homosexuality isn't a sin

I'd like to reply from where we left off in the other forum if that's OK with you. I said: Nah, the old covenant new covenant thing doesn't work, Matt 5: 17-20, means the leviticus law holds for the NT. You said :That is not at all what the verses at Matthew 5:17-20 are saying. In fact, I would imagine that you would have a hard time finding a Biblical scholar that would agree with you. Without trying to break the balance of the discussion, we have to recognize the three types of laws described in the old covenant. These would be ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law. You seem to be concerned with the ceremonial laws. Since these laws were established to point forward toward the Christ, they were, therefore, no longer necessary. However, the principles are still required. I said :No argument over 'zakar' what is your point here, because it's quite obscure. You said: I apologize for not clearly stating my point. I completely misread what you were trying to say and therefore did not give a proper refutation. Which translation are you using to get the rendering of "she is ritually unclean"? Most all translations say something along the lines of: "that is detestable." (NIV) I said: 1 cor 6:9... if 1: 9-11 appears it's an error, no one's perfect, and spell checks sometimes do odd things. Though I might have been referencing 11: 14 re long hair being unattural, according to Saulus the liar. Not going back to check the word occurs in 1 cor 6: 9. You said: Arsenokoitai"is the Greek word used in 6:9. That still does not fulfill my request for you to provide a concordance or lexicon that verifies your claim. I said: Kan, Ken, and other variants are found in Greek and related languages, e.g. Turkish, as what is sometimes termed the diminutive, or familiar, in koine Greek in our passage under scrutiny, this gives ownership of the nature (makes it familliar) to the actor, so it is not physis (general nature) but personal nature, nature of the actor You said:The same word that is in Romans 1:26 is used in Romans 11:21: "For if God did not spare the"natural branches, he will not spare you either." (NIV) In order to verify your claim, provide a concordance or lexicon that confirms your definition. I said:You seem to misunderstand the comparison, the word 'physis' has a fluid meaning, hence context is important, as are modifications such as suffixes. You said: Context is important, which is why I brought it up in my response. I said : No: you still haven't got a reasonable source for the claim Arsenkoites translates as homosexual, the most viable translation from a reading of all ancient sources, would be rapist. You said: I can list numerous sources. Try Strong's Concordance, HELPS Word-studies, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. However, I have yet to see you name a source that verifies your claim. I said: There is no basis to regard homosexuality as a sin, based on the actual text of the bible. You said: have yet to provide any reason to think that. The Bible makes it quite clear. I do not try and read into the text. I said: Saul twice describes David and Jonathan as married, once with his blessing, 1 sam 18: 20-21 and once in anger, 1 sam 20: 30 Jonathan stripping naked in front of David is a bit of a give away too. You said: 1 Samuel 18:20-21: Now Saul's daughter Mi'chal was in love with David, and it was reported to Saul, and this pleased him. So Saul said: "I will give her to him to serve as a snare to him, so that the hand of the Philis'tines may come upon him." Saul then said to David a second time: "You will form a marriage alliance with me [Or "will become my son-in-law."] today." (NW) 1 Samuel 20:30: Then Saul became enraged with Jon'athan, and he said to him: "You son of a rebellious woman, do you think I do not know that you are choosing to side with the son of Jes'se, to your own shame and to the shame of your mother?" (NW) So where are reading that David and Jonathan are married? I said: Daniel 1: 9 "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV) Problem is "favour and tender love" translates "chesed v'rachamim" Cesed translates is "mercy". V'rachamim is plural and can mean eather: "mercy" or "physical love". It's unlikely the Hebrew reads "mercy and mercy." Therefore "mercy and physical love" is the only viable translation. You said: The Hebrew word for "favor" is"checed. The Hebrew word for "tender love" is"racham. Strong's Concordance, NAS Exhaustive Concordance, Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance do not EVER translateracham"to mean "physical love." And here was my argument "We can sum up the majority of your last reply in two words. Strawman argument. Though we might also note its tending "towards shotgun argumentation. Its irtellevent whether dictionaries and lectionaries give definitions if the evidence does not support those definitions. "And there is no historical nor linguistic evidence that supports the definition of Arsenkoiti as 'homosexual'. so your argument resolves to a third fallacy. that of appeal to authority. Likewise with "Tobeha, the variety of activities and situations to which the word is applied does not support the translation, 'abomination' or 'detestible', howver 'ritually unclean' is entirely supportable. No its not "'Physuken', used in Romans "11: 21, thats Phusin. The only place in th NT in which Physiken is used is Romans 1: 26-28 Though I will concede I must have been thinking of something else when I referenced the suffix 'Ken. This is incorrect, the suffix is 'En' "the consonant merely links the syllables. En makes the tense active, and as its active this gives possession to the actor. https://books.google.co.uk...... 1 Samuel 18: 20-21 your translation is not supported, the KJV says "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain" unfortunately 'in the one of the' is an insertion. the actual text translates literally as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, twice" and Johnathan is the only other child of Saul, David has a relationship with at that point. The other daughter having been married off to someone else. 1 Sam 20: 30, again your translation is off, its not "choosing to side with" but "Choosing you the son of Jesse, to the shame of yopur mothers nakedness" which is a different connotation entirely." Hmm... Strongs concordance has racham as: "7355 racham 'raw-kham' a primitive root; to fondle; by implication, to love. What is that if not physical love? Again with Matthew 5:17-20, your appeal to authority doesn't support your case there are many scholars "that have and do, support from this verse, the interpretation that the OT law still holds. And a literal reading of the text supports this too.