Homosexuality is not a sin

What part of "The Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew" do you not understand? YOU maybe looking at the English Bible because it is the only Bible YOU understand, however, it is NOT the most accurate translation. We rely on the English version as long as it is translated correctly. I have proven that it is not. Galatians 5 and the other verses I quoted in my second post agree with the Greek text. Can you prove that they do not agree with the Greek? "There is no single word in Hebrew or Greek which lends itself to a simple word-for-word translation of "homosexual." The word appeared in English for the first time in 1912 and in the Bible for the first time in the 1946 RSV in 1 Corinthians 6:9. http://www.religion-online.org... There is a Hebrew and Greek word for "homosexual" NOW, but the Bible was not written NOW. That puts an end to your argument. The verse you quoted in 1 Timothy uses the same word "arsenkoites" and I have already shown that no one knows for certain what Paul meant when he used that word. You have not offered evidence to show that "sexually immoral" refers to homosexuals, it is simply your opinion. Repeating it does not make it so. "Yes, it says to love each other, and that it's the end of the law. But this does not mean something is not a sin, it means he will forgive someone for sinning. It says in the old testament not to kill. Now that the law is gone, does it mean murder is no longer a sin? Of course not! Same goes for homosexuality. The fact that it even appears in the new covenant proves my points." Fist of all, killing someone would not be loving, so it would still be a sin, so your argument is absurd. Homosexuality does not harm anyone and certainly is not "unloving to your neighbor", however, your judgement IS. The purpose of the law is so that sin would INCREASE! Romans 5:20, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more..." To sum this part up, I never said we don't sin anymore, but Galatians 5:14 tells us how not to sin. You still have not shown how homosexuality fits into that definition. 1) Homosexuality is NOT condemned in the Old or New Testament. 2) I have proven there was no Greek nor Hebrew word for "homosexuality" the time the Bible was written. 3) My opponent offered no proof that "sexually immoral" includes homosexuals, but did say, " And if they didn't use homosexuals, they may have also used "sexually immoral" which I am pretty sure was dated back then. Since both mean the same, it is highly possible that it was in the Bible." He goes on and on to say that he has FACTS to back up his claims, but clearly in this case, it is ALL his opinion. I'm not interested in his opinion, just the facts. "Pretty sure" is pretty pathetic. You say that "translation has nothing to do with it", then can I write my own translation of the Bible in English and would you agree to use that one? If not, why not? "Translation" has nothing to do with it, right? Yes I did ask you to prove that it is a sin NOW. You have failed to do so. You said that I proved "nothing". I have shown that your "proof texts" are nothing but mistranslations of the original manuscripts. You don't accept it as proof. "Can you disprove it was in the bible?" I'm not sure what you meant by "it", but if you are referring to the word "homosexual" I have proven that it was never in the original Greek nor Hebrew text. It did not appear until 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. I'm surprised you never mentioned Romans 1:27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."" My rebuttal for the verse my opponent did not use: First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair.A279; It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis (`6;`5;`3;_3;`2;)," We are to interpret Scripture with other Scripture. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. And that is it! Except for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, those are the only verses that Christians LOVE to use to condemn homosexuality. While we are on the subject of Genesis 19, it says, "9 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant"s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom"both young and old"surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." This passage clearly deals with homosexual RAPE. No one is defending rape and I would agree that rape is a sin, since it is not "loving your neighbor as yourself". Christians love to point to this passage and say that since these men wanted to rape these men in a homosexual way, homosexuality, therefore is wrong. That biased argument does not work, simply for the fact that if it were WOMEN these men wanted to rape, we would not say that heterosexuality is wrong, would we? 1) In closing, one might ask WHY I mentioned the other verses that Christians attempt to use to prove that homosexuality is a sin. To be honest, I figured I would beat him to the "punch". At this point, I'm not sure he would have possessed the knowledge to do so in retrospect. These verses have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does condemn homosexuality in certain cases, (adultery, rape, lust, ect.) just as it condemns heterosexuality in the same cases. 2) My opponent seems to think that ANY English Bible is acceptable as long as it was written recently. He fails to understand that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and that sometimes we must look at the original language that it was written in order to fully comprehend meaning. The Greek and Hebrew does trump the English language given the fact that the Bible was not written in English. 3) My opponent only offered 4 verses to defend his position for which he offered no evidence that the word "homosexual" was in the original manuscripts. I have offered evidence of when the word was translated and put into the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. He has not shown that the verses in Leviticus have anything to do at all with 2 committed and loving members of the same sex. I have proven that it had to do with "a male laying with a male in the bedding of your wife (adutery). Adultery is NOT homosexuality. 4) Last of all my opponent has not dealt completely with Galatians 5:14 where it says, "Then entire law is summed up into one; love your neighbor as yourself". My opponent has offered not one shred of evidence that homosexuality is "not loving your neighbor as yourself". Until he can, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN! Thank you!