by Mark Escalera
Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.
One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.
So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.
If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.
Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.
It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.
Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.
After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.
However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.
This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.
Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.
He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.
While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.
In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.
However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.
In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.
The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.
Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.
As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.
So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.
Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.
The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.
If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.
So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?
To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.
If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.
Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.
This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.
When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”
This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.
2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.
Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.
One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.
So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.
If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.
Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.
It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.
Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.
After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.
However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.
This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.
Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.
He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.
While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.
In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.
However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.
In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.
The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.
Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.
As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.
So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.
Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.
The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.
If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.
So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?
To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.
If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.
Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.
This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.
When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”
This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.
2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.
Notably, Mark Escalera readily admits in his article [“Is Homosexuality a Choice?”] that desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. He says: “WHEN DID I CHOOSE MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION? I DID NOT CHOOSE BECAUSE GOD MADE ME A MALE. THIS MEANS I AM HARDWIRED IN EVERY WAY TO RESPOND TO A FEMALE.” Yet for all of his 8,644 words above, he offers no evidence -- biblical, scientific or otherwise -- to explain on what basis he can make the substantial jump from his first sentence [“I did not choose because God made me a male,”], to his second [“This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female.”]
ReplyDeleteWhat he does rather is to presuppose that if his first sentence is true then therefore his second one must also be true. This is nothing more than an unwarranted assumption. Moreover, if his presupposition were true, it would also follow that all homosexually-oriented males would also be “hardwired in every way to respond to a female.” I’m afraid this too is an unwarranted assumption and there is no proof or evidence to support it. He is trying to lead readers to a belief that we have discovered the cause of a phenomenon when we have not.
In reality, Mark’s entire article is based on his presupposition that the Bible prohibits any and all forms of homosexual activity. I still want to know what rational grounds there can be for such a verdict in light of the numerous Evangelical arguments maintaining that such a position is in the final analysis exegetically unsupportable.
In almost 100 comments now associated with one of your earlier posts [“The Hypocrisy of the LBGT Community,” dated 20 August 2013], one Timothy Klaver unsuccessfully tried to “prove” that the Bible prohibits any and all forms of homosexual activity. One of the most interesting features of Tim Kalver’s diatribe is the poorly concealed attitude of personal disgust that permeates his prose. Here the author does not even attempt to make his case.
Clearly in order to oppose homosexuality, it is not enough simply to pontificate about "what the Bible says", since the conclusions we arrive at through biblical interpretation are crucially affected by our intellectual assumptions about what is plausible and reasonable. I still want to know what rational grounds there can be for such a verdict without reading things into the biblical text, as Mark has clearly done above, that simply are not there.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
No, Alex, it is not an "unwarranted assumption." As usual, you are dead wrong. Neither sentence requires proof--biblical, scientific, or otherwise--because it is the natural hard-wiring of EVERY male to respond to the female (and vice versa)--including professing homosexuals (who CHOOSE otherwise because of their LUSTS).
ReplyDeleteAgain, we DO know what causes homosexuality. It is the same thing that causes incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc. SIN! You argue that we don't choose our sexual orientation, but that we "discover" it. The logical conclusion to your lame and baseless argument is that those who are geared toward incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc., MUST HAVE discovered that is their natural "orientation," too. So then, by direct result, we should not "discriminate" toward those kind of people either. After all, they can't help it. However, sin is the root cause of everything outside of natural heterosexuality.
Now, there is irrefutable proof in regard to what Mark has written--biblical, scientific, and otherwise. All any intelligent and educated individual has to do is look at the creation account. God created each species with a partner that was "similar to" yet "different from" each other. Two males and two females are mirror images of each other. They are NOT "different from" each other, as the Hebrew words reveal to us. Science, biology, and nature prove the hard-wiring of males toward females to be a fact of life. The penis and the vagina are perfectly designed FOR EACH OTHER--NOT for any other purpose. What would you say to someone who tried putting two plugs together instead of plugging it in a socket? Or someone who tried putting two nuts together instead of using a bolt? The same goes for humanity. The male and female were designed as PERFECT counterparts for each other.
Once again, Alex, you resort to your ad hominem fallacies. I proved rather successfully and beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible DOES prohibit all forms of homosexual activity. It is YOU who tried unsuccessfully and failed to "prove" that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. You might try being honest with both yourself and the readers, because they can clearly witness your defeat in the debate. you provided absolutely nothing to back your position, while I, on the other hand, buried you with facts, evidence, quotations, statistics, etc. that back my position. In order to attempt to maintain your position, even while in the face of your obvious and demonstrated loss, you MUST resort to ad hominem fallacies simply because you are intimidated by me and are afraid of the information I will bring to the table because it ALWAYS crushes your simple and baseless arguments.
Try doing your homework first before opening your mouth and inserting your foot. You only succeed in tipping the scales and making yourself look even more like a giant fool than you already are. You might want to quit while you're behind.
Timothy
http://beareansdesk.blogspot.com
TIM KLAVER’S EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF EXEGESIS
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
In addition to getting angrier, you’re also seemingly getting more desperate. I understand the only way you can support your theories is to read things into the biblical text that simply aren’t there. You’re not the first to resort to such tactics and certainly won’t be the last. But you’re now moving moved from treading on thin ice to even more precarious positions by claiming your theories to be “irrefutable.”
Its one thing for you to claim that every male -- those heterosexually-oriented and those homosexually-oriented -- is “hard-wired to respond to females” in a psychosexual capacity. You can even allege it’s your personal belief such a theory can be drawn from the creation account. But to insist that the creation account is your “irrefutable evidence” flies in the face of most every Evangelical Bible scholar whose respected works on biblical exegesis are required reads at most Evangelical seminaries.
Neither does it stop with the Evangelical exegetical community. Your “hard-wring” theory also flies in the face of the now defunct and disgraced ex-gay movement. After nearly four decades of claimed successes, we now hear directly from the ministries’ participants and their leaders that such claims of “hard-wring” were just wishful thinking and deceit.
The contrasts between accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry in the NT and what we saw in almost forty years of “gay-to-straight” claims is striking. Jesus’ works of healing were never challenged on the basis that perhaps they had not taken place. On the contrary, the blind did see, the lame did walk and the dead were raised. Not even Jesus’ worst enemies suggested anything less. Instead his enemies were riled by the fact that Jesus’ healing ministry was so obviously effective, because it shamed them, exposed their lack of compassion and undermined their authority.
As one former leader of an Exodus-based ex-gay ministry, but now one who’s ministry provides realistic support for Christian gay people seeking to integrate their faith and sexuality — has poignantly noted: “If these people had been running a business that depended for its survival on the quality and reliability of their product, they would have become bankrupt years ago. If they had been offering a medical solution for some sickness or disease and had produced as disastrous a long-term effect on their patients as these ministries have, they would have been sued out of existence.”
You claim “hard-wiring” theory is “irrefutable?” Sorry, my brother. The evidence is against you.
Even more audacious, you claimed above that you have “PROVED RATHER SUCCESSFULLY AND BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE BIBLE DOES PROHIBIT ALL FORMS OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY.”
Fact is what you did was exactly the opposite of that. We're working hard to get you to understand exegesis, to see what the ORIGINAL authors had in mind as opposed to frontloading and reading latter day prejudicial concerns back into the biblical text, as every respected biblical scholar warns us to avoid like the plague (eisegesis). But you still don’t seem to get it.
Continued on Page 2 of 3
TIM KLAVER’S EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePage 2 of 3
What you continue to do is read things into the text that are not there and concoct theories to support your prejudices without being able to back them up. Moreover, every time an Evangelical scholar whose respected works on exegesis is quoted to refute your foolishness, you simply dismiss them as if they have no idea what they’re talking about.
It would be one thing to claim this is what you personally believe. But to insist that your foolishness is “irrefutable” when it has indeed been refuted by up, down, left and sideways, reveals just how desperately you’re trying to sell snake oil.
Dear brother Timothy, look at the people you keep quoting from. To cite juts a couple of examples, you’ve repeatedly quoted John Chrysostom (ca 400 C.E.) to support what you consider “irrefutable evidence” that Paul was talking about lesbianism in Romans 1:26 (“Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.”) Can you explain how Chrysostom’s comments can be considered “irrefutable” when the inference of church fathers for 400 years was that Paul was referring to slave abuse or avaricious anal penetration of women to avoid pregnancy? Tell us it’s your personal theory; but don’t tell us it’s “irrefutable” or that you “proved rather successfully and beyond the shadow of a doubt that the bible does prohibit all forms of homosexual activity.” Writing from Corinth, where over a thousand self-castrated priests served Cybele in orgiastic rites, the evidence is that Paul has cultic prostitution in mind.
Who else do you quote for your “irrefutable” and “beyond a shadow of doubt” proof? At least four times here you’ve quoted Bernadette Brooten from her book “Love Between Women” (University Of Chicago Press, 1998). Do you even know where Brooten gets the notion that sexual orientations and categories such as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” existed in the ancient world? Are you ready? From astrologers!!! She contends that “astrologers in the Romans world knew of what we might call sexual orientation” (page 140). What is her evidence for this already defensively qualified and tentative claim? Well, Ptolemy and Firmicus Maternus, among others, identify certain configurations of stars which indicate so. Brooten concludes that “the stars (according to the ancient astrologers) determined a woman’s erotic inclinations for the duration of her life,” and hence, there was a category of persons viewed in antiquity as having a long-term or even a lifelong homoerotic orientation.” Of course, according to Brooten, the astrologer’s sexual system was rather more complicated, as she hastens to point out: “They saw a plethora of orientations,” not just two or three.
What makes Brooten’s treatment of the ancient material open to criticism is precisely the way she goes about grappling with the conundrum of the oldness and newness of lesbianism as a sexual category and experience.
Continued on Page 3 of 3
TIM KLAVER’S EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePage 3 of 3
For more careful scholarship on these issues, you might turn instead to someone like James V. Brownson, to cite just one example, who teaches New Testament at Western Seminary. In his new book, “Bible, Gender, Sexuality” (Eerdmans, 2013), Brownson underscores the importance of historical distance between ancient texts and applications today. For instance, Brownson maintains that any sex act between men in the ancient world involved assumptions of status difference between them. Pushing today’s same-sex marriages into ancient texts is an act of abuse against both couples and texts. He argues that moral logic transcends ancient settings of rape, pederasty and sex slavery, but that other aspects are culture-specific, requiring “cross-cultural perspective when we attempt to apply them in contemporary contexts.” Ancient oppressive and violent same-sex acts “explain Scripture’s negative stance toward the types of same-sex eroticism the Bible addresses, but they do not directly address the case of committed and loving same-sex relationships.”
THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS AS OPPOSED TO EISEGESIS WHICH YOU STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO GRASP. I suspect the primary reason you refuse to grasp it is because once you do, your theories collapse like a house of cards.
As numerous before him have already recognized, Brownson concludes that ancient writers “show no awareness of the modern notion of sexual orientation”. On sexual impurity, he sums: For Paul, “impurity focuses on internal attitudes and dispositions, particularly lust (excessive desire) and licentiousness (lack of restraint)” and strongly questions whether “committed gay and lesbian unions, which seek the discipline of lifelong commitment, should still be characterized as ‘impurity’.”
Contrary to today’s common assumptions about “one flesh”, Brownson explains that the “entire discussion of one flesh in Genesis (and indeed throughout the Bible) takes place without even a hint of concern with procreation.” He writes: “‘one-flesh’ union in Genesis 2:24 connotes, not physical complementarity, but a kinship bond.” He penetratingly critiques Robert Gagnon’s exegesis of Genesis, on which Gagnon builds his antigay argument.
He well notes the importance of “honor-shame” assumptions in biblical culture. “Paul’s characterization of the sexual misbehavior in Romans 1:24-27 as ‘degrading’ and ‘shameless’ requires that we understand this form of moral logic.” He suggests, as even prominent early church fathers did, that “reference to ‘their women’ in Romans 1:26 probably does not refer to same-sex activity.”
Now as I’ve asked you before, dear Timothy, since you seem to be of such influence and wisdom that you can dismiss any Evangelical scholar who does not agree with you -- including the most revered in the field of biblical exegesis, do please tell us about your own qualifications and credentials for making such determinations. Do you have any qualifications? I suspect you have none.
You have not “proved rather successfully and beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible does prohibit all forms of homosexual activity.” Far from it, dear boy. What you’ve “proved” is that the only way you can claim “irrefutability” for your theories is to ignore the respected works of every esteemed scholar of biblical exegesis who has already refuted them. The only thing appearing to be “hard-wired” here is your unbendable determination to read things into the biblical text that simply are not there.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
MORE SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE “EXEGESIS” FROM TIM KLAVER
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
One of many erroneous assertions you’ve made in the comment thread associated with the earlier post on Jerry’s blog [“The Hypocrisy of the LBGT Community,” Aug 20, 2013] is the following -- and I quote you: “THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY ON EVERY PAGE, FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION”.
In connection with this you also stated -- and I quote you again: “1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11, GALATIANS 5:19-21,AND EPHESIANS 5:5 MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HOMOSEXUALS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
While we’ve addressed in detail your slovenly exegesis the Greek term “arsenokoitai” found in 1 Cor. 6:9 on that same thread (i.e., see my comment there of Sept 6 titled “Arsenokoitai”), we have not addressed your sloppy exegesis on the other inferences, namely that Gal 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5 that you claim “make it clear that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I have a problem with sloppy and irresponsible exegesis, and as man who claims to have high regard for God’s holy Word, I would think you should too. Since this is yet another classic example of how you read and force things into the biblical text that are not there, I thought it might be helpful to point out how and where you run amuck by resorting to eisegesis (i.e., reading your own ideas and personal prejudices back into the biblical text) instead of applying the common sense rules of responsible biblical exegesis (i.e., drawing out from the text what actually is there).
Firstly, the mere fact that you insist the Bible condemns homosexuality on EVERY page from Genesis to Revelation, should alert you of your desperate need to look for the homosexual “boogey man” on every page -– and if you don’t find him there, you’ll just place him there whether the biblical text justifies it or not.
In the case of the above example, the only way you can assert that Gal 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5 “make it clear that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” is by again resorting to frontloading, that is to say, reading your own personal, political and/or ideological beliefs back INTO the Bible, instead of reading OUT FROM the Bible what the original writers were saying.
Following are the two texts in question:
Gal. 5:19-21 says:
“Now the works of the flesh are obvious: FORNICATION [Greek: “porneia”], impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Eph. 5:5 says:
“Be sure of this, that no FORNICATOR [Greek: “pornos”] or impure person, or one who is greedy, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”
Continued on Part 2 of 2
MORE SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE “EXEGESIS” FROM TIM KLAVER
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
These two verses (Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5) contain the words “FORNICATION” and “FORNICATOR”, respectively, from where you again read in your homosexual “boogey man” into the text. The actual Greek words here, of course, are “porneia” and “pornos”. This is also from where we get our English word “pornography”.
What you don’t mention since you’re so fraught with hope to find your homosexual “boogey man” on every page of the Bible is that the term “porneia” is a generic term used to describe a wide array of what was deemed "sexual immorality" at the time of the Bible's writing.
To cite a few examples: In 1 Cor. 7:2 we fin "porneia" used for voluntary sexual intercourse of an unmarried person with someone of the opposite sex. In Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9, we find it used as a synonym for adultery. In Rev. 2:14 and Rev. 2:20, we find it used to refer to harlotry and prostitution. And in John 8:41, Acts 15:20 and 1 Cor. 5:1, we find it used for various forms of unchastity.
So once again I must ask you, brother Klaver, since there is no specific mention or even an negligible alluding to “porneia” in either of these cases as referring to any kind of same-sex activity, can you explain to us how you can justifiably take a general term like “porneia” which can have varying meanings in various contexts and simply conclude from Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph 5:5, “UM, ITS HOMOSEXUAL, THAT SETTLES IT; LET’S MOVE ON” -- especially from a simple vice list like this without any other context or supporting information to shed light on its meaning? How can you quote these passages as “irrefutable proof” that “the Bible condemns homosexuality on every page, from Genesis to Revelation,” as you continue to erroneously assert?
I’ve reminded you repeatedly that exegesis does not allow us to simply rip passages from their context and then build our own personal doctrines around based on our personal prejudices them or read our own personal aversions back into them.
Therefore, if you refuse to resort to responsible biblical exegesis (i.e. drawing out from the biblical text what it actually meant to the ORIGINAL author and ORIGINAL intended audience) when making your case, and instead insist on resorting to eisegesis (i.e., reading your own ideas and prejudices back into the Bible and thereby putting into the text things never intended by the author), why should anyone read your material as being authoritative? I keep asking you, what credentials, if any, do you have? I would again say that the only thing that appears to be “hard-wired” here is your unbendable determination to read things into the biblical text that simply are not there. That is not responsible exegesis. That is the exact opposite of responsible exegesis.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 1 or 45
My friend, Jerry Sheppard, and I have been conversing with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken for several months, who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Apparently Alex failed to read where Jesus says “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12) and where it testifies that “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). If Alex would pay attention to Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 3:4-10, he would realize that he is not a Christian. It is not possible to be a Christian and a homosexual (or insert any other habitually practiced sin here).
As you will witness first-hand from his comments, Alex constantly and consistently laces his responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions. Furthermore, you will also witness how Alex’s responses are riddled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex delights in ripping verses and passages from their context and fails habitually to apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation) and engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis. Alex talks a good game concerning exegesis, plagiarizing the definitions from authors who have spoken on the subject without giving them due credit, but constantly and consistently fails and neglects to actually practice responsible exegesis.
As Joe Dallas, a former practicing homosexual, said, “[Pro-gay theology] takes scriptures we’re all familiar with, gives them an entirely new interpretation, backs its claims with the words of well-credentialed scholars, and gives birth to a new sexual ethic. Common sense may reject it, but until it’s examined more closely, it’s difficult to refute.”1 So, without further adieu, let us get into it and examine it more closely...
GENESIS 1 & 2
In order to understand the truth about something, one must start at the very beginning. In the case of sexuality, our beginning is man’s beginning where God first created man and woman. The creation account does not say anything about homosexuality because it does not have to. It presents a very clear picture of God’s standard and intention for all men and women, which is maintained and upheld throughout the entire Bible.
Alex argues:
“To argue that the Creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible: the argument from silence.”2
This statement reveals just how blind and ignorant Alex truly is, and just how little he knows what “silence” is. Alex must maintain this baseless argument because otherwise his world comes crashing down, and that is precisely what we are going to see happen.
The Bible tells us that “The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:20). Adam looked upon all the animals and saw that they had their suitable mate, but none of them was a suitable mate for him. The pairs of animals were of the same species but were different from each other. One was a male and the other was a female. This was important in order for them to be able to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:22), the mandate given by God to all creatures.
(Continue to 2 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 2 or 45
God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18a). Any man. Every man. All encompassed in Adam, our head and representative. God then continued by saying, “I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18b). Now, if a person took two nuts or two bolts and tried putting them together, you would laugh at that person and call them a fool. Clearly the nut was designed for the bolt and vice versa. If that same person took two plugs or two outlets and tried putting them together, you would again laugh at that person and call them a fool. Clearly the plug was designed for the outlet and vice versa. Likewise, the same is true of the penis and the vagina. The penis was perfectly designed to enter the vagina, and the vagina was perfectly designed to receive the penis. They were perfectly designed for each other; both for pleasure and for procreation: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28).
Alex thinks that it is an argument from silence merely because homosexuality is not mentioned. He fails to realize that that is the point. Only heterosexuality is mentioned. The lack of something mentioned is not the condoning thereof. Alex also fails to realize that it is his argument which is derived from silence here. Alex cannot prove that Jesus condoned something just because He did not mention it, and that is what he is attempting to do with the creation account, saying that because it does not say anything about homosexuality that it must not condemn it. We have other Scriptures that clearly condemn it (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27), and we know what Jesus upheld as a standard, and that certainly was not homosexuality. The creation account gives a very clear picture—a standard—of God’s intention for men and women. The only standard for sexual expression you will find consistently praised in both Testaments is that of heterosexual monogamy. Throughout the entire Bible, only that standard is upheld. Observe:
• “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
• “Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house, your children like olive plants around your table.” Psalm 128:3
• “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck.” Proverbs 1:8-9
• “Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.” Proverbs 5:18-19
• “My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck. When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; And reproofs for discipline are the way of life.” Proverbs 6:20-23
(Continue to 3 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 3 or 45
• “An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil All the days of her life. She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: ‘Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.’ Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.” Proverbs 31:10-31
• “This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” Malachi 2:13-16
• “And said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Matthew 19:5
• “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Mark 10:6-8
• “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘The two shall become one flesh.’” 1 Corinthians 6:16
• “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:2
(Continue to 4 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 4 of 45
• “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Ephesians 5:22-31
• “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. ... You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” 1 Peter 3:1-4, 7
Alex argues:
“But though heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality.”2
As the creation story and the rest of Scripture bears out (as well as all forms of logic, common sense, science, and nature), heterosexuality is the only form of appropriate sexuality. Every other form of sexuality is prohibited and condemned as immoral perversion: homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. All these other forms of sexuality are condemned in Leviticus 18 and 20 alongside that of homosexuality, and as we will see shortly, they had nothing to do with idolatrous practices of “fertility” rituals, as Alex suggests.
Alex says:
“The authors of Genesis were intent on answering the question: Where do we come from?”2
What Alex fails to see and understand from the Scriptures themselves is that the author of Genesis was also intent on answering the questions, “What am I here for? What is my purpose?” Man’s primary purpose was to glorify God. God created male and female for each other and gave them the mandate to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Anything outside of this is disobedience, which is not glorifying God. Disobedience is sin and sin does not glorify God. Anything outside of this cannot obey the mandate given by God.
Alex argues:
“While it is true that God “made them male and female,” your argument against homosexuality from the Creation order is hazardous on numerous fronts. Virtually all Christians reject the notion that God created sex for procreation only despite the fact that the first man and woman were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”. An argument based on an inability to reproduce is all the more problematic to defend given the vast number of marriages that never lead to procreation. Some couples marry at ages when childbirth is no longer an option. Other couples are childless because of impotence, infertility, health restrictions, or genetic concerns. Still others opt to not have children for a variety of reasons. The lack of children doesn’t invalidate these relationships nor does it devalue them.”3
(Continue to 5 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 5 of 45
Alex’s argument here is extremely problematic. He is attempting to make a case based very simplistically on the fact that sex is also for pleasure, not just procreation. First of all, whether pleasure is derived from sex or not is not the issue, nor does it have anything to do with the issue. This is one of Alex’s Red Herring Fallacies that he so delights in using, misdirecting people to something other than the issue at hand. Sex was designed for both procreation and recreation between a husband (male) and wife (female). Nothing less. Nothing more. Procreation is inevitably the end result. Second of all, Alex also utilizes the Part-to-Whole Fallacy here in attempting to use cases where heterosexual couples are incapable of having children as support for homosexual relationships being valid. This argument is extremely simplistic and crude in its ignorance. The fact is, whether heterosexual couples have children or not is the direct result of God’s will in their lives, despite what they personally might desire. If the obstacle preventing them from having children were removed by God or cured by an operation, these heterosexual couples could have children. However, homosexuals will never be able to procreate and produce progeny. Ever! There is nothing that can be done to alter this fact of reality. If homosexuals were left to themselves, they would die in their own generation without ever producing a subsequent generation. Alex’s argument only serves to show how little he actually knows and how willfully ignorant he is.
Dealing with the creation account, Alex attempts to feed his readers with another Red Herring Fallacy of his:
“[The creation account] does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state and yet we know that singleness is not condemned.”2
Alex is again trying to making an argument from silence. He assumes that because homosexuality was not mentioned, therefore it cannot be considered abnormal. But this simply is not the case. The creation account upholds the standard of heterosexuality as God’s intention for human relationships. Likewise, both Jesus and Paul upheld the standard of heterosexuality. If I uphold the life of a child in the womb, I am necessarily opposed to abortion. Likewise, Scripture, Jesus, and Paul, while upholding the standard of heterosexuality, are necessarily opposed to homosexuality (and every other sexual deviation). The statement encompasses every man; all men: “For this reason a man [any man, every man, all men] shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Alex merely wants to feed his readers with Red Herring fallacies in order to distract them from the truth. As soon as they start discovering the truth behind one of his Red Herrings, he introduces another Red Herring. There is no limit to the errors Alex is willing to commit in order to gain approval for homosexuality.
Interestingly enough, while self-refuting and self-condemning, Alex notes:
“Complementarity involves seeking someone matching you, someone “like-opposite” you, complementary and perceived as fascinatingly other than your own sense of self.”2
(Continue to 6 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 6 of 45
An examination of the Hebrew phrase “meet for” (KJV) or “suitable for” (NASB, ESV) in Genesis 2:18 reveals precisely this. The phrase “meet for” or “suitable for” in the Hebrew indicates something that is both similar yet different—like-opposite; something that was similar to Adam yet completely different from him. This is what was “suitable” for not only Adam but for every man—woman. Every animal in the animal kingdom had its suitable pair, something that was similar but different. They were of a similar makeup, being of the same species, yet they were different from each other, one being male and the other female. Like but opposite. They were not mirror images, as you find with homosexuality. Homosexuality is “like-like.” There is nothing complementary about homosexuality. In creating the “suitable” helper for Adam (who is a picture of every man), God created woman. Woman is similar to Adam, being of the same species, but different from him, being a woman (with womanly parts) as opposed to a man (with manly parts), which would be a mirrored-image. This difference is key to the mandate that God gave to the two of them, which is the same mandate given to all mankind—”Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28)—regardless of recreational enjoyment derived from sex.
In God’s original design, human sexual conduct was to occur within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. The first chapter of the Bible says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Differentiation of the human race into two complementary sexes (“male and female”) is the first fact mentioned in connection with being “in the image of God.” In Genesis 2, which describes in more detail the process summarized in 1:27, God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). Genesis then applies the example of Adam and Eve to all marriages: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This “one flesh” sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matt. 19:4-6). Furthermore Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus and Paul both assume the logic of sexual intercourse implied in Genesis: a sexual bond between a man and a woman requires two (and only two) different sexual halves (“a man” and “his wife”) being brought together into a sexual whole (“one flesh”).4
Alex likes to argue that, “This is not a question of genitalia.” Glaringly in error, Alex fails to realize that genitalia is a part of the whole. He is attempting, unsuccessfully, to separate one from the other. He is attempting to remove genitalia from the picture and focus on intentions, i.e., “love.” I am sorry, but no matter what your intentions are or how much you “love” your sibling or relative, incest is wrong; no matter what your intentions are or how much you “love” your dog (or whatever animal), bestiality is wrong. Your intentions and your idea of “love” do not make wrong actions right. Furthermore, anyone who has ever been involved with anything remotely related to homosexuality will testify that it is all about genitalia and sex. Wrapping it up in a pretty bow and slapping the label “love” on it does not change the fact their arguments are primarily and solely based on their lustful desires to have degrading sex with one another, treating each other as if they are women (in the case of homosexual men).
(Continue to 7 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 7 of 45
Alex says that, “The complexity of the “one-flesh” phenomenon is a union that has much more to do with two persons than with two body parts,” and he is yet again in error. Paul said, “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.’” (1 Cor. 6:16). Alex’s argument is apparently ignorant of arranged marriages where neither person really knew each other or had love for each other, but would quite possibly later grow to love one another. The union of two becoming one has to do entirely and solely with sexual intimacy. An examination of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well will reveal this, also.
He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” John 4:16-18
Notice her response: “I have no husband.” In other words, “I’m not married. I’ve never been married.” Where am I getting that from, you ask? Let us simplify our understanding of Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman by exchanging the word “husband” for the word “apple,” making it more revealing: “For you have had five apples, and the one you now have is not your apple.” What does she possess? Right, an apple! A husband! Yet, not hers! “For you have had five husbands, and [the husband] you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” The apple, or husband, belonged to someone else. She was in an adulterous affair with a legitimately married man, making him her husband. He was another woman’s husband. Before this adulterous affair, the man was a legitimately married man. Her affair was defiling another woman’s legitimate husband.
The Greek word used for have in “the one whom you now have” is echo (εχω), and it infers possession. This same word is used for have had in “you have had five husbands.” She had five husbands in the past and she has one now. Furthermore, we have the word “and,” which carries on the same subject of the topic—another husband—which she possesses. She has had five husbands through sexual intimacy and the man she is now being sexually intimate with is her sixth husband.
Let us look at another passage dealing with marriage that illustrates the possession of the word have (echo, εχω) well: “For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’” (Mark 6:17-18). The law John referred to for marriage was not civil or religious, but the law of God in the sexual intimacy of a male and female: “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.’” (1 Cor. 6:16). Sexual intimacy is not just a physical encounter. It is a permanent marital consequence. It could have been said to Herod, “She whom you have (your present wife you are married to) is not your wife.” Herodias was Philip’s wife. Herod and Herodias were living in a fornicated marriage.
(Continue to 8 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 8 of 45
Alex goes on to argue:
“Fact is procreation is not even mentioned as a reason why God was creating a companion for the man.”2
Fact is, procreation was the mandate, or command, given to them upon creation: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Alex seems to have forgotten this, or is deliberately trying to leave it out. What Alex seems to forget is that Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of Genesis 1:26-28. Therefore, the mandate for procreation is a part of the creation process, as we see in regard to the creation of the animals who were given the same mandate. The most egregious thing that Alex writes, however, is this:
“In antigay rhetoric, however, Jesus seems to have died so that an anatomical technicality might be tweaked. ... The self-sacrificing love that “fulfills the law” and is shown within a committed same-sex marriage is beside the point.”2
With glaringly clear misconception, Alex has proven demonstratively that he has no clue what Paul is talking about when he says “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). In fact, Alex has demonstrated that he has no clue what “love thy neighbour” (Matt. 23:39) actually entails. Instead, in his perversion, he attempts to utilize both as a means for approving homosexual relationships. Furthermore, there is nothing “self-sacrificing,” “loving,” or “committed” about same-sex relationships. First of all, it is not called marriage. Marriage was defined by God as one man and one woman for life. Second of all, homosexuals are well known for their many and fleeting sexual encounters. Third of all, it is not “loving” or “self-sacrificing” to encourage someone to embrace their sin and habitually live in it. To call a relationship “loving” in the biblical sense means it is in accordance with God’s will and is fulfilling His purpose, resulting in His glory. Such is not the case concerning homosexual relationships. Alex clearly has a misconception of what it means to be self-sacrificing. Perhaps he might do well to study the life of Christ. Last of all, every individual you will ever meet is your neighbour. To “love thy neighbour” means to “treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Matt. 7:12) and to “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:3-4). As Paul said, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Alex, in his ignorance of exegesis and how to correctly and responsibly perform it, is doing exactly like the cults do here, taking a passage and trying to force support for his position.
What Alex also fails to grasp here and understand is that Jesus died to free us from slavery to sin (Rom. 6:11-14) and to save us from our sins (Matt. 1:21; John 1:29; 1 John 3:5). God gave us the power (2 Peter 1:3-4), through the Holy Spirit, that when temptations come our way (and they will come our way), to say “No” to them instead of saying “Yes” as we always did in the past, thereby committing sin (James 1:12-15; Rom. 6, 8). It is the homosexual who is seeking to tweak what Alex considers an “anatomical technicality.” There is no “technicality” about it. Wrong is still wrong. Woman was made specifically for man, and vice versa. When it states, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24), it has moved from the specific—Adam—to the general—”a man”; any man, every man.
(Continue to 9 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 9 of 45
Alex then goes on to state another one of his fallacious arguments:
“The parallel between today’s debate over homosexuality and earlier debates in which the Church was eventually forced to acknowledge they had erred is striking. We’ve already witnessed a global shift in this debate in that those few passages often quoted to claim the moral abhorrence of same sex relationships are now being reinterpreted by steadily growing numbers of evangelicals, Bible scholars and others, just as texts have been reinterpreted in the case of slavery, the ordination of women and a host of other issues.”2
First, Alex makes a general assumption and then concludes that his assumption is true. Second, he bases his conclusion of his position on the “global shift” and “growing numbers” of people who now support homosexuality, employing both the “Appeal to the People Fallacy” and the “Bandwagon Fallacy,” as if the numbers make his case. He is looking for acceptance and approval from the number of people who support his position rather than from the facts and evidence, because they are against him. Third of all, he asserts that the Bible has been “reinterpreted” concerning two cases wherein it actually has not (except by liberals). Please read my articles entitled Slavery: Is It Wrong? and Women Pastors: What Does the Bible Say? if you desire to learn the truth in regard to these two issues. Once again, Alex has made assumptions without doing the actual leg-work.
GENESIS 19
Alex argues:
“Everyone is familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. At least many people think they are. The point of the story is to condemn homosexuals and homosexual behavior, right? Wrong. And contrary to the belief of some, it’s not merely about a breach of the ancient sacred duty of hospitality either. Fact is there is much to cull from the biblical text that is often missed. Let’s take a closer look at this often misconstrued passage and I suspect you’ll see some things you did not see before.”5
Alex, and individuals like him, tends not to hold to the pro-gay ignorance that claims the men of Sodom merely wanted to be hospitable and friendly (even though later we will address just such a statement made by Alex). However, he still continues to deny and re-interpret key biblical passages. His beliefs and interpretations are a form of “collapsing context”; he believes because “everyone is doing it” that it must be true. He concludes that because there seems to be a “global shift” taking place in this debate, that the original writers could not have possibly had homosexual practices in mind. Our external circumstances do not interpret the Bible (eisegesis); it is the Bible that must shape our external circumstances (exegesis). To deny that the Bible teaches a particular truth just because the world largely does not hold to that truth does not negate that truth or alter that truth. Whether or not there occurs a global shift in this debate is irrelevant to the truth. The practices and acceptances of men do not determine truth, morality, or reality. Those standards are set by God!
With that being said, let us examine the passage in question.
(Continue to 10 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 10 of 45
“Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young (נצר) and old (זקן), all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.’ But they said, ‘Stand aside.’ Furthermore, they said, ‘This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.’ So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.” (Genesis 19:4-9)
From the underlined words, we can see how every argument Alex makes is completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed. Regarding the theory that pederasty is in view, the phrase “both young and old” rips it to shreds. Both young men and old men—from every corner of the city—wanted to have sexual relations with the men (not boys) being sheltered by Lot. These men are told by Lot, “do not act so wickedly,” to which they accuse Lot of being their judge. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. If hospitality and friendliness were in view here, how would anyone rightly call it wickedness, and why would the people accuse that person of being their judge? Furthermore, why would God destroy a city or nation for wanting to be hospitable and friendly? This theory is asinine and ludicrous. In Judges 19, these same actions are described as being foolish and vile. The fact that women were offered to these men and they declined, wanting the men instead, demonstrates powerfully the reality that they wanted to have sexual relations with the men. If it was merely about rape, they would have been happy to receive the women and rape them. Individuals who try and tell you otherwise are liars and they are bankrupt morally, mentally, spiritually, and intellectually.
19:4 the men of the city. Ever male in Sodom, both young and old, was involved in the assault on the two visitors. They had become a gang seeking an orgy of rape.
19:5 that we may know them. In Hebrew the verb “to know” (Hb. yada’) sometimes denotes sexual intercourse (e.g., 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; cf. Judg. 19:22). The context implies that the men of Sodom intend to have homosexual relations with the two visitors, hence the origin of the term “sodomy.”
19:6-9 Lot’s readiness to protect the two men from the mob surrounding his house is commendable. in desperation he offers his two unmarried daughters as substitutes--a shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act (even if he intended this only as a bluff, or expected the offer to be rejected). The reaction of the crowd only confirms the truly evil nature of their intentions.6
(Continue to 11 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 11 of 45
Some homosexuals have even attempted to argue that the Hebrew word for “men” in Genesis 19:4 is inclusive of women: “If you look at the original Hebrew text, and even early Greek translations, the word translated into English as ‘men’ can be inclusive of the women as well.”7 Therefore, they urge, the men and women of the city wanted to “gang rape” the two angels. However, this is false. The first flaw in their argument is with the Hebrew word אנושׁ (enowsh). It is not inclusive of women. It is a masculine noun meaning man. The plural of this word often serves for the plural of אישׁ (iysh), which “does not indicate humankind but the male gender in particular.”8 The second flaw in their argument is that the word used for the “men” of the city is also the same word used when demanding Lot to bring out the “men” (v.5). If it is inclusive of women, when Lot offered his daughters, why did they not take advantage of them? The third flaw in their argument is with the Greek word ανηρ in the Septuagint. It is not inclusive of women either. This is a masculine noun meaning man or husband. As you can see, these homosexuals/homosexual advocates are lying through their teeth, trying to forge support for their perverse behaviour.
The Bible informs us that even after they were all struck with blindness, the men of the city still continued to grope for the door, wearing themselves out—exhausting themselves. Why? When you are blind, you cannot participate in gang rape because you cannot see who it is you might be raping, and these men were after Lot’s guests. You would not want to rape your best friend after all. However, if you are blind, you can still engage in sexual activity. Any sane person in their right mind immediately struck with blindness would stop what they were doing because the realization that they were now blind would have kicked in. God goes so far as to inform us that even after they were blinded, these men did not stop. Homosexuals today bear the same character, attacking churches and doing things to its members that no rational human being would ever do to another human being. Homosexuality makes people irrational in their thoughts and in their behaviour.
What is even more interesting about the Genesis 19 passage in the Septuagint is the usage of the word σοδομιται in verse 4. Alex insists that there is no Greek word for “sodomites,” yet, here it is; and it is plural masculine. The Greek word for Sodom is Σοδομα. Σοδομιται refers to the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e., the Sodomites. This is precisely what the word meant in biblical times. The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century A.D. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, declared that Sodom’s sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. Nevertheless, despite this word not taking on its primarily sexual meaning until later, Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) and Methodius of Olympus (260-312 A.D.) attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as did St. Augustine and many others. Thus, “sodomites” refers to homosexuals.
Alex asserts:
“Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places in the Bible, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality.”5
Contradictory to Alex’s false assertions, “From Genesis, Sodom becomes an image for gross immorality in 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 7; but in such contexts as Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 16, the Sodom symbol refers rather to all injustices, including adultery and neglect of the poor. Certainly, in terms of imagery the Bible does not have the category ‘homosexuality,’ but rather ‘homosexual behavior’ or ‘homosexual acts.’”9 Homosexuality is the same as homosexual behaviour and/or homosexual acts.
(Continue to 12 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 12 of 45
Alex argues:
“[Nowhere] in the 26 times where Sodom is mentioned in the Bible (18 in the OT and 8 in the NT), is the sin of the Sodomites ever specified as homosexuality.”5
First of all, apparently Alex cannot count as Sodom is mentioned 47 times in the Bible (38 in the OT and 9 in the NT: Gen. 10:19; 13:10; 13:12; 13:13; 14:2; 14:8; 14:10; 14:11; 14:12; 14:17; 14:21; 14:22; 18:16; 18:20; 18:22; 18:26; 19:1; 19:4; 19:24; 19:28; Deut. 29:23; 32:32; Isa. 1:9; 1:10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 16:46; 16:48; 16:49; 16:53; 16:55; 16:56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; 11:23; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 1:7; Rev. 11:8). Second of all, the sin of the Sodomites is specified as homosexuality in several of those passages (e.g., 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7). The problem is, Alex is committing an Exegetical Fallacy by demanding the Bible spell out in modern words—”h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y”—its condemnation of homosexuality. All any intelligent and educated reader has to do is pay attention to what Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; and Romans 1:26-27 say and they will easily conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, “If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” A child reading these passages would conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality, also. Apparently, Alex is not as wise as a child.
The problem with Alex’s fallacious argument is that he is attempting to tell people that prior to the term “homosexual,” there existed no terms to describe homosexuals; that homosexuality is a modern thing not known in previous generations. This is false, erroneous, and a lie. The old English word used long before the word “homosexual” came into existence was the word “bugger.”
Canadian Oxford Dictionary:
bugger n. slang a person who commits buggery.
buggery n. 1 anal intercourse. 2 bestiality.
sodomite n. a person who engages in sodomy.
sodomy n. anal intercourse performed between two males or a male and a female.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
1bugger n. sodomite.
2bugger vt. to commit sodomy with.
buggery n. sodomy.
sodomite n. one who practices sodomy.
sodomy n. [the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11] 1 copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal. 2 anal copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Prior to this word being used, from the 6th century A.D. onward, homosexuals were referred to as “Sodomites,” because they committed the same sin that Sodom was guilty of committing. The word “Sodomites” appears in the 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, the Septuagint. So do not let anyone try to tell you that such a word did not exist in biblical times. They would be wrong and/or lying to you.
(Continue to 13 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 13 of 45
If we examine history, we can see several individuals commenting on Genesis 19 and referring to the sin of Sodom as that which relates to “homosexual behaviour” or “homosexual acts,” which is the same as homosexuality. Here are some quotes:
“The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind.” —Philo, 20 B.C. to 50 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)
“As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment.” —Flavius Josephus, 37 to 100 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)
“But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination.” —Methodius, 260 to 312 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)
(Continue to 14 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 14 of 45
“They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion.” —St. Basil, 329 or 330 to 379 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)
“Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust.” —St. Augustine, 354 to 430 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)
Even the Qu’ran, written around 632 A.D., clearly understood the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 to be that of homosexuality. Surah 7:80-81 reads: “We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Surah 26:165-166 reads: “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!” Surah 29:28-29 reads: “And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: ‘Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?—and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?’ But his people gave no answer but this: they said: ‘Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth.’” Surah 11:77-79 reveals their understanding of Genesis 19: “When Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: ‘This is a distressful day.’ And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: ‘O my people! here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?’ They said: ‘Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!’”
(Continue to 15 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 15 of 45
In an attempt to back the interpretational error of inhospitality, Alex quotes from Matthew 10:14-15. However, if Alex would do responsible exegesis instead of ripping passages from their context, as he delights in doing, he would have compared Scripture with Scripture and found that his passage has nothing to do whatsoever with hospitality or inhospitality, but with the acceptance of the Gospel, as revealed in Matthew 11:20-24, wherein Jesus uses those same words, “I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment.” How do we know this? Because of what was said in the verse prior: “if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.” Sodom would have “repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Alex demonstrates that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day than for himself and those like him who continue to embrace their sin rather than repent thereof.
Alex spins a tale of marvel when he says:
“We should also note that during biblical times men (and the kings) of conquered tribes were often raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Male-to-male rape was a way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes and a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. If we miss this, we not only miss what was going on in the Sodom and Gomorrah text, we also miss the meaning behind other passages such as 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 where Saul, gravely wounded by the Philistines, instructs his armor-bearer to:”
“Draw your sword and thrust me through with it lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.” (1 Chronicles 10:4)5
The word translated “abuse” in 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 is the Hebrew word alal (עלל), a word appearing 20 times in the Old Testament (Ex. 10:2; Lev. 19:10; Num. 22:29; Deut. 24:21; Judges 19:25; 20:45; 1 Sam. 6:6; 31:4; 1 Chr. 10:4; Job 16:15; Ps. 141:4; Isa. 3:12; Jer. 6:9; 38:19; Lam. 1:12; 1:22; 2:20; 3:51). Of its twenty occurrences, only once does it have a sexual connotation (Judges 19:25). In every single other occurrence, including that of 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, there is nothing sexual about it. Alex is forcing this rare interpretation of the word onto these passages, trying to forge support for his fictional tale that the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually humiliate strangers and visitors. This is nothing more than homosexual propaganda based on sloppy and dishonest scholarship. No such actions ever took place in history. If they had, word would have gotten out and nobody would have traveled to such cities. Those cities would self-destruct because they would have no merchants bringing anything to them. Moreover, if such things took place, there would be accounts of it, to which there are not. The meaning of this Hebrew word is as follows:
I. A verb meaning to do, to deal with, to treat severely, to abuse; to glean. It basically means to treat harshly or deal severely with; to practice evil: to do evil deeds in general (Ps. 141:9); to do evil toward a person (Lam. 1:12, 22; 2:20; 3:51). It describes the Lord’s dealings with Egypt to free the Israelites (Ex. 10:2; 1 Sam. 6:6). It is used of Balaam accusing his donkey of dealing treacherously with him (Num. 22:29). It describes the sexual abuse of a woman (Judg. 19:25).
II. A verb meaning to act childishly, to play the child. It means to behave foolishly as a child without maturity or strength. It is used of the enemies of Israel to depict the hopeless state of Israel who is oppressed by children (Isa. 3:12).
(Continue to 16 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 16 of 45
III. A verb meaning to defile. It means to make something unclean or unholy, to desecrate it. It is used figuratively of Job defiling and shaming his horn, a figurative expression of destroying his hope, character, strength (Job 16:15).
IV. A verb meaning to thrust in, to bury, to insert. It indicates striking an object into something. In context it refers to sticking a “horn,” one’s hope, character, strength, into the ground, that is, giving up (Job 16:15).10
If we examine this passage in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts), the word used here is empaizo (εμπαιζω), which means “to jeer at, to deride, to mock.” No homosexual-dominance boogeyman here.
Alex goes on to quote from Ezekiel 16:48-50, providing us with eisegesis as to what the sins of Sodom supposedly were. Regarding the phrase “detestable things,” Alex says:
“It is respectful of God’s gift to us to go after his intentions and meanings before arriving at our own. Sure enough, we find that God, speaking though the prophet, spells out in striking “in your face” condemnation explicitly what Sodom’s abhorrent conduct entailed.”5
Unfortunately, Alex never provides us with these so-called “in-your-face” spelled-out conduct, which, if they existed, would follow after verse 50. Instead, he back-tracks and provides us with sloppy and dishonest eisegesis on Ezekiel 16, trying to conclude, by his faulty assumptions, that the sins of Sodom are only those related to us in this chapter. He hopes to conceal the truth of what the Bible really says were the sins of Sodom. However, the Bible spells it out for us on a number of occasions. Isaiah 3:9 informs us of how Sodom made shameless proclamation of their sin (the same shameless proclamation that homosexuals demonstrate today): “The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom; they do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.” 2 Peter 2:6-8 also inform us as to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)” Likewise, so also does Jude 7: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
By the statement “committed abominations before me” (Ez. 16:50), our minds should be brought to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where we find the term “abomination” used to describe homosexual behaviour. The Hebrew word translated “abominations” here is to’ebah (תועבה), the very same term used to describe homosexual activities/relationships in the Holiness Code. To’ebah properly refers to something morally disgusting. Alex attempts to dismiss this and sweep it under the rug, but the fact it is a viable correlation between the two can be seen in how 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 7 refer to the sins of Sodom as gross immorality. Proper exegesis arrives at the conclusive fact that Genesis 19 informs us of the homosexual behaviour that the Sodomites were guilty of. Alex is doing like the cults with this passage, running to unrelated passages in order to try and dismiss the truth derived from the passage itself. This should be no surprise because everyone who does not belong to God does the exact same thing.
(Continue to 17 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 17 of 45
Alex concludes by saying:
“This is not my interpretation; it is that which is given in the Bible. You and I do not get to rip passages from their context and replace them in another age for the sake of convenience. And we don’t get to make things up as we go along. As always, we are stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning.”5
First of all, yes, it is Alex’s interpretation. His interpretation is nowhere to be found in the Bible or in history, as the evidence quoted above bears out. Second, Alex rips passages from their contexts all the time, making things up as he goes along, trying to force them to correspond with other passages. This is called “collapsing context.” Third, if Alex “stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as our primary meaning,” he would arrive at the simple internal interpretation that homosexual behaviour is in view here, of which the entirety of history backs up.
LEVITICUS 18 & 20
Alex says:
“In light of all the commotion over homosexuality, one would think the Bible has a lot to say on the subject. It does not. There are only five or six verses in the entire Bible that have been interpreted as addressing or condemning homosexuality. These verses, often referred to as the “clobber passages”, because they are frequently used to clobber or censure gay men and women today, are verses taken out of their contexts to proof-text the Bible’s alleged anti-homosexual stance.”11
First of all, the Bible does have a lot to say on the subject of homosexuality. Second, there are 9 passages that deal with the perversion of homosexual behaviour (Gen. 19:4-9; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Judg. 19:22-24; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-8; Jude 7)—not 5 or 6. Again, Alex demonstrates his inability to count accurately. 5 of them deal specifically with same-sex contact, but there are 9 that deal with the behaviour. Third, as demonstrated above, there are thousands of verses that uphold heterosexuality as the standard for human relationships. So, in reality, there are far more than 9 passages that deal with homosexuality, because anything that is for heterosexuality as a standard is necessarily against homosexuality. Fourth, homosexuals and homosexual advocates called these passages the “clobber passages” in an attempt to silence their opposition. Because people do not want to be known as “clobberers,” they tend to back down and shut up. It is an effective strategy used by many people and groups to put their opposition in a negative light and shut down any rational discussion of the subject and the Bible. If you want to silence your opposition, name-call them. Any decent person does not want to be associated with said name-called group, or even accused of being so, so they will back down. It is sad when people fail to use logic to see false logic. Quoting Bible verses, and/or historical evidence, is not “clobbering.”
Alex attempts to tell us that:
“...the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones.”11
He claims the context of these passages has to do with religious idolatry and cult prostitution. But is this a truthful assessment of the context? No, it is not. Let us observe the context:
(Continue to 18 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 18 of 45
First, let us address Leviticus 18. You, the intelligent and educated reader, are wise enough to know that Alex’s argument is both outrageously bogus and laughably fallacious. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father’s wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son’s daughter (18:10), of your father’s wife’s daughter (18:11), of your father’s sister (18:12), of your mother’s sister (18:13), of your father’s brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother’s wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with cult prostitution? Alex would do well to try and retain the context. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) has anything to do with cult prostitution? The only verse that has anything to do with the practices of religious idolatry is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen nations would sacrifice their children to their various gods. Nothing else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, nor with cult prostitution. This is Alex’s reading his own ideas and concepts into Scripture, which is called eisegesis.
By what great exegetical miracle does Alex expect to convince us that having sex with animals was religious idolatry (18:23)? Quoting from the New Bible Commentary as his sole source is hardly evidence enough to back his argument. Problem is, Alex continuously quotes citations selectively or truncates his quotations of text in order to find support for his position. He quotes only that which agrees with his position, regardless of the poor scholarship behind it. Despite the hundreds of commentaries and theological works written that contradict his position, Alex quotes from the rare sources that agree with his position or say something he can twist to agree to his position. People were having sex with animals when God decided to flood the world, and they are doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. So Alex’s eisegesis is without warrant, especially considering there is nothing mentioned in the passage with regard to religious fertility rights. The passage does not connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). Honestly, Alex needs to go back to school and educate himself as to what “context” actually is. If he paid close attention to verse 21, he would notice that “nor shall you profane the name of your God” has nothing to do with practices of religious idolatry. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. Alex would do well to be reminded that the chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. He should try and remember that when considering what context truly is and what it consists of.
Second, let us address Leviticus 20. If Alex paid attention to the context, he would see that the verses speaking of the practices of religious idolatry again address only child sacrifice (20:2-5). None of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry. A person could try and argue that verse 6 does, but he/she would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one’s father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man’s wife (20:10), or lying with one’s father’s wife (20:11), or lying with one’s daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one’s sister’s nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry? Alex is reaching yet again, as all the evidence is against him. Let’s observe further:
(Continue to 19 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 19 of 45
Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
In the Hebrew, it reads: “ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא”
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: “και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν”
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: “cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est.”
Leviticus 20:13 says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
In the Hebrew, it reads: “ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו”
In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: “και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν”
In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: “qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos.”
וכר = “a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)”
אישׁ = “man, male, husband”
אשׁה = “woman, female, wife”
ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = “a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)”
משׁבּבי = “a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse”
תּוצבה ,תוצבה = “properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination”
αρσενος = “male, man, husband”
γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”
κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”
κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”
βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”
Notice the word “coitu” in Latin for both verses? It means “coupling;” i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. In Leviticus 22:13, we also have the word “dormierit,” which means “sleeps.” What do you call “a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman”? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, “A homosexual” or “Homosexuality.” The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God, as we have seen above, and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest. The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language) is that of homosexuality.
It does not say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless that is your orientation,” nor does it say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless you love, support, and are committed to them.” It says “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.” Period. It is an absolute prohibition against all forms of homosexual behaviour and/or activity.
18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. This prohibited all male homosexual activitiy (cf. 20:13; also note on Rom. 1:26-27). In the larger picture, such activity is utterly at odds with the creation ideal (see note on Gen. 2:23-24).12
(Continue to 20 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 20 of 45
Alex claims:
“...today we know more about the Bible than any previous time in history, including even in later biblical times.”11
This is not true. We have more information available to us today that backs up the credibility of the Bible, but biblical illiteracy (knowing what the Bible teaches and what it is all about) is at an all time high (possibly greater than that of the dark ages). Historical, archeological, and scientific findings that back the credibility of the Bible is not knowing more about the Bible. Men of history knew more about the Bible than we know today. Why? Because we are so far removed, by over 2,000 years. So, in determining what the Bible had to say and teach, it is wise for us to rely on historical commentaries and information that are closer to the times in question. This information is what Alex wants us to ignore because it condemns and destroys his position. For centuries, we have had men gifted in the knowledge and understanding of the original biblical languages, and they have provided us with works of solid interpretations of the words and grammar. This information, which has not changed for hundreds of years, is what Alex wants to attempt to tell us means something completely different.
ROMANS 1
Alex presents us with a bunch of quotes from Dr. Catherine Kroeger and B. Z. Goldberg, who are writing about pagan cultic rites (which have nothing to do with the biblical text and its context), and then asks:
“Doesn’t all this sound like what Paul had in mind in the beginning of his letter to the Romans with an attack on pagan idolatry when he wrote:”
“Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty [e.g., castration] for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)
“Doesn’t this better describe these pagan cultic rites of Paul’s day than it does the mutual love and support in the everyday domestic life of committed gay Christian couples today?”13
Fact is, no, it does not because that is not what Paul said nor what he was writing about. Alex is attempting the Bait and Switch Fallacy here. He is attempting to persuade his readers that so-called “mutual love and support...of committed gay...couples” (because their is no such thing as gay “Christian” couples) is somehow different from every other form of homosexuality. Homosexuality is homosexuality, regardless of the brush you choose to paint it with: A male raping another male is homosexuality; a male dominating another male sexually is homosexuality; a male prostituting himself out to other males is homosexuality; an older male having sexual relations with a younger male is homosexuality; two males who choose to be in a “committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership” is homosexuality. Whether there is an age gap or not, whether it is for casual sex or a so-called “committed” relationship, homosexuality is homosexuality. The intentions do not change a thing. Remember, Leviticus 18:22 does not say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless that is your orientation,” nor does it say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless you love, support, and are committed to them.” It says “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.” Period. It is an absolute prohibition against all forms of homosexual behaviour and/or activity. Likewise, so we find here, too, in regard to Romans 1:26-27.
(Continue to 21 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 21 of 45
Some homosexuals and homosexual advocates claim Paul was condemning pederasty. However, he was, in fact, condemning all forms of homosexual behaviour. Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote:
“If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns I males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty.” (Emphasis mine.)14
William Hendriksen points out the same:
“It is not clear why homosexual relations between females (lesbianism) is condemned before illicit relations between males. The only explanation that has any merit, as far as I can see, is the one according to which the apostle wanted to place special emphasis on the male-with-male perversion; hence, kept the condemnation of this vice for the close of the sentence, so that he would then be able to enlarge on it, since, of the two homosexual sins it was probably the most prevalent.”15
Now, there is a glaring problem with the quotes Alex provides for us and what Paul actually writes. Alex is attempting to rip Paul’s words from their context and twist them to refer to pagan “sex reversal,” wherein a particular sex pretends to be the other sex or hides their own sex for the sake of their pagan god. This argument of Alex’s condemns each and every transvestite because that is precisely what they are doing, regardless of whether they are doing it to appease some god or not. However, you will notice that Paul does not say that “women exchanged natural sex/gender for opposite sex/gender in order to appease their god” or that “men abandoned natural sex/gender.” No, Paul says they “exchanged natural use/function” and “abandoned natural use/function with women.” The word translated “use/function” is chresis (χρησις), which refers to sexual intercourse as an employment or occupation of the body. So, the passage would be more accurate if rendered:
Because of this God gave them over to dishonorable passions, for even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for that which is against nature. Likewise also the males, having abandoned natural sexual intercourse of the woman, burned in their lustful desires toward one another, males with males, committing shamefully indecent acts and receiving in themselves the retribution for their perversion.
Cult prostitution is not in view here, and females were hardly well-known for engaging in same-sex perversions the way males were. It was practically unheard of. The description spells out in clear in-your-face finality the behaviour, acts, and lifestyle of homosexuality. Paul condemns both female-on-female and male-on-male behavioural engagements. To see this as a fact, let us examine the internal interpretation of the passage.
(Continue to 22 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 22 of 45
Romans 1:26-27 says, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
In the Greek, it reads: “Δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτος ο Θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες, αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας, εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους, αρσενες εν αρσεσι την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι, και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες.”
θηλειαι = “female, woman”
αρσενες, αρσεσι = “male, man”
χρησιν = “employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)”
ορεξει = “excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: lust”
αρσενες εν αρσεσι = “men with men, i.e. homosexuals”
ασχημοσυνην = “an indecency; by implication, the pudenda: shame”
Xρησιν clearly delineates sexual intercourse. “Women [exchanging] the natural function” speaks of women abandoning natural sexual intercourse for woman-on-woman perversion. This fact can be seen from three evidences: (1) “in the same way” or “likewise”, this lets us know there is a comparison taking place; (2) “natural function of the woman”, this lets us know that the former was speaking of women abandoning the natural function of the man; and (3) “men with men”, this lets us know that women with women is in view. It clearly states these “men abandoned the natural function” of sexual intercourse, “[burning] in their [lust] toward one another”. Lust (ορεξει) is sexual desire of the mind. The fact it states αρσενες εν αρσεσι puts the nail in the coffin on the fact it is speaking of man-on-man perversion.
Now, the context is quite clear. “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them” (Rom. 1:24). Then we receive the description of how they were dishonouring their bodies amongst themselves in their lusts (Rom. 1:26-27), which ends stating the fact that they “[receive] in their own persons the due penalty of their error”. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, “If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, “God says what He means and means what He says.” What are the words saying? What are the words describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, “Homosexuality.”
1:26-27 Not only homosexual acts but also such passions or desires are said to be dishonorable before God. Just as idolatry is unnatural (contrary to what God intended when he made human beings), so too homosexuality is contrary to nature in that it does not represent what God intended when he made men and women with physical bodies that have a “natural” way of interacting with each other and “natural” desires for each other. Paul follows the OT and Jewish tradition in seeing all homosexual relationships as sinful. The creation account in Genesis 1-2 reveals the divine paradigm for human beings, indicating that God’s will is for man and woman to be joined in marriage. Consumed (or “inflamed”) gives a strong image of a powerful but destructive inward desire. The sin in view is not pederasty (homosexual conduct of men with boys) but men engaging in sin with men. There is no justification here for the view that Paul condemns only abusive homosexual relationships. (c)
(Continue to 23 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 23 of 45
(c) Due penalty could refer to the sin of homosexuality itself as the penalty for idolatry. Or, the “and” in and receiving may indicate some additional negative consequences received in themselves, that is, some form of spiritual, emotional, or physical blight. The “due” penalty refers to a penalty that is appropriate to the wrong committed.16
In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, St. John Chrysostom (347 to 407 A.D.) wrote:
“ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical.” (Emphasis mine.)
Looking at one of the words translated “natural” in this passage, Alex Haiken performs what is called “collapsing context” by trying to relate the passage to Romans 11:24 merely because they share a similar word. By doing so, he makes an argument that if homosexuality is unnatural, so is our salvation:
“Notably, Paul also applied the very same Greek term “para physin” to God’s action in Romans 11:24, when God engrafted Gentiles onto the Jewish olive tree — and there “para physin” was an appreciation, not a reproach. So, if same-sex coupling is, in Paul’s terms “unnatural”, so too is your salvation.”13
His argument is both right (unknowingly) and wrong, as we shall discover. Let us examine both passages:
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function for that which is unnatural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις], and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Romans 1:26-27
“For if you were cut off from what is by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [pre2596; kata/an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] branches be grafted into their own olive tree?” Romans 11:24
Alex argues:
“We know from linguistic studies that in Paul’s day the terms “natural” and “unnatural” referred simply to what was, or was not, expected.”13
(Continue to 24 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 24 of 45
However, Alex’s definition is a Linguistic Fallacy. Try and apply Alex’s definition to Ephesians 2:3—”and were by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] children of wrath.” Remember, Alex’s definition of “nature” is “what was, or was not, expected.” But is Alex’s definition accurate? I submit to you that, no, it is not.
5446 phusikos, φυσικος; adjective. Natural, as established by God in nature.
5449 phusis, φυσις; anarthrous noun. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition.
φυσις is everything which by its origin or by observation of its constitution seems to be a given. To call it “given” φυσις is already to go beyond the sphere of naive description and implies a judgment on its actual constitution or true nature.17
In response to these accurate definitions, Alex writes, “We can’t do responsible exegesis by simply camping out with our Bible and a Greek dictionary.”3 Why does he say this? Because Alex Haiken knows nothing of the Greek language and is intimidated when someone actually uses it correctly. As such, he turns around and says that we need to “analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible,”3 which is fine. However, as soon as you do this, Alex once again tries to deny one’s accurate handling of the issue. You see, the word “phusikos” is only found three times in the New Testament. Twice in Romans 1:26-27, and once in 2 Peter 2:12. “Phusis,” on the other hand, is found 14 times: Romans 1:26; 2:14; 2:27; 11:21, 24; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7; and 2 Peter 1:4. Alex argues that the phrase παρα φυσιν means “what was, or was not, expected.” If we look outside the Bible, like in the Stoics, for example, we find that “for Zeno it is παρα φυσιν to live with a woman who is legally married to another and thereby to disrupt his house.”18 If Alex bothered to “analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible,” he would have seen that he is once again wrong, for Gerhard Kittel deals thoroughly and extensively with the word and its use throughout a vast collection of Greek literature on pages 251 to 277 of volume 9 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
So, dear reader, you will have to excuse Alex’s ignorance and his typical assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. As we have already established, Alex argues that if homosexuality is unnatural, so too is our salvation. The problem is, he does not seem to realize that there are two words translated as “natural” in Romans 1:26-27. The Greek word he is attempting to tell us appears in both passages, based on his argument, does not. The Greek word that does appear in both passages has nothing to do with what is unnatural, but with nature; natural birth or condition, natural disposition.
Alex was right about one thing (although unwittingly so), and that was that our salvation is not natural to us. It is not in accordance to our birth condition and natural disposition. We are born in sin and are deservedly heading toward hell. We do not deserve salvation.
Homosexuality is unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] because it exchanges what was established by God in nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] for that which is against [pre3844] nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις]. Notice that salvation is not unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος], but is not our natural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] disposition. We are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), just as every man and woman are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual and act out homosexual activities.
(Continue to 25 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 25 of 45
For the record, homosexuality is not something you are, it is something you do. You are a homosexual when you commit homosexuality; not the other way around. You are a murderer when you commit murder; not the other way around. You are a rapist when you commit rape; not the other way around.
Paul’s point is not about idolatry—worshiping false gods—or prostitution, but about homosexual behaviour and homosexual acts. Homosexuality among women was not that prevalent, so when Paul condemns it first and then expands on it with his condemnation of homosexuality among men, you know precisely what he is describing. Alex is looking for any excuse to let him and others like him off the hook. Whatever sounds like the best argument at the time, that is what he will spew at you in order to try and make his behaviour and actions acceptable. Homosexuality, like every other sin, will never be acceptable—not in the eyes of God at least. Regardless of what public opinion is today, homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. It is an abomination.
Once again, the penis was perfectly designed and made to enter the vagina, and the vagina was perfectly designed and made to receive the penis. Anything beyond this is not natural! Homosexuals can concoct all the emotional arguments they want in order to try and confuse people by lying to them about the truth of the issue, but in the end it will not change anything. When they stand before God on judgment day, they will, each and every one of them, be condemned for embracing and habitually practicing their sins of perversion, just like every other sinner. Only those who repented of and forsook their sins will be admitted into the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Homosexuals and homosexual advocates would do well to believe the Bible instead of trying to twist it to make room for their depraved lusts.
ROMANS 2
Alex attempts to rip Romans 2:1 out of context and apply it to Romans 1:26-27:
“Paul wants us all to know we are not to condemn each other.”13
Romans 2 falls hot on the heels of Romans 1:28-32. Verse 32 concludes by saying, “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Romans 2:1 then says, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” Whenever you see the word “therefore,” you need to ask, “What is it there for?” It means “as a result of everything just said.” What Paul is getting at in Romans 2 is that if we condemn another person for committing a sin that we ourselves are guilty of committing, we also condemn ourselves. We see this in verse 3: “But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?” Paul is not finished though. In verse 4 he goes on to say, “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” Who is Paul talking to this entire time? The unrepentant. Observe verse 5: “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” This is the state of every sinner, including those who commit homosexuality.
Alex has it backwards when he says:
“Those Paul speaks of had refused to acknowledge and worship God and for this reason were abandoned by God to their lustful depravity.”13
(Continue to 26 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 26 of 45
Alex would do well to read the actual words and pay attention to what is happening (i.e., the context). Romans 1:24 says, “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.” When you see the word “therefore,” you need to ask, “What is it there for?” In light of everything Paul said previously, God then gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. In other words, they desired it so much that God gave them over to it. In verse 26 we read, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.” For what reason? Read the rest of verse 26 and on into verse 27: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Why did God give them over to degrading passions? Because both genders had abandoned the natural use of sexual intercourse and were engaging in sexual activities with those of their same sex. Verse 25 is not a part of verses 26 and 27; it is the finality to verses 18 through 24. It ends with “Amen.”
“The most important imagery for homosexual acts is the language in Romans 1 of ‘exchanging’ God’s purposes and of God letting go. Some dishonored God by substituting idols for God; therefore, God ‘gave them up’ to their own lusts (Rom. 1:18-25). Others God ‘gave up’ to their depravities, such as envy, gossip and arrogance. Romans 1:26-27 declare that God gave over to their degrading passions both women and men who ‘exchanged’ natural functions for unnatural. These three image sets are examples of warning, for Romans 2:1 insists that everyone is without excuse since all practice such rebellion against God.”19
Alex then attempts another fallacious, erroneous, and egregious argument:
“The Christian gay people I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and thank Him for his grace and His gifts. How then could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?”13
Alex knows no “Christian gay people” because there are none. That is equivalent to saying you know “Christian rapists” or “Christian murderers.” Based on 1 Corinthians 6:11 and like passages (Rom. 11:30; 1 Cor. 12:2; Eph. 2:2; Col. 3:5-7; Titus 3:3-7), Christians were guilty of these sorts of things in the past before they were saved; but no longer. They have been renewed, which in the Greek means to be renovated. The god that homosexuals have not rejected is a god made in their image, one they can worship without guilt and condemnation (although their conscience still condemns them). What they are guilty of is idolatry, creating a god to suit their own desires. If they worshiped the God of the Bible, they would know that “everyone who name[s] the name of the Lord [must] depart from every wickedness” (2 Tim. 2:19). The Bible informs us that “The Lord knows those who are His” (v. 19), which we see clearly from Matthew 7:21-23 and other passages. Alex thinks that just because a person claims to know Jesus that that makes him/her a Christian. It does not. It does not matter if you know who Jesus is, it matters whether or not He knows you. Many people claim to know Christ Jesus but the demonstrations of their life reveal the opposite, to which they will hear those fateful words, “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23).
(Continue to 27 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 27 of 45
In a separate article Alex writes on Romans 2, he attempts to take everything Paul says and turn it into “Do not judge so that you will not be judged” (Matt. 7:1). While this is not only contextually inaccurate, it is also a glaring ignorance used vastly by Christians and non-Christians alike. First of all, in the Greek, there are two words translated as “judge.” Krino (κρινω) and anakrino (ανακρινω). Krino means “to pronounce judgment, to condemn in a legal sense.” This is the word Jesus used when he said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” Anakrino means “to scrutinize, to question, to investigate, to discern, to determine, to examine, to judge, to search.” This word is used in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15. Second of all, even in the English language the word “judge” has more than one meaning, yet people ignorantly try to tie a single definition to the word.
However, Alex fails to catch what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. [This would include homosexuals professing to be “brothers” in the faith.] For what have I to do with judging (κρινω) outsiders? Do you not judge (κρινω) those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges (κρινω). REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
Christians are called to judge those inside the church who call themselves Christians but who do not bear the fruit or evidence of a genuine born-again Christian. But not only that, Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3:
Or do you not know that the saints will judge (κρινω) the world? If the world is judged (κρινω) by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge (κρινω) angels? How much more matters of this life?
Just so people like Alex do not try and pervert this to mean something else, let us see what else Paul said: “For I...have already judged (κρινω) him who has so committed this, as though I were present” (1 Cor. 5:3). So clearly, from “analyz[ing] its use in as many different contexts as possible,” there is a wrong time/way to judge/condemn and a right time/way to judge/condemn. If you are doing the same things as the one you are judging/condemning, then you are in the wrong and you self-condemn yourself. This is also the point Jesus was making.
What Paul is getting at in Romans 2 is those who condemn (krino) the sins of others while deliberately overlooking or excusing their own sins. What Paul was not getting at, which is what Alex is trying to turn into Paul’s case, is those who judge (anakrino) correctly in order to judge (krino). To point out that homosexuality is a sin and those who commit it and habitually practice it are in danger of the lake of fire, is not a self-righteous condemnation. It is an accurate discernment. A person can judge (anakrino) without judging (krino), but they can also judge (anakrino) in order to judge (krino) correctly. Unfortunately, most people, including Alex, fail to grasp this simple concept.
(Continue to 28 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 28 of 45
1 CORINTHIANS 6 & 1 TIMOTHY 1: MALAKOI & ARSENOKOITAI
“We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals (αρσενοκοιταις) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Timothy 1:8-11). “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (ουτε μαλακοι), nor homosexuals (ουτε αρσενοκοιται), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Figuratively, μαλακοι means “effeminate” (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who make themselves out to be women), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. There are those who argue that μαλακοι means “soft” (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as “soft.” The question would arise, “Soft what?” Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:
1. soft, soft to the touch
2. metaph. in a bad sense
a. effeminate
1. of a catamite
2. of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4. of a male prostitute
The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means “a male bed partner” or “a man who lies in bed with another male—a homosexual, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men”. Alex, borrowing an argument from Dale Martin, argues that we cannot translate αρσενοκοιται based upon the combined meanings of its root words because “the English word ‘understand’ has nothing to do with either standing or being under.”3 He also provides other words such as “butterfly” or “honeymoon” or “mandate” in an attempt to provide false proof to his Linguistic and Etymological Fallacy. This argument is the height of ignorance concerning English language, grammar, and structure. This argument is illogical and lacks any common sense or knowledge of linguistics. In the English language, its compound words largely have nothing to do with their individual root words. However, for words taken directly from other languages, such as amuse, agnostic, atheist, amillennial, etc., they do. “A” is a negative prefix, meaning “no, not, or without.” “Muse” means “to think.” Ergo, “a-muse” means “not to think,” although in our day and age it is used ignorantly and incorrectly as a positive term meaning “funny or entertaining.” Amusements clearly involve the lack of active thought. So if fun and entertainment is “amusing,” it is without thought. Hence why the television is referred to as an “idiot box.”
Homosexuals and homosexual advocates choose these words because they lend support to their Straw Man Fallacy arguments. However, what about the hundreds of other English words they deliberately ignore that contradict their argument?
(Continue to 29 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 29 of 45
circumnavigate = circum (around) + navigate
acrophobia = acro (high) + phobia (fear)
egomaniac = ego (I, self) + maniac
egocentric = ego (I, self) + centric
biology = bio (life) + logos (study, word)
biography = bio (life) + graph (write, record)
biohazard = bio (life) + hazard
agnostic = a (no, not, without) + gnostic (knowledge)
atheist = a (no, not, without) + theist (god)
amillennial = a (no, not, without) + millennial (thousand years)
amuse = a (no, not, without) + muse (to think)
anti_____ = anti (against) + whatever word you want to insert
neo_____ = neo (new) + whatever word you want to insert
theocracy = theo (God) + cracy (rule)
geography = geo (earth) + graphy (write, record)
geology = geo (earth) + logos (study, word)
telephone = tele (distance) + phone
Some others are bicycle, microscope, telescope, asymmetrical, etc.
Alex is trying to convince us of his perverse beliefs by use of fallacious arguments. His first error I have just exposed above. His second error is in attempting to force English grammar and structure upon the grammar and structure of other languages. Regarding the majority of other languages around the world, their compound words do have something to do with their individual root words. Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish quite frequently have compound words that mean precisely and exactly the combination of their individual root words. The same is true of Greek, as noted:
paralambano = para (near) + lambano (to receive) = to receive near
paiderastia = pais (boy) + erastos (lover) = lover of boys (adolescence)
aperchomai = apo (off) + erchomai (to go) = to go off (depart)
suneiserchomai = sun (with, together) + eiserchomai (to enter into) = to enter in company with
eiserchomai = eis (to, into) erchomai (to go) = to go into, to enter into
The Greek word παραλαμβνω means “to receive near.” Its root words are παρα (near) and λαμβνω (to take, obtain, receive). Ergo, when the root words are combined, the compound word means “to receive near.” This can be demonstrated with hundreds more Greek compound words. Aρσενοκοιται is no different. It means:
1. one who lies with a male as with a female (male bed partners), bugger, sodomite, homosexual
Some have said, “Aρσενοκοιται has been understood as referring to male-male sexual activity for a long time. ‘Homosexual’ is a (perhaps unhelpful) attempt to render that in contemporary English.” How do you figure? Homosexuality, by definition, is “a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.” A homosexual, by definition, is “someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex.” Male-male sexual activity is homosexuality. Furthermore, here is what αρσενοκοιται means according to Greek dictionaries:
(Continue to 30 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 30 of 45
• ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]). (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament)
• 88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—’homosexual.’ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι … οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται … βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν ‘don’t you know that … no adulterers or homosexuals … will receive the kingdom of God’ 1 Cor 6:9–10. It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακόςb, the passive male partner (88.281). (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
• ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), ου (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ Str 733—LN 88.280 male homosexual, one who takes the active male role in homosexual intercourse (1Co 6:9), specifically interpreted as male homosexual paedophilia (nab footnote); possibly a more generic term in first Timothy; sodomites (rsv, nrsv, nkjv), perverts (niv, neb, reb), practicing homosexuals (nab), homosexual (njb), (1Ti 1:10+), note: translations possibly use certain specific terms to infer or allow certain theologies. (Dictionary of Biblical Languages)
• ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament)
The most pathetic argument I have ever heard in this debate is the claim that all these verses are prohibiting heterosexual men from engaging in homosexual activities. Whoa! Let’s stop and think for a moment here. That argument is completely and utterly illogical, lacking all common sense. A heterosexual male engaging in homosexual activity, thereby committing homosexuality, is, by definition, a homosexual. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are either male or female. There are only two genders of humanity: male and female. “Heterosexual” and “homosexual” are adjectives; they describe the character and behaviour of the individual. They only become nouns when the adjective is habitually true of the individual’s life practices. Hence, you are born a heterosexual, at some point choose to be a homosexual (whether or not you remember having made that choice is irrelevant; you still made it), and, when you are either saved by the Lord Jesus or your conscience and common sense kick in, revert to a heterosexual once more. How about we throw out these terms, meant to obscure reality and truth, and deal with the words and descriptions contained therein.
Alex, and other homosexuals, attempt to argue that, “The word ‘homosexual’ did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946.”3 “But, we have to acknowledge that you don’t translate a word from Hebrew and Greek into the English if there is no English equivalent. So, using the term “homosexual” in the English Bible could not have occurred until after the word had entered the English vocabulary.”20 Regardless of when this word came into existence, it does not negate the fact that every translation, past or present, describes or directly names homosexuality. See my comparison of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 from a wide variety of translations (10 English translations, a Latin translation, 5 German translations, 5 Spanish translations, 3 French translations, and 2 Russian translations) for this fact:
(Continue to 31 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 31 of 45
THE WYCLIFF BIBLE (1380):
Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God.
MODERN ENGLISH:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.
Letchery: excessive or offensive sexual desire; lustfulness
THE TYNDALE BIBLE (1530):
Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde, nether theves nether the coveteous nether dronkardes nether cursed speakers nether pillers shall inheret the kyngdome of God.
THE MATTHEWS BIBLE (1537):
Do ye not remember how that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived. For neither fornicators, neither worshippers of images, neither whoremongers, neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind, neither thieves, neither the covetous, neither drunkards, neither cursed speakers, neither pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
GENEVA BIBLE (1560):
Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shal not inherite the kingdome of GOd? Be not deceiued: nether fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor watons, nor bouggerers, nor theues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extorcioners, shal inherite the kingdome of God.
GENEVA BIBLE (1599):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (♣) wantons, nor (♠) buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(♣) Immoral or unchaste, lewd.
(♠) Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male.)
KJV (1611):
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
NASB (1971):Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(Continue to 32 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 32 of 45
NIV (1978):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV (1979):
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
ESV (2001):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (*), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(*) The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts
LATIN BIBLE (VULGATE):
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt
TRANSLATION:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor liers with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
GERMAN BIBLE (LUTHER 1534):
Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Let not seduce you! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers [of themselves with mankind], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor are revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 1951):
Wisset ihr denn nicht, daß Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Irret euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(Continue to 33 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 33 of 45
GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 2000):
Wisst ihr denn nicht, dass Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht erben werden? Irrt euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes erben.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God is not to be? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
GERMAN BIBLE (NGU):
Muss ich euch daran erinnern, dass die, die Unrecht tun, keinen Anteil am Reich Gottes bekommen werden, dem Erbe, das Gott für uns bereithält? Macht euch nichts vor: Keiner, der ein unmoralisches Leben führt, Götzen anbetet, die Ehe bricht, homosexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, stiehlt, geldgierig ist, trinkt, Verleumdungen verbreitet oder andere beraubt, wird an Gottes Reich teilhaben.
TRANSLATION:
Must I remind you that those who do wrong, no share in the kingdom of God will receive, the inheritance that God has for us? Never mind before: No one who leads an immoral life, idol worship, adultery, arrives homosexual relationships, stealing, being greedy, drinking, or other spreads slander is robbed, participate in God’s kingdom.
GERMAN BIBLE (HOF):
Habt ihr vergessen, dass für Menschen, die Unrecht tun, in Gottes neuer Welt kein Platz sein wird? Täuscht euch nicht: Wer verbotene sexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, andere Götter anbetet, die Ehe bricht, wer sich von seinen Begierden treiben lässt und homosexuell verkehrt, wird nicht in Gottes neue Welt kommen; auch kein Dieb, kein Ausbeuter, kein Trinker, kein Gotteslästerer oder Räuber.
TRANSLATION:
Did you forget that for people who do wrong will be no place in God’s new world? Do not be deceived: those who take illicit sexual relationships, worshiping other gods, adultery, who can be driven by his desires and perverted homosexual will not come into God’s new world, nor a thief, not a sweatshop, not a drinker, not a blasphemer or robbers.
SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1960):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No erréis; ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom God.
SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1995):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(Continue to 34 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 34 of 45
SPANISH BIBLE (RVA):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no poseerán el reino de Dios? No erréis, que ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, Ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los robadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
SPANISH BIBLE (RVC):
¿Acaso no saben que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No se equivoquen: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se acuestan con hombres, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los malhablados, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who lie with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor foul-mouthed, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
SPANISH BIBLE (Traducción en lenguaje actual):
No se dejen engañar. Ustedes bien saben que los que hacen lo malo no participarán en el reino de Dios. Me refiero a los que tienen relaciones sexuales prohibidas, a los que adoran a los ídolos, a los que son infieles en el matrimonio, a los afeminados, a los hombres que tienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, a los ladrones, a los que siempre quieren más de lo que tienen, a los borrachos, a los que hablan mal de los demás, y a los tramposos. Ninguno de ellos participará del reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do not be fooled. You well know that wrongdoers will not participate in the kingdom of God. I mean those who have sex prohibited, those who worship idols, who are unfaithful in marriage, to effeminate, to men who have sex with men, to thieves, who always want more than they have, to drunkards, to those who speak ill of others, and to cheats. Neither of them will participate in the kingdom of God.
FRENCH BIBLE (LOUIS SEGOND):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n’hériteront point le royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les efféminés, ni les infâmes, ni les voleurs, ni les cupides, ni les ivrognes, ni les outrageux, ni les ravisseurs, n’hériteront le royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
FRENCH BIBLE (La Bible du Semeur):
Ne savez-vous pas que ceux qui pratiquent l’injustice n’auront aucune part au *royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: il n’y aura point de part dans l’héritage de ce royaume pour les débauchés, les idolâtres, les adultères, les pervers ou les homosexuels, ni pour les voleurs, les avares, pas plus que pour les ivrognes, les calomniateurs ou les malhonnêtes.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that those who practice injustice will have no part in the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: there will be no share in the inheritance of the kingdom for fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, perverts or homosexuals, nor thieves, covetous, nor for drunkards, slanderers or dishonest.
(Continue to 35 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 35 of 45
FRENCH BIBLE (SEGOND 21):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n’hériteront pas du royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni ceux qui vivent dans l’immoralité sexuelle, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les travestis, ni les homosexuels, ni les voleurs, ni les hommes toujours désireux de posséder plus, ni les ivrognes, ni les calomniateurs, ni les exploiteurs n’hériteront du royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither those who live in sexual immorality, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor transvestites, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the men still want to have more, nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor exploiters will not inherit the kingdom of God.
RUSSIAN BIBLE:
Или не знаете, что неправедные Царства Божия не наследуют? Не обманывайтесь: ни блудники, ни идолослужители, ни прелюбодеи, ни малакии, ни мужеложники, ни воры, ни лихоимцы, ни пьяницы, ни злоречивые, ни хищники--Царства Божия не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
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 homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners - inherit the kingdom of God.
RUSSIAN BIBLE (SZ):
Разве вы не знаете, что неправедные не наследуют Царства Божьего? Смотрите, чтобы вам не обмануться. Никакие развратники, никакие идолопоклонники, нарушители супружеской верности, пассивные и активные гомосексуалисты-мужчины, воры, корыстолюбцы или пьяницы, клеветники или мошенники Царства Божьего не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? See that you are not deceived. No sexually immoral, idolaters, no, adulterers, passive and active homosexual men, thieves, drunkards, or covetous, slanderers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Alex attempts to argue that there is no immediate context with which to interpret μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται correctly. Alex is dishonest and lacking any formal knowledge regarding context. When you read the words “You shall not murder,” the context is crystal clear. It exists within those words. The specific context of each commandment is different from each of the other commandments. The general context, which is the inclusion of all ten commandments, is different from the individual contexts of each commandment. The book of Proverbs is largely a collection of verses that tend not to be related to the preceding or succeeding verses. The context of each of these lone verses is found within itself. So to say that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains no context with which to interpret the words correctly is simply being dishonest and self-deceived.
These words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are defining characteristics of habitually practiced sin in one’s life. These words not only describe your actions, but they define who you are. One is known to be such a person. Verse 11 states clearly, “Such were some of you.” When Jesus saved them from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and the Holy Spirit regenerated them, they were new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17) who had put off the former lifestyles of their old man (Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9). They had repented of and forsaken their previous sins (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Rom. 8:13; 2 Tim. 2:19c) and would now live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The context is quite clear, when one is being honest and truthful.
(Continue to 36 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 36 of 45
It has been argued that it is not homosexuality that is in view in all these passages, but pederasty. This argument lacks any common sense and/or intelligent thought. Pederasty is sexual activity (esp. anal intercourse) involving a man and a boy. Mαλακοι could be interpreted as “catamite,” a boy kept for homosexual practices. Aρσενοκοιται could be interpreted as “sodomite,” a man who commits lechery with men, a man who abuses himself with men, a man who defiles himself with men. By arguing that pederasty is in view, homosexuals are completely (and ignorantly) undermining their own stance. Pederasty is a form of homosexuality. It has no affiliation to pedophilia. No matter how you try and dice it, these two words describe the active and passive roles within homosexuality. Interestingly enough, “peder”, which is a Croatian word, means “gay, queer, homosexual”.
To return once more to the structure of Greek compound words, I bring your attention to the Greek paederastia. Its root words are παις (boy) and εραστης (lover). When combined, the compound word means “lover of boys”. Here again is an example that flies in the face of the weak argument based on English compound words such as “understand,” “butterfly,” “honeymoon,” “mandate,” etc. The English language is not the Greek language, and vice versa. You cannot apply the rules for English grammar to other languages. This is the height of linguistic ignorance.
“Similarly, when Paul uses the image of not inheriting the kingdom of God to describe ten kinds of ‘unrighteous’ people (1 Cor 6:9-10), he includes malakoi (the ‘soft’ or passive participants in homosexual acts) and arsenokoitai (the active instigators—a graphic term for ‘those who perform male coitus’) as well as thieves, drunkards and the covetous. Likewise, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 adds arsenokoitai to liars and perjurers in listing more than a dozen ‘rebellious’ types for whom the law is made. This image insists that everyone needs the law (for we all rebel against God) and drives us to the gospel announced in 1 Timothy 1:9-11.”21
CONCLUSION
Alex continues to argue stubbornly that individuals like myself have “exegetically unsupportable”13 arguments, despite the evidence to the contrary. Alex likes to throw the word “exegetical” around in order to attempt to intimidate those less intellectual than himself. However, such ploys do not work on those who are more intellectual than himself. He attempts to throw around all the typical homosexual jargon in attempts to intimidate and dissuade his opponents from further discussion on the issue. Those who know their stuff and do their research will not be so easily dissuaded. Despite his many defeats in the arena on this issue, Alex continues to argue in stubborn persistence. This is due in large part to his Jewish background. A study throughout Scripture will reveal how frequently Jews are referred to as “stiff-necked” and “stubborn,” and an examination of history will reveal the same truths. To this day, except where Jesus intervenes and changes their hearts, Jews are still as stubborn as they were back then. It will take a miracle for Alex’s stubbornness to dissolve, but that is nothing God cannot accomplish through prayer and concern for Alex’s soul (and those like him).
Rather than do the leg work himself and actually be responsible in his research, Alex’s arguments rely on the unscholarly works of such homosexual and homosexual supporting authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and Justin R. Cannon (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Alex argues:
“We know this however, that the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation occurs so early in the life of the individual that the individual never remembers having made a choice.”3
(Continue to 37 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 37 of 45
First of all, this is a bold-faced lie. It attempts to ignore those who, for tens of years, were appalled by homosexuality and even spoke out against it only to turn around and divorce their husbands/wives and leave their children and claim they were now homosexual. Second of all, even if such a thing happened early in the life of an individual, the fact remains that they made that choice—whether or not they remember having done so.
Alex also argues:
“We don’t choose our sexual orientation. We discover our sexual orientation.”3
In other words, transvestites, who are born as either men or women, somehow “discover” that they are really the opposite sex (when they really are not—you are the gender you were born, even if you are mentally confused and in need of desperate help). There are only two genders: male or female. God did not make a mistake. Also, according to Alex’s argument, that would mean that certain individuals “discover” that they are incestuous; certain individuals “discover” that they are pedophiles; certain individuals “discover” that they are into bestiality; certain individuals “discover” that they are into necrophilia; and certain individuals “discover” that they are rapists. Those would all be labeled as their “sexual orientation.” That this is indeed the case, observe:
“Using the same tactics used by ‘gay’ rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.” (Northern Colorado Gazette: Pedophiles Want Same Rights as Homosexuals)
If you argue the case for one sexually deviant perversion, you necessarily have to argue the same case for all sexually deviant perversions. Inevitably you will hear people argue, “Why can’t I marry my dog? We love each other. We’re committed to each other. We should be allowed to have sex together. We’re not hurting anybody. How can our love be wrong?” Likewise, rapists will argue, “I can’t help myself. I was born this way.” What we are seeing in our day and age is a complete overhaul of morality for immoral behaviours and mental disorders. Rather than do their job and treat these people correctly, so-called “psychologists” are making excuses for these people and leaving them in their mental disorders while claiming they are as “normal” as the rest of us. This is not the case. These people has issues and these issues need to be dealt with correctly.
Orientation has to do with direction, which can be changed: “a change of position, alignment, thought, inclination, or interest.” Homosexuals think “orientation” or sexuality is where their identity is and how they identify themselves. Their first problem is the fact they have a false definition for identity.
IDENTITY: Sameness, as distinguished from similitude and diversity (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language). 2. identification or the result of it (mistaken identity; identity card); 3. the state of being the same in substance, nature, qualities, etc.; absolute sameness (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).
IDENTIFICATION: The act of making or proving to be the same (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language).
Similitude has to do with similarity, whereas diversity has to do with difference. Identity is not individuality (contrary to some additions of false definitions to modern dictionaries).
(Continue to 38 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 38 of 45
Individuality and diversity are what set you apart from everyone else. Personality, character, skills, abilities have nothing to do with a person’s identity. They do not identify you. If you walk into some place and they ask who you are, telling them you are gay will not identify you; showing them a piece of your artwork will not identify you; demonstrating how fast you can run the 100m will not identify you. Your license or passport will because it proves your “sameness;” that you are the same as who you claim to be. Your identity is not found in your sexuality, which is what homosexuals attempt to do. Homosexuality is a sin—not a mark of identification. Homosexuals attempt to say that they do not know who they are and that they are nobody apart from their homosexual tendencies. That is the height of stupidity. If you have amnesia, being homosexual is not going to answer the question, “Who am I?”
“The ESV Study Bible was created by a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers. They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible. The team of contributors comes from 9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities.”22 Here is what the ESV Study Bible has to say in regard to homosexuality:
God’s Original Design
In God’s original design, human sexual conduct was to occur within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. The first chapter of the Bible says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Differentiation of the human race into two complementary sexes (“male and female”) is the first fact mentioned in connection with being “in the image of God.” In Genesis 2, which describes in more detail the process summarized in 1:27, God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18). Genesis then applies the example of Adam and Eve to all marriages: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This “one flesh” sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matt. 19:4-6). Furthermore Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus and Paul both assume the logic of sexual intercourse implied in Genesis: a sexual bond between a man and a woman requires two (and only two) different sexual halves (“a man” and “his wife”) being brought together into a sexual whole (“one flesh”).
This is further emphasized in the story of the creation of Eve from Adam’s side:
And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:22-24).
The word “therefore” connects the making of Eve from a part of Adam’s body with the “one flesh” sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage: it is the reunion of the two constituent parts of a sexual whole. It is not another man who is the missing part or sexual complement of a man, but rather a woman. (Jesus emphasizes this connection between the two different sexes, “male and female,” in Matt. 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8.)
(Continue to 39 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 39 of 45
Prohibited Sexual Relations
Consistent with the pattern in Genesis 1-2, sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is prohibited. For example, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14; reaffirmed by Jesus in Matt. 19:18; cf. Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). In addition, other specific kinds of sexual intercourse outside of marriage are also prohibited, such as prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15-18), incest (Lev. 20:11-21; 1 Cor. 5:1-2), and bestiality (Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16).
Homosexual conduct is also viewed as a sin (something contrary to God’s will) in several passages of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Hb. to’ebah, action that are extremely displeasing to God].” Similarly, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination” (Lev. 20:13; cf. Genesis 19; also Jude 7). These absolute Levitical prohibitions are grouped with other relevant sex proscriptions (incest, adultery, bestiality) and are considered first-tier sexual offenses that are grouped together in Leviticus 20:10-16.
In the NT, Paul speaks of homosexual conduct:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:26-27).
The phrase “contrary to nature” means that homosexual conduct does not represent what God intended when he made men and women with physical bodies that have a “natural” way of interacting with each other and “natural” desires for each other. (See not on Rom. 1:26-27; cf. also Rom. 1:19-20, that the truth about God and his moral law is visible and apparent in the material creation.) Homosexual desires are “dishonorable” both because they are contrary to God’s purpose and because they treat a person’s biological sex as only half of what it is. While the logic of a heterosexual bond is that of bringing together the two (and only two) different and complementary sexual halves into a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual bond is that another person of the same sex complements, and fills what is lacking in, that same sex, implying that each participant is only half of his or her own sex: two half males making a full male or two half females making a full female. In other words, the logic of sexual intercourse requires a sexual complement, and thus a same-sex bond is a self-devaluing of one’s own gender inasmuch as one sees the need to complement structurally one’s own sex with someone of the same sex.
In a long list of sins, Paul also includes “men who practice homosexuality” (1 Cor. 6:9). This phrase translates two different Greek terms: Malakos means “soft” or “effeminate” and was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to the “passive” partner in homosexual acts, while arsenokoites is a combination of Gk. arsen (meaning “man”) and koite (here meaning “sexual intercourse”). The term arsenokoites was apparently coined by Paul from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 20:13, and means (in plural) “men who have intercourse with men.” In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the same word arsenokoites in the midst of vices derived from “the law” (here, the second half of the Ten Commandments), which means that this verse also should be interpreted as an absolute prohibition of male-with-male intercourse, in keeping with Leviticus 18:2; 20:13. Early Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and early Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also show that these verses were understood as absolute prohibitions against all types of homosexual conduct.
(Continue to 40 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 40 of 45
Does the Bible address the question of homosexual attitudes and desires? It must be remembered that God ultimately requires moral perfection, not only in human actions but also in attitudes of the heart. Therefore the Bible prohibits not only adultery but also a desire for adultery (Ex. 20:17; cf. Matt. 5:28), not only theft but also coveting (Ex. 20:17). This is because “the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore Scripture teaches that any desire to break God’s commandments is also viewed as wrong in God’s sight. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). While an impulse to do what God expressly forbids is (by definition) an impulse contrary to God’s will, the Bible recognizes that Christians will be “tempted” by their “own desire” (James 1:14) and encourages Christians in such circumstances to “remain steadfast” (James 1:12) and to “be doers of the word” (James 1:22). This implies not actively entertaining the wrongful impulse (cf. Matt. 5:28), and not dwelling on it so that it “gives birth to sin” (James 1:15).
It is not surprising, therefore, that not only homosexual conduct but also homosexual desires are viewed as contrary to God’s will. Homosexual desires are viewed as “dishonorable passions” (Rom. 1:26), and Paul also says that homosexual partners are “consumed with passion for one another” (Rom. 1:27), giving a strong image of a powerful but destructive inward craving.
This is not to say that homosexual desire is as harmful as homosexual conduct. Thought all sin is wrong and brings legal guilt before God (cf. James 2:10-11), a distinction between wrongful desires and wrongful actions can be made with regard to many areas of life. Hatred of another person is wrong in God’s sight, but murdering the person is far more harmful. Coveting a neighbor’s farm animals is wrong, but actually stealing them is much more harmful. And lustful desires for adultery are wrong, but actually committing adultery is far more harmful. Similarly, homosexual desires are wrong in God’s sight, but actually committing homosexual acts is far more harmful.
The Bible’s Solution regarding Homosexuality
As with every other sin, the Bible’s solution to homosexuality is trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of sin, the imputation of righteousness, and the power to change. After talking about the “sexually immoral” and “adulterers” and “men who practice homosexuality” and “thieves” and “drunkards” (1 Cor. 6;9-10), Paul tells the Corinthians Christians, “And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11). Then he tells them, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. Rom. 6:23; Phil. 2:13; 1 John 1:9). This implies that some former homosexuals in the church at Corinth had left their previous homosexual lifestyle and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, were seeking to live lives of sexual purity, whether in celibacy or in faithful, heterosexual marriages.
It is important that the Christian community always show love and compassion toward those engaged in homosexual conduct, and also extend friendship toward them where opportunities arise, though not in a way that signals approval of homosexual practice. It is also important to extend hope for change, since many homosexuals will say that they long to establish a different pattern of life. However, a number of studies have concluded that long-term change from a homosexual lifestyle seldom occurs without a program of help and encouragement from others.
(Continue to 41 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 41 of 45
Objections
Numerous objections have been presented against the view that homosexuality is morally wrong. One objection is that some people are “born gay,” that is, that many homosexuals do not choose their homosexual orientation but it is part of their genetic makeup from birth, and so homosexuals can never change, and for them homosexual behavior cannot be wrong. But, as noted above, Paul, in talking about “men who practice homosexuality” (1 Cor. 6:9), says to the Corinthians church, “And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11), indicating that homosexual scan change and become former homosexuals. This does not mean that homosexual desires will automatically or necessarily be eradicated for those who come to Christ. Becoming a Christian does not mean that people will no longer experience intense sinful urges (sexual or otherwise). But genuine faith does produce the fruit of obedience and real, substantive change, and Paul indicates that this is precisely what happened with some who had practiced homosexuality in Corinth.
Some argue that science supports the argument that homosexuality is determined by one’s biological makeup from before the time of birth. Studies have in fact shown some indirect, congenital influences on homosexual development that may increase the likelihood of homosexual development. But there are certain hereditary factors that give people a greater likelihood of developing all sorts of different sinful behavior patterns (such as frequent wrongful anger, violence, adultery, alcoholism, and so forth), and it would not be surprising to find that some people, from certain hereditary backgrounds, have a greater likelihood of developing homosexual desires and conduct. But this is far different from proving congenital determinism of homosexuality, that is, that some people are genetically incapable of making any other choice than to entertain homosexual desires and engage in homosexual conduct. Especially significant are studies of identical twins , where one has become a homosexual and the other has not, even though they have identical genetic makeup.
The moral teachings of God’s Word, not people’s inward desires, must be the final standard of right and wrong. it is important to recognize that (1) virtually all behavior is at some level, biologically influenced, and that (2) no command of God is predicated for its validity on humans first losing all desire to violate the command in question.
As for environmental factors that have been shown to increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior, two of the most significant, particularly for male homosexuals, are the physical or emotional absence of a caring father during childhood years, and sexual abuse sometime during childhood or adolescence.
Another objection is to say that the biblical passages concerning homosexuality only prohibit certain kinds of homosexual conduct, such a homosexual prostitution or pedophilia, or unfaithful homosexual relationships. (This is sometimes called the “exploitation argument”: the Bible only prohibits exploitative forms of homosexuality.) But there is no legitimate evidence in the words of any of these verses, or their contexts, or in evidence from the ancient world, to prove that the verses were referring to anything less than all kinds of homosexual conduct by all kinds of people. Two biblical counterarguments against the “exploitation argument” may be briefly mentioned: (1) In Romans 1:23-27 Paul clearly echoes Genesis 1:27, indicating that Paul viewed any sexual relationship that did not conform to the creation paradigm of “male and female” to be a violation of God’s will, irrespective of whether the relationship is loving. (2) Paul’s absolute indictment against all forms of homosexuality is underscored by his mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26, since this form of intercourse in the ancient world was not typically characterized by sex with adolescents, slaves, or prostitutes.
(Continue to 42 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 42 of 45
Some have suggested that the Sodom and Gomorrah episode does not point to judgment on homosexual practice, but relates only to coercive homosexual practice. But Genesis 19:4-5 indicates that homosexual conduct was characteristic of the entire city and was a primary reason for God’s judgment (cf. the not on Jude 7).
Some object that the phrase “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26-27 shows that Paul is only talking about people who “naturally” feel desires toward a person of the opposite sex but who then practice homosexuality. Paul says, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” (Rom. 1:26-27). According to this view, Paul is not saying anything about people who “naturally” feel desires for a person of the same sex, for such desires would not be “contrary to that person’s nature.” However, this is reading into the text a restriction that has no basis in the actual words that Paul wrote. He does not say “contrary to their nature,” but “contrary to nature” (Gk. para physin), a phrase that is used several times in literature outside the Bible to speak of all kinds of homosexual conduct as something contrary to the natural order of the world. In other words, Paul is not saying in Romans 1:24-27 that some people switched their innate heterosexual urges for contrived homosexual urges, but rather that people exchanged or left behind sexual relations with a true sexual complement (someone of the other sex) to gratify their inward urges for sex with members of the same sex. Paul sees such people as choosing to follow their desires over God-ordained creation structures.
Finally, there is an objection from experience: some homosexual “couples” have faithful, fulfilling relationships, so why should these be thought immoral? But experience should not be used as a higher standard for moral right and wrong than the teaching of the Bible. In addition, many studies indicate that, particularly among male homosexuals, long-term one-partner relationships are uncommon, and the widespread pattern is many sexual partners, often numbering many hundreds over the years. An additional harmful result of homosexual conduct is often immense damage to the family structures of a society and also to physical health (e.g., various studies have shown a significant reduction in life expectancy for homosexual males compared to the general population).
Same-sex Marriage?
Proposals for governments to recognize “same-sex marriage” should be evaluated in light of the Bible’s teaching that one role of civil government is to “praise those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:14). Government recognition of a relationship as a “marriage” carries with it the endorsement and encouragement of that relationship by a society. Married couples enjoy many protections and benefits (legal, financial, and interpersonal) that society has granted in order to encourage marriage and signal that the institution of marriage brings benefits to society as a whole. So the question is really whether a society, through its laws, should give approval and encouragement to homosexual relationships that both the Bible and most cultures throughout history have considered to be morally wrong rather than “good,” and that also bring significant harmful consequences. Governmental recognition of “same-sex marriage” would imply a requirement to allow homosexual couples to adopt and raise children, and this would rob many children of the opportunity to be raised in a home with both a father and a mother, which is by far the best environment for them. In addition, governmental recognition would likely soon carry with it governmental prohibitions against criticizing homosexual conduct.
(Continue to 43 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 43 of 45
Conclusion
Homosexual conduct of all kinds is consistently viewed as sin in the Bible, and recent reinterpretations of the Bible that have been raised as objections to that view do not give a satisfactory explanation of the words or the context of the relevant verses. Sexual intimacy is to be confined to marriage, and marriage is to be only between one man and one woman, following the pattern established by God in creation. The church should always act with love and compassion toward homosexuals, yet never affirm homosexual conduct as morally right. The gospel of Jesus Christ offers the “good news” of forgiveness of sins and real hope for a transformed life to homosexuals as well as to all sinners.23
If you want to learn the truth concerning homosexuals and homosexuality, I encourage you to read this information:
• http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae117.htm
• http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae118.htm
• http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_agenda.html
• http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/01/bow-down-and-worship.html (containing the whole of Michael Swift's article)
For more biblical responses to the issue of homosexuality, I encourage you to read these books:
• The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon
• The Same Sex Controversy by James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell
• The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (a former practicing homosexual)
• A Queer Thing Happened to America by Michael L. Brown
There are hundreds of commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., that I could have quoted from in this article (God knows I have a library chock full of them), but doing so would be overkill. Alex has no legs to stand on in this debate; he has been thoroughly refuted with honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis. Anyone who studies this subject honestly for themselves will arrive at the same exegetical conclusions that I and thousands of other godly Christians have arrived at over the course of 2000 years. Alex's contention that all these brilliant minds of the faith have been in error and that only he and his little band of merry men have it correct is laughable. They have no support beyond falsely misquoting individuals with selective citations and truncated quotations of text, twisting these individuals' words to some how be in support of homosexuality when they are anything but. Read your Bible, learn the truth, and stand your ground steadfastly, Christian. In the end the victory is God's, and with Him ours.
(Continue to 44 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 44 of 45
Footnotes:
1 Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible, 172.
2 Alex Haiken, Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise.
3 Alex Haiken’s comments from either e-mails to Jerry Sheppard and myself or on Jerry Sheppard’s blog.
4 ESV Study Bible, 2547.
5 Alex Haiken, Genesis 19: What the Bible Really Says Were the Sins of Sodom.
6 ESV Study Bible, 83.
7 Justin R. Cannon, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality, 12.
8 Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 46 (see 75-76).
9 Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
10 Warren Baker, D.R.E., Eugene Carpenter, Ph.D., The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 838-839.
11 Alex Haiken, Leviticus 18: What Was The Abomination?.
12 ESV Study Bible, 241.
13 Alex Haiken, Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?.
14 Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.
15 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Romans, 78-79.
16 ESV Study Bible, 2159.
17 Gerhard Kittel., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:253.
18 Gerhard Kittel., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:265.
19 Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
20 http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946.
21 Ibid.Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
22 http://www.esvstudybible.org/contributors/.
23 ESV Study Bible: Homosexuality, 2547-2550.
(Continue to 45 of 45)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeletePart 45 of 45
Alex,
It is one thing to spit a bunch of verbal diarrhea and ad hominem attacks toward me while trying to convince people with your fallacious arguments and poor exegesis, but it is quite another to actually perform honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis. You seem to be under the impression that saying something automatically makes it true. This is a fallacious argument. You need to back up what you say with real facts and evidence, which you consistently fail to do.
You claim that I "ignore the respected works of every esteemed scholar of biblical exegesis who has already refuted them." I am sorry, Alex, but you are projecting your own failures upon me. It is YOU who have ignored and rejected the works of EVERY esteemed scholar of biblical exegesis who has already refuted your position. You quote from a FEW sources that support your position, and deliberately misquote other sources who DO NOT (using selective citations and truncated quotations of text, twisting them to SOUND as if they support your position when they CLEARLY DO NOT) in an attempt to try and prove your case. Your case has not been proven. I have refuted ALL of your arguments, Alex. Dismantled EVERY single one of them. The facts and evidence are on my side, "dear boy."
The ESV Study Bible was put together by 95 evangelical scholars, ALL of whom disagree with your position. Are you going to attempt to claim that these scholarly and biblically exegetical individuals performed eisegesis? The burden of proof is on you, Alex. As I said above, there are HUNDREDS of commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., that I could have quoted from in order to bury you with. However, it would have been overkill. You cherry pick those rare books that support or SOUND like they support your position while ignoring the HUNDREDS that refute your position. Make that THOUSANDS when you go through history and read the works of many of Christianity's great minds. Individuals much closer to the time of writing than we are today are quoted as having identified these passages with homosexual behaviour and/or homosexual acts. Yet you willfully choose to ignore these voices in favour of your eisegesis and ripping passages from their context to try and force into our day and age. You don't get to make things up as you go along, Alex. You cannot take the opinions of our day and age (how homosexuality is approved of) and force that on the biblical text and then attempt to argue that the biblical authors did not have homosexuality in mind. The evidence is clearly stacked against you.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, Alex. You are never going to convince intelligent people that something that is so evidently contrary to nature is normal. You and I and everybody else knows it is a lie. You can argue your feelings and opinions until the cows come home, but your lies and fallacies and eisegesis will never alter the truth. No matter how much you desire it to. You're trying to put into the biblical texts things that simply are not there. You are deliberately ignoring the simple reading of the texts, the internal evidence of the texts, the context of the texts, the original words and grammar of the texts, the many uses of the words from the texts in other Greek sources, AND the thousands of scholarly and biblically exegetical authorities who have written on these texts throughout the centuries.
(Continue to Final)
ALEX HAIKEN'S SLOPPY & IRRESPONSIBLE EISEGESIS INSTEAD OF HONEST & RESPONSIBLE EXEGESIS
ReplyDeleteFinal Part
Trying to claim one source as being "biblically exegetical," Alex, when you have 200 other biblically exegetical sources that contradict that is not being honest or responsible in your research OR your studies. You are merely looking for sources that tickle your ears and tell you what you WANT to hear. That is not honest or responsible exegesis, Alex. That is the opposite of honest and responsible exegesis.
You and your arguments have been weighed and found wanting, Alex. Come again when you have learned what it means to perform honest and responsible exegesis instead of eisegesis. Quoting what other authors have said about exegesis while failing to put it into practice does not make you an exegete, Alex. I can quote all sorts of stuff about cars but it doesn't make me a mechanic. Try doing honest research for yourself instead of relying on faulty sources and false authoritarians. Until you seek God first in your studies, seeking to be entirely honest with yourself, you will always arrive at wrongful conclusions by performing eisegesis because you don't want to see anything else. You need to take yourself out of the picture and allow the truth to speak to you, and then conform yourself to that truth. Only then will you be honouring God. But before that can happen, you need to get saved. Claiming to know Christ and Christ knowing you are two different things. Many cults and unsaved individuals claim to know Christ. Homosexuals professing to be believers are no different.
Everybody is born heterosexual. You do not commit homosexuality because you're a homosexual, you are a homosexual because you commit homosexuality. Just as you are a murderer because you commit murder and you are a rapist because you commit rape and you are a pedophile because you commit pedophilia. Likewise, you don't lie because you're a liar, you are a liar because you lie. You have it entirely backwards.
The Bible, science, biology, nature, logic, and common sense all prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is NOT natural. You can argue all you want, but you are necessarily arguing for incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and rape as well. Your arguments can be applied to them, too. The Bible has no specific verses on pedophilia or necrophilia, so according to you we cannot say they are abnormal. Your arguments are so base and crude it isn't funny.
Good bye, farewell, and I pray that God saves you some day soon, opening your eyes to His glorious truths.
Timothy Klaver
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
4202. πορνεια porneia, gen. porneias, fem. noun from porneuo (4203), to commit fornication or any sexual sin. Fornication, lewdness, or any sexual sin. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 1202.)
ReplyDeleteAllow me to educate you, Alex. πορνεια includes ANY sexual sin, whether it is with animals, dead things, relatives, prostitution, another man's wife, OR someone of the same sex.
I suggest you analyze its use throughout various Greek sources and in all its employments throughout the Bible. You can see how it was used throughout various sources of Greek literature by reading pages 579 to 595 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by reknowned Greek scholar and biblical exegete, Gerhard Kittel. Once again you have been corrected and refuted.
Now, nowhere in my response will you find Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5, let alone any other verse. So you are clearly putting things there that do not exist.
Now, if you obtained these verses from another source of mine, you would do well to take notice that I never claimed these verses speak about homosexuality (even though it IS included), but was using the verses to show those who WILL NOT inherit the kingdom. Perhaps if you knew how to keep MY words in their proper context, you might know how to keep the biblical texts in THEIR proper contexts. But, yet again, you make assumptions and then draw conclusions based on your assumptions. Thank you for allowing me to correct you and refute your errors once again. I do so enjoy these moments. :oD
Hopefully one of these days we'll teach you how to do honest, responsible exegesis instead of front-loading and reading your own feelings and opinions back into the biblical text based on the opinions of our day (eisegesis). However, you still don't seem to get it. You'll latch on to any excuse that sounds good in order to underscore the truth of these passages just so you don't have to face the guilt of your sinful behaviour. You have a mountain of biblical scholars and biblical exegetes stacked against you on this issue, Alex. Ignoring them will not make them go away. You are in the wrong and you know it. Might as well admit it. Everyone else can see it. Everyone else can see that I have thoroughly refuted and corrected you beyond the shadow of a doubt. You can argue to the contrary all you want, but the evidence is stacked against you. 95 scholars put the ESV Study Bible together and they are against you. I have hundreds of commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., and they are all against you. You quoting from a FEW liberal sources as your "biblical exegetes" is utterly laughable by comparison. I'll estimate your sources are outweighed at least 100 to 1. Your sloppy and dishonest "exegesis" is not tolerable. Your attempt to intimidate those less intelligent and less educated than you does not work on those more intelligent and more educated than you. If you had the entire alphabet behind your name, it still wouldn't make you any more intelligent. When you're wrong, you're wrong; and you are wrong to the uttermost, Alex.
You talk a good talk, Alex, but it might be helpful and wise if you actually tried walking the walk. Eventually we hope to teach you how to do honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis. But you're intent on remaining willfully ignorant and performing your eisegesis. When you're ready to be teachable, Jerry and I (and thousands of other scholars) would be more than happy to teach you the truth.
As I have previously said, it gets tiresome trying to argue with an ignorant child whose only argument is, "You're wrong, Timothy, because I said so. I will not answer any of the facts and evidence you provide me with because I unable to do so, but will simply ignore them all and tell you how wrong you are and accuse you of the very things I myself am guilty of because I'm a hypocrite. I'll make up a bunch of stuff and hope people believe me on the basis that I sound intelligent, as if I know what I'm talking about when really I don't, because I'm a willfully deceitful liar."
ReplyDeleteLacing your responses full of fallacious arguments, misinformation, and error, while continually front-loading and performing eisegesis, is not "exegesis," Alex. Despite our best efforts to teach you how to do honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis, you continue to ignore us, our teachings, and the thousands of evangelical scholars and biblical exegetes that soundly discredit you, refute you, and correct you. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's your choice. If you want to be unteachable, that's your choice, too.
This is my final response to you on this blog entry. You have been soundly refuted and corrected beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you want to continue to argue against the truth, you can argue against the mountain of facts and evidence I have provided, as well as arguing against the mountain of evangelical scholars and biblical exegetes that stand against your position. Your few liberal "scholars" don't stand up to my thousands of conservative scholars.
You have been weighed and found wanting, Alex. You, your arguments, and your liberal "scholars." You have no leg to stand upon.
Good luck with your arguments.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteTo refute and correct you one last time, my comment on the earlier thread was not an erroneous assertion. It is fact. The Bible DOES condemn homosexuality on EVERY page. You're too blind and ignorant to see it and too stubborn and proud to admit it. The Bible upholds heterosexuality as the ONLY appropriate form of sexuality. The creation account upholds heterosexuality, Jesus upheld heterosexuality, and Paul upheld heterosexuality. All the positive verses in this issue uphold heterosexuality as the standard for ALL human relationships. Since heterosexuality is upheld as the standard, that necessitates that anything outside this standard is a perversion of nature, including homosexuality. If the Bible upholds the life of a child in the womb, it necessitates that it is against abortion. That's called logic, "dear boy."
You have 9 negative verses that condemn homosexuality, but you also have THOUSANDS of positive verses that affirm heterosexuality, which logically condemns homosexuality. You can argue all you want, Alex, but your front-loading and eisegesis are not convincing. You are ignoring the mountain of facts and evidence stacked against you, while also ignoring the respected works of HUNDREDS of esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis who have refuted your position. So, Alex, please tell us about YOUR own qualifications and credentials for claiming these HUNDREDS of esteemed scholars in biblical exegesis are wrong. By what great exegetical miracle do you insist they are in error and the FEW 'scholars" you quote in order to tickle your ears are correct? Do you have any qualifications, Alex? No, you do not. Your schooling is a joke, and I suspect they would disagree with you entirely.
Fact is, Alex, you quote those rare liberal "scholars" who support your view while using selective citations and truncated quotations of text (without providing proper references to your sources) of evangelical scholars who DO NOT support your view, twisting their words to make it sound as though they do. Any honest man, Alex, provides full references to his sources; something you fail to do consistently because you know people will call you on it, as I do repeatedly. You quote from your rare sources because they tickle your ears and say what you want to hear. But the HUNDREDS of respected and esteemed biblical scholars of biblical exegesis who have refuted your position time and time again, you willfully and deliberately ignore. Why? Because you are a dishonest and self-deceived individual. You are a liar.
Now, in the earlier thread, my statement was this: "Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 3:4-10 let us know that those who practice lawlessness and habitual sin are NOT of God, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; and Ephesians 5:5 let us know that such WILL NOT inherit the kingdom of God." Since you cannot even keep MY words in their proper context, how can you possibly keep the biblical passages in THEIR proper context? If there is an alternate quote that reads, "1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:5 make it clear that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God," it must be compared to the fuller quote (the same way the lesser or obscure passages in the Bible must be subject to the greater or clear passages). Nevertheless, that statement is still true. As an earlier post educated you on, the word PORNEIA includes ANY and ALL sexual sins: incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, harlotry, prostitution, adultery, pre-marital sex, AND homosexuality. Examine ANY Greek Dictionary or Lexicon. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament has several pages examining this word's use from various Greek sources. Strong's Concordance, Vine's Expository Dictionary, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, The Complete Word Study: New Testament, and 15 other similar sources I own ALL say the EXACT SAME THING.
Thanks for coming out, Alex, but you have been weighed and found wanting.
Timothy Klaver
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteQuoting from a former leader of Exodus who is not an authoritarian on the issue and who merely attempted behavioural modification rather than genuine inner change through genuine repentance and faith (because he neglected to actually get saved) does not make your case. Your "now defunct and disgraced ex-gay movement" theory flies in the face of reality. I suggest you open your eyes and look around while also opening your mouth and removing your foot. I suggest you speak to Joe Dallas, a former practicing homosexual who wrote a book answering all the same lame arguments you continually attempt to use, which have been defunct time and time again over the last 50 years. There are a number of books written by ex-gays and a number of preachers who are ex-gays, and they will ALL tell you the same thing. But you love your sin so much and are so proud and stubborn that you dismiss them the same way you dismiss the hundreds of respected and esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis who have repeatedly refuted your position. If it doesn't tickle your ears and tell you what you want to hear, you ignore it or dismiss it.
You see, Alex, you can say all the things you want about me, and you can make all the Ad Hominem Fallacies against me you want, but you might want to remember that just because you say it doesn't make it so. You might actually try proving what you claim instead of simply making blanket accusations about me simply because you're threatened by me. Fact is, I have exposed every single fallacious argument you have attempted, and demonstrated how your argument was fallacious, while also refuting you and correcting you with irrefutable facts and evidence. We continue to try and teach you how to do proper, honest, responsible biblical exegesis, but you insist on remaining unteachable and continually front-loading the texts with your feelings and opinions.
I am better educated than you are, Alex. However, I don't need to go around puffing myself up by telling people my credentials in order to make it APPEAR as though I know what I'm talking about (the way you do). You try and use your credentials to intimidate others, tying to strike fear in them and make them back down. I, on the other hand, demonstrate my credentials through actual leg-work, by doing honest research and study while performing honest and responsible exegesis. I don't have to go around waving my credentials in your face because the evidence--the fact I have repeatedly and soundly refuted and correct your erroneous assertions--speaks for itself. When I say, "Alex is wrong," I demonstrate exactly how you are wrong. When you say it, you say, "Timothy is wrong, because I said so." And then you go on to make more of your erroneous assertions and try to back them up with your fallacious arguments. I could go line-by-line through your posts and point out the fallacies you are employing while also correcting your misinformation at the same time. You know nothing of the Greek language, Alex. I do. And I back myself up with all the respected and esteemed scholars of biblical exegesis; the same ones you ignore or dismiss.
Once again, saying something doesn't make it so, Alex. You can make all the Ad Hominem Fallacies you want about me, but the evidence speaks for itself as to who is doing honest and responsible exegesis, and, surprise surprise, it isn't you.
It was fun while it lasted, but I have better things to do than to argue with a blind child of his father the devil who refuses to see the truth, be teachable, and learn how to exegete correctly. There are numerous books written by respected and esteemed biblical scholars who have answered your arguments time and time again, yet you choose to ignore them. Even books written by ex-gays who have answered your arguments. You are a lost cause. Only God can save you from yourself and your self-destruction. I pray He grants you salvation soon before you wind up in hell for eternity. Good bye.
Timothy Klaver
http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that you are making another fallacious argument and an unfounded claim by saying, "But since you seem to be of such influence and wisdom that you can dismiss any Evangelical scholar who does not agree with you -- including those whose respected books on exegesis are standard fare at most Evangelical seminaries," right? How many seminaries have you been to? Yeah, that's what I thought. Anybody I know says what you call "standard fare" is untrue. In fact, most of the books you reference are NOT "standard fare" at ANY seminary. The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New International Biblical Commentary, and New Bible Commentary were not used where I received my education. In fact, most seminary students I talk to have NEVER heard of these books. Why? Because (1) they are NOT "standard fare," (2) they are NOT very scholarly works, and (3) they are lesser than 100 other well-recommended, respected and esteemed commentaries, backgrounds, etc., etc. The library of books I have is filled with ACTUAL standard fare material at most seminaries, books I source in my references while you attempt to dismiss them. I said it before and I will say it again: EVERY Greek Dictionary and Greek Lexicon backs me up and says the exact same thing. I have proven it to you repeatedly, quoting from a number of the ones I own. Yet, as always, you attempt to dismiss them. Why? Because your ticklish ears won't hear anything that doesn't say what you WANT to hear.
What I dismiss, Alex, are your liberal "scholars" (who are NO scholars at all) and your false use of selective citations and truncated quotations of text from genuine evangelical professors and bible teachers who CLEARLY do not support your position, while you twist their words to sound as if they lend support to your argument. If you were an honest man--a REAL man--you would provide proper and adequate references to your sources so we could provide the reader with the FULL CONTEXT of precisely what the author said and how you are maliciously maligning their words in attempt to garner support for your lost argument. You don't source your references because you know people will call you on it and expose you for the DISHONEST and SELF-DECEIVED LIAR you truly are.
If you're going to make accusations about me, Alex, make sure they are true. Saying it doesn't make it so. When I make an accurate accusation about you, I demonstrate it practically by providing proof. You merely make accusations and then ramble off about something unrelated, as if making your accusation makes it true. That's a fallacious argument. You consistently dodge what Jerry and I have to say, cherry picking what you will respond to, deliberately ignoring the mountain of evidence stacked against you by attempting to sweep it under the rug unnoticed. You "have no intention of addressing [our] points by answering them one by one" because you are unable to do so. Sorry, but we notice when you ignore large chunks of what we write and only respond to select cherry-picked statements followed by a bunch of verbal diarrhea that has no relation to the argument whatsoever. You do this because you are unable to answer us. Your tactics are not new. They are well-known. Because you cannot answer us in one point, like the cults, you jump to another point to try and prove your previous point. When you can't answer us in that point, you jump to another point. You keep moving around because you can't answer us, so you have to keep bringing in unrelated information to try and distract your readers. Ultimately, this entire ploy, all these actions, falls under the Straw Man Fallacy. You ignore large chunks of what we say, cherry picking select statements and then trying to turn those select statements into our entire argument and attempting to easily refute us. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. You're going to have to do better than that.
Good bye and farewell.
To the prospective reader of these comments:
ReplyDeleteA great many fallacies are used by Alex Haiken in his arguments (many of which I called him on in Jerry's other blog: http://soul-reach.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-hypocrisy-of-lgbt-community.html), the most prominent being the Fallacy of Assertion. That is, in all of Alex's responses you will see him responding in such a way as to urge, "What I say is true," while ignoring the vast majority of the factual evidences that I have provided him with through my responses to him.
In essence, his arguments go like this: "You're wrong, Timothy, because I said so. What I say is true. I will not answer any of the facts and evidence that you have provided me with (because I unable to do so), but will simply ignore them all and tell you how wrong you are while accusing you of the very things that I myself am guilty of (because I'm a hypocrite). I'll just make up a bunch of stuff and hope that people will believe me on the basis that I sound intelligent, as if I know what I'm talking about when really, and truthfully, I don't (because I'm a willfully deceitful liar)."
Alex has been found guilty of committing the following fallacious arguments on countless occasions, yet remains unchanged in his reasoning, as can be observed by his continual use thereof, even when confronted and corrected concerning his use of these fallacies:
Appeal to Authority: Referencing an 'expert'.
Appeal to Common Belief (a.k.a., Appeal to Majority, Appeal to People, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community): If others believe it to be true, it must be true.
Appeal to Common Practice: If others do it, it must be ok to do it too.
Appeal to Emotion: If it feels good, it must be true.
Appeal to Pity (a.k.a., Appeal to Sympathy): Going for the sympathy vote.
Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking the other person's claim.
Argument from Ignorance (a.k.a., Burden of Proof): Accepting circumstantial evidence.
Attack the Person (a.k.a., Ad Hominem): Distracting them from their argument.
Begging the Question: Circular reasoning to prove assumed premise.
Logical Inconsistency: Arguments that contradict one another.
Many Questions: overloading them with lots of questions.
Missing the Point (a.k.a., Ignorance of Refutation, Irrelevant Conclusion): Drawing the wrong conclusion.
Poisoning the Well: Discrediting the person before they speak.
Red Herring: Distracting with an irrelevancy.
Repetition: Repeating something makes it more true.
Social Conformance: Agree with me or be socially isolated.
Strawman: Attack a weak argument used by the other person.
Style over Substance: An attractive presentation makes it more right.
Wishful Thinking: A is true because I want it to be true.
Alex ignores the vast majority of my responses and cherry picks which statements I have made that he will respond to. These statements he presumes to be my weak arguments and then, committing the Fallacy of the Strawman, he attempts to turn these statements into my whole argument, in which he then tries to easily refute it.
Any responses made by Alex in Jerry's last blog that appear to be unanswered by me, you will find completely answered in the 45-part response given above. Alex has failed to answer any of this information, even when I e-mailed him with a copy of it. Rather than answer it, he commits the Fallacy of Repetition by repeating the same erroneous information that I have already refuted him on numerous times before.