV may use the word “homosexual” a few times, that one of the women, who was a stylist editor, is a lesbian; whether she “realized” that she was a lesbian at the time of her work on the Bible, I cannot say.  The author also does not point out that the NIV translation, though widely popular, at times is more of a paraphrase than a literal translation, and that it also is like most other modern English-language translations in that it plays down sin, blood, atonement, damnation, etc.  Regardless, it is a bit lame and sensationalistic to claim a “conspiracy of Americans”; but, you have to resort to distractions and such when you really don’t have any case based upon the facts of the topic itself.

However, this author is not the only blasphemer, there are many, even a Bible Commentary! such as, The Queer Bible Commentary (2006).  A blasphemous annotation advertisement for this book reads,

“This comprehensive, cutting-edge commentary brings together the work of several scholars and pastors known for their interest in the areas of gender, sexuality and Biblical studies.  Rather than a verse-by-verse analysis, typical of more traditional commentaries, contributors to this volume focus specifically upon those portions of the Bible that have particular relevance for readers interested in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.  These include the construction of gender and sexuality, the reification of heterosexuality, the question of lesbian and gay ancestry within the Bible, the transgendered voices of the prophets, the use of the Bible in contemporary political, socio-economic and religious spheres and the impact upon lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.  Accordingly, the commentary raises new questions and re-directs more traditional questions in fresh and innovative ways, offering new angles of approach.”

Returning to the gayologian’s spurious claims: Understand the illogic of so translating these 2 passages in Leviticus as “young boys” instead of “man” or “mankind” (not even yet considering the actual meaning of the Hebrew words), which he compares to the 2 New Testament passages that condemn “boy-molestors”.

The illogic of rendering the passage as “young boys” then infers that it is okay to lie with young girls.  The passage also, which he did not quote, because it is too damning, is that both man and (falsely presuming the meaning is) boy are to be put to death— “THEIR blood be upon them”.  If, as his German and Scandinvian translations rendered arsenokoitai as “boy-molesters” is the correct meaning, then WHY is the “victim” put to death...?  Hmmmm...?  Their blood and their both being put to death infers equal guilt.  If a woman is raped she is a victim; if she consented to fornication or adultery or bestiality* she is an accomplice.

[* Notice also, as I show in my booklet, The Creation of Man in Genesis 1 and 2, 88pp., 6.00 + P&H that the “beast” spoken of in such Biblical passages is one that has intelligence, will, and consent.]

Simply because some obscured UNNAMED German Bible possibly MIS-translates a word (or modern speakers mis-understand the meaning), DOES NOT ESTABLISH TRUTH.  He does NOT even name the Bible, what it is called, who translated, what date it was published.  Again, a true victory results in a victory lap, not a demur anonymity.  He does mention Luther’s Bible, but he does not indicate that he did any study of the German language to learn the etymology of the word, or what it meant in Luther’s day.  

He also engages many false inferences, which the average, non-astute reader may not notice, which seems to give spurious support to his position.  

After his friend told him that the 2 New Testament passages in the old Scandinavian Bibles used the word that she believes meant “boy molesters”, he then falsely infers: “It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men.”  Well, it does NOT so “turn out” out based upon the word used in those Scandinavian Bibles.  It is also interesting that he uses such an innocuous euphemism such as “coupled” instead of violated, raped, sodomized, abused, defiled, etc.  This again shows a perverse mindset that plays down vile sin.  Regardless, because he offers no segue from the unprofessional translation as to the meaning of the Scandinavian words used (or what the words meant centuries ago) to his claim about ancient practices of pederasty, the less-astute reader will draw a validating association between the two.  He also does not mention if the Norwegian Bible of 1830 was actually the Norwegian language, or the Danish language printed in Norway.  What is called Norwegian, for several centuries, due to past Danish domination and rule, has actually been Dansk and not Norsk.  Was this Bible written in Nynorsk or Landsmål or Bokmål or Riksmål...?  Presumably it was not Nynorsk (New Norse, an attempt to purify the language and purge it of all Danisms and restore it to Norse before Danish conquest).

A 1917 Swedish Bible online that I found,* does not mention the name of the Bible, but this portion reads, “onaturlig vällust synd” which means, “unnatural sensually pleasured sin”, which clearly is a paraphrase, not a literal translation.  Luther himself often did not translate literally, but used many common German expressions, so that the German people, especially the less educated, could easily understand.  So Luther’s use of a word does not necessarily mean that it was a precise translation, but merely a word that would be best understood “ball-park” by the commoners of the day.  Sometimes he hit it out of the park; other times he sliced a foul ball.  Luther also relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate, and thus, if the Latin was imprecise or in error, then Luther’s translation was off, if he was not able to adequately research the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (and assuming that the Greek text provided by Erasmus of Rotterdam was correct; and we know that many of the most reliable manuscripts were discovered after his time).

[* https://www.wordproject.org/bibles/se/54/1.htm  ]

I check my retypeset edition of Luther’s Bible, and indeed Luther uses knabenschräder.  I checked my old Swedish Bible printed by Swenska Bibel-Sällskapets (Swedish Bible-Society), Stockholm, 1874, Heliga Skrift, Gamla och Nua Testamentet (Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testament)

This version clearly uses a word similar to knabenschänder, in the older Swedish, as above, it is “drängaskändarom”, in more modern Swedish, “drängaskändare”, which is more like “boycotter”* (that is someone that takes a boy to lie in bed sexually with him).

[* However, this is not the origin our our word “boycott”, which, hypocritically, is considered a “legal” form of “discrimination”; which word has its origin in Captain Charles C. Boycott (1832-1897), an Irish land agent who was shunned in 1880, encouraged by the Irish Land League to get rents reduced.  How he derived his name, is the mystery.]

Other versions have “eller män som ligger med andra män”, which is clearly “or men lying with other men” from I Corinthians 6:9-10.

However, cases abound in which words, which originally had a specific meaning, changed to a more general meaning.  Is it not possible that knabenschander (or more properly, knabenschänder) originally meant “boy violator”, but eventually came to refer to any male-on-male sexual activity?  Since a child rapist is often considered (in Christendom, that is) one of the vilest of sinners, then this name would indeed be a grave insult to homoperverts—and since violated boys often grow up into violators and homoperverts themselves, it is a natural progressive etymology of the word.  It is also interesting the “Google Translate” online site (which is by NO means anti-homo) translates knabenschänder as “sodomite”.  That, of course, may change rapidly, once the activists get involved.  Just in case, here is a screenshot:

 

For example, does the word “kidnap” / “kidnapper” only refer to the stealing children?  “Kind” (short “i” as in “win”) in German means “child”, but does “Mankind” refer only to men-children? —or all humans regardless of age or gender?  Did not “salesman”, “mailman”, “foreman”, “alderman”, etc., all originally refer only to men, and then once women entered the workplace and assumed such jobs, the words then began to refer to persons generically...? —until in the age of feminism and the mental derangement known as “political correctness”, the word-mafia has terrorized the general populace and demanded such words be repented of and never used again.

He also does not mention that the German word knabe has fallen into less use and other German words are used instead: Kind(er), Junge(n), Bursche(n), Bub(e), etc.  The word knabe (pronounced, k-nahb-e^hr) is the same as the English knave (Old English / Anglo-Saxon: cnafa), and can mean “servant, lackey” and not merely “boy”.  Thus, it seems possible that the German word also referred to someone that a person “uses” (or abuses); “sex slave” might be a more-modern concept—but of the male gender.

He also mentions an ancient Latin lexicon—without giving its name!—dated 1483.  He says that he looked up the Greek word arsenokoitai and it gave the Latin equivalent of paedico and praedico.  He then said if you “look those up” (WHERE, he again does not say) that they mean pederasty or knabenschander.  However, his house of cards is supported by false inference and cherry picking information.  Since he merely quoted fragments of Scripture, we cannot know (how convenient) the FULL listing that this obscure Lexicon offered.  Many dictionaries and lexicons offer a long string of possible meanings or synonyms—but that does NOT mean that the word in and of it self means any one of those in any given usage of the word, and context determines WHICH meaning prevails.  While the Greek word arsenokoitai “may” mean those two Latin words (in which the origin of our words pedophile and pederasty are clearly visible), the great question is: Are those the ONLY TWO words that the lexcion offered as the Greek word’s meaning in Latin, or only the 2 that the author cherry picked for his fruit bowl?  Likewise, he does not say “where” he looked up those 2 Latin words, and he does not indicate if pederasty and knabenschander are the ONLY TWO words that those Latin words can mean (and if the place in which he looked it up actually used the word knabenschander or if that was his own conclusion.  

He also engages in further false inferences therefrom.  He falsely infers that:

1. Martin Luther would have used a lexicon like this.

2. that this lexicon would have used information from the previous millennia or more, all the way back to the early Church Fathers.

However, he does not mention what Luther taught about homoperversion.  Luther wrote:

“The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female.  Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature.  Whence comes this perversion?  Without a doubt it comes from the devil.  After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the Devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature.”  [What Luther Says: An Anthology, Volume 1 (1959), Ewald Martin Plass, p. 134.]

This gayologian does not explain, based upon what evidence that this lexicon used data collected over a thousand year period.  He likes to “name drop” (or Hebrew or Greek “word drop”; or “verse drop”)—without any detail (often without even dropping the name, but merely a vague innuendo).  Here, he name drops the Early Church Fathers—without mentioning any of them or what they had to say about homoperversion.  Allow me to offer some:

- Justin Martyr (100-165)

“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [c. a.d. 151])

- Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians.”  [Exhortation to the Greeks (c. a.d. 190)]

- Tertullian (155-240)

“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.” (Modesty, 4 (c. a.d. 220)]
“When Paul asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature in that which is unnatural, he validates the natural way.”

- Cyprian (200-258)

“If you were able... to direct your eyes into secret places, to unfasten the locked doors of sleeping chambers and to open these hidden recesses to the perception of sight, you would behold that being carried on by the unchaste which a chaste countenance could not behold.  You would see that it is in an indignity even to see... Men with frenzied lusts rush against men.”

- Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260-340)

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” [Proof of the Gospel, 4:10 (c. a.d. 319)]

- St. John Chrysostom (349-407) delcared that homosexuality was worse than murder and that it is so degrading that it is a sort of earthly punishment in itself; he also referred to its practice as “monstrous insanity”.

- Emperors Constantius II. and Constans (a.d. 342) decreed the death penalty for any male who “marries [a man who was behaving] as a woman... [which creates a situation in which normal] gender has lost its place”.

- Ambrosiaster (written between 366-384)

“Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry.  Those who interpret this differently do not understand the force of the argument.  For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended?... It is clear that, because they changed the truth of God into a lie, they changed the natural use (of sexuality) into that use by which they were dishonored and condemned.”  [Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas (1966) Heinrich Joseph Vogels,  Vinzenz Bulhart, and Rudolf Hanslik]

- Emperors Valentinian II., Theodosius I. and Arcadius (a.d. 390) denounced males “acting the part of a woman”, and condemned those who were guilty of such abominations to be burned to death in public execution.

- Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [a.d. 400]).

However, some of the most-damning evidence is the meaning of the Greek word arsenokoitai and the Hebrew word #2145 zawkawr themselves.  Neither of them mean ANYTHING in terms of age.  Both words are GENERIC words for “male”.  Let us see how the words are used in Scripture, to verify this.

The prefix (the first half of) #733 arsenokoitai (“men-abusers”) is #730 arhreyn / arseyn.  It is used in 7 verses in all of the New Testament:

- “...He which made them at the beginning made them male^#730 and female.” (Matthew 19:4)

- “...from the beginning of the creation God made them male^#730 and female.” (Mark 10:6)

[Clearly Adam was not created as a boy.]

- “Every male^#730 that openeth the womb...” (Luke 2:23)

[The only intention here is gender, not age: that is, every infant that is born that is a male, which is the “first” offspring birthed by a woman, that male-infant is holy and special to God, a firstfruits.  Clearly “young boys” do not proceed forth out of the womb 8 to 12 years old.]

- “And likewise also the men^#730, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men^#730 with men^#730 working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:27)

[This verse is not suggesting that “boys” have sex with other “boys”.  The juxtaposition is also leaving the NATURAL use of a woman.  Boys are not allowed to have sex with women, that would be an “unnatural act” in itself.  This verse is talking about MEN—and the word “MALE” is used in all 3 instances in this passage just in case any homoperverts in the 21st Century would attempt to twist Scripture.  It is called UNNATURAL.  It is not a man-on-boy molestation: It is not men “against” men, but men WITH men.  “Unseemly” is a bit of a refined understatement (though it is literal), the word means “shamefully, indecently”.  The Greek word here for “error” can also mean “delusion” or “straying”; its root word means, “roving (as a tramp), imposter, deceiver”.]

- “...there is neither male^#730 nor female...” (Galatians 3:28)

[This verse is clearly referring only to gender, not age.]

- “And she brought forth a man^#730 child^#5207...” (Revelation 12:5)

- “...he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man^#730 child.” (Revelation 12:13)

[In v.5, #730 is referring only to gender, not age, and to show this, another word is used for child, #5207 ^hwios, which should more properly be translated “son”, since that is what the word means; it is not the generic Greek word for “child” which is teknon, a completely unrelated word.  In v.13 ^hwios is not repeated because, as is a common Hebraism or Hellenism (and English), certain words can be dropped out of a sentence if the word is already established earlier in the conversation.]

Hence, the meaning of the word arsenokoitai in the 2 times that it is used in Scripture and the meaning of its root word arhreyn / arseyn, the 9 times in 7 verses they are used in Scripture ALL show that the word does NOT mean “boy”, as the author, in his pet nameless German translation so translates; and as does Luther, who used expressions of the day.  This does not mean that the word meant then what a modern reader might assume it meant (even as I showed earlier that the word “kidnap” does not merely refer to stealing a child, but humans of any age).  This does not mean that the word even exclusively meant “boy-molester” in Luther’s time or after.  This author prances around and like a flower girl, who picks here and there to assemble a bouquet the way he wants it to appear, completely oblivious (or morally and mentally cauterized*) to facts and any sense of real scholarship.

[* I do not mention “spiritually” cauterized, for in order to cauterize there must first be life.]

Now let us see how the Hebrew word #2145 zawkawr is used in Scripture, which is used 82 times in 80 verses.  I have ommitted some that were superfluous and merely said the same thing, either of the same event or of similar events; however, I did NOT ommit some merely because they did not prove my point.  I have no point but to properly present the Word of God.

“So God created man^#120 in His Own Image, in the Image of God created He him; male^#2145 and female created He them.” (Genesis 1:27)

[Also, 5:2.  The word for man above is aw-dawm (Adamite).]

“And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male^#2145 and female^#5347.” (Genesis 6:19)

[The word for female is unrelated to this word for male, not merely the feminine form of the word for male.  Regardless, clearly here, as in the Genesis passage(s) above, the juxtaposition is male to female, an issue of gender, not age, not youth, and the Hebrew word does not mean “young boy”.]

“And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man^#120, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males^#2145; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.” (Exodus 13:15)

[Here we see that the original Egyptians were Adamites, pure Hamites; not the people into which the nation degenerated after Israel left (importing Nubians from sub-Sahara to replace their Hebrew slaves who left Egypt a shambles)—which was the means by which God fulfilled His Decree that Egypt would never again be any nation of significance in the world (Ezekiel 29:12-15).  Here we also see THE MOST-BLATANT example of God having fulfilled His Promise as it is recorded, “... I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee ...I give men for thee, and people for thy life” (Isaiah 43:3,4)]

“Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male^#2145 without blemish” (Leviticus 4:23)

[The vast majority of all sin offerings had to be a male.  Other Scriptures indicate the age, usually a yearling; but the Hebrew word #2145 is no indicator of age; only gender.  For peace offerings and possibly thank offerings, a male or a female was acceptable.]

“And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male^#2145, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.” (Leviticus 27:7)

[This clearly shows the word can apply to males far older than mere young boys.]

“In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male^#2145 [of the sons of Aaron] shall eat it: it shall be holy unto thee.” (Numbers 18:10)

[“Every” here does not mean every last one.  It means all who meet the qualifications.  It may mean those age 20 and up, but it also only applies to those who were clean, those who had no disease or impurity or had been defiled by being near a dead body, someone else who was diseased, etc.  There are about another dozen verses like this, in Numbers, in reference to the numbering of the males of the other tribes.]

“And those that were numbered of them were twenty and three thousand, all males^#2145 from a month old and upward: for they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel.” (Numbers 26:62)

[This is an excellent example showing in and of itself the word refers merely to gender, not any age.]

“And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males^#2145.” (Numbers 31:7)

[Clearly, this is referring to males of all ages, not merely young boys.  The below passage is even more emphatic!]

“17Now therefore kill every male^#2145 among the little ones, and kill every woman^#802 that hath known man^#376-#2145 by lying with him.  18But all the women^#802 children, that have not known a man#376-^#2145 by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. .... 35And thirty and two thousand persons^#5315-#120 in all, of women^#802 that had not known man^#2145 by lying with him.” (Numbers 31)

[#376 is the Hebrew word for man, iysh, (which is derived from #582 enosh, long o, “mortal man”) and usually refers to man in some form of relationship to another person, such as a husband.  Again, the word for male has no connotation of age, but only maleness, and the joining of the word with iysh is to specify man in that relationship of having carnally known any of these women mentioned in the passage.  This passage is referring to Midianite women who were virgins.  Midianites were pure descendents of Abraham.  However, this was a time-specific command allowing such women to be taken as wives.  It did not apply much long after this, because the Midianites had begun joining with the cursed Moabites and soon God forbade any dealings or intermarrige with the Midianites too.  See my highly edited notes in my reprinting of the books, Races in Chaos, 214pp, 6x9 pb., 16.50 + P&H and Kind Unto Kind,  6x9, 524pp., 27.50 + P&H; as well as my books, The War Between the Children of Light and the Powers of Darkness, 502pp., 20.00 pb., + P&H or 30.00 Hb., + P&H and The Post-Christian Era and the New Dark Ages, 112pp., 10.50 + P&H.

The word for woman #802 (ish-shaw / naw-shiym) is the feminine form of iysh / enosh.  It is also interesting to note, those carnally minded women, who don’t like God’s having placed them in an inferior role, need to realize that had those virgin women been men they would not have been spared but slain!

#5315-#120 is also an interesting word for “person”, it is the compound word nephesh-awdawm, “adamite-soul” might be a more-literal rendering.]

“Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male^#2145 or female^#5347” (Deuteronomy 4:16)

[Again, the issue is only gender, not age.]

“And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males^#2145, even all the men^#582 of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.” (Joshua 5:4)

[Here we see an instance of the Hebrew word all not referring to every last person (not the women! and not the alien residue who followed them) who came out of Egypt; the “all” is precisely defined in the words that follow.  Joshua circumcised all the males who were alive (not the dead ones).  Because of their lack of faith all men 20 years and up (males were counted as men at the age of 20—thus the Hebrew word #582 enosh, “(mortal) men” of war—and thus began their service in the army) died in the wilderness (other than Joshua, Caleb, Moses, Aaron, and a few others).  However, during the 40 years of wandering, the majority even failed to obey God and circumcise, so Joshua did it again as God commanded before entering the Promised Land to commence the Conquest.  Gender here is the only intention, 20 years and up is stipulated in other words.]

“For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male^#2145 in Edom” (I Kings 11:15)

[As I explain in other books, the only “Edomite” that was a “brother” to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:7) were those who descended from Esau’s Ishmaelite wife (for as long as they remained pure and di not marry corrupt or cursed people).  Had all Edomites been brethren (which they could not be because God cursed the Canaanites forever, including those whom Esau unlawfully married, for which he was rejected) David would not have been slaughtering them.  David killed them all, regardless of age, and nearly succeeded in killing them all, except one infant of the royal seed was spirited off to Egypt, and escaped.  It was him (Hadad) who by conspiracy overthrew the Syrian empire and established himself (and his sons) as king, and then became a thorn in the flesh to Israel beginning in Solomon’s time.  These Edomites (who are brothers to the Turks, who descend from the Hittites) eventually absorbed and replaced the people who were the pure Syrians* (that is, Aramaeans*) who at one time could marry into Israel.

* The word Syrian is a corruption of the word Tyrrian (inhabitant of Tyre) and often replaced the word Aramaean in the New Testament.  Of the 121 verses in the Hebrew Old Testament in which Syria or Syrian(s) appears, it is the word for Aram / Aramaean(s).  Of the 9 verses in which the Greek word Syria appears in the New Testament, it indeed is the Greek word Suria, derived from the Hebrew word for Tyre / Tyrus.  The land and people of Aramaea changed, as explained above, by the conspiracy and tyrrany of the Edomite, Prince Hadad, who desired revenge on David and Israel, and sacrificed the people of Aramea to do it; remember also the Edomite Doeg had no qualms about murdering the Israelite priests of Nob at evil King Saul’s command, though Saul’s own troops refused to do it.  Hadad then filled the places of power in the nation with his own, and they, and the Edomites’ neighboring kinsmen, the Hittites (Turkey) replaced the original Aramaeans, absorbing them.  While the modern Syrians may have some original Aramaean blood, they are corrupt with Canaanite blood.  The New Testament even refers to the Aramaean Captain, Naaman, who was cured of leprosy at Elisha’s instructions from God.  Though Naaman is referred to in II Kings 5 as a Syrian, the word used is the Hebrew Aramaean.  In the New Testament the word actually changes to the Greek Suros (Luke 4:27) because that is the word that had come into use.  However, it is incorrect, in the Old Testament, to refer to Syria, because it was not known as Syria until the Greeks recorded the name change.  This would be like referring to the United States in the 1600s.  The U.S. did not exist them, the land was there, there were Dutch and Swedish and English Colonists in the northeast, but they were not “Americans” in the “United States”.  Similarly, the word Babel and Babylon are the exact same word, and both correct.  Babylon (or more properly, Bah-bul-on, long o; there is no letter y in the Greek alphabet) is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew word Bawbel.  While we could talk about the Tower of Babylon and the Bahbelian Empire, it would be confusing because our minds have been historically calibrated to think of it in only one way.  However, this is a bit different than the issue of Aramaea and Syria, which are entirely different words.  It also adds confusion because Tyre was anciently associated with Sidon, and Sidon was founded by the Canaanite tribe, Zidonians.  However, Tyre, though often spoken of in tandem with Sidon, was founded by Phoenicians and was a Phoenician port-city and the original Tyrrians (such as Solomon and David’s friend, King Hiram / Huram was a kinsman, whose father was a Phoenician Tyrrian king and whose mother was an Israelite woman, of the tribe of Dan (II Chronicles 2:13).  So it seems that the powerful Phoenicians, who controlled the port, soon influence the Aramaeans and the name of Tyre / Tyrus was superimposed.  However, that did not change the identity of the Aramaens; but when Hadad overthrew the government and built it up with his own (probably importing his kinsmen to fill all seats of power and influence in not only government, but in trade, industry, commerce, etc.) the original people were bred out of existence; as we see happening now in all of Christendom—and due to the same conspiracy by the very same people!]

“Of the sons of Shechaniah, of the sons of Pharosh; Zechariah: and with him were reckoned by genealogy of the males^#2145 an hundred and fifty.” (Ezra 8:3)

[—and another dozen or so verses delineating the number of male individuals in the genealogies of different families.]

“Ask ye now, and see whether a man^#2145 doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man^#1397 with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?” (Jeremiah 30:6)

[Again, the word refers to gender, not age.  The other word for mane, #1397 is gheh-ber, which means “valiant or mighty man”.  The word for “doth travail with child” is the Hebrew #3205 yaw-lad, the verbal form of #3206 yeh-led, “offspring, something born, child, lad, boy, young” whence our word “lad” probably derives.]

“Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men^#2145, and didst commit whoredom with them,” (Ezekiel 16:17)

[Again, the word refers to gender, not age.]

“But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male^#2145, and voweth, and [instead] sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and My Name is dreadful among the heathen.” (Malachi 1:14)

[The majority of all sacrifices were males.  This verse refers to a person who had a perfect specimen, a male lamb or goat, and instead swapped it out and offered unto God a less-worthy, even deformed or diseased specimen.  The word refers only t male, not age.]

Clearly, this “theologian” is no such thing, but a “ME-alogian” who sees what he wants to see, through perverse eyes that see what the perverse mind wants reality to be.

God deliver Your people from perversion, from sin, from abominations, from the power of the flesh, from the delusions of Satan and thereby deliver them from Eternal Damnation.  Regenerate them unto life and transform and renew their minds and conform them into the Image of Christ, rather than having their delusions blasphemously twist God and Christ to conform to their perversions!  But if they are not of the elect whom You have predestined unto life, then have them fill up the FULL MEASURE of Your Wrath and unfurl it upon them SWIFTLY to remove them from the land of the living so that they do not perpetuate their abominations any longer to defile the earth and be a reproach unto all those who are godly and to be a reproach unto you, flaunting their perversion and parading it about, celebrating it and intolerantly and hatefully persecuting, terrorizing, and assaulting those who are righteous who refuse to join their perverse delusion with them.

----------------------

Second follow-up

My friend replied:

I read your response the the “Gay Theologian” twice so far and am, as usual, amazed at your ability to surround any topic in Scripture with a preponderance of evidence.

The deacon at church to whom she also sent the same “gay theology” link that she sent to me, is a lawyer and former university president.  His point was that exploring the translation of a Greek word in Scandanavian and German translations made hundreds of years later absolutely CANNOT contribute to the understanding of any Greek word from the First Century.  One must explore its denotative, connotative, and symbolic meanings in its historical, social, and linguistic contexts. (A point you made so well in your response as well.)  She dismissed his email by telling him that the original meaning of this or any other Greek word is fundamentally unknowable.  His response was that if that is so, then the NT, the best attested book from antiquity with four uncial and 990 cursive manuscripts, is a waste of time and there is no basis for Christianity whatsoever.  He took her argument to its logical extreme and left her standing in the hole it left. She responded by sending both of us an updated URL of the “gay theologian’s” post. 

Dr. P.

----------------------

My reply:

Thanks... it was a massive study... all in my head and where I needed to gather info... just a matter of getting it all out of my head and organized.

It is good that the deacon from the church knows how to think and also stood up to her.

The “Bottom Line” to her close-minded response:

Changing what you believe and however you want to attempt to justify it does not change reality for your daughter or you.  You will awake in Judgment.

Some miscreants can rob a bank, justify it in their minds however, they want; then get high on drugs and have many wonderful fantasies concerning reality and their future in it—but it does not change their crime nor their guilt nor their punishment when the law catches up with them.  She ought to read Psalm 2.

And she is utterly ignorant of reality because she is WILLFULLY ignorant and chooses delusion over reality... the Greek language is FIXED, Ancient, Classical, and Biblical, as well as modern.  Words have histories even as people and nations do.  There is a wealth of titles devoted to that, beyond lexicons.  Clearly she has never cracked open (or even knows about) Liddell & Scott’s MONUMENTAL Greek Lexicon, or Ceslas Spicq’s Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, or even the Lutheran Lenski’s New Testament Commentary.  AND CERTAINLY she has never read Dr. Gordon H. Clark (soon, I will complete having read all of his 26+ books at least once, some twice; and I plan on reading them all again; I read him daily)—who was a Greek expert, expert on Greek philosophy, and one of the greatest philosophers and theologians of all time (if not THE greatest).  She has not even begun to think, nor does she even know what thought is.  She is like an ant in an antfarm on a child’s dresser, in a position that does not even have a view out the window—and she is like the ant thinking that it understands the universe and God Himself, Who has never revealed Himself to it.

She has no idea the WEALTH of information of the MODERN WORLD that is based upon GREEK LITERATURE, history, philosophy, theology, philology, and more  (all based upon understanding of the GREEK LANGUAGE).  English is based GREATLY on the Greek language.  The Roman language and alphabet developed from the Greek (and the Greek from the Hebrew).  English is also based greatly on Latin (which derives from Greek).  English itself is as old as Biblical Greek, having derived from Old-English, also known as Anglo-Saxon; dating to roughly the same time period, though the earliest extant Anglo-Saxon literature composed around a.d 700, but the language existed long before that, in the Germanic tongues of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who coalesced and together displaced and absorbed the native Cyrmi / Brythons and Celts, also absorbing elements of their Cymric, Goidelic, and Brythonic languages.  Subsequently, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were invaded and conquered by various waves of Norsemen (Danes, Normans) and again, absorbed elements of Norse, which dates back as far as Old Saxon and Old Erse and Old Cymric, etc.—centuries before New Testament Greek.  Thus, if we can’t know the Greek language we can’t know English either, or history or anything... we are just amoeba floating around in fluid.

Her mentality is, “It’s my baseball and I will take it and go home if you don’t play by my rules”.

“...not justified but Just-As-Fried”...!  Sad, I can’t hear anyone laugh as they read... assuming they “get” my humor.

Thanks for reading, your support, and for your reply, God bless, Robert

----------------------

My friend replied:

Most westerners do not realize that we are the heirs of the merger of two brilliant cultures, which were merged by the apostle Paul on Mars Hill in 53 AD to begin the Christian culture of the West.. The classical Greek culture and the Hebrew culture brought to Israel by Moses in the Exodus.

When I was a freshman at Harvard I took a class on Ideas of Good and Evil in Western Literature taught by Crane Brinton, starting with an in-depth study of the Book of Job. Brinton  asked the class of 300 to raise their hand if they were a Christian. Everyone who was not obviously Jewish raised his hand; he then started asking questions. The hands went down until there were only three of us out of 300 with our hands up. He the said that is the problem, Western culture is a Christian culture and you people will be its leaders in a few decades and only one percent of you are Christians! It was a chilling moment.

When I started the Harvard Conservative League a year later, Crane Brinton was the only professor who would sponsor us.