there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual. No one here is justifying homosexuality. We have some individuals who are free to make their opinion on the topic known. This site is very tolerant of those who support these sexual preferences that are from the pit of Hell. That is not justifying them at all. Please don't blanket all by the action of a few.
CS1, I don't merely give opinion, I back it up with authorities and objective observation; something I've not seen others do on this thread. No one has attempted to explain why he thinks the modern fundamentalist versions are accurately translated.
NET Bible: Translator's note on '
malakos': "This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior."
Check the onelook.com dictionaries for "demeanor" and its main meaning is "behavior". So, these translators decided it was just not effeminate behavior they wished in the translation, they read into it some form of same-gender sex. The word "effeminate" and the similar words "weaklings" and "wantons" have the following translation history and this would hardly be called "sometimes" as the NET translator's note reads!
Weaklings:
Tyndale Bible 1534
Matthew Bible 1537
Wantons:
Geneva Bible 1599
Effeminate:
KJV 1611/1769
RV 1885
YLT 1898
Douay-Rheims 1899
ASV 1901
Phillips NT 1972
1946 RSV is first translation to combine
malakos &
arsenokoites into one word, "homosexuals"
1971 Revised RSV "sexual perverts"
1971 Living Bible paraphrase, "homosexuals.
Most fundamentalist modern translations seemed to change the definition of
malakos into homosexual after the start of the LBGTQ activism at the 1969 Stonewall Riots. The translator's note in the NET2 shows how modern evangelical translations read into the Greek passive same-gender sex, which is not there in the Greek!
The BDAG lexicon is often quoted, but the word "homosexual" is nowhere to be found in the
definitions of
malakos or
arsenokoites, but in its paragraph on
arsenokoites it indicates that "homosexuals" is inappropriate: "(on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] see WPetersen"
Many commentaries and lexicons state that
malakos is figurative for a "catamite". They offer no evidence of that. The Holy Spirit would hardly inspire Paul to write
malakos for "catamite" when the other 3 times it is used in the NT, it means "soft clothing". Also, when there is an exact word in Greek for catamite as seen in the LSJ Greek English lexicon, Paul had the exact word to use:
https://lsj.gr/wiki/κίναιδος
In the same lexicon, the word
malakos, no sort of same-gender sex is given as a definition, among the many definitions given.
https://lsj.gr/wiki/μαλακός
Just as the fundamentalist translations changed from "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22 NASB77 to "give birth prematurely" in the NASB95; to support their anti-abortion social views, these same fundamentalist translations change 1 Cor. 6:9 to read according to their own bias against males who want other males as companions, lovers and physical relationship.
This is not some "gay theology" or gay exposition, this was known back in the 19th century, as Heinrich Meyer writes:
"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html
Now when someone can present a rational defense of using some form of homosexuality in translating 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 you'll have some standing, above just biased opinions and bigotry.