The Bible condemns homosexual sex

A note on translations There have been many different translations of the Bible. The original texts which the we used to form the biblical anthology were written in several different languages- and not necessarily in the same language as the original text. For instance, a passage may have been originally written in Hebrew, but the oldest surviving copy of the text would be a Greek translation of a Hebrew text. Consequently, when reading this hypothetical verse, we're reading something which has been translated from Hebrew to Greek to English. A result of translation is corruption of the original meaning. This problem is compounded with some books, such as genesis, which were passed on by oral tradition for many generations before they were ever written down. To bypass this problem of translations, the formulation of the King James version of the bible consisted of listing out possible translations of a verse, then asking God to divinely inspire a correct translation from the possible options. I believe this is why the King James version is popular with the more fundamentalist elements of Christianity. With all the possible translations, it is unrealistic to pick a single translation and say "This is the definitive word of God". How then can anyone be absolutely certain about the ambiguous elements of the Bible? Consider Job. 39:9 "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?"-King James Version c.1558 "Will the wild-ox be content to serve thee? Or will he abide by thy crib?"- American Standard c.1995 We ought not pick the verse which seems most reasonable because we would be introducing current cultural bias to the translation. Not very many people believe in unicorns, yet the bible verse has been translated to mention unicorns. Likewise, because we in have been facing Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender issues, we will be tempted to try to find translations of the Bible which could include those issues. In introducing this cultural contamination, we pervert the original meaning of the document. Before we continue, I would ask you to consider transsexualism and the bible. Transsexual rights is an issue which is emerging in saliency. The religious right have begun to indicate that being transsexual is explicitly against their religion, yet they struggle to find textual meaning [1]. Leviticus 20:13 " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them."-KJV Using my opponent's citation [2], I see that out of the thirty or so bibles the website uses to cross-reference, only one version fails to mention the "as with a woman" element. This version is a very recent translation, the New Living Translation, last revised in 2007. Refer to my prior argument about introducing cultural bias. My opponent uses the dubious second translation as being concrete proof, but her translation is the only translation out of around thirty samples which had a significantly different meaning. Ignoring the ASV outlier, the verse includes the 'as with a woman element' and since my opponent has not challenged my argument directly, and indeed seems to agree that women were seen as being property, then my prior argument stants. Corinthians 6:9 The writer, Paul is not clearly speaking as a divine authority. The bible does not state that God or Jesus is dictating the letter. Further, in 1 Corinthians 1:7 the author states that there is an absence of Jesus at the moment. Jesus had, apparently, not been heard from since the resurrection. Paul is acting as the leader of a Church- not as a prophet. It doesn't match the criteria I was looking for. I am prepared to respond to the verse, but I must first ask that you demonstrate that Paul was acting as a legitimate representative of God at the time he wrote the letter. Gay marriage and homosexuality, generally The mere fact that God does not mention gay marriage does not mean that god forbids it. The bible does not mandate that men marry either. Furthermore, I have not seen anywhere in the bible where it condemns lesbianism. Regarding sex outside of marriage, I would like for you to describe God's law regarding the subject. Outside of Corinthians, which you need to establish as being God's law, the only things I can find refer to vague "sexual immorality". What, precisely, is meant by sexual immorality? Does the definition extend to certain books, or is one definition universal across all books of the Bible? Please nail down this aspect of the argument, as I cannot properly address the ambiguity you're presenting. Sodom The story of Sodom makes no reference to homosexuality. The Hebrew word for angel is מַלְאָךְ‎- which is a neuter noun. The gender elements were introduced when Genesis was translated into Greek- which does not have a neuter word for angel, and instead uses the masculine noun angelos. Angels, at this early point in the Hebrew faith, are merely automatons of God. Angels are a form of being completely different from the animal kingdom (and, since we're keeping this biblical, mankind as well). The story explicitly deals with some sort of sexual immorality, yes. The story explicitly deals with the way a host should act toward a guest (sending his daughters to be raped. Sound familiar?). The story does not specifically deal with homosexuality. I actually thing bestiality fits better into the story than homosexuality- consider the biblical stance on bestiality (Leviticus 20:15-16 presents a very clear condemnation of bestiality). It is a crime to have sex with a lower order of creature. It is a crime for the person and it is a crime for the beast. An angel is a higher order of creature than man- or at the very least a different order. It would clearly be a sin for both parties for a man to have sex with an angel. The Nephilim are offspring of an angel and a human- and they reviled by God as an abomination. Now, could you imagine how horrible a crime it would be if God himself impregnated a woman? I'm being facetious. I apologize, but I couldn't resist. The devil made me do it. Exodus 20:17 and thought crime In my opening statement I mentioned Mathew 5:27-28. My intention for this was to speed up the debate process by preemptively dealing with thought crime. My opponent seemed to have missed that aspect of my argument. I agree with my opponent that the bible states in several places that actions committed in the mind are equal to those committed in the body. I will re-iterate my argument from my opening statement: "Being attracted to someone and thinking about having sex with someone are also two different things". To put it another way, if I find a man attractive, I don't automatically think of having sex with him. I merely find him to be attractive. To be homosexual, in the modern understanding of the word, one must be exclusively attracted to a member of the same gender.. Summary I asked my opponent to provide at least two verses from either God or a legitimate authority representing God- one unabiguously condemning homosexual sex and one unambiguously condemning a homosexual orientation. My opponent did not fulfil this request, so I extend it for the next round. My opponent may choose to refute my arguments against the ones she just presented or she may elect to introduce entirely new ones. Additionally, I ask that my opponent include female homosexuality in this debate. Thus far, mention has only been made of male homosexuals. In order to demonstrate that the bible is against all homosexuality and homosexual acts, the arguments must apply to both sexes. The debate topic is not about whether male homosexuality condemned by God. I thank my opponent for a good mental workout. This is my first debate and it's turning out to be a lot more fun than I expected. 1. http://www.rightwingwatch.org... 2. http://www.biblestudytools.com...