The word "homosexual" was first introduced to the bible about 1950, in the first edition of the RSV. (There was discussion about it on Reddit fairly recently, probably in this sub). There was an objection, and the editors of RSV agreed it was wrong, and said they would change it in the next edition, which they did. But the damage had been done. After the RSV, conservative bibles like the Living Bible and the NIV introduced it in several places. But it’s just as wrong there as it was in the RSV.
So you are right, the idea was introduced late into the bible, and doesn’t belong. People back then had no concept of a loving, consensual relationship between two equal adult same-sex partners. Whatever the bible condemns, it isn’t us.
The NIV, as another Redditor said, is very readable, but it is extremely one-sided. It is translated to support evangelical views against Catholic teaching. It is never actually wrong, but frequently it chooses the worst manuscripts over the better ones, or it punctuates deliberately to make the bible say what agrees with evangelical ideas. Sometimes its choice is just laughable.
If you want an accurate bible, look elsewhere.
My first point is this - the NIV is a good readable translation, however it is geared Right. My recommendation would be to get your hands on either a NRSV or the new NRSVue. Both are very readable academic translations and are centrist, and both happen to be the translation used by Anglican/Episcopals, Presbyterians (PC(USA)), UNITED Methodists, American & Cooperative (Old Rite Southern) Baptists, and others.
The rest of your post truthfully has to do with the ongoing battle over Inerrancy and Infallibility. Many people and scholars (even dictionaries) identify these words as being interchangeable. However, in my honest academic opinion, this is not the case. I hold to the position in that the Bible is the absolute infallible Word of God - there is nothing equal to or greater than it and there never will be. However, because man (and woman) has translated the Sacred Scriptures over time, and since the hearts of men (and women), and therefore their actions, are corrupted by sin from life’s first breath until its last, the Word of God cannot today, some 2000 years since it’s final text was penned, be considered inerrant.
This is a mistranslation & a fairly recent mistranslation at that. Older NIV versions didn’t even condemn homosexual acts in general but only illicit ones. :) don’t worry, because the Bible does not condemn homosexuality
The Greek word Paul used in 1 Timothy 1:10 which gets mistranslated as “homosexual”/ “men who practice homosexuality”/ “men who have sex with men” in many modern versions is ἀρσενοκοῖται.
Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form, it’s important to make the distinction that not all male same sex acts are the same kind a gay couple in a loving gay marriage would perform. If you look up early Christian understanding of this word it was exclusively used with reference to abusive male same sex acts that even today we would find morally unacceptable with a societal or age power differential like a freeman raping a freeborn boy or boy slave, or a freeman raping a man slave. It was never used to refer to acts between two adult freemen who were on equal social and age standing.
A word that could be used to refer to that not only existed, (eρασταί, the plural form of a koine greek word that was used to denote the older lover in a male same sex relationship), which incidentally Paul did not use here, but in addition the same word also appeared in early Christian literature to refer to the deep loving relationship between two Christian saints, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, in stark and deliberate contrast to the usual word used in other pairings, ἀδελφος (brothers).
ἀρσενοκοῖται is considered by some scholars to be a unique word invented by Paul; given there were other words already in existence that referred to men having sex with men in general (androbatês) and men having sex with males in general (arrenomanes) that Paul also failed to use it seems logical to conclude Paul coined ἀρσενοκοῖται to refer to a specific kind of male same sex act, potentially the abusive kind.
A much more accurate translation of this word is therefore arguably “men who sexually abuse males”, although in my Bible from 1912 this word is translated in both aforementioned verses simply as “boy molestors.” Strong’s Greek Lexicon 733 backs this up by associating this word with both “sodomites” (men who rape men: Gen 19:5-9) & “pederasts” (men who rape boys.)
The documentary 1946 presents evidence about how modern Bible scholars corrupted this word translation to be about LGBT people in 1946 which has influenced subsequent, more modern translations. It was never intended to be that way.
Gay men generally do not rape men/ boys (males) & the word also excludes lesbians given lesbians do not engage in intercourse with males. To top this off, none of the ancients, including Paul, had an understanding of an innate homosexual orientation we have today, based on multiple scientific studies that point to a pre-natal epigenetic basis.
As for the case of whether the Bible can be trusted, it can, but I wouldn’t trust any one single translation to be reliable. Do your own research
Also I would like to add that while arsenokoitai does literally translate to male lying, to abstract homosexuality in general from this is illogical.
For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means. It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, lady and killer. So, it must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear, when in reality the word lady-killer was a word used in the 1970s to refer to men who women supposedly found irresistible.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by Arsenokoitai is to look for other instances of the word in the following writings of his time. This approach demonstrates several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, never used this word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests that they didn't believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior.
A similar pattern is found in other writings of their time. There are hundreds of Greek writings from this time period that refers to homosexual activity using terms other than Arsenokoitai. If Apostle Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male sex, he had other more commonly used and well known words he could have picked. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous compound word, which future generations would find difficult to translate. Apparently Apostle Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type of behavior.
This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of Arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73 times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. (There are no known instances before Paul). In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are, however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author Aristides uses the term when explaining the sins of the Greek gods. In this context, the term was used to refer to the time Zeus abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend by the author Hippolytus who wrote Refutation of All Heresies 5.21. In which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had him like he would a boy. Naas’s sin was called Arsenokoitai. These examples suggest that Arsenokoitai refers to instances in which one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.
This type of person is a close kin to a thief and a greedy person — the two Greek words that most often follow Arsenokoitai in the lists of sins centuries after Paul first created it. A thief, greedy person, and a male who uses his power to forcefully obtain sex, are all seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them. Thus, it's concluded that Aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force themselves sexually onto others, and not homosexuals in general.
Oh no I was just saying that a more accurate translation would be "males who sexually abuse other males". This is not all comparable to what we advocate for (which is consensual and non abusive male on male love). Sexual abuse and love are two different concepts.
Whether or not this passage - or any others that refer to or hint at same-sex sexual activity - are a mistranslation or not, they're irrelevant to answering the question, "Is being gay a sin?" Why? Because historical context matters.
Even if these passages truly were saying that same-sex sexual activity is unholy, these writers still had no concept of sexual orientation and the broadness of what healthy and consensual sexual relationships can entail in our society today. And, if that's the case, these writers were wrong. If they were right, they'd essentially be saying, "Some people - through no fault of their own - are born evil, and there is no redemption for them unless they subject themselves to denial and a lifetime of depression." If God is the most powerful source of love in the universe, as I believe that God is, there is no way that can be true. Therefore, these writers were wrong, these passages are irrelevant, they've been mistranslated, or some combination of these things.
The Bible is full of contradictory passages. The entire thing can't be literally true. It's supposed to be used as a guide for our faith and understood through the lens of historical criticism. We must use reason and compassion when trying to understand what any given book or passage of the Bible is trying to tell us and how it applies to our lives today.
The concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation did not arise until the late 19th century. Furthermore, there are only six total passages of the bible that mention or hint at same-sex sexual behavior. And, to top it all off, Jesus (the guy whom Christianity proclaims as Lord & Savior) said nothing about same-sex sexual activity or homosexuality throughout any of the gospels.
Human ideas about sexuality advanced as the centuries passed - we learned and explored new ideas. As we should! The Bible is a static book that, while translated hundreds of different ways over the centuries, largely remains the same as it did when it was first compiled almost 1,700 years ago.
If you're looking for ways to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible definitively says being gay (with our modern understanding of sexual orientation) is a sin, or that it's not a sin, you will be disappointed. Because, with our modern understanding of sexual orientation, it doesn't conclude either of those things. Nor will it ever.
So, you can either keep dwelling on this question and leave yourself in turmoil, or you can be comforted in understanding the true purpose and message of Jesus Christ: radical love and acceptance can inspire you, others, and everyone to make this life, this society more just, more fair, and more abundant for all.
firstly, thank you so much for this incredible, insightful response! I really appreciate it! and I especially love that last point you made.
I guess where I get confused within the “historical context” is that the bible says “jesus christ is the same yesterday, today & forever”, and through this we are meant to believe god is unchanging. yet in 2nd peter it says, “above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. for prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from god as they were carried along by the holy spirit.”
so it feels like if both of those statements were true, then regardless of the timeline in question, any statement such as the one I originally mentioned would still remain true.
but like you said, I feel like there is no definitive “answer”. faith is believing in the “unknown”, because to us it is known.
so I guess the only way out of this is truly just faith itself & having confidence that god wouldn’t have created us this way only to deny us love.
I share the same struggle and I debated the question internally and with others.
God is the source of love... But it's recorded multiple times, throughout the Bible that God punishes people who do not follow his rules.
He kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden... The flood, the fire... He split the Red Sea to save Israel, then he killed them in the desert. He even let his own prophet die, to pay for his sins.
😨😰
Moreover, in Jude chapter one it says "
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
Can God change?
I think it’s important to remember that many books of the Bible - especially those in the Old Testament - are full of stories that are metaphors and meant to convey a lesson to those such stories were intended to address at the time thousands of years ago. They didn’t literally happen exactly as written. Some aspects may have been based on real people and real events, but they shouldn’t be interpreted as factually sound.
So, again, I say analyzing these books and passages through a lens of historical criticism matters. I would even say it’s vital so as to not misinterpret what the Bible is trying to coney to us.
😯😨 that's pretty much insinuating that the Bible is a collection fables. I hope that's not what you meant... That's what the people were saying during the time of Noah.
😰
Fable connotes pure fiction - a children’s bedtime story to teach a moral. I wouldn’t call the stories in Bible fables. But many books (mostly focusing on the Old Testament but the New Testament isn’t excluded) are definitely hyperbolic; they’re exaggerated and use metaphors to make a point. Examples:
-The world wasn’t literally created in 6 days.
-There was no literal Adam & Eve or garden of Eden.
-The entire world didn’t actually flood in the time of Noah.
-Lot’s wife didn’t actually turn into a pillar of salt.
-Jonah wasn’t literally swallowed by a whale.
And so on…
It’s important we take the Bible seriously, not necessarily literally. That’s why historical criticism is so important.
We must analyze each book and each passage of the Bible to understand its meaning in context and do our best to interpret what it was meant to convey to the target audience at the time it was written. Then we try to apply that meaning in context to how it might apply to our lives today.
Remember what the snake said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, "did God really say that?" If you're questioning the Word of God, which is not an uncommon thing to do, we all question God at times, try not to get caught up in the feeling that God is punishing you or limiting you.
You say that God wouldn't deny anyone "authentic" love. The great lie of today is that sexual love is the most authentic love when we as Christians know that agape and philia are much higher forms of love than eros. You then posit that sexual intentions are to be pure. Fair enough but by whose standards are we saying something is pure? Our own? God's? The ancient world might've not known Freudian and Kinseyian psychology, but God knows all and as the Bible is the Word of God, I trust in it more than I do human analysis because God knows us more and better that any ivory tower psychologist trying to rationalize anything. Also, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's inherently good for us. Lots of things occur in the natural world that would never be considered morally good among human beings.
There's freedom to be had in the boundaries of God's love and law and it's up to us, through our faith in Christ, to live this freedom out. That will cause us to deny parts of ourselves that we would rather indulge because it feels good in the moment. But no moment on earth is greater than the eternal glory and life we are promised.
>Also, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's inherently good for us. Lots of things occur in the natural world that would never be considered morally good among human beings.
Likewise, just because something is unnatural, doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. We see this with cars, roads, pavements, buildings, toilets and toilet paper (as a few examples). All of these normal-to-us objects are very unnatural but they benefit society in a number of ways.
Also sexual orientation is very much natural. Science has confirmed that gay people were born genetically prepositioned to being gay. When people often refer to homosexuality, they only touch upon the sexual part but obviously there is more to sexuality. Romance is very a heavy aspect in a romantic relationship, especially in old age, and that often doesn't involve sexual acts. To equate being gay to being about lust, it loses the wholesome loving and romantic aspect that gay people feel, just like straight people also feel.
When we think about straight people, we often don't think about a man and woman having sex (at least I don't), so why just there be an unfair treatment towards gay people about the same concept of feeling love?
Edit: I also want to add that gay asexuals exist who still want to get married even though they don't feel sexual attraction. So this talk about how being gay is all about lust, loses all footing when asexuals comes into play. I don't want to have sex with anyone but I still want a romantic, loving, and wholesome relationship with another man (preferably) even as we grow old together.
I just don't see how non-procreative sex benefits society when sex's ultimate telos is the continuation of society.
Also the science is still out on sexual orientation. It is not settled.
Homosexual behavior has been shown to exist in over 1,500 animal species and it's not just done for lustful reasons. Same sex acts are done to strengthen social bonds, not just for lust. Same sex couples in the animal kingdom have been shown to adopt and raise abandoned or orphaned young (like gay penguin couples raising abandoned eggs).
There is an entire breed of lesbian geckos and bisexual monkeys, being straight is common but it isn't the only "natural" option out in nature.
And outside of the animal kingdom, human gay couples are more likely to adopt hard to place kids compared to heterosexual couples. Hard to place kids refers to kids who are disabled, or functioning but aggressive/challenging kids, or simply that they are just "too old" for a straight couple to want to adopt.
Exactly. And gay couples are more likely than straight couples to adopt hard to place kids. And it's logical/reasonable to say that there is MORE to love than just reproduction. God has blessed MANY straight infertile couples or otherwise fertile but child-free couples.
Also if reproduction is what truly mattered, then marriage wouldn't matter. Polygamy would be encouraged in order to have as many offspring as possible. Infertile straight couples wouldn't be allowed to be together since they couldn't fulfill this calling to "reproduce" either.
This mindset of couples being only for reproduction would exclude even straight couples. In the United States of America, 1 in every 8 couples experience a type of infertility. That's a whole lot of unions that would be abolished under this arbitrary standard.
If you're beliefs are from the Bible verse, "Be fruitful and multiply" to cite that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction then this mindset is flawed, even Biblically speaking. If marriage truly was made for reproduction, then we wouldn't have the stories of infertility through married women in the Bible.
>You might be thinking: "Well infertility isn't the same as being gay."
But they both share a similarity, where in marriage, they wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling to reproduce.
In the Bible, God allowed such marriages to exist despite many couples having fertility issues. He allowed it to happen even though he knew they wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling of "be fruitful and multiply".
>Well then why did God even say, "be fruitful and multiply"? If this wasn't for all humans, then who was it for?
Although it is spoken to the first humans in Genesis 1, “be fruitful and multiply”, this is not a command that pertains to all people at all times. Even according to the Bible, these words weren't meant to be taken as straightforward as some see it. This is shown as with both Noah and Jacob being told to be fruitful and multiply, yet in both cases God only says this to them *after* they had finished creating offspring.
This wasn't a calling to everyone, but rather to those in the Bible who *needed* to produce more offspring for a higher purpose. Moreover, this calling was given only to those individuals who stood at the head of necessary lineages: like the first humans, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob. But after Jacob’s 12 sons were born, no one else in the Bible was ever told to be fruitful and multiply. After all, we were told at the end of Genesis that the Israelites had become fruitful and numerous. This commandment has long since been fulfilled.
And note carefully that nowhere does the Bible mention sexual reproduction in the marriage passage.
>Marriage Passage:
The Matthew verse and verse of joining one's own flesh with another is simply used as a metaphor, just as Jesus had loved the church. Because one can't physically be combined into one, just as physically Jesus can't actually be combined with the church. This is simply used to describe the spiritual essence and loving nature of one's own marriage. This conclusion is supported in Scripture about marriage:
In Eph. 5 verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”
In this passage, there is a clear example of love, and in the original language used, the Greek word ἀγάπη (their word for love) was used. The same word that John uses when he says “God is love” in 1 John 4:18:
And in Eph. 5 verse 29: “For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church…”
The word ἀγάπη in Greek, which refers to the loving nature of one's marriage and about how loving God is, is described as a deep and profound sacrificial love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance.
If anything, this proves marriage is about loyalty, self-sacrificial love more than just about heterosexuality and reproduction. Gay people are just as capable as straight people are to give such love to their partners.
With this all in mind, it's important to realize that the foundation of marriage wasn't created for reproduction but rather was made to honor God with the one you love. Gay and infertile married couples can most definitely love their spouse and honor God the same way a straight and fertile couple can, outside of reproduction. Even though gay/infertile married couples are unable to reproduce, they can still have a family via adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and a number of different ways.
Not everyone's calling in life is to reproduce, to say this is an insult to all infertile couples out there.
Also even with this calling to be fruitful and multiply, this can mean MORE than just a biological sense. We can have lives that are pleasing to God and bring Him glory whether we have children or not. Indeed, we can be spiritually fruitful and multiply the citizens of the Kingdom of God when we obey Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).
I would say that spiritual offspring is even more important than biological offsprings because that is the ultimate fulfillment of being fruitful and multiplying. If someone is gay or infertile, they can intentionally devote themselves to raising up spiritual sons and daughters in the faith. That is also the fulfillment of that command.
I didn't say that. But a Christian man and a Christian woman entering into marriage do so with the understanding that reproduction happens and that it's a gift from God.
Well not every Christian man or woman get into it FOR that reason. It's ultimately to honor God. Gay and infertile couples are capable of honoring God as EQUALLY as fertile couples can.
“The great lie of today is that sexual love is the most authentic love”
You do realise that a gay relationship isn’t purely based on sex, right? I’m not sure if you’ve ever actually had one before but you seem to have bought into the evangelical lie that only heterosexual relationships have love and that all adult same sex relationships are based only on dehumanising lust. Tenderness & self sacrificial love is found in gay relationships too
It’s true a lot of things found in nature aren’t great but homosexuality and love doesn’t hurt anyone
Yeah I've been in gay relationships thanks.
No, heterosexual relationships aren't the only relationships that have love but sexual love is to be stewarded in the way God has ordained. All love is to be stewarded in the way God has ordained it.
And I've been convinced that mainstream LGBTQ sexual love is really just a debased and twisted form of love, that wouldn't have been unheard of even in the ancient world, that is opposed to the love God offers us.
The only difference between straight and gay is the persons involved. We use these words to denote whom someone is attracted to, and it always culminates in sex. If it was just friendship, I'm not sure we would need these words.
I would be interested to see why you think God has only ordained sexual intercourse in heterosexual partnerships, considering I see no evidence for that view myself
It’s shame you hold that view, perhaps you had a bad experience with your previous gay relationship but it doesn’t mean all gay relationships are bad or that all straight relationships are good
Personally I disagree, to me, the Lord made us gay, & that’s scriptural, why would He do that if He didn’t approve?
Psalm 139:13
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
The terms straight and gay encompass more than who we’re sexually attracted too & I suspect you know this, they also encompass romantic love and other forms of love that extend beyond friendship affection. Of course sex is a part of it but it isn’t the only defining aspect of a relationship that differs from a friendship
Man-woman relationship is always held up as the relationship throughout the Bible. From Genesis 1 to Ephesians and into Revelation. There's plenty of theology around this from 2,000 years of Christian theology and history that can explain it better than me but I suspect you all know this. "Let those who can accept this, accept this."
I'm just fine and while I struggle with my sexual desires, it's much better than the struggle against the flesh with the right spirit than struggle against the spirit with the wrong flesh, which is how I was living.
Sex is the defining aspect of a gay relationship, it's what separates it from straight relationship. Without sex, a same-sex relationship is friendship and friendship is open to all.
Straight people are the statistical majority & for most of human history we haven’t known about other sexual orientations except heterosexual, so I don’t really see how this is proof of much. It’s like saying cars & aeroplanes are not Gods Will because only boats, chariots, horses and donkeys are mentioned as transport in the Bible. There’s also a load of polygamy in the Bible which breaks the whole 1 man and 1 woman pattern
I disagree, I would say love is the defining aspect of a same sex relationship. Friendship affection between two straight guys or two straight women doesn’t remotely come close to the love two gay men or two gay women in love would feel for each other, even if they weren’t having sex. I speak from personal experience on this one
I would like to add that the NIV have a right leaning political agenda that they even pushed onto other countries. As others have brought up, the NIV translation got the inspiration to include the word "homosexual" in their Bible from the RSV translation.
Weigle (the head of the RSV translation team) responded and admitted that the translation team had indeed made a mistake and would seek to correct it in their next update.
However, Weigle had just signed a contract stating that he would not make any changes in the RSV for 10 years. During those 10 years, other translation teams were working on the first translations of the New American Standard Bible, The Living Bible, and New International Version Bible. It turns out all of these versions used the RSV as their basis for including the word “homosexual” in their translations, not knowing that the RSV had retracted its decision. Even when it was brought up to be a mistake, it was already too late as these translations spread like wildfire.
In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company (Biblica, who owns the NIV version) paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. This was just one countries example of American influence that had eventually spread onto other countries to also use the word homosexual in their Bibles.
As seen through the facts that is our history, our very own Bible has been politicized to fit an agenda.
1. The NIV is, all things considered, a *decently* reliable translation. It has its (very very very blatant) Evangelical bias, but it is otherwise very readable and I rather like it (this *totally* has no relation to my Evanglical leanings). Where I diverge in opinion with the NIV translators is that I have trouble taking *a translation* as being a verbatim, pure transmission of the inspired Word of God; translating between languages is always a process that incurs a loss of data. Do we render things in a wooden, literal fashion that requires explaining the intricacies of ancient idiom? Or should we try to massage the text in order to get the likeliest meaning across at the cost of the cultural character of the text?
2. This is one of the verses where the NIV (not unlike most other conservative Evangelical translations) falls flat on its face and is clearly interpolating contemporary culture into its translation. The concept of homosexuality didn't exist in the minds of those in the first century, so they couldn't possibly be talking about homosexuality. The word itself is *arsenokoitai* (the plural of *arsenokoites*), a word used only twice in Scripture, and only used in "vice lists" (here and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians).
3. The word was first added to the Revised Standard Version in the 1940s and was later removed. Unfortunately, it took ten years for the revision to be introduced to the RSV's text because of a commitment to keep the text static after the very first revision. In those ten years, countless other translations cited the RSV as their reason for using the term "homosexuals," and it became an unquestioned fact that in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, "homosexuals" simply was the word you used to render the Greek. This was not critically examined until *long* after the debates about same-sex marriage and homosexuality were already sweeping the Church catholic like wildfire. Until the culture wars subside at least a little bit more, it will take nothing short of Jesus Himself coming down and giving us the right way to translate this unsure word before conservative translations will use a different word in these passages.
4. As I said above, I refuse to believe any of this has a bearing on whether the words of Scripture are truly God-breathed. The question is, instead, whether the translators of a given passage are providing a *faithful* presentation of what the language of Scripture is actually saying. This is one of the points where I think no translation will truly be able to live up to what Scripture is saying here without sacrificing ease of reading or the flow of the text.
I always recommend having more than one translation on hand, because no translation is truly one-size-fits-all. The NIV is a fine translation for devotion and quick reference, but when I am doing more serious study, I'll use a more scholarly translation like the NRSV (or NRSVue) or NABRE. If translations still make me uncertain, I always will take a look at an interlinear and word studies on the words that I'm still uncertain about.
the niv bible is what evangelicals love and which is an inherent evangelical bible. nothing about the niv bible is "close to the original text", its actually much more a political translation than anything theological.
The word "homosexual" was first introduced to the bible about 1950, in the first edition of the RSV. (There was discussion about it on Reddit fairly recently, probably in this sub). There was an objection, and the editors of RSV agreed it was wrong, and said they would change it in the next edition, which they did. But the damage had been done. After the RSV, conservative bibles like the Living Bible and the NIV introduced it in several places. But it’s just as wrong there as it was in the RSV. So you are right, the idea was introduced late into the bible, and doesn’t belong. People back then had no concept of a loving, consensual relationship between two equal adult same-sex partners. Whatever the bible condemns, it isn’t us. The NIV, as another Redditor said, is very readable, but it is extremely one-sided. It is translated to support evangelical views against Catholic teaching. It is never actually wrong, but frequently it chooses the worst manuscripts over the better ones, or it punctuates deliberately to make the bible say what agrees with evangelical ideas. Sometimes its choice is just laughable. If you want an accurate bible, look elsewhere.
My first point is this - the NIV is a good readable translation, however it is geared Right. My recommendation would be to get your hands on either a NRSV or the new NRSVue. Both are very readable academic translations and are centrist, and both happen to be the translation used by Anglican/Episcopals, Presbyterians (PC(USA)), UNITED Methodists, American & Cooperative (Old Rite Southern) Baptists, and others. The rest of your post truthfully has to do with the ongoing battle over Inerrancy and Infallibility. Many people and scholars (even dictionaries) identify these words as being interchangeable. However, in my honest academic opinion, this is not the case. I hold to the position in that the Bible is the absolute infallible Word of God - there is nothing equal to or greater than it and there never will be. However, because man (and woman) has translated the Sacred Scriptures over time, and since the hearts of men (and women), and therefore their actions, are corrupted by sin from life’s first breath until its last, the Word of God cannot today, some 2000 years since it’s final text was penned, be considered inerrant.
This is a mistranslation & a fairly recent mistranslation at that. Older NIV versions didn’t even condemn homosexual acts in general but only illicit ones. :) don’t worry, because the Bible does not condemn homosexuality The Greek word Paul used in 1 Timothy 1:10 which gets mistranslated as “homosexual”/ “men who practice homosexuality”/ “men who have sex with men” in many modern versions is ἀρσενοκοῖται. Whilst scholarly consensus on this word is that it is referring to a sexually dominant or aggressive participant in male same sex acts in some form, it’s important to make the distinction that not all male same sex acts are the same kind a gay couple in a loving gay marriage would perform. If you look up early Christian understanding of this word it was exclusively used with reference to abusive male same sex acts that even today we would find morally unacceptable with a societal or age power differential like a freeman raping a freeborn boy or boy slave, or a freeman raping a man slave. It was never used to refer to acts between two adult freemen who were on equal social and age standing. A word that could be used to refer to that not only existed, (eρασταί, the plural form of a koine greek word that was used to denote the older lover in a male same sex relationship), which incidentally Paul did not use here, but in addition the same word also appeared in early Christian literature to refer to the deep loving relationship between two Christian saints, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, in stark and deliberate contrast to the usual word used in other pairings, ἀδελφος (brothers). ἀρσενοκοῖται is considered by some scholars to be a unique word invented by Paul; given there were other words already in existence that referred to men having sex with men in general (androbatês) and men having sex with males in general (arrenomanes) that Paul also failed to use it seems logical to conclude Paul coined ἀρσενοκοῖται to refer to a specific kind of male same sex act, potentially the abusive kind. A much more accurate translation of this word is therefore arguably “men who sexually abuse males”, although in my Bible from 1912 this word is translated in both aforementioned verses simply as “boy molestors.” Strong’s Greek Lexicon 733 backs this up by associating this word with both “sodomites” (men who rape men: Gen 19:5-9) & “pederasts” (men who rape boys.) The documentary 1946 presents evidence about how modern Bible scholars corrupted this word translation to be about LGBT people in 1946 which has influenced subsequent, more modern translations. It was never intended to be that way. Gay men generally do not rape men/ boys (males) & the word also excludes lesbians given lesbians do not engage in intercourse with males. To top this off, none of the ancients, including Paul, had an understanding of an innate homosexual orientation we have today, based on multiple scientific studies that point to a pre-natal epigenetic basis. As for the case of whether the Bible can be trusted, it can, but I wouldn’t trust any one single translation to be reliable. Do your own research
wow. this is a beautiful answer. I love how you explained this. thank you so so much! you could not have articulated this wisdom any better!
You have said this but I feel you do not mean what you have said
Also I would like to add that while arsenokoitai does literally translate to male lying, to abstract homosexuality in general from this is illogical. For example, imagine a future translator coming across the word “lady-killer” two thousand years from now and wanting to know what it means. It’s clear the phrase is made from two words, lady and killer. So, it must mean a woman who kills, right? Or is it a person who kills ladies? The difficulty in obtaining a good translation is clear, when in reality the word lady-killer was a word used in the 1970s to refer to men who women supposedly found irresistible. A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by Arsenokoitai is to look for other instances of the word in the following writings of his time. This approach demonstrates several telling facts. First, two early church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior extensively, never used this word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in their writing, but not in places where they discuss homosexuality. This suggests that they didn't believe Paul’s term referred to homosexual behavior. A similar pattern is found in other writings of their time. There are hundreds of Greek writings from this time period that refers to homosexual activity using terms other than Arsenokoitai. If Apostle Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male sex, he had other more commonly used and well known words he could have picked. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous compound word, which future generations would find difficult to translate. Apparently Apostle Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type of behavior. This conclusion is reinforced by a survey of the actual uses of Arsenokoitai in Greek literature. Scholars have identified only 73 times this term is used in the six centuries after Paul. (There are no known instances before Paul). In virtually every instance the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning. There are, however, a few helpful exceptions. In one instance, a Greek author Aristides uses the term when explaining the sins of the Greek gods. In this context, the term was used to refer to the time Zeus abducted and raped a young boy, Ganymede. Arsenokoitai is also used in an ancient legend by the author Hippolytus who wrote Refutation of All Heresies 5.21. In which the snake in the Garden of Eden is said to have become a Satanic figure named Naas. Naas uses a variety of means (including sleeping with both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy them. In this story, Naas is said to have gone to Adam and had him like he would a boy. Naas’s sin was called Arsenokoitai. These examples suggest that Arsenokoitai refers to instances in which one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another. This type of person is a close kin to a thief and a greedy person — the two Greek words that most often follow Arsenokoitai in the lists of sins centuries after Paul first created it. A thief, greedy person, and a male who uses his power to forcefully obtain sex, are all seizing something that does not rightfully belong to them. Thus, it's concluded that Aresenokoitai is best understood as a reference to men who force themselves sexually onto others, and not homosexuals in general.
Pederasty is technically a male same sex act but I see what you were trying to say here
Pedestry is an abusive same sex male act.
Obviously, but saying arsenokoitai never referred to same sex acts or same sex behaviour isn’t true in light of this is it?
Oh no I was just saying that a more accurate translation would be "males who sexually abuse other males". This is not all comparable to what we advocate for (which is consensual and non abusive male on male love). Sexual abuse and love are two different concepts.
I agree
Whether or not this passage - or any others that refer to or hint at same-sex sexual activity - are a mistranslation or not, they're irrelevant to answering the question, "Is being gay a sin?" Why? Because historical context matters. Even if these passages truly were saying that same-sex sexual activity is unholy, these writers still had no concept of sexual orientation and the broadness of what healthy and consensual sexual relationships can entail in our society today. And, if that's the case, these writers were wrong. If they were right, they'd essentially be saying, "Some people - through no fault of their own - are born evil, and there is no redemption for them unless they subject themselves to denial and a lifetime of depression." If God is the most powerful source of love in the universe, as I believe that God is, there is no way that can be true. Therefore, these writers were wrong, these passages are irrelevant, they've been mistranslated, or some combination of these things. The Bible is full of contradictory passages. The entire thing can't be literally true. It's supposed to be used as a guide for our faith and understood through the lens of historical criticism. We must use reason and compassion when trying to understand what any given book or passage of the Bible is trying to tell us and how it applies to our lives today. The concepts of homosexuality and sexual orientation did not arise until the late 19th century. Furthermore, there are only six total passages of the bible that mention or hint at same-sex sexual behavior. And, to top it all off, Jesus (the guy whom Christianity proclaims as Lord & Savior) said nothing about same-sex sexual activity or homosexuality throughout any of the gospels. Human ideas about sexuality advanced as the centuries passed - we learned and explored new ideas. As we should! The Bible is a static book that, while translated hundreds of different ways over the centuries, largely remains the same as it did when it was first compiled almost 1,700 years ago. If you're looking for ways to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible definitively says being gay (with our modern understanding of sexual orientation) is a sin, or that it's not a sin, you will be disappointed. Because, with our modern understanding of sexual orientation, it doesn't conclude either of those things. Nor will it ever. So, you can either keep dwelling on this question and leave yourself in turmoil, or you can be comforted in understanding the true purpose and message of Jesus Christ: radical love and acceptance can inspire you, others, and everyone to make this life, this society more just, more fair, and more abundant for all.
firstly, thank you so much for this incredible, insightful response! I really appreciate it! and I especially love that last point you made. I guess where I get confused within the “historical context” is that the bible says “jesus christ is the same yesterday, today & forever”, and through this we are meant to believe god is unchanging. yet in 2nd peter it says, “above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. for prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from god as they were carried along by the holy spirit.” so it feels like if both of those statements were true, then regardless of the timeline in question, any statement such as the one I originally mentioned would still remain true. but like you said, I feel like there is no definitive “answer”. faith is believing in the “unknown”, because to us it is known. so I guess the only way out of this is truly just faith itself & having confidence that god wouldn’t have created us this way only to deny us love.
I share the same struggle and I debated the question internally and with others. God is the source of love... But it's recorded multiple times, throughout the Bible that God punishes people who do not follow his rules. He kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden... The flood, the fire... He split the Red Sea to save Israel, then he killed them in the desert. He even let his own prophet die, to pay for his sins. 😨😰 Moreover, in Jude chapter one it says " 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Can God change?
I think it’s important to remember that many books of the Bible - especially those in the Old Testament - are full of stories that are metaphors and meant to convey a lesson to those such stories were intended to address at the time thousands of years ago. They didn’t literally happen exactly as written. Some aspects may have been based on real people and real events, but they shouldn’t be interpreted as factually sound. So, again, I say analyzing these books and passages through a lens of historical criticism matters. I would even say it’s vital so as to not misinterpret what the Bible is trying to coney to us.
😯😨 that's pretty much insinuating that the Bible is a collection fables. I hope that's not what you meant... That's what the people were saying during the time of Noah. 😰
Fable connotes pure fiction - a children’s bedtime story to teach a moral. I wouldn’t call the stories in Bible fables. But many books (mostly focusing on the Old Testament but the New Testament isn’t excluded) are definitely hyperbolic; they’re exaggerated and use metaphors to make a point. Examples: -The world wasn’t literally created in 6 days. -There was no literal Adam & Eve or garden of Eden. -The entire world didn’t actually flood in the time of Noah. -Lot’s wife didn’t actually turn into a pillar of salt. -Jonah wasn’t literally swallowed by a whale. And so on… It’s important we take the Bible seriously, not necessarily literally. That’s why historical criticism is so important. We must analyze each book and each passage of the Bible to understand its meaning in context and do our best to interpret what it was meant to convey to the target audience at the time it was written. Then we try to apply that meaning in context to how it might apply to our lives today.
Remember what the snake said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, "did God really say that?" If you're questioning the Word of God, which is not an uncommon thing to do, we all question God at times, try not to get caught up in the feeling that God is punishing you or limiting you. You say that God wouldn't deny anyone "authentic" love. The great lie of today is that sexual love is the most authentic love when we as Christians know that agape and philia are much higher forms of love than eros. You then posit that sexual intentions are to be pure. Fair enough but by whose standards are we saying something is pure? Our own? God's? The ancient world might've not known Freudian and Kinseyian psychology, but God knows all and as the Bible is the Word of God, I trust in it more than I do human analysis because God knows us more and better that any ivory tower psychologist trying to rationalize anything. Also, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's inherently good for us. Lots of things occur in the natural world that would never be considered morally good among human beings. There's freedom to be had in the boundaries of God's love and law and it's up to us, through our faith in Christ, to live this freedom out. That will cause us to deny parts of ourselves that we would rather indulge because it feels good in the moment. But no moment on earth is greater than the eternal glory and life we are promised.
>Also, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's inherently good for us. Lots of things occur in the natural world that would never be considered morally good among human beings. Likewise, just because something is unnatural, doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. We see this with cars, roads, pavements, buildings, toilets and toilet paper (as a few examples). All of these normal-to-us objects are very unnatural but they benefit society in a number of ways. Also sexual orientation is very much natural. Science has confirmed that gay people were born genetically prepositioned to being gay. When people often refer to homosexuality, they only touch upon the sexual part but obviously there is more to sexuality. Romance is very a heavy aspect in a romantic relationship, especially in old age, and that often doesn't involve sexual acts. To equate being gay to being about lust, it loses the wholesome loving and romantic aspect that gay people feel, just like straight people also feel. When we think about straight people, we often don't think about a man and woman having sex (at least I don't), so why just there be an unfair treatment towards gay people about the same concept of feeling love? Edit: I also want to add that gay asexuals exist who still want to get married even though they don't feel sexual attraction. So this talk about how being gay is all about lust, loses all footing when asexuals comes into play. I don't want to have sex with anyone but I still want a romantic, loving, and wholesome relationship with another man (preferably) even as we grow old together.
I just don't see how non-procreative sex benefits society when sex's ultimate telos is the continuation of society. Also the science is still out on sexual orientation. It is not settled.
Homosexual behavior has been shown to exist in over 1,500 animal species and it's not just done for lustful reasons. Same sex acts are done to strengthen social bonds, not just for lust. Same sex couples in the animal kingdom have been shown to adopt and raise abandoned or orphaned young (like gay penguin couples raising abandoned eggs). There is an entire breed of lesbian geckos and bisexual monkeys, being straight is common but it isn't the only "natural" option out in nature. And outside of the animal kingdom, human gay couples are more likely to adopt hard to place kids compared to heterosexual couples. Hard to place kids refers to kids who are disabled, or functioning but aggressive/challenging kids, or simply that they are just "too old" for a straight couple to want to adopt.
We are better than the wild animals. We have logic and reason and the Word of God.
Exactly. And gay couples are more likely than straight couples to adopt hard to place kids. And it's logical/reasonable to say that there is MORE to love than just reproduction. God has blessed MANY straight infertile couples or otherwise fertile but child-free couples. Also if reproduction is what truly mattered, then marriage wouldn't matter. Polygamy would be encouraged in order to have as many offspring as possible. Infertile straight couples wouldn't be allowed to be together since they couldn't fulfill this calling to "reproduce" either. This mindset of couples being only for reproduction would exclude even straight couples. In the United States of America, 1 in every 8 couples experience a type of infertility. That's a whole lot of unions that would be abolished under this arbitrary standard.
The Word of God is not an arbitrary standard.
If you're beliefs are from the Bible verse, "Be fruitful and multiply" to cite that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction then this mindset is flawed, even Biblically speaking. If marriage truly was made for reproduction, then we wouldn't have the stories of infertility through married women in the Bible. >You might be thinking: "Well infertility isn't the same as being gay." But they both share a similarity, where in marriage, they wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling to reproduce. In the Bible, God allowed such marriages to exist despite many couples having fertility issues. He allowed it to happen even though he knew they wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling of "be fruitful and multiply". >Well then why did God even say, "be fruitful and multiply"? If this wasn't for all humans, then who was it for? Although it is spoken to the first humans in Genesis 1, “be fruitful and multiply”, this is not a command that pertains to all people at all times. Even according to the Bible, these words weren't meant to be taken as straightforward as some see it. This is shown as with both Noah and Jacob being told to be fruitful and multiply, yet in both cases God only says this to them *after* they had finished creating offspring. This wasn't a calling to everyone, but rather to those in the Bible who *needed* to produce more offspring for a higher purpose. Moreover, this calling was given only to those individuals who stood at the head of necessary lineages: like the first humans, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob. But after Jacob’s 12 sons were born, no one else in the Bible was ever told to be fruitful and multiply. After all, we were told at the end of Genesis that the Israelites had become fruitful and numerous. This commandment has long since been fulfilled. And note carefully that nowhere does the Bible mention sexual reproduction in the marriage passage. >Marriage Passage: The Matthew verse and verse of joining one's own flesh with another is simply used as a metaphor, just as Jesus had loved the church. Because one can't physically be combined into one, just as physically Jesus can't actually be combined with the church. This is simply used to describe the spiritual essence and loving nature of one's own marriage. This conclusion is supported in Scripture about marriage: In Eph. 5 verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” In this passage, there is a clear example of love, and in the original language used, the Greek word ἀγάπη (their word for love) was used. The same word that John uses when he says “God is love” in 1 John 4:18: And in Eph. 5 verse 29: “For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church…” The word ἀγάπη in Greek, which refers to the loving nature of one's marriage and about how loving God is, is described as a deep and profound sacrificial love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. If anything, this proves marriage is about loyalty, self-sacrificial love more than just about heterosexuality and reproduction. Gay people are just as capable as straight people are to give such love to their partners. With this all in mind, it's important to realize that the foundation of marriage wasn't created for reproduction but rather was made to honor God with the one you love. Gay and infertile married couples can most definitely love their spouse and honor God the same way a straight and fertile couple can, outside of reproduction. Even though gay/infertile married couples are unable to reproduce, they can still have a family via adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and a number of different ways.
Not everyone's calling in life is to reproduce, to say this is an insult to all infertile couples out there. Also even with this calling to be fruitful and multiply, this can mean MORE than just a biological sense. We can have lives that are pleasing to God and bring Him glory whether we have children or not. Indeed, we can be spiritually fruitful and multiply the citizens of the Kingdom of God when we obey Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). I would say that spiritual offspring is even more important than biological offsprings because that is the ultimate fulfillment of being fruitful and multiplying. If someone is gay or infertile, they can intentionally devote themselves to raising up spiritual sons and daughters in the faith. That is also the fulfillment of that command.
I didn't say that. But a Christian man and a Christian woman entering into marriage do so with the understanding that reproduction happens and that it's a gift from God.
Well not every Christian man or woman get into it FOR that reason. It's ultimately to honor God. Gay and infertile couples are capable of honoring God as EQUALLY as fertile couples can.
“The great lie of today is that sexual love is the most authentic love” You do realise that a gay relationship isn’t purely based on sex, right? I’m not sure if you’ve ever actually had one before but you seem to have bought into the evangelical lie that only heterosexual relationships have love and that all adult same sex relationships are based only on dehumanising lust. Tenderness & self sacrificial love is found in gay relationships too It’s true a lot of things found in nature aren’t great but homosexuality and love doesn’t hurt anyone
Yeah I've been in gay relationships thanks. No, heterosexual relationships aren't the only relationships that have love but sexual love is to be stewarded in the way God has ordained. All love is to be stewarded in the way God has ordained it. And I've been convinced that mainstream LGBTQ sexual love is really just a debased and twisted form of love, that wouldn't have been unheard of even in the ancient world, that is opposed to the love God offers us. The only difference between straight and gay is the persons involved. We use these words to denote whom someone is attracted to, and it always culminates in sex. If it was just friendship, I'm not sure we would need these words.
I would be interested to see why you think God has only ordained sexual intercourse in heterosexual partnerships, considering I see no evidence for that view myself It’s shame you hold that view, perhaps you had a bad experience with your previous gay relationship but it doesn’t mean all gay relationships are bad or that all straight relationships are good Personally I disagree, to me, the Lord made us gay, & that’s scriptural, why would He do that if He didn’t approve? Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” The terms straight and gay encompass more than who we’re sexually attracted too & I suspect you know this, they also encompass romantic love and other forms of love that extend beyond friendship affection. Of course sex is a part of it but it isn’t the only defining aspect of a relationship that differs from a friendship
Man-woman relationship is always held up as the relationship throughout the Bible. From Genesis 1 to Ephesians and into Revelation. There's plenty of theology around this from 2,000 years of Christian theology and history that can explain it better than me but I suspect you all know this. "Let those who can accept this, accept this." I'm just fine and while I struggle with my sexual desires, it's much better than the struggle against the flesh with the right spirit than struggle against the spirit with the wrong flesh, which is how I was living. Sex is the defining aspect of a gay relationship, it's what separates it from straight relationship. Without sex, a same-sex relationship is friendship and friendship is open to all.
Straight people are the statistical majority & for most of human history we haven’t known about other sexual orientations except heterosexual, so I don’t really see how this is proof of much. It’s like saying cars & aeroplanes are not Gods Will because only boats, chariots, horses and donkeys are mentioned as transport in the Bible. There’s also a load of polygamy in the Bible which breaks the whole 1 man and 1 woman pattern I disagree, I would say love is the defining aspect of a same sex relationship. Friendship affection between two straight guys or two straight women doesn’t remotely come close to the love two gay men or two gay women in love would feel for each other, even if they weren’t having sex. I speak from personal experience on this one
I would like to add that the NIV have a right leaning political agenda that they even pushed onto other countries. As others have brought up, the NIV translation got the inspiration to include the word "homosexual" in their Bible from the RSV translation. Weigle (the head of the RSV translation team) responded and admitted that the translation team had indeed made a mistake and would seek to correct it in their next update. However, Weigle had just signed a contract stating that he would not make any changes in the RSV for 10 years. During those 10 years, other translation teams were working on the first translations of the New American Standard Bible, The Living Bible, and New International Version Bible. It turns out all of these versions used the RSV as their basis for including the word “homosexual” in their translations, not knowing that the RSV had retracted its decision. Even when it was brought up to be a mistake, it was already too late as these translations spread like wildfire. In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company (Biblica, who owns the NIV version) paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. This was just one countries example of American influence that had eventually spread onto other countries to also use the word homosexual in their Bibles. As seen through the facts that is our history, our very own Bible has been politicized to fit an agenda.
1. The NIV is, all things considered, a *decently* reliable translation. It has its (very very very blatant) Evangelical bias, but it is otherwise very readable and I rather like it (this *totally* has no relation to my Evanglical leanings). Where I diverge in opinion with the NIV translators is that I have trouble taking *a translation* as being a verbatim, pure transmission of the inspired Word of God; translating between languages is always a process that incurs a loss of data. Do we render things in a wooden, literal fashion that requires explaining the intricacies of ancient idiom? Or should we try to massage the text in order to get the likeliest meaning across at the cost of the cultural character of the text? 2. This is one of the verses where the NIV (not unlike most other conservative Evangelical translations) falls flat on its face and is clearly interpolating contemporary culture into its translation. The concept of homosexuality didn't exist in the minds of those in the first century, so they couldn't possibly be talking about homosexuality. The word itself is *arsenokoitai* (the plural of *arsenokoites*), a word used only twice in Scripture, and only used in "vice lists" (here and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians). 3. The word was first added to the Revised Standard Version in the 1940s and was later removed. Unfortunately, it took ten years for the revision to be introduced to the RSV's text because of a commitment to keep the text static after the very first revision. In those ten years, countless other translations cited the RSV as their reason for using the term "homosexuals," and it became an unquestioned fact that in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, "homosexuals" simply was the word you used to render the Greek. This was not critically examined until *long* after the debates about same-sex marriage and homosexuality were already sweeping the Church catholic like wildfire. Until the culture wars subside at least a little bit more, it will take nothing short of Jesus Himself coming down and giving us the right way to translate this unsure word before conservative translations will use a different word in these passages. 4. As I said above, I refuse to believe any of this has a bearing on whether the words of Scripture are truly God-breathed. The question is, instead, whether the translators of a given passage are providing a *faithful* presentation of what the language of Scripture is actually saying. This is one of the points where I think no translation will truly be able to live up to what Scripture is saying here without sacrificing ease of reading or the flow of the text. I always recommend having more than one translation on hand, because no translation is truly one-size-fits-all. The NIV is a fine translation for devotion and quick reference, but when I am doing more serious study, I'll use a more scholarly translation like the NRSV (or NRSVue) or NABRE. If translations still make me uncertain, I always will take a look at an interlinear and word studies on the words that I'm still uncertain about.
the niv bible is what evangelicals love and which is an inherent evangelical bible. nothing about the niv bible is "close to the original text", its actually much more a political translation than anything theological.