It most certainly is, especially for specialists in Greek who look up the citation. Claiming there is no support given seems disingenuous to me.
One of the quote talked about love of boys and lusts. It is not as explicit as Paul by references man&^%ers (pardon my nonexistent French) for those who did stuff to the boys and men who'd gone the equivalent of gay transgender. Either Philo went much further than the law of Moses thinking such men deserved to be executed (not sure if that is in the Philo quotes on that site off the top of my head), or else he considered those who did such to be participants in male homo-sex.
I also noticed I did not include the link to the article that went into some depth on the BDAG article: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/06/26/the-story-of-ἀρσενοκοίτης-according-to-bdag/
If scholars can accept motherbedder, slavebedder, unclebedder, and brotherbedder as literal terms meaning what they sound like, and refer to men who penetrate or otherwise similarly stimulate themselves with these types of individuals, why would only 'manbedder' mean something different? There is actually a passage where arsenos koiten with their partners were to be put to death in the Old Testament, and the passage explains it is a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. A restriction on this falls in a passage against adultury and sex with animals. It is clear what it means.
There are some ideologically PhDs (ThDs, MAs, MTh's etc.) who want to change the meaning of this word because it doesn't fit with their socio-political viewpoint. You have not presented anything convincing to those who hold the scriptures in high esteem. Trying to twist Paul's condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior into people going against their own nature/sexual orientation, while admitting that scholars point out that sexual orientation was not a first century concept, is absurd. Since I came across the idea nearly three decades ago, I am guessing that you borrowed it from other scripture-twisters.
Maybe you have some years of your life invested in all this stuff. Rather than to work so hard to try to justify yourself and to mislead others down this same harmful path, why don't you confess your sin and repent? Just think of the harm you could be causing to young people you influence down the path of sin.
I also have a question for you. How do you think this all fits with God's overall plan for marriage? Paul wrote in in I Corinthians 7 to prevent fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. He also presents celibacy as an option. He says one has a gift after this manner, and another after that. We are talking about two choices here-- marriage or celibacy. Where does homo-sex fit into that?
Are you consistent in allowing and encouraging singles to fornicate? If a man feels oriented toward having sex with married women, is that okay with you? What if two gay twin brothers wanted to 'gay marry' each other. Is that okay with you? What about father and son?
In Ephesians 5, marriage is to express the relationship between Christ and the church. How do two men or two men do that?
One of the quote talked about love of boys and lusts. It is not as explicit as Paul by references man&^%ers (pardon my nonexistent French) for those who did stuff to the boys and men who'd gone the equivalent of gay transgender. Either Philo went much further than the law of Moses thinking such men deserved to be executed (not sure if that is in the Philo quotes on that site off the top of my head), or else he considered those who did such to be participants in male homo-sex.
I also noticed I did not include the link to the article that went into some depth on the BDAG article: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/06/26/the-story-of-ἀρσενοκοίτης-according-to-bdag/
If scholars can accept motherbedder, slavebedder, unclebedder, and brotherbedder as literal terms meaning what they sound like, and refer to men who penetrate or otherwise similarly stimulate themselves with these types of individuals, why would only 'manbedder' mean something different? There is actually a passage where arsenos koiten with their partners were to be put to death in the Old Testament, and the passage explains it is a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. A restriction on this falls in a passage against adultury and sex with animals. It is clear what it means.
There are some ideologically PhDs (ThDs, MAs, MTh's etc.) who want to change the meaning of this word because it doesn't fit with their socio-political viewpoint. You have not presented anything convincing to those who hold the scriptures in high esteem. Trying to twist Paul's condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior into people going against their own nature/sexual orientation, while admitting that scholars point out that sexual orientation was not a first century concept, is absurd. Since I came across the idea nearly three decades ago, I am guessing that you borrowed it from other scripture-twisters.
Maybe you have some years of your life invested in all this stuff. Rather than to work so hard to try to justify yourself and to mislead others down this same harmful path, why don't you confess your sin and repent? Just think of the harm you could be causing to young people you influence down the path of sin.
I also have a question for you. How do you think this all fits with God's overall plan for marriage? Paul wrote in in I Corinthians 7 to prevent fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. He also presents celibacy as an option. He says one has a gift after this manner, and another after that. We are talking about two choices here-- marriage or celibacy. Where does homo-sex fit into that?
Are you consistent in allowing and encouraging singles to fornicate? If a man feels oriented toward having sex with married women, is that okay with you? What if two gay twin brothers wanted to 'gay marry' each other. Is that okay with you? What about father and son?
In Ephesians 5, marriage is to express the relationship between Christ and the church. How do two men or two men do that?
"Philo... Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt. Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood."
Paul's view of such philosophers: "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:" (Col 2:8, ERV)
Remember, I went to the Greek OT for two of the uses of malakos and that may rank higher than non-canonical sources -
"There is another consideration; the Greek of the New Testament differs materially in its character from the classical Greek, or from the Greek language as a whole...For example, when the Greek word hades is used, we are not thereby committed to a belief in all the fabulous ideas of the Greeks concerning the abode of the dead, for the word was but the representative of the Hebrew word sheol, which is almost always translated hades in the Greek Testament. Hence in studying this Greek word in the New Testament we are not to go to the Greek classics to find out what they mean by the word hades, but rather to the Hebrew prophets to learn in what sense they use the Hebrew word sheol, of which it is the Greek equivalent."
From "A Greek-English Lexicon to The New Testament Revised and Enlarged by Thomas Sheldon Green, 1896."
The definitions of arsenokoites in the BDAG fit the meaning of "sodomite" more accurately then condemning the loving companionship between two males that includes the erotic element. The actual definition reads: "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen" The Bold Italics give the formal definition in the BDAG -
The BDAG in the Forward gives the way definitions are written:
"Extended definitions are given in bold roman and may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition."
Pederast or sodomite may fit 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, but NOT homosexual or male to male lovers.
As to your questions about fornication and marriage, I've answered before in this thread and it is lengthy and I'll not go through it again here. I'll just say the Bible gives no support for same-sex marriage, but since God said it is not good for man to be alone, there is a passage that those incapable of marriage can use as a guide: Eccl. 4:7-12. It has been emphasized that in Matt. 19:12 the word is "eunuchs". But that word is not always meant to be taken literally. As more than one translations shows:
"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)
Mat 19:12 Williams "For some are born incapable of marriage, and some have been made so by men, and some have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can."
Both of those translations existed before same gender relationships were a Bible discussion.