"Effeminate" men and the meaning of Malakos

[revolutionist90]

So I was reading this article from christian post:

http://www.christian...41/pageall.html

Where it is stated that the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was incorrectly translated. The term for homosexuals malakos actually means "soft" or "effeminate" men. Many newer versions of different bible translations have re-translated the verse to say male prostitutes instead of homosexuals. Many believe that the malakos term is for feminine acting or submissive men and does not include homosexuals at all but doesn't that still include gay men who might act a certain way to attract other gay men? Like male prostitutes would act a certain way to attract other "clients". I think the term is for homosexuals and men who act a certain to attract other same-sex partners. But what do you think about this new translation and what do you think Paul was meaning by "effeminate" men? Or do you think this whole business is just a hoax or a trick by the world?

I think men who are effeminate have been robbed of their identity, and it can happen in many ways, but there will always be an evil spirit behind it, for we see that this deception will cost the man his eternal destiny

we see Paul addressing people who WERE in bondage to sin listed, that are sin's that lead to eternal damnation, but they were washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord.

we see there is hope in Jesus to transform us from our past and make us new creations in Christ, some of it happens immediately and some times its a process of growing

I never thought of effeminate men that way.

[revolutionist90]

Seems to me that since this same verse includes homosexuals and those who are sexually immoral, that if we took out the effeminate word, it does not soften the impact on homosexuals one way or the other, becuase they are already specified in this verse and other specifically. The soft aspect, might be referring to men who will not act like men. Whether that means crossdressers, or men who shirk they manly duties or men who make themselves soft spoken, extra gentle or other mannerisms that we sometimes associate with certan homosexual male stereotypes, or something else altogehthe, I do not know. But we do know that there are some types of men, who would never be described as soft or effeminate, maybe men should be more like them?

Okay so it does include same-sex attraction and effeminate men

[revolutionist90]

In the context though it is speaking of the sexually immoral.

There are several ways to interpret a passage that are Biblical.

There is word upon word wherein the Word confirms itself because God does not change.

There is Apostolic Authority knowing that it comes down from those whom God left with the charge of distributing and interpreting it.

There is Historical context and application.

There is also context wherein we examine the passage to get at the root of the message.

If these are applied to the passage it is quite clear what Paul is talking about and it's pretty definitive what he means despite the apostates who are seeking to redefine it.

Peace,

Dave

True, true.

[revolutionist90]

This is clearly an attempt to justify sin, the bible is clear on what Gods view of homosexuality is. People want to change God to fit their lifestyle rather than change their lifestyle to suit God.

Yeah that is true. I think it is sad when people try to cover up or change the definition of a sin through the Bible. It shows that they are weak in my eyes (not that I don't get weak).

[revolutionist90]

Vine's supposed arguments are not new and have been rebutted before, he distorts the context in order to fit his world view; not the Biblical world view. Just because he is a Harvard professor doesn't means squat - imagine that Harvard started out as a Christian school and now look at it. For a much more compelling testimony from a former homosexual, this video from a former English professor is well worth viewing. If you have friends or family in the gay community and they are open to hearing from someone who changed her lesbian lifestyle from reading her Bible this is a good opportunity. *** removed embedded video ***

~~~

Submit your video in the Video Forum, where all videos need to be presented. You can then link to that thread here.

That's true. The arguments for or against homosexuality actually have not changed. The same arguments arise time and time again as if they are not new (or as if you can't google them lol).

[OneLight]

Vine's supposed arguments are not new and have been rebutted before, he distorts the context in order to fit his world view; not the Biblical world view. Just because he is a Harvard professor doesn't means squat - imagine that Harvard started out as a Christian school and now look at it. For a much more compelling testimony from a former homosexual, this video from a former English professor is well worth viewing. If you have friends or family in the gay community and they are open to hearing from someone who changed her lesbian lifestyle from reading her Bible this is a good opportunity. *** removed embedded video ***

~~~

Submit your video in the Video Forum, where all videos need to be presented. You can then link to that thread here.

thats too bad!.......I wish I knew why videos need to go in a special section, somtimes they are so relevant to the topic being discussed, and I imagine the cost to souls who need to hear a better way are the only ones losing out

If a video is that important, then you would not consider it a hassle for taking the minute it takes to post one in a forum it was designed to be in. Besides that, all videos need to be approved before they are displayed, and that is what the forum is set up to do.

[Guest Butero]

So I was reading this article from christian post:

http://www.christian...41/pageall.html

Where it is stated that the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was incorrectly translated. The term for homosexuals malakos actually means "soft" or "effeminate" men. Many newer versions of different bible translations have re-translated the verse to say male prostitutes instead of homosexuals. Many believe that the malakos term is for feminine acting or submissive men and does not include homosexuals at all but doesn't that still include gay men who might act a certain way to attract other gay men? Like male prostitutes would act a certain way to attract other "clients". I think the term is for homosexuals and men who act a certain to attract other same-sex partners. But what do you think about this new translation and what do you think Paul was meaning by "effeminate" men? Or do you think this whole business is just a hoax or a trick by the world?

You are right. Many of the new translations have made out like the word effeminate means homosexual, but they are not one and the same. A man can be effeminate and not homosexual. It means they are taking on the characteristics of a woman. This idea that men have a feminine side is gnostic in origin. The word malakos means...

soft, i.e. fine (clothing); fig. a catamite; effeminate, soft.

This can mean anything from a guy who acts like a woman in his manerisms and clothing, to a catamite, which according to Webster's Dictionary means a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man. It can mean a homosexual in that way, but doesn't have to. Bottom line is that God designed men to be men and women to be women.

BTW, a more direct reference to homoesuality can be found in Romans chapter 1. Verses 26 through 28 says...

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Those trying to defend homosexuality have attempted to claim this is only refering to temple prostitutes, but it is clear from the language this is speaking of sexual desires towards someone of the same sex.

[revolutionist90]

So I was reading this article from christian post:

http://www.christian...41/pageall.html

Where it is stated that the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was incorrectly translated. The term for homosexuals malakos actually means "soft" or "effeminate" men. Many newer versions of different bible translations have re-translated the verse to say male prostitutes instead of homosexuals. Many believe that the malakos term is for feminine acting or submissive men and does not include homosexuals at all but doesn't that still include gay men who might act a certain way to attract other gay men? Like male prostitutes would act a certain way to attract other "clients". I think the term is for homosexuals and men who act a certain to attract other same-sex partners. But what do you think about this new translation and what do you think Paul was meaning by "effeminate" men? Or do you think this whole business is just a hoax or a trick by the world?

You are right. Many of the new translations have made out like the word effeminate means homosexual, but they are not one and the same. A man can be effeminate and not homosexual. It means they are taking on the characteristics of a woman. This idea that men have a feminine side is gnostic in origin. The word malakos means...

soft, i.e. fine (clothing); fig. a catamite; effeminate, soft.

This can mean anything from a guy who acts like a woman in his manerisms and clothing, to a catamite, which according to Webster's Dictionary means a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man. It can mean a homosexual in that way, but doesn't have to. Bottom line is that God designed men to be men and women to be women.

BTW, a more direct reference to homoesuality can be found in Romans chapter 1. Verses 26 through 28 says...

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Those trying to defend homosexuality have attempted to claim this is only referring to temple prostitutes, but it is clear from the language this is speaking of sexual desires towards someone of the same sex.

Okay that does make sense. So basically God wants men to act masculine and women to act feminine which means to follow the masculine/feminine roles assigned in the bible. I know this is a stretch from the OP but could this new acceptance of feminine men and homosexuality (viewed as more feminine sometimes) be so prominent in today's time because of the new wave of feminists? I say new wave or neo-feminists because many feminist in the past have done great things to help women in the U.S like securing property, protecting children, temperance and voting but the neo feminist of today (at least on my campus and they share the same ideals with the pro-homosexual group) focus on abolishing gender roles and sometimes demonize masculinity while uplifting femininity (or female sexuality).

[revolutionist90]

Please note that the man pushing this view is a homosexual. Do you think he has an agenda?

The bible says what it says. Folks who dont like it will try circular reasoning to overcome it. Yet the bible is clear about homosexuality.

This actually confuses me a lot (not the bible the push for homosexuality these days). No one really complains about adultery, bestiality or even sexual immorality (i.e premarital sex) but everyone is really up in arms about homosexuality. It is as clear as the other ones but it gets special attention. Why do you think it is not so clear to others who are Christians but accept homosexuality as not being a sin?

[Guest Butero]

So I was reading this article from christian post:

http://www.christian...41/pageall.html

Where it is stated that the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was incorrectly translated. The term for homosexuals malakos actually means "soft" or "effeminate" men. Many newer versions of different bible translations have re-translated the verse to say male prostitutes instead of homosexuals. Many believe that the malakos term is for feminine acting or submissive men and does not include homosexuals at all but doesn't that still include gay men who might act a certain way to attract other gay men? Like male prostitutes would act a certain way to attract other "clients". I think the term is for homosexuals and men who act a certain to attract other same-sex partners. But what do you think about this new translation and what do you think Paul was meaning by "effeminate" men? Or do you think this whole business is just a hoax or a trick by the world?

You are right. Many of the new translations have made out like the word effeminate means homosexual, but they are not one and the same. A man can be effeminate and not homosexual. It means they are taking on the characteristics of a woman. This idea that men have a feminine side is gnostic in origin. The word malakos means...

soft, i.e. fine (clothing); fig. a catamite; effeminate, soft.

This can mean anything from a guy who acts like a woman in his manerisms and clothing, to a catamite, which according to Webster's Dictionary means a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man. It can mean a homosexual in that way, but doesn't have to. Bottom line is that God designed men to be men and women to be women.

BTW, a more direct reference to homoesuality can be found in Romans chapter 1. Verses 26 through 28 says...

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Those trying to defend homosexuality have attempted to claim this is only referring to temple prostitutes, but it is clear from the language this is speaking of sexual desires towards someone of the same sex.

Okay that does make sense. So basically God wants men to act masculine and women to act feminine which means to follow the masculine/feminine roles assigned in the bible. I know this is a stretch from the OP but could this new acceptance of feminine men and homosexuality (viewed as more feminine sometimes) be so prominent in today's time because of the new wave of feminists? I say new wave or neo-feminists because many feminist in the past have done great things to help women in the U.S like securing property, protecting children, temperance and voting but the neo feminist of today (at least on my campus and they share the same ideals with the pro-homosexual group) focus on abolishing gender roles and sometimes demonize masculinity while uplifting femininity (or female sexuality).

Satan has been trying to blur the lines between men and women. God creates something "good" and Satan works to change it into something God never intended. God has a certain order, and Satan teaches us to rebel against that order. He is trying to destroy our image and our behavior.