Debunking the 1946 Myth: The Bible and Homosexuality Explained

Have you heard the claim that the word “homosexual” was wrongly added to the English Bible in 1946, suggesting the Bible doesn’t actually condemn homosexuality? 📜 This myth has caused confusion and debate, but today, we’re setting the record straight.
In this video, we debunk this myth with four compelling reasons why this argument doesn’t hold up. 📖 We’ll explore:
1. Proper Bible Interpretation Relies on the Original Text, Not a Translated Word: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. In-depth Bible study seeks to understand the meaning of passages in these original languages. The most accurate biblical interpretation comes from analyzing the original text, not just translated words. 🕵️‍♂️
2. The Absence of a Word Does Not Mean the Absence of a Concept: Just because the specific term “homosexual” isn’t found in the original texts, it doesn’t mean the concept isn’t addressed. The Bible often uses euphemisms and descriptive language to convey meanings that were clear to its original audience. 📜
3. Moral Objection to Same-Sex Sexual Behavior Did Not Begin in 1946: The idea that same-sex relationships are sinful is not a modern invention. Jewish literature before, during, and after Jesus’s time, as well as the early and medieval church, consistently condemned all forms of same-sex intercourse. 📅
4. Biblical Opposition to Same-Sex Sexual Behavior Is Not Confined to One Verse: The Bible’s stance on same-sex sexual behavior is consistent and appears in several passages, including Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. These verses, when read in context and together, demonstrate a unified biblical stance. 🔍
✨ Join us as we uncover the truth about the Bible’s stance on homosexuality and the hope of transformation it offers. While the Bible clearly condemns same-sex sexual behavior, it also offers hope and transformation. 🙏 In 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul writes, “And such were some of you.”
This speaks to the transformative power of God’s salvation and sanctification in Christ, offered by grace through faith. 🌟
The next time you hear, “The word ‘homosexual’ was wrongly added to the English Bible in 1946,” remember these four points:
1. Proper Bible interpretation relies on the original text, not a translated word.
2. The absence of a word does not mean the absence of a concept.
3. Moral objection to same-sex sexual behavior did not begin in 1946.
4. Biblical opposition to same-sex sexual behavior is not confined to one verse.
For Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, I’m Dr. Christopher Yuan. 🙌
Tags:
#Bible, #Homosexuality, #1946Myth, #ChristianApologetics, #BiblicalInterpretation, #BibleStudy, #OriginalTexts, #ChristianDoctrine, #ChurchHistory, #SexualityInTheBible, #Leviticus, #1Corinthians, #NewTestament, #OldTestament, #ChristianFaith, #HomosexualityDebate, #LGBTQandChristianity, #ReligiousStudies, #Theology, #DrChristopherYuan, #ChristianPerspective, #TransformationInChrist, #BiblicalTruth, #GospelMessage

[@mikebaumgartner1210]

Romans 1 talks about men with men and women with women, if that's not homosexuality you might as well throw out all logical meaning of the term

[@89sirmonk]

You can not continue to live in sin or embrace sinful behavior and be a saved Christian. Jesus spent time with sinful people to make them aware of their sin, the consequences of those sins, which is eternal separation from God spent in hell, and to offer the good news of salvation. So that they may turn away from their sin, live a new life repentant, and as a living sacrifice in service to God. He loves everyone, but tolerates NO sin. He can not be perfectly just and allow sin into heaven. A holy place of righteousness reserved for those who have repented of their sins and have committed their lives to serve God, by following his commandments.

[@fake10hourentertainment17]

It’s kind of odd how most Christians claim Jesus was a perfect sacrifice and yet they say that not everyone who believes in his resurrection can receive that perfect sacrifice. If every “willful” sin that someone is going to commit throughout their life was on the cross when he died, how can there be exceptions to that?

[@89sirmonk]

@@fake10hourentertainment17 believing does not get you salvation. Even the devil and his demons believe. Salvation is being born again. The death to the old self and the renewing of the mind and spirit through taking on the likeness of Christ. This requires acknowledging and repentance of our sins and making Christ the center of our life. Pursuing a life of righteousness as a living sacrifice for His purpose. The Bible makes it very clear what that means and what that looks like. I suggest reading the new testament. At least the gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John), Acts, 1 Corinthians and Romans.

[@gingercake0907]

@@fake10hourentertainment17 Roman 10:9-10 speaks to your statement also the thief on the cross next to Jesus Christ was saved by Jesus because of his confession of Jesus not the resurrection which hadn’t happened. None of us witnessed Jesus resurrection but we believe the eye witness testimonies of those who did. What is your relationship with Christ? Is He God and did He resurrect with all power to resurrect all of those who have faith in Him? You have to answer that.

[@matheuscardoso2073]

​@@89sirmonk No, the devil and the demons don't believe in Christ as the only and sufficient Savior.

[@tinkitits]

Sin isn't right or wrong. Sin is disobedience to god's law. Abraham in the bible was willing to unalive his son but he maintained obedience to god. When you read and comprehend the bible, people stop aligning with it.

[@renierramirez9534]

Keep on!. Christianity needs to know how to answer questions about this issues

[@lettersandwordsandstuffs]

@@renierramirez9534 the evil god of Christianity was a pos based on older gods...he burned animals and killed children...not a good god

[@benjaminfisher750]

This is on its way to being a great channel. Thank you for this content!

[@thesocialapologist]

Agreed!

[@Michaelincontext]

clear, concise, engaging...excellent.

[@TonyShumway-hc8qj]

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

[@stephenbailey9969]

Chastity, in thought and word and deed, is the godly ideal for all outside of the bond of marriage between one man and one woman. Faithfulness until death, in thought and word and deed, is the godly ideal for married couples.

[@212Michael]

Romans 1:26-27 - Context and Misinterpretation 1. Pagan Idolatry Context: The entire passage from Romans 1:18-32 is discussing Pagan idolatry, not general human behavior. Paul describes people who knew God but turned away from Him, worshipping idols instead of the Creator. These idol worshipers engaged in immoral acts as part of their worship practices, including some that involved sexual rituals. • Verse Reference: Romans 1:21-23 mentions they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.” • Source: Ancient Roman religious practices often included sexual acts as part of temple worship, particularly in Pagan cults. 2. Cause and Effect in the Text: Paul says in Romans 1:24, “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts…” and again in Romans 1:26, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.” These verses directly link the “shameful acts” to the idol worship and rejection of God. It’s a cause-and-effect situation. • Fact: The key phrase “because of this” (Greek: dia touto) is a connective term that explicitly ties the immoral behaviors to idol worship, not to sexual orientation. 3. Historical Context of Roman Culture: In ancient Rome, many religious practices in Pagan temples involved orgies, prostitution, and ritualistic sexual acts. Paul is specifically condemning those practices, which were part of rejecting God for idol worship. • Source: The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark discusses how early Christians distanced themselves from Pagan worship, including its sexual components. 4. The Text Doesn’t Address Loving, Consensual Relationships: There’s no mention in Romans 1:26-27 of loving, consensual same-sex relationships. Instead, the passage addresses people engaged in “unnatural” acts as part of idol worship. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Words Mistranslated 1. Greek Word Malakoi: The word malakoi means “soft” in Greek. It has historically been used to describe someone morally weak or indulgent. It was never specifically linked to homosexuality until modern translations. • Fact: Early translations (like in the 16th century) interpreted malakoi to mean masturbation or moral softness. • Source: Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Bauer-Danker). 2. Greek Word Arsenokoitai: The word arsenokoitai is a compound of two Greek words: arsēn (male) and koitē (bed). However, its exact meaning is unclear because it doesn’t appear in Greek literature outside of early Christian texts. • Fact: Arsenokoitai was not specifically associated with consensual homosexuality in its earliest uses. Instead, it was often linked to exploitative practices like prostitution or pedophilia in translations before the 20th century. • Source: The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A.J. Gagnon and Dale B. Martin’s research on the term’s uncertain meaning. 3. Medieval and Early Modern Translations: In medieval times, arsenokoitai was often understood to refer to sexual exploitation (like pimping) or abusive relationships, including with minors. The idea that it refers to consensual homosexuality is a modern interpretation. • Fact: The word kinaidos was the common Greek term for a passive male partner in homosexual relationships, but Paul doesn’t use that word. This suggests he wasn’t addressing homosexuality as it’s understood today. 4. Recent Interpretations of “Homosexuality”: The term “homosexuals” in modern translations didn’t appear until the mid-20th century. Before that, these passages were translated with terms like “sodomites,” “self-polluters” (masturbation), and “sexual exploiters.” • Fact: The Revised Standard Version (1946) was the first major Bible to use the word “homosexual” in this passage, reflecting modern cultural biases rather than the original Greek meaning. Leviticus 18:22 - Ritual Purity vs. Moral Law 1. Holiness Code vs. Moral Code: Leviticus 17-26 is part of the Holiness Code, a set of ritual laws meant to keep the Israelites separate from their pagan neighbors. These laws aren’t moral imperatives for all people but are about ritual purity and what was considered “clean” or “unclean” for the Israelites. • Fact: The Holiness Code also includes prohibitions on mixing fabrics, eating shellfish, and other rules that are clearly not moral laws but ritual purity regulations. • Source: The Jewish Study Bible by Oxford University Press. 2. Hebrew Word To’evah: The Hebrew word to’evah, translated as “abomination,” is used to describe things that are ritually impure, not morally wrong. In the context of Leviticus, it refers to practices that are forbidden for the Israelites because they make them ceremonially unclean. It’s used in connection with idolatry and other ritual practices. • Fact: The Hebrew word to’evah is used in Leviticus 18:22, but zimmâ, the word for moral wrongs, is not. This strongly suggests that the passage is about ritual impurity, not morality. • Source: The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Koehler and Baumgartner. 3. Translation of “As with”: The phrase often translated as “as with a woman” uses the Hebrew word mishkeve, which means “bed” in every other instance in Leviticus. Translating it consistently here would make the passage read, “A man shall not lie with another man on a woman’s bed.” This fits within the context of ritual purity laws related to cleanliness. • Fact: Beds were symbolic in ancient Hebrew culture, and Leviticus 15 describes many ritual purity laws concerning different types of beds (marriage bed, woman’s bed, man’s bed). • Source: Leviticus: A Commentary by Jacob Milgrom. 4. Paul’s Reference to Leviticus in Corinthians: Paul’s use of arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 may be a direct reference to the bed-related laws in Leviticus 18:22. Paul, as a Jewish scholar, was likely drawing on Levitical purity laws, particularly since arsenokoitai literally means “male bed.” • Fact: Paul’s background in Jewish law means it’s reasonable to conclude that he was referencing Levitical purity codes, not modern conceptions of homosexuality. Summary of Key Facts: • Romans 1: The behavior condemned is tied to Pagan idolatry and temple rituals, not consensual same-sex relationships. • 1 Corinthians 6: Malakoi and arsenokoitai have been mistranslated over time; they originally referred to moral weakness, exploitation, or ritual impurity-not homosexuality. • Leviticus 18: The passage is part of the Holiness Code, focused on ritual purity for Israelites. The Hebrew word to’evah refers to ritual impurity, and “as with a woman” can more accurately be translated as “bed.”

[@kjohns5139]

Thank you for the intelligence, Biblically-accurate, learned linguistic integrity. This video on homosexuality and the Bible, is one of the most intellectually dishonest, and linguistically butchered piece of trash I've seen yet. The convoluted logic, and the eisegesis are deliberately misleading. His translating of the word "ἀρσενοκοῑται"(arsenokoitai) which is a compound word ( man/male bed), coined by the Apostle Paul...is totally HIS eisegetical interpretation, to force it too mean "homosexuality". Most Biblical scholars intrepid it to mean male prostitution or having to do with pederasty (sex with a young teen boy, and an older man), and not, as today, in the 21st century; between two men in a loving relationship. I think the mistakes of translating interpretations like this comes from an elementary knowledge of the Koine Greek (the linguistics), ignorance of the 1st-century Near-Eastern lifestyle, (culture), and a denial of the history of that day (the history of the people). OR, as my friend Rick Brentlinger, would say; "It can't me today what it didn't mean when it was written." Therefore, it is essential to go back and try to see the word in the time, place, and circumstances in which it was written. That tripod of interpretation cultivates; good exegesis, and strong hermeneutics). Interpreting the Biblical Scriptures must always be built on Linguistics, the culture of the time, and the history of that people when theses Scriptures were penned. YET, the NEO-Evangelicals continue to ignore good theology for their "STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS".

[@lisa942]

When I’ve used these arguments I almost always get, “then do you eat shrimp? Do you wear clothing with mixed fabrics? “ obviously referring to all of the rules God had for His people in the OT. I haven’t heard a good rebuttal to that question-or at least not one that satisfies the questioner.

[@thefivefords5488]

You clearly haven't looked into it very much then. My teenage kids could answer those questions.

[@christopheryuan]

@lisa942 Lisa: Great idea for a next video!!! A lot of our youth and college students raised in the church are not confident about how to respond. The key is to read the law in light of the rest of the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

[@shreder653]

​@thefivefords5488 There are far better ways to encourage people into doing deeper biblical research than insulting them.

[@TodaysDante]

How come there can be entire videos on this subject but if I say anything like this, my comment gets removed?

[@5454randy]

Keep doing these informative videos, please!

[@VMA11750]

Excellent explanation. Thank you!

[@milansvancara]

Christopher Yuan is a story as old as christianity... - not loving authoritative christian parents pressure kid so much he can never disobey - as a result he can make his very first own decisions as late as young adolescence - series of terrible overcompensating decisions in another direction, he ends up in prison - brutally judgmental christian family reject him and he is left on his own - in complete despair as his last resort to get out of loneliness and sense of lost life, he blames all his failures on his ''sins'' and ''God testing him'' and lies to them and himself to get some of that sweet christian gravitas as the only way to get accepted back to family and to society as a ''decent person'' and get a fresh start

[@277kne]

Informative video. Can you lower the sound on the music?

[@MissJonas]

Thank you! You explained that very well. I've heard this often and wasn't sure how to respond.

[@michaelj1454]

Thank you for making this video. God bless you.😇

[@thesocialapologist]

Totally agree!

[@lettersandwordsandstuffs]

@@thesocialapologist the god of the bible burned animals and killed children lol nice cult

[@martinlohne5128]

The Revised Standard Version has various errors the King James Version (KJV) doesn't have. That said, the presence of the word "homosexual" isn't one of them. In my opinion, the Queen James Version (QJV) is the best bible to demonstrate that God does condemn homosexuality. In it only eight verses are changed, compared to the KJV, to expunge the sin of homosexuality. The editors in the introduction were honest enough to say what they did and why they did it. Guess what. The New King James Version has changed just as many verses related to that doctrine though it doesn't do quite as good as the QJV in eliminating it.

[@markgraham2312]

The exact opposite is true. The King James Version, a corrupt translation of the Bible, contains various errors that the Revised Standard Version does not. Your opinion is irrelevant. God does condemn homosexuality unilaterally. Homosexuality is a sin. Look at the video article for confirmation. Homosexuality is a malfunction. It is a violation of the theory of evolution. It is wrong. And those who promote it are sinners.

[@boscoalinaitwe]

You are leading many astray but one day you will pay for it in one way or the other if you don't repent.

[@lauratownsend2040]

Thank you for clarifying this!

[@TheTenthLeper]

Hey brother; former sodomite here; This is in no way an issue if one realizes that God preserved His words, in English, like He said He would *The words of the LORD are pure words:* *As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.* *Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,* *Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.* Psalm 12:6‭-‬7 KJB *For I am the LORD, I change not;* therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Malachi 3:6 KJB *Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended?* *Who hath gathered the wind in his fists?* *Who hath bound the waters in a garment?* *Who hath established all the ends of the earth?* *What is his name, and what is his son's name, If thou canst tell?* *Every word of God is pure:* *He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.* *Add thou not unto his words,* *Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.* Proverbs 30:4‭-‬6 KJB *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* *The same was in the beginning with God.* *All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.* John 1:1‭-‬3 KJB *For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.* Matthew 5:18 KJB Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 KJB *Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.* Luke 21:33 KJB *Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.* Mark 13:31 KJB HAVE FAITH IN GOD'S WORD, BROTHER. If He inspired it, HE preserved it. There's a reason every Bible compares itself to the real thing in the preface - I had to spend hundreds of dollars on knockoffs and many hours cross referencing to be convinced. *Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.* 2 Timothy 2:15 KJB Love you brother, thank you for publicly declaring what the Lord did for you.

[@ddrse]

You can be LGBT and Christian 👨‍❤️‍👨

[@johnirish989]

God wrote in English? Who knew?

[@user-ee9vf5nx4u]

I have a friend who is x gay born again. His Salvation testimony made me laugh. I was joking one day and told everyone to bring a change of cloths and when he goes to the washroom throw the cloths in a piles like the rapture happened and hide lol. He said, that made him very uncomfortable lol. I had no idea he was lost. I was just being bonehead ha ha. Months later he told me about his jealous life of lust and being used like a rag. He had a double life.

[@wesleyjakesta4095]

@@ddrsethat’s true, yet, Jesus would tell them to live right. When you believe right, you live right.

[@ddrse]

@@wesleyjakesta4095 unfortunately God's ways are not your own. One of the letters is for you. That's what's plain to see.

[@hopefullyhopless]

This is such a weird channel to be created just to try and push people away from a relationship with God.

[@naomietchison2658]

Very clear. Very accurate. Very biblical truth. Thank you!

[@hopefullyhopless]

It does just to a lot of assumptions about what words meant thousands of years later. Just in the past 40 years, so many words have had their meaning redefined so we have to accept our own bias could likely be impacting our translations.

[@markglenn5882]

This entire video is misleading.

[@thesocialapologist]

It's easy to make blanket statements. Can you articulate what specifically is misleading and why?

[@n.d.6430]

Roman 1&2

[@OTRhandler]

Anyone who BELIEVES God's testimony concerning His Son is saved FOREVER! John 3:16 KJV - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. It's taken me a long time to learn the grace of Christ. I now know that ANYONE/WHOSOEVER who trusts on Christ for salvation is saved FOREVER!!! That's a promise from God that is proclaimed from Gen-Rev. Wanna be saved forever? BELIEVE THE GOSPEL!!!! That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and was buried and rose again on the 3rd day according to the scriptures FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION!!!!! That's the GOOD NEWS!!! ANYONE CAN BE SAVED!!!! Are you a whosoever?

[@willgoetschius7083]

As a Christian, I find that we as a church spend way too much time on this topic. Ultimately this question comes down to whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a choice or a “lifestyle” instead of who one is. If it’s a choice, then one can obviously choose to abstain from sin with God‘s help. If it’s not a choice, then your sexuality is part of your identity, and is therefore created by God, therefore, one’s acting on it cannot be sinful. I think that debate has been far from settled because scripture does not make it clear about whether or not homosexuality itself is inherently sinful, or whether it is just the homosexual act

[@alkaseltzer8437]

Sin has not changed

[@willgoetschius7083]

@@alkaseltzer8437 Why don’t we spend this much time talking about adultery? Lust? Greed? The prosperity gospel?

[@alkaseltzer8437]

@@willgoetschius7083 the church is weak

[@socjolog90]

Homisexuality is natural innate characteristic. I don't think Hod have something against homosexuals. If He would why He made them this way?

[@IslamicMuhammadIsPedophile]

​@@socjolog90 He did not make them that way.

[@mikemichael8280]

Thanks for your efforts in presenting a clear easy understanding explanation regarding the fact that homosexuality is a sin and a sin that may lead to eternal damnation. Let's pray for all those who are falling into this terrible sin

[@OrangeMonkey2112]

LOL. Lie

[@thesocialapologist]

What specifically was a lie?

[@ufpride83]

A book that condones slavery and genocide but demonizes consensual sex and certain romantic relationships among adults is a book that should be discarded as the nonsense that is and not claimed to be some moral standard people should live by.

[@georgheinrich5224]

This interpretation relies on a very superficial reading of scripture, like: homosexuals have same sex intercourse, arsenokoitai and malakoi do, too, so arsenokoitai and malakoi are homosexuals. But this is not the case. The issue is that in patriarchy sex is an expression of domination over someone else. The penetrator dominates the receiver. And while it is ok in the patriarchal mindset for a man to dominate a woman, it is not ok to do this to another man. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation as we understand it today, and thus the term "homosexual" is translated wrong. The same reasoning applies to the verses in Leviticus. As it is said in the video, "to lay with" means "to have sex". So there would be no need to add "as with a woman" if this didn't add information. And the information that it does add is the same as in 1. Cor 6,9: to treat a man like a woman by penetrating him is violating his status in the patriarchal mindset. Today we do not think sex in terms of domination and submission. And thus there is nothing shameful in having sex with the same sex. Besides, we understand sexual orientation today, and that it is attributed to people by creation and not changeable. We do not observe that sexual orientation changes with conversion, either. It is given by God and he does not reconsider his decision. Consequently, the rules given in the Bible apply to the societies it was written for, but not to us.

[@Zulonix]

You don’t have a clue about what you speak of.

[@thesocialapologist]

It's always easy to make baseless comments. What specifically are you referring to?

[@markgraham2312]

Excellent! 73 books fo the Bible. None the less, excellent job.

[@thesocialapologist]

@@markgraham2312 73 books?

[@markgraham2312]

@@thesocialapologist Yes, there are 73 books in the Bible. It was canonized in two Church councils, one in 393 Carthage and the other in 397 in Hippo. Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Wisdom Sirach Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi New Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation Count 'em, 73!

[@thesocialapologist]

@@markgraham2312 Well that is not entirely true nor is it honest. The Councils of Carthage (393 AD) and Hippo (397 AD) were indeed significant in the history of the biblical canon. They were regional councils that played a role in recognizing and affirming the books that were widely accepted by the Christian community at the time. - These councils were not the first or final authorities on the canon but were part of a broader and more gradual process of canonization that involved various other church leaders and councils over several centuries. The Protestant Old Testament aligns with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), which was recognized by Jewish communities long before the time of Christ. The Jewish canon was closed around 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia, which affirmed the books considered authoritative and inspired by the Jewish faith. - Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, affirming their authority. The books included in the Protestant Old Testament were part of this established Jewish canon. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, reformers like Martin Luther sought to return to the original sources of Christian faith, emphasizing *sola scriptura* (Scripture alone) as the basis for doctrine. - Reformers questioned the Deuterocanonical books' status because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible and were included in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but not universally accepted as canonical by early Jewish scholars. The Protestant canon is based on the texts that were recognized and used by the early church. The New Testament writers did not quote from the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, suggesting these books did not hold the same authority as the Hebrew Scriptures. - The Protestant reformers argued that the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were the inspired and authoritative Word of God, with the Deuterocanonical books considered useful for reading but not for establishing doctrine. The Catholic Church officially affirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, which was a response to the Protestant Reformation. - Protestants view this addition as a later development that was not consistent with the earlier and broader consensus of the Christian church and the Jewish tradition. Just want to provide a layout of how both actually happened, and are laid out.

[@thesocialapologist]

@@markgraham2312 Well that is not entirely true nor is it honest. The Councils of Carthage (393 AD) and Hippo (397 AD) were indeed significant in the history of the biblical canon. They were regional councils that played a role in recognizing and affirming the books that were widely accepted by the Christian community at the time. - These councils were not the first or final authorities on the canon but were part of a broader and more gradual process of canonization that involved various other church leaders and councils over several centuries. The Protestant Old Testament aligns with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), which was recognized by Jewish communities long before the time of Christ. The Jewish canon was closed around 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia, which affirmed the books considered authoritative and inspired by the Jewish faith. - Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, affirming their authority. The books included in the Protestant Old Testament were part of this established Jewish canon. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, reformers like Martin Luther sought to return to the original sources of Christian faith, emphasizing *sola scriptura* (Scripture alone) as the basis for doctrine. - Reformers questioned the Deuterocanonical books' status because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible and were included in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) but not universally accepted as canonical by early Jewish scholars. The Protestant canon is based on the texts that were recognized and used by the early church. The New Testament writers did not quote from the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, suggesting these books did not hold the same authority as the Hebrew Scriptures. - The Protestant reformers argued that the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were the inspired and authoritative Word of God, with the Deuterocanonical books considered useful for reading but not for establishing doctrine. The Catholic Church officially affirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, which was a response to the Protestant Reformation. - Protestants view this addition as a later development that was not consistent with the earlier and broader consensus of the Christian church and the Jewish tradition.

[@annemariewallette]

@@markgraham2312 With love, and truth: no. As Christians, we need to be pointing people towards Christ, not engaging in debates about Biblical Canon. Those conversations can be had; but perhaps not on display for people seeking Christ. If someone is searching and see believers disagreeing about God’s Word, it doesn’t set a great example. The 66 Books of the Holy Bible are sufficient, active and true. They speak of the saving grace by faith in Christ Jesus.

[@markharris1342]

Let take 1000 true meaning in the bible In Revelation 20, should we take one thousand years literal? the answer is no. The other books in the Bible has it not being literal. We need to read scripture in the light of scripture. Psalm 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills. Does God own the cows on a 1000 hills only? Dose he not own the cows in the valley too? Deuteronomy 5:10 -but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Dose this mean that the 1001st generation will not be loved by God? The answer is no. Psalm 105:8- He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations. Does this mean the 1001st generation are cut off? The answer is no. Thousand means a number that no one can count. Let take clouds in the bible Rev. 1:7- Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen. From this we see that some of the generation who had crucify Jesus will still be living at the time of the letters to the seven churches and what shortly will take place. We need to read scripture in the light of scripture. Clouds was a representation of GOD's judgment. In Isaiah 19:1- The prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The ideal to convey to the reader is of Egypt tremble before the LORD, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear when judgement was poured out on them. Therefore, we need to interpret Rev. 1:7 to the same way as Isaiah 19:1. The LORD did not come down on clouds where they could see him, but his action of judgement did come down for all to see.

[@johnirish989]

Thousand means a number that no one can count. If that is reading scripture in the light of scripture, please point me to that scripture.

[@andrewjones8575]

If you are a conservative fundamentalist Christian, then these videos by a Moody Bible Institute teacher are for you. However, if you search for a more critical thinking style, then perhaps a more progressive study at the graduate level makes more sense. Nationally accredited graduate schools in Christian studies would provide you with the literary analysis tools (literary criticism and redactor analysis and other tools) to get underneath the many layers and complexities of Biblical authorship. A progressive approach might be a better fit for you. The ultimate question for both types of study: Are you empowered to Jesus' unconditional love toward those we despise or those not like us as He demonstrated in His acts and words of the Gospels? Another question: Is the Bible your sole authority or does reason play any part? You get to choose which is a better fit for you. We are all on this journey together! Blessings.

[@christopherthorgesen902]

"Progressive study"? "Nationally accredited graduate schools"? "Empowered"? Translation: Andrewjones8575 wants you to go "woke" and replace Sola Scriptura with touchy feely nonsense.

[@andrewjones8575]

@@christopherthorgesen902 Guilty as charged! You got me! Happy to claim it! I celebrate it!

[@christopherthorgesen902]

@@andrewjones8575 I bet you do.

[@andrewjones8575]

@@christopherthorgesen902 I do! I do! Oh yeh do I do! 😂😂😂😂

[@thesocialapologist]

A couple of things I see here that stand out: 1. You presuppose this view is that of a conservative fundamentalist christian view, without any proof or demonstrating why it is. 2. You presuppose that progressive study at a graduate level is a more critical style of thinking than the claimed "conservative fundamentalist Christian" view, but you do not provide us with any rational as to why this is a lesser of a critical style of thinking. 3. Your comment on a nationally accredited graduate school would actually include Moody Bible Institute, as it has been accredited by the HLC since 1989, meaning your comment actually indirectly endorses it as an option. 4. Biblical authorship is irrelevant to this topic specifically. It seems like an argument presenting an off-topic case to strengthen your opinion on this matter? Now we can finally address where you main comment rests: "The ultimate question for both types of study: Are you empowered to Jesus' unconditional love toward those we despise or those not like us as He demonstrated in His acts and words of the Gospels?" Let's define Jesus' love, and separate any misconceptions of love equating to affirmation, because that is a dark tunnel that could lead to the affirmation of pedophilia, among other things all in the name of love. Lets take you up on your challenge. What does Jesus say about love? Matthew 22:36-40 (CSB) “‘Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.’” Does Jesus say anything about sexual immorality? Why yes he does. Mark 7:21-23 (CSB) "For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, self-indulgence, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” What is meant by sexual immoralities? - Engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage. This includes premarital sex, which is often highlighted in various passages as contrary to God's design for human sexuality (1 Corinthians 6:18). - According to biblical texts, sexual relations between members of the same sex are considered immoral. Key passages addressing this include Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. - Sexual relations where at least one participant is married to someone else (Exodus 20:14). Adultery violates the sanctity of the marital covenant and is condemned throughout Scripture. A big emphasis on sexual immoralities are surrounded by the biblical concept of marriage. So now we need to ask the question, what is biblical marriage according to Jesus? - Matthew 19:4-6 (CSB) "Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that he who created them in the beginning made them male and female, and he also said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." - Mark 10:6-9 (CSB) "But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” So we see biblical marriage according to Jesus is between a man and a woman, as the biblical position on sex and gender is to use them synonymously, and not how a progressive view would separate them. THEREFORE we can conclude that focusing on Jesus' love for another has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings on moral concepts, but is rather strengthened in how we show that love. Calling someone out on their sin is indeed a biblical concept, but it must be done according to the guidelines set forth in Scripture. This involves private confrontation first, bringing witnesses if necessary, and involving the church if the person remains unrepentant. The overall approach should be one of gentleness, humility, and love, aiming for restoration and reconciliation rather than condemnation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your second question, is the Bible one's sole authority, or should we rely on our own understanding (reason) presupposes that one's own reason can hold the position of a greater standard of morality, logic and wisdom. Since that subjective train of thought fails immediately, as it would not objectively be able to be a true position to hold, the question in itself defeats itself. As far as the Bible is concerned, it teaches of the fallen nature of man, with our limited understanding of concepts. When it comes to matters of moral judgements, when you place your own morality higher than that prescribed in the Bible, you become your own subjective standard of morality, and once a person endorses such a view, then one cannot claim that anything is objective wrong or right, as you would have no objective standard measuring any matter of morality to. What is your thoughts on this? Keep well.

[@yeshuaisjoshua]

The Hebrew Bible is historical fiction, yhwh is a fictional character.

[@thesocialapologist]

What specifically brought you to that conclusion?

[@yeshuaisjoshua]

@@thesocialapologist In the beginning, god created......

[@thesocialapologist]

@@yeshuaisjoshua An uncaused first cause (causal agent) is necessary. Look at Big Bang cosmology, space, time and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, therefore what caused it by necessity has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial to cause those things. This is basic deductive science and logic. Why is our universe which has a beginning, therefore requiring a causal agent (beginner) fictional to you? How would you explain the necessary causal agent of our universe? Or do you believe nothing is capable of causing something?

[@yeshuaisjoshua]

@thesocialapologist How the universe started is a mystery. It doesn't make yhwh a real boy.

[@thesocialapologist]

@@yeshuaisjoshua Now you are just intellectually lazy. Why are you afraid of applying deductive logic to conclude attributes the causal agent requires? Also, why are you avoiding answering what you think the causal agent is? Using language like “boy” to try and throw punches is what we call an ad hominem, and is not doing you any favours.

[@ddrse]

Yes you can be LGBT and Christian 👨‍❤️‍👨

[@adesuwaosayaren252]

No, you actually can’t. If you are in Christ, you are a new creation. The only things have passed away and new things have come, which includes a new identity in Christ.

[@thesocialapologist]

@@ddrse What brought you to that conclusion?

[@thesocialapologist]

@@ddrse So lets discuss the literature then. What specifically brought you to the conclusion you can be lgbt and Christian?

[@user-ee9vf5nx4u]

I have a friend who is x gay born again. His Salvation testimony made me laugh. I was joking one day and told everyone to bring a change of cloths and when he goes to the washroom throw the cloths in a piles like the rapture happened and hide lol. He said, that made him very uncomfortable lol. I had no idea he was lost. I was just being bonehead ha ha. Months later he told me about his jealous life of lust and being used like a rag. He had a double life.

[@ddrse]

@@thesocialapologist well according to the literature what is Christlike is what's rejected by religious people for not following their religious laws. Therefore they make LGBT people like christ. I find no fault with the LGBT whatsoever. Do you have something you want to say? Most religious people I confront walk away realizing they were grafted in with the religious people that wanted Jesus crucified. Holy people don't like to look that way.