HOMOSEXUALITY – ROMANS 1:24-28 (GAVE them UP / OVER)

 

Greek: παραδίδωμι (paradidomi)

 

It means God “gave,” “granted,” “allowed,” “brought forth” homosexuality: the TOTAL OPPOSITE of today’s reading / spin.

 

It tells that God granted / allowed / recommended / even delivered homosexuality even though it was treated in dishonor by others, as it appeared unseemly and unnatural; and, God actually mandated such to be “blessed,” deemed as a “necessary” “reward” to be “enjoyed.”

 

You see, perfectionists are going to assume that heterosexuality (man with woman) is the only “fitting” method (as was the design), and therefore denounce anything else; but, God knows that sexual love/desire causes an achievable caring and concern for one another.  And since the Goldenrule is, by far, what the world needs more of, then the advent of bi-sexuality is suggested.  Again, all there has to be is a fad for it, and the human mind will quickly adapt.  God knows that the most powerful weapon against war / prejudice is an open bi-sexual world.

 

The original Greek word (παρέδωκεν):

 

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: With Strong’s Concordance Numbers above Each Word, Green, Baker Books, 1996, p. 475, Romans 1:24-28:

(The far right column is the KJV):

 

It’s a form of παραδίδωμι (paradidomi):

 

Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged Edition, Liddell & Scott, Oxford, 1871, impression of 1994, p. 530, “παρέδωκ…”:

 

Which is a combination word of “παρα-” and “δίδωμι”:

The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Wigram, 1903, republished 1996, p. xxxi, “Vocabulary” (shows compound words via “-“):

P. xxiii (another example):

P. xxi:

 

The definition of παραδίδωμι and/or δίδωμι (transliterated as paradidomi and didomi):

 

(The definition is pretty much the same for παραδίδωμι and δίδωμι):

 

Langenscheidt’s Pocket Greek Dictionary: Classical Greek-English, Feyerabend, no date, p. 287, “παρα-δίδωμι”:

Pp. 100-101, “δίδωμι”:

(See section on the Old Testament source for “abandon” and "betray" here [at the bottom of this webpage].)

 

A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect, Cunliffe, 1963, pp. 93-94, “δίδωμι”:

 

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, Bullinger, 1908 (republished 1999), p. 628, “RECOMMEND (-ED.) | παραδίδωμι”:

So it’s like the only word used in the entire New Testament for “recommend.”

 

The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Wigram, 1903, republished 1996, p. 922, “INDEX” “recommend“:

 

The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, James Strong 1822-1894, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, “Greek Dictionary of the New Testament” p. 674, “3860”:

 

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, W. E. Vine (1873-1949), Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, p. 81 (NT), “BRING, BRINGING, BROUGHT | B. Noun”:

P. 513 (NT), “RECOMMEND”:

P. 112 (NT), “COMMEND, COMMEDATION”:

P. 113 (NT), “COMMIT, COMMISSION | A. Verbs | (II)”:

P. 156 (NT), “DELIVER, DELIVERANCE, DELIVERER | A. Verbs”:

 

“Deliver” is also used for like a UPS delivery that comes to you.  Therefore, something “given” to you.

 

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, W. E. Vine (1873-1949), Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, p. 63 (NT), “BESTOW”:

P. 93 (NT), “CAUSE | B. Verbs”:

P. 278 (NT), “GRANT”:

P. 411 (NT), “MINISTER | B. Verbs | 6. | Notes: | (2)”:

P. 536 (NT), “RIPE (to be fully)”:

That’s the best way to say it: God alloweth homosexuality.  Now you can tell your church that in honesty.

P. 691 (NT), “YIELD”:

 

The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Zodhiates, 1993, pp. 1103-1104, “3860. παραδίδωμι paradídōmi”:

(http://www.answers.com/entrust, “entrust”:

To give over (something) to another for care, protection, or performance)

P. 1104, “3862”:

P. 1130, “3970”:

 

The Word Study Concordance (KJV), Wigram / Winter, Tyndale House Publishers, 1978, “Greek-English Index” p. 996, “παραδίδωμι”:

 

Again, see section on the Old Testament source for “abandon” and "betray" here [at the bottom of this webpage].

 

Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Robert Young (1822-1888), Index-Lexicon to the New Testament, p. 82, “PARADIDOMI”:

 

Here’s one of the instances where paradidomi (Strong # 3860) is translated as “Recommended”:

Acts 14:25-26 (KJV):

25And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia: 26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.

 

Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged Edition, Liddell & Scott, Oxford, 1871, impression of 1994, p. 170, “δίδωμι”:

P. 521, “παρα-δίδωμι”:

You see, regarding men with men and women with women, God wants to “cause that.”  This is so clear that future ill-willed Churches will, conversely, want to dismiss Paul, since Jesus said nothing on the subject.  But, saying nothing on a subject “allows” it the freedom to be practiced.  (And, if God wants to “cause that” then He sure in the hell isn’t going to send anybody to Hell for it.)

 

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott, Oxford, 1997 (first edition 1889), p. 199, “δί-δωμι”:

P. 595, “παρα-δίδωμι”:

 

A Greek-English Lexicon (unabridged), Liddell & Scott, Oxford, 1871, p. 377, “δίδωμι”:

(Continued) p. 378:

P. 1179, “παραδίδωμι:

 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Brown, Zondervan Publishing, 1978, vol. 3, p. 772, “παραδίδωμι”:

P. 773:

 

The Student’s Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament, Trenchard, 1992, p. 30, “Cognate Word Groups | δίδωμι”:

 

Septuagint (the Early Christian Old Testament):

A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Lust / Eynikel / Hauspie, 1996, part two, p. 351, “παραδίδωμι”:

 

Septuagint example:

The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, Brenton, 1851 (published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1998), p. 34, Genesis 27:20”:

 

The Latin Vulgate parallel is “tradidit” a form of “trado”:

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.reflang=la;layout.reflookup=tradidit;doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3D%2316465, Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary, “trādō”:

to give up, hand over, deliver, transmit, surrender, consign … To deliver, commit, intrust, confide … to give up, surrender, hand over, deliver, intrust … to give oneself up, yield, surrender, devote oneself … to deliver, propose, propound, teach

 

Harpers’ Latin Dictionary, Lewis / Short, 1879, p. 1884, “trādo”:

 

Collins Latin Gem Dictionary, Kidd, 1957, p. 339 (Latin-English), “trādi´ti/ō | trā´d/ō”:

 

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=trado&ending= (University of Notre Dame), Latin Word Lookup, “trado”:

trado (transdo) -dere -didi -ditum [to hand over , give up, surrender, betray; to hand down to posterity]; esp. [to hand down an account of an event, to report, relate, teach]; with reflex. [to commit, surrender, devote oneself].

 

The New College Latin & English Dictionary, Traupman, 1966, p. 314 (Latin-English), “trādō”:

 

Oxford Latin Dictionary, Glare, 1982, p. 1956, “trādō”:

 

He (Paul) was explaining to the pagans how Christianity differs from other religions.

 

“Deliver” sort of means that it’s giving you something that you didn’t have before.

 

Not being a homosexual is one of today’s major artificial salvation cop-outs:

 

Because of the English Bible’s spin against homosexuality, most “Christians” today believe that if they aren’t homosexual, they have their ticket into Heaven.  And, the more they can make homosexuality a condemning issue, the more they feel they’re tricking God into believing it too.

 

Condemning “victimless crimes” is actually a sin.  Most people are one extreme or the other on this issue, solely depending if they are homosexual or not.  In other words, most everyone uses this as a cop-out if they don’t desire the same sex; which is why it is such a controversial and harmful issue.  The ones who condemn homosexuality the most are the ones who likely depend on this cop-out the most, to greatly forsake the much more difficult Goldenrule.

 

-- Translated verbatim from the original Greek --

 

Romans 1:24-29:

[Paul’s speaking of corruption, then:] 24Wherefore God granted / allowed / recommended them in their desires/passions (esp. sexual desires) of their hearts, upon uncleanness (unnatural vice) to dishonor (in legal sense: to deprive of civil rights) their bodies into themselves. 25The ones who (or, Things which) changed the truth of God in that falsehood/lie, and worshipped and served for hire the creation above the Creator, this/such is / to be / to exist blessed to their secular worldlinesses / periods of existence / the ages / eras.  Amen.

Sounds like God wanted homosexuality, even though it brought secular dishonor/problems.  This is exactly how you’d have to explain it to the (corrupted) church today.  The “falsehood/lie” is the “dishonor.” 

 

26By this, God granted / allowed / recommended them into passions/affections of dishonor, the both for their females changing the natural use into the un-natural;  27and, similarly also the males leaving the natural use of the females inflamed in their appetites / excitements for each other, males with males, the unseemly / unsightly / awkwardness / disfigurement / shamed / disgraced workings; and, the reward was necessary (as binding) / needful / right / proper of their cause to wander (random irregularity / variation) in themselves receiving / enjoying.

The “unnatural” sex was then, and is still in majority today unseemly (doesn’t seem appropriate), disgraceful, unaccepted, etc.

 

28And even as/how not allowed/not approved as fit, to keep God in full discernment, God granted / allowed / recommended them unto unapproved intellect, to bring about the non-agreeings / non-fittings, 29fulfillings in all injustices / unfairnesses …(all kinds of bad things).  In other words, real bad things didn’t “fit” with victimless homosexual acts, therefore God “allowed” it to properly “discern[]” right from wrong.  God “allowed” them “to bring about” that which was “non-fitting[]” (see even better clarification in Wycliffe further down page).

 

Sounds like God is fighting the secular evil norm, which is those who don’t approve of homosexuality.  God is overruling the secular religious norm, even though it brings much secularly religious disapproval.  Even today (or, the early 1990s), warmongers, etc. are the most synonymous with opposers of homosexuality.  Homosexuals are usually more antiwar, anti- other (real) hurtful things.  Logic dictates that dishonoring homosexuals is “injustices” / “unfairnesses,” not the other way around.  God allowed/permitted them into homosexuality only, not the listed wrongs in further verses 29-31.

 

Earlier verses:

Romans 1:16-17: 16For I am not ashamed (#1870) of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed ….

“ashamed” (#1870): “to feel shame for something:--be ashamed.”

In respective arrangement, “the gospel of Christ” matches with homosexuality (something normally to be “ashamed” of).

 

Worksheet (for above, vss. 24-29):

 

Here’s the word for word worksheet that matches my Romans 1:24-29 text above (open a second Window to compare).

 

(Sources are Strong’s: http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/B45C001.htm#V24 and Liddell & Scott, via: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155&query=head%3D%2314 .) :

 

My outline:

Paul’s talking about corruption (that God overruled), then:

Greek word

Strong #

Definition

24.

 

 

διο

1352

Wherefore, On which account, Through which thing

και (removed in W-H)

2532

and

παρεδωκεν

3860

{3} granted / allowed / recommended (aorist verb: past tense)

αυτους

846 (848)

{4} them

ο

3588

{1} the

θεος

2316

{2} God

εν

1722

in

ταις

3588

their

επιθυμιαις

1939

desires / passions (esp. sexual desires), yearning, longing, concupiscence (plural)

των

3588

of (Google translate)

καρδιων,

2588

{2} hearts, esp. as the seat of feelings and passions (plural) ,

αυτων

846 (848)

{1} their

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

ακαθαρσιαν

167

uncleanness / unnatural vice(Bauer’s, Zodhiates’), impurity, foulness, dirt, filth, depravity.  Others: pudenda (private parts) (Muraoka)

του

3588 (5120)

of (Google translate)

ατιμαζεσθαι

818

to dishonor (in legal sense: to deprive of civil rights); to treat as unworthy; suffer dishonor; insult, etc.; put to shame by; treat as unworthy of; suffer shame; loss of civil rights;  N.T. Vocabulary, Moulton: contrary to law  (infinitive verb: prepend “to”)

τα

3588

{2} the

σωματα

4983

{3} bodies (plural)

αυτων (form of αυτος)

846 (848)

{1} their

εν

1722

into

εαυτοις. (αυτοις in W-H)

1438

themselves .

25.

 

 

‘οιτινες (form of ‘οστις)

3748

The ones who (or, Things which), For those causes; Langenscheidt.Classical Greek: whosoever, whichsoever; Homeric Lexicon: “Who, which, with an indefinite force, ‘whoever (whatever)….’” (plural)

μετηλλαξαν

3337

changed, altered (aorist verb: past tense)

την

3588

the

αληθειαν

225

truth

του

3588 (5120)

of

θεου

2316

God

εν

1722

in

τω

3588

that

ψευδει,

5579

falsehood / lie ,

και

2532

and

εσεβασθησαν

4573

worshipped, respected, venerated, adored (aorist verb: past tense) (plural)

και

2532

and

ελατρευσαν

3000

served for hire, worked for hire, to be bound or enslaved to  (aorist verb: past tense) (plural)

τη

3588

the

κτισει

2937

creation, foundation, building, ordinance

παρα

3844

dispite(Yahoo translate), above, against

τον

3588 (5120)

the

κτισαντα,

2936

Creator(ing), Founder, manufacturing ,

ος

3739

this / such(Liddell & Scott, Thayer’s, Homeric)

εστιν

2076

is / to be / to exist

ευλογητος

2128

blessed, adorable

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

τους

3588 (5120)

their

αιωνας.

165

secular(Vulgate) worldlinesses / periods of existence / the ages / eras (plural) .

αμην.

281

Amen .

26.

 

 

δια

1223

Through / By / Via

τουτο

5124

this

παρεδωκεν

3860

{3} granted / allowed / recommended (aorist verb: past tense)

αυτους

846 (848)

{4} them

ο

3588

{1} the

θεος

2316

{2} God

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

παθη

3806

passions / affections (plural)

ατιμιας,

819

of dishonor; dishonor done to the gods; disgrace; the loss of civil rights; deprivation of privileges, esp. of civic rights; indignities; infamy; indignity; reproach; shame; vile;  N.T. Vocabulary, Moulton: contrary to law (genitive noun: possessive: prepend “of”) ,

αι

3588

the  (plural)

τε

5037

both

γαρ

1063

for

θηλειαι

2338

{2} females (plural)

αυτων

846 (848)

{1} their

μετηλλαξαν

3337

changing

την

3588

the

φυσικην

5446

natural, physical

χρησιν

5540

use

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

την

3588

the

παρα

3844

dispite(Yahoo translate), above, against, un-

φυσιν;

5449

natural ;

27.

 

 

ομοιως

3668

{2} similarly, like, resembling

τε

5037

{3} also

και,

2532

{1} and ,

οι

3588

the  (plural)

αρσενες (or, αρρενες)

730

males (plural)

αφεντες

863

leaving, forsaking, discharging (plural) (participle verb: add “-ing”)

την

3588

the

φυσικην

5446

natural, physical

χρησιν

5540

use

της

3588

of

θηλειας,

2338

females (plural) ,

εξεκαυθησαν

1572

inflamed, burned, lit up, kindled, stimulated (aorist verb: past tense)

εν

1722

in

τη

3588

{2} the

ορεξει

3715

{3} appetites(Google translate) / excitement

αυτων

846 (848)

{1} their

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

αλληλους,

240

each other, one another, mutual (plural) ,

αρσενες

730

males (plural)

εν

1722

with, in, among

αρσεσιν,

730

males (plural) ,

την

3588

the

ασχημοσυνην

808

unseemly / unsightly(Divry’s & others) / awkwardness / disfigurement / shamed / disgraced, the pudenda (private parts), inelegant, uncomely; Vulgate: nakedness; Others: ugliness, deformity, unshaped; outrageous behavior, indecency, disfigurement, example: “the girl lost her good looks,” eyesore, misbehave; indecorously; embarrassment, obscenity, improper, out of place, unbecoming, maltreated, unapproved, unacceptable, unorderly, public shame; unpresentable (esp. to sexual life), private parts, “shame=private parts,” dishonorably, ashamed; unpresentable, improper; “something unseemly not in keeping with codes of decorum or meant for public exposure”(LXX); unworthy; “shame (euph. for nakedness”; unhandsome

κατεργαζομενοι;

2716

workings, treated(Google translate); Others: process, fashion; accomplish, achieve, gain, overcoming, oppression; makings; to effect by labor, earn or gain by labor; to bring about, produce, practice, perform; to do that from which something results; work out something, overpower, subdue, conquer; to work at; prepare,    (participle verb: add “-ing”) (plural) ;

και,

2532

and ,

την

3588

the

αντιμισθιαν

489

reward, requital (amends, return) / recompense (award)

ην

3739 (2258)

was

εδει

1163

necessary (as binding) / needful, behooved (to be necessary or proper for), meet (fitting, proper), ought, should.  Vulgate: has required, it is right, proper, necessary, it is becoming, it behooves, ought

της

3588

of

πλανης

4106

{2} cause to wander (random irregularity / variation), to lead astray, stray.  Others: misunderstanding, misapprehension, delusion, disillusion, fallacy, hovering, roam, ramble; wander in mind, vagabond; be at a loss; to deviate from the straight course, go deviously; lead wandering about, of ships: to drive from their course, mislead, lead into error, roam about; in talking: to lead from the subject, digress, rover, disperse, cheating, deceiving, straying; figuratively: mislead, deceive someone; illusion, vagrant; “wandering from the way, and do metaphorically, error”; LXX: rebellious

αυτων

846 (848)

{1} their

εν

1722

in

εαυτοις

1438

themselves

απολαμβανοντες.

618

receiving(s) / enjoying(s)(Google & Yahoo translators), to receive what is one’s due, learnings, to take back, get backings, regainings, recoverings  Other sources: profit, gain  (participle verb: add “-ing”) (plural) .

28.

 

 

και

2532

and

καθως

2531

even as / how, according to

ουκ

3756

not

εδοκιμασαν,

1381

allowed / approved as fit, to think fit, pass as fit  (aorist verb: past tense) ,

τον

3588 (5120)

{2} the

θεον

2316

{3} God

εχειν

2192

{1} to keep, to hold, to have, to have charge of, to know, to understood, to involve, to give cause for, to carry, to bring, to amend, to conceive, to enjoy, to necessitate (infinitive verb: prepend “to”)

εν

1722

in

επιγνωσει,

1922

full discernment, recognition, observance, judgment, knowledge, acknowledgement, approval ,

παρεδωκεν

3860

{3} granted / allowed / recommended (aorist verb: past tense)

αυτους

846 (848)

{4} them

ο

3588

{1} the

θεος

2316

{2} God

εις

1519

to, into, upon, unto, for

α-δοκιμον

96

unapproved, inappropriate, rejected as false, disreputable, unsatisfactory, unconvincing, of a statement; disreputable; discredited rejected; by implication.  Others: unexpected, unexpert; untasted, untested, unused, not experienced; not approved; untried; inglorious; disapproved, rejected, cast away, undiscerning, unworthy, one not bearing the mark, rejected, “from the priv.[privative] a (1), without, and dόkimos (1384), acceptable” – (1384): “be approved or accepted”

νουν,

3563

intellect, mind, perception, heart, feeling, understanding ,

ποιειν

4160

to bring about, to bring forth, to do, to make, to produce, to create (infinitive verb: prepend “to”)

τα

3588

the

μη

3361

non-

καθηκοντα,

2520

agreeings(Vulgate) / fittings (participle verb: add “-ing”) (plural) ,

29.

 

 

πεπληρωμενους

4137

fulfillings, to make full (participle verb: add “-ing”) (plural)

παση

3956

in all, the whole, totality (dative adjective: prepend in, on, or at)

αδικια

93

injustices / unfairnesses (plural)

…(all kinds of bad things).

 

Notes:

 

“W-H” refers to Westcott & Hort’s 1881 Greek text.  (The above text is Textus Receptus 1550 / 1894.)

 

Punctuation is arbitrary as they didn’t use punctuation when the New Testament was originally written.  Therefore, relocating periods and/or commas can produce entirely different meanings.  Plus, the Bible has lots of ambiguous pronouns not specifying which of two or more possible entities they are referencing.  By simply changing the antecedent Paul praises homosexuality instead of condemning it (or, the sentence just makes better sense).  You see, even today – I’ve even caught myself doing it – speakers and writers know which noun or noun phrase they are co-referencing, but they don’t always realize the listener or reader may not automatically know.  A kind of example is when Clinton said: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman: Miss Lewinsky,” thereby catching his (possible) error and immediately clarifying it.  Another example: “Jack and Richard went to the car dealer, and he bought a new car.” Who is “he” referring to, Jack or Richard?  The speaker may know which one was needing a new car but doesn’t realize the listener/reader may not; especially 2000 years later.  (The correct answer is neither because Jim had been up there all morning test driving cars; and, an earlier sentence told he was wanting to get rid of his old junker.  “He” is of course referring to his son Jeff.  Not Jim’s son, J.B.’s son – can’t you see who I’m pointing to?  Jim’s car is running fine, and yes, J.B. is also a guy.  Well, J.B. had an affair with Jim’s wife before they got married.  Yes, Jim married his own wife, duh!  J.B. married Jack’s sister Janet.  No, Jeff is Richard’s nephew – why else would he have gone to the dealer to help him get the right car?  Yes, “he” is Richard!  No, “him” is Jim!  Because “Jim” doesn’t want his son to drive anything too fast!  Yes, “his” is referring to Jim, not J.B. – Who do you think Jeff is living with?  Well of course Jeff was also with Jim at the dealer!  He went up there later.  No, not Jeff, Jim!  Just forget it!)  (No, not the explanation, just return the car!)  (…because you never see Richard without Jack – you know that!  So, quit playin’ with me!!)

 

Regardless whether homosexuality was good or bad to the viewer, or regardless how you’d like to spin the remainder of words, God granted / allowed / recommended it, obviously to strengthen the importance of love.  You see, looking at someone as “a” sexual object causes the person to become “a” value.  I realize we are all taught and therefore believe the total opposite; but, there will be no more wars when everyone looks at everyone (adults) as “a” sexual value.  Then there will only be minor, individual, pertinent disputes.  And, those can be lessened by no more monogamy.

 

Paul tells in Romans 2:5-16 how God’s Afterlife Judgment will punish wrongdoers; therefore, the above “allowance” of same-sex relations is really an allowance, again stating that they will even receive a “reward” (1:27).  Therefore, his allowance is not just another part of the Protestant Church’s warped “faith alone” cop-out.  And, 2:9-16 actually says that if Gentiles happen to have the right heart in doing the law of God, but have never even heard of Jesus, they will be rewarded by God’s Afterlife Judgment “also.”  So, one doesn’t have to have heard of Jesus Christ to be saved.  Again, 1:24-28 is saying that whatever it’s talking about [same-sex relations] God approved it; but does not approve 1:29-32 as such are “worthy of death,” not an “allowance” deserving of a “reward”!  1:18 also talks about God’s wrath against things his disapproves of.  Therefore it can’t be same-sex relations because God can’t both grant it and have wrath against it.

 

So, “Paul” is saying one doesn’t even need “faith” to be saved, that being a good person is the only way to God's “grace”; just like Jesus stated in Matt. 25:34-46.  This “good news” knowledge just allows a person to know that our future Afterlife / Resurrection exists; and, that the correct way to its good side is by being a good person (to the needy), therefore converting those who would not be otherwise.  I am totally aware that all of today’s “Antichrist” churches tell the rich man what he wants to hear.  They’re not “stupid”: they know how to get your money!  But, for that, they’re all going to Hell.  So, why do some of you trust them so much on these sex issues?  It’s called another kind of “stupid.”

 

Hypothetically, if God today “allowed” everyone to start running around, say, naked, someone might describe it as “God allows everyone to run around naked, which is unseemly, shameful, embarrassing, impolite, and sometimes down-right ugly and gross!”  Would this be meaning that (1) God, (2) the speaker or (3) others thought that running around naked was “unseemly, shameful, embarrassing, impolite, and sometimes down-right ugly and gross!”?  Since God “allows” it, it would therefore seem to have to either be the opinion of the speaker or (more likely) others, since these descriptions would be correctly gathered mostly from today’s general public opinion.  Regardless, however you want to look at the added negativity of same-sex relations, God allowed it!  I think Paul was just describing it to clarify it to make sure the Romans knew the kind of thing he was talking about:  Since there wasn’t really a single word in the time of Paul for what we briefly clarify today as “homosexuality / bisexuality / gay / lesbian / LGBT / GLBT / same-sex relations / etc.,” likely the words Paul was using then were the words describing it (best) for that era.  Logical proof for this theory would be the fact that those were the words Paul used to describe what he was talking about.

 

(No, J.B. bought the car because he knew he owed Jeff, and wanted to stay away from Jim.  Because he had the dealer swipe his card before Jim went up.  Yes, “he” is J.B.  Why else would you think he would tell Jim to come up later?  No, “he” there is Jeff!  Yes, the last “he” before the previous one.  Because, Jim’s not talking to J.B.  ….  Because it’s still 2011 and therefore Jim can’t forgive.)

 

Here’s another kind of ambiguous phrase example I found in my Inbox from Fox News Channel 3-18-11:

“Wisconsin judge temporarily blocks the state's new labor law curbing union collective bargaining rights”

I know that this judge is working against “curbing union collective bargaining rights” but if I didn’t already know that, it could easily mean that the judge is working for “curbing union collective bargaining rights.”  You see, unless otherwise already known, is it the “judge” or the “new labor law” that’s “curbing union collective bargaining rights”?  In today’s English, a comma between “law” and “curbing” would more indicate that’s it’s the judge, but again, they didn’t use punctuation in the days of Paul.  This is a great example pertaining to the last part of Romans 1:25, indicating that what Paul said was “to be blessed” was homosexuality rather than “the Creator.”  Not that God doesn’t deserve Paul’s blessing, but God more blesses things/people, not the other way around.  Usually it’s the superior who does the blessing (like Jesus blessing the poor), as the higher-ups are the better Judges (I know this can differ in Protestant churches).  Therefore, it really doesn’t make as much sense that Paul would bless God, especially in the middle of his explanation about homosexuals.  The popular phrase is the request “God bless you,” not I bless God.  Such would make it sound like you’re superior to God (again, the Protestant Church).  Plus, since the word “secular” with a limiting periods of existence in ages / eras (a long time but still limited: until the end of mankind) is part of who’s getting blessed, doesn’t make it sound like God’s the one Paul is saying who is being blessed, because God has always been, and always will be beyond “worldly” ages / eras, as is already in the “blessed” category throughout, as most would agree (even Protestants).  Plus, God “granting / allowing / recommending” homosexuality fits better with God also “blessing” it.  Again, I think homosexuality was not part of the original design, but it later proved itself in creating a better / added kind of love between “one another”: causing mainly men to look at other men as more of “a” physical value, thereby “curbing” more disputes than fueling them.  And, God wants us to get along!  So, logic is on my side with this as well.

 

The successive text:

(basic source: http://www.unboundbible.org/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch&version=greekNT%5F1550%3AGreek%20NT%20%28Stephanus%2D1550%29&parallel_1=&parallel_2=&book=45N%20&from_chap=1&from_verse=24&to_chap=1&to_verse=32&and_or=AND&CFID=8947028&CFTOKEN=19508667, Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550/1894), “Romans 1” ):

24. 

διο και παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εν ταις επιθυμιαις των καρδιων αυτων εις ακαθαρσιαν του ατιμαζεσθαι τα σωματα αυτων εν εαυτοις

25. 

οιτινες μετηλλαξαν την αληθειαν του θεου εν τω ψευδει και εσεβασθησαν και ελατρευσαν τη κτισει παρα τον κτισαντα ος εστιν ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην

26. 

δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν

27. 

ομοιως τε και οι {VAR1: αρρενες } {VAR2: αρσενες } αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

28. 

και καθως ουκ εδοκιμασαν τον θεον εχειν εν επιγνωσει παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις αδοκιμον νουν ποιειν τα μη καθηκοντα

29. 

πεπληρωμενους παση αδικια πορνεια πονηρια πλεονεξια κακια μεστους φθονου φονου εριδος δολου κακοηθειας ψιθυριστας

 

Latin Vulgate (c. 405 A.D.), Romans 1:

(source: http://speedbible.com/vulgate/B45C001.htm ):

24

propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum in inmunditiam ut contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in semet ipsis

25

qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori qui est benedictus in saecula amen

26

propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam

27

similiter autem et masculi relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes et mercedem quam oportuit erroris sui in semet ipsis recipientes

28

et sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum ut faciant quae non conveniunt

29

repletos omni iniquitate malitia fornicatione avaritia nequitia plenos invidia homicidio contentione dolo malignitate susurrones

 

http://www.gseh65.freeserve.co.uk/letterslb.html (evangelical preacher and Bible Scholar George S E Hopper, Box 5846; Basildon SS15 4GS; United Kingdom), The ‘Living Bible’ and ‘New Living Translation’, “Romans 1:18-32”:

A literal rendering of the Greek of v26 is … The nearest to the Greek without adding personal interpretation is;

‘God allowed them their choice of indulging in passions of dishonour, their women channelled their natural sexuality into un-natural acts’. There is nothing in the Greek of v26 which allows your interpretation ie ‘women indulging in sex sin with one another’.

 

Homosexuality is unnatural / unseemly (it doesn’t appear right) / unaccepted:

Regarding homosexuality being “unnatural”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God wanting us to do something new in all aspects of life is humans’ entire reason for being.  Many people want to know why God made the universe and us; it's simply because “something is better than nothing.”  Therefore, any positive diversity just serves God more.  We all basically do it every day when we go to work, play, etc.  All human desire is doing God’s work: if we want to do it, then God wants to do it.  However, when what’s good for one hurts another, then the Goldenrule / Fairness is God’s only deviating instruction.

 

Human Sexuality, Masters / Johnson / Kolodny, 1992, p. 643, “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality”:

This shows how oral sex and even kissing is unnatural, and is naturally unseemly / disgusting, and is therefore only an accepted fetish; thus can be “used” as another mutual love building tool to fight evil, by further causing everyone to become of “value” to all others.  Some want to make it a better world, and some just want to make it better for themselves.

 

Really, just about everything we do can be called unnatural when we do something that other animals can't or don't.  And, all animals are doing unnatural things compared to the vegetation.  And, the vegetation is doing something unnatural from the point of view of the rocks.  And, the rocks, planets, stars, etc. over outer space.  Therefore, all these greater creations of God are doing something "more" or creating "more diversity" or wonder; so, it's our "job" to find better ways in the unnatural; or, everything would just stay the same and never progress or "show further wonder."

 

Here’s a Bible version that is honest about paradidomi but still retains the negative context:

 

http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/romans-lbw.htm, EasyEnglish Bible Commentaries, “Paul’s letter to the *Romans”:

v24 And God let them carry out their *sinful desires. Because of their evil attitudes, they did not respect their own bodies. v25 They believed a lie instead of the truth about God. They chose to *worship and to serve something that God created. But they ought to *worship and to serve God himself, who created everything. He should receive honour always. *Amen.

…

v26 Because of this false *worship, God has allowed them to become like prisoners to their own bad desires. Even their women exchanged natural *relationships for unnatural ones. v27 In the same way, men turned away from their natural behaviour towards women. Instead, they had very strong desires to have sex with other men. Men acted in bad ways with other men. They received in themselves the result of the wrong things that they did.

…

(Commentary to v27):

Paul does not say what was the result of this bad behaviour. He said that they ‘received it in themselves’. Perhaps he meant physical disease, social troubles or God’s final judgement. [They don’t know because they aren’t translating it right.]

…

v28 They did not think that it was important to know God. So God allowed them to become like prisoners to their own wicked minds. As a result, they acted in ways that were not right and proper.

(Commentary to v28):

Verse 28 God ‘allowed’ them to do these *sinful deeds. This does not mean that such behaviour is acceptable [them feeling the need to overrule it indicates that the real text IS saying “such behaviour is acceptable”]. It means that God gave to people the opportunity to make decisions [that’s not what it’s saying]. So people should realise that they will suffer the results of their actions [that’s not what it’s saying].

 

Again, go ahead and say all the context is “bad behaviour,” it doesn’t matter, God “allowed” it.  And, that’s all that’s needed to throw this supposed gay condemnation out the door.

 

Again, the passage doesn’t make any sense when you translate paradidomi correctly while still maintaining the negative context, or they wouldn’t feel the need to suggest it’s not saying what it’s saying.  But, regardless, those “bad behaviour” people could have EASILY said that God allowed them to have same-sex relations.  And, that’s all that matters to indicate it means the opposite of what today’s “Christians” want it to say.

 

Here’s another one, again, with pretty nasty context:

 

http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/links/modernbibles.html?v=contemporaryenglishversion&b=romans&c=1, Contemporary English Version (CEV), 1995, Barclay Newman:

24 So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies. 25 They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God's creation instead of God, who will be praised forever. Amen. 26 God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27 Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds. 28 Since these people refused even to think about God, he let their useless minds rule over them. That's why they do all sorts of indecent things.

 

Well, if God will “let” someone be “evil” then I guess it isn’t really that evil, is it?  Note: It says / elaborates that God allowed the same-sex “evil” but it doesn’t really say God allowed the other kinds of evil mentioned in the prior and subsequent verses.

 

Another:

 

http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/links/modernbibles.html?v=godsword&b=romans&c=1, God's Word: Today's Bible Translation, 1995, Eugene Bunkowske:

24 For this reason God allowed their lusts to control them. As a result, they dishonor their bodies by sexual perversion with each other. 25 These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! 26 For this reason God allowed their shameful passions to control them. Their women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion. 28 And because they thought it was worthless to acknowledge God, God allowed their own immoral minds to control them. So they do these indecent things.

 

Note:  All of my website’s research either flat-out proves corruption of the Bible, or it proves that some things just don’t hold water enough to justify the condemnation of an entire lifestyle that begets no victim.  I mean everything is “allowed” unless and until something valid says it’s not.  And, when it’s something that’s victimless, then the proof has to be totally, indisputably correct!  And, if nothing else, this paradidomi (meaning “allows”) definitely proves that there’s something not consistently correct enough to justify such a major basis for hatred.  And, if I’m able to spin it back to where it fits with Paul just stating the better known Roman status quo (defining filthy) by using the valid and more popular Greek word translations, then it’s more likely I’m right, and that “another artificial salvation cop-out for those who aren’t gay” explains the reason for the original spin.  You see, when someone’s not gay or bi, they’ll think they have a “ticket into Heaven” by just not being gay, which is the same exact reason people oppose it today.  Therefore, spin with aggrandizements makes them feel better and more secure.  So, today’s corrupt souls aren’t any different than the corrupt souls of yesteryear (while they actually think it’s impossible for our past religious leaders to have even been that corrupt).  All want as much as they can get to justify not having to do Jesus’ mandated Goldenrule for salvation (Matt. 25:34-46).  Everyone who doesn’t acknowledge my many truths today, are just as evil as those who actually corrupted God’s word years ago.  And, this proves to me that a lot of people aren’t going to Heaven, as Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14.  (Now, just because you’re gay or bi doesn’t mean you’re saved either.)

 

Another:

 

http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/links/modernbibles.html?v=themessage&b=romans&c=1, The Message, 2002, Eugene Peterson:

24 So God said, in effect, "If that's what you want, that's what you get." It wasn't long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. 25 And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them - the God we bless, the God who blesses us. Oh, yes! 26 Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either - women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. 27 Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men - all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it - emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches. 28 Since they didn't bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose.

 

Wycliffe / “bitook”:

 

John Wycliffe (WYC) translated “very closely” the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into Middle English in 1380 AD.  All popular English Bible translations from the Greek and Latin during the later Renaissance (1500s) compare with the King James Version’s “gave them up / over” which also is alike the 1582 Catholic Douay Rheims Version (which is supposed to also be from the Latin).  So, I found this earlier Wycliffe translation rather interesting:

 

http://www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/wycliffe_nt/45_001.htm, Read the Wycliffe New Testament, “Romans 1”:

1:24 For which thing God bitook hem in to the desiris of her herte, in to vnclennesse, that thei punysche with wrongis her bodies in hem silf.
1:25 The whiche chaungiden the treuthe of God in to leesyng, and herieden and serueden a creature rathere than to the creatoure, that is blessid in to worldis of worldis.
1:26 Amen. Therfor God bitook hem in to passiouns of schenschipe. For the wymmen of hem chaungiden the kyndli vss in to that vss that is ayens kynde.
1:27 Also the men forsoken the kyndli vss of womman, and brenneden in her desiris togidere, and men in to men wrouyten filthehed, and resseyueden in to hem silf the meede that bihofte of her errour.
1:28 And as thei preueden that thei hadden not God in knowyng, God bitook hem in to a repreuable wit, that thei do tho thingis that ben not couenable; that thei ben fulfillid with al wickidnesse,

 

Translated from Middle English:

1:24 For which thing God betook them into the desires of their heart, into uncleanness, that they punish with wrongs their bodies in themselves.

1:25 The which changed the truth of God into lying, and praised and served a creature rather than to the creator, that is blessed into worlds of worlds.

1:26 Amen. Therefore God betook them into passions of shame / disgrace / hurt / ruin. For the women of them changed the natural use into that use that is against nature.

1:27 Also the men forsook the natural use of woman, and burned in their desires together, and men into men working filthhood / dirtiness, and received into themselves the meed (a fitting recompense, a merited gift or wage) / reward that behooved (to be necessary or proper for) of their error.

1:28 And as they proved that they had not God in knowing, God betook them into a reprehensible (blameworthy) wit, that they do those things [adding clarification] that been not proper / fitting / agreeing; that they been fulfilled with all wickedness,

It could be that Paul didn’t like homosexuals but still told that God approved it.  And, I understand that homosexuality and lesbianism was strongly condemned by most of the Romans (see Juvenal and others of that era).  Possibly Paul was saying that homosexuals specifically were saved by grace.  It’s doesn’t matter how you want to explain it, God betook them from a negative sense and delivered them up into a positive acceptance.

 

Middle English definitions of “bitook” / “bitake”:

 

http://www.librarius.com/canttran/gptrfs.htm, From The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue: Modern english adjacent to middle english, “bitook”:

bitook verb entrusted

 

http://aspirations.english.cam.ac.uk/converse/chaucer/glossary.doc, Chaucer Glossary, (Middle English words):

bitake, betake                           to give, grant, hand over; entrust

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10625/10625-h/dict1.html#letter_B, A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MIDDLE-ENGLISH: A–F, “Bi-taken”:

Bi-taken, v. to commit, entrust, S, C2, W, NED; betake, PP; beotake, PP; bytake, PP; bitaak, W; bitak, imp. s., S; bitok, pt. s., S2; bitook, C3; bytokist, 2 pt. s., W; betoke, 1 pt. s., S; bitoken, pl., W; bitakun, pp. W; bitake, S2.

(“Betoken” means “To give grounds for believing in the existence or presence of.”)

http://books.google.com/books?id=xIsYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22middle+english%22+dictionary&source=bl&ots=u8o7c-Shuv&sig=xmzvfvYNedr_t-LrDB6YujWcjx0&hl=en&ei=SUAkTY7uItP9nAf1k92ZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=herieden&f=false, A Middle-English dictionary: containing words used by English writers from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, by Francis Henry Stratmann, p. 70, “bi-táken”:

 

Now, I’m a-tellin’ y’all: that gay stuff – it got bitooked!

 

Well, here’s something interesting about the original text of the Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Bible, and subsequent Catholic Bibles:

 

Here’s a scan of the original 1582 Douay-Rheims Bible (from the Latin) (again, with negative context):

 

http://lookhigher.net/englishbiblesgraphic/historicgraphic/douayrheimsbible1610js.html, Douay-Rheims Bible: Rheims New Testament Vol 3: 1582 Petrus Remigius, p. 383, “TO THE ROMANS | Cha. I”:

P. 384 (continued):

Translated from Elizabethan English:

24 (For the which cause, God :: hath [has] delivered them up unto the desires of their heart, into uncleanness, for to abuse their own bodies among themselves ignominiously [marked by shame or disgrace].)  25 who have changed the verity [truth] of God into lying : and have worshiped & served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen.  26 Therefore God hath [has] delivered them into passions of ignominy [great personal dishonor or humiliation].  For their women have changed the natural use, into that use that is contrary to nature.  27 And in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their desires one toward another, men upon men working turpitude [depravity], & the reward of their error (which they should) receiving in themselves.  28 And as they liked not to have God in knowledge: God delivered them up into a reprobate sense: to do those things that are not convenient; replenished with all iniquity, malice, 29

 

Now, here’s the current Douay-Rheims Bible (revised by 1821):

 

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52001.htm, Douay-Rheims Bible, “Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans | Chapter 1”:

[24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

They changed verse 24 from “delivered them up” to “gave them up.”  I guess “delivered them up” to same-sex relationships sounds more accepting of it, where “gave them up” to same-sex relationships sounds more condemning.  If I’m God and I “deliver you up” it sounds more accepting and actually kind of rewarding; but, if I “give you up” then that means I don’t want anything to do with you.  Both are technically correct paradidomi translations, but can you see how just the slightest spin can change the entire meaning?

 

Plus, their comment to verse 26:

[26] "God delivered them up"... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

Another instance where they have to explain to us all that “delivered them up” does not mean that God “author[ed]” their scandalous behavior, as one would think when they read it from a correct translation of the word.  I say, since “Paul” didn’t add this disclaimer to what he did write, then the entire passage may not show sufficient justification to condemn an entire lifestyle that begets no victim!  You see, gays today don’t see themselves being “in punishment” unless you say it’s from all the bigoted condemnation and hate crimes against them.

 

Well, it got changed in 1970:

 

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), New American [Catholic] Bible [NAB], published in 1970, “Romans Chapter 1”:

24        Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.

25        They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26        Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

27        and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

28        And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Yeah, that sounds a little bit more the way they want it.  But, “handed them over” could still sort of mean God supports it.

 

Therefore, same kind of explanatory footnote:

15 [24] In order to expose the depth of humanity's rebellion against the Creator, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts. Instead of curbing people's evil interests, God abandoned them to self-indulgence, thereby removing the facade of apparent conformity to the divine will.

 

So, in 1985, they just decided to settle the whole problem once and for all:

 

http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=52 (Catholic Online), New Jerusalem [Catholic] Bible [NJB], published in 1985, “Romans - Chapter 1”:

24 That is why God abandoned them in their inmost cravings to filthy practices of dishonouring their own bodies-

25 because they exchanged God's truth for a lie and have worshipped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

27 why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

28 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.

There!  After 605 years of translating to the English (since Wycliffe), I think they’ve finally got it just the way they want it, eh?  No more need for footnotes on this passage anymore, right?

 

The "BETRAY" and "ABANDON" definitions:

 

PARADIDOMI in the SEPTUAGINT or LXX (the Old Testament in Ancient Greek) is the word used for:

 

Leviticus 26:25:

KJV: "…and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy."

NIV: "…and you will be given into enemy hands"

[Note: "enemy" and "hand(s)" here are entirely different Greek words.]

 

Deuteromomy 1:27:

KJV: "And ye murmured in your tents, and said, Because the LORD hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us."

NIV: "You grumbled in your tents and said, 'The LORD hates us; so he brought us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us.'"

["Allow," "bring forth," etc. even "recommend" also fits here.]

 

Deuteromomy 3:3:

KJV: "So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining."

NIV: "So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors."

 

THAT'S where they're getting the "BETRAY" and "ABANDON" definitions.  But, that's just by the context used in the Old Testament.  In Romans 1:24-28's context, it's still God "delivering" or "giving" homosexual behavior.

 

In normal / positive context:

1 Samuel 26:23:

KJV: "The LORD render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; for the LORD delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the LORD's anointed."

NIV: "The LORD rewards everyone for their righteousness and faithfulness. The LORD delivered you into my hands today, but I would not lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed."

 

Location source for above: A Concordance to the Septuagint, Hatch & Redpath, 1897 (reprinted 1983, by Baker Book House), vol. 2. p. 1058.

 

Then of course, there's Jesus in the New Testament:

Matthew 25:20:

KJV: "And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more."

NIV: "The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.'"

 

It's like how someone can murder another by throwing them off the top of a building, right?  Does that mean that the word "murder" can also be defined as "throwing something off the top of a building"?

 

More On This Subject

 

CONTINUE TO NEXT PHASE

 

Home (Index)