What does the context of Hebrews 10:26 reveal about the nature of the 'willful sin' mentioned, and how does the broader emphasis on Christ's superiority in Hebrews inform its interpretation? 📖 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 (ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴘᴀꜱꜱᴀɢᴇ ɴᴀᴠɪɢᴀᴛᴏʀ): ────────────────────── 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐒𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐬 10:26 The "willful sin" described in Hebrews 10:26 is not ordinary moral failure or a single act of disobedience. The context defines it with striking specificity. Verses 28–29 spell out what this sin entails: trampling the Son of God underfoot, treating "the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified" as an unholy thing, and insulting "the Spirit of grace." This is the deliberate, informed repudiation of Christ himself and the sacrifice that established the new covenant. It is apostasy — a conscious, sustained rejection of the one offering that actually deals with sin, not a momentary lapse or struggle with sin. This is why the consequence is so severe: "there remains no more a sacrifice for sins" (10:26). The point is not that God is unwilling to forgive, but that there is no other sacrifice to turn to. Christ's offering is the final one. The old system cannot serve as a fallback because it was never designed to take away sins in the first place — it was always pointing forward to this one. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭'𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 The entire argument of Hebrews 1–10 builds the case that makes 10:26 so serious. Several key themes converge: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞-𝐟𝐨𝐫-𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭'𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞. The word ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑥 ("once for all") is the pivot of chapters 9–10. The Levitical priests stood daily, offering the same sacrifices repeatedly — and the very repetition was their confession of inadequacy. As 10:1–2 argues, if those sacrifices could have perfected the worshipers, they would have stopped. They didn't stop because they couldn't accomplish what only Christ's offering accomplishes. When Christ offered himself, he "sat down on the right hand of God" (10:12) — the posture of completed work. There is no chair in the tabernacle because the old priests' work was never done. Jesus sat down because it is finished. This means there is no second sacrifice, no backup system, no alternative path to forgiveness. The one offering is complete, and rejecting it leaves nothing. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐰, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hebrews 10:1 states that "the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never… make perfect those who draw near." The old system was never the real thing — it was the outline, the silhouette. Going back to it means choosing the shadow over the reality that cast it. The author is not saying the old covenant was wrong; he is saying it was always provisional, always pointing beyond itself. Jeremiah himself, centuries after Sinai, announced that God would make a "new covenant" — and a covenant called "new" declares the old one "obsolete" and "ready to vanish away" (8:13). This is the Old Testament's own verdict on the Sinai covenant, not an imposition from outside. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭. The three promises of Jeremiah 31, quoted in 10:16–17, are the substance that the shadow was reaching for: God's law written on hearts, direct knowledge of God from the least to the greatest, and complete forgiveness — "I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more." Where remission of these is, "there is no more offering for sin" (10:18). The sacrifice that achieves this remission is Christ's alone, and it does so permanently. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 This warning is not a forensic test to determine who is truly saved. It is an urgent pastoral appeal to a community under pressure — people who had already endured reproaches, oppression, and the plundering of their property (10:32–34), and who were now tempted to shrink back toward the familiar safety of the old system. The warning is bracketed by assurance. Immediately before it, the author exhorts: "let's draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith" (10:22) and "let's hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful" (10:23). Immediately after it, he reminds them of their past endurance and says: "Therefore don't throw away your boldness, which has a great reward" (10:35). And the passage closes with a declaration of confidence: "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the saving of the soul" (10:39). The warning is designed to prevent the disaster it describes, not to announce that it has already occurred. The author is saying: the stakes are absolute — Christ is the final and only sacrifice, and there is no other. Therefore, hold fast. Do not drift back toward a system that was only ever a shadow of the reality you now possess. 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 The willful sin of Hebrews 10:26 is the deliberate, informed rejection of Christ and his once-for-all sacrifice — the apostasy of abandoning the reality for the shadow. The broader argument of Hebrews makes this warning inescapably serious: because Christ's offering is the final, complete, and only effective sacrifice for sins, and because the old covenant was always provisional and is now obsolete, there is nowhere else to go. But the warning exists to prevent apostasy, not to terrify those who are holding fast. The author's confidence in 10:39 — "we are not of those who shrink back" — is the pastoral frame within which the warning must be read.

Am hapax sieht man, wie streng und genau Kross gearbeitet hat. Als junger mann im Notizbuch 1961/62 bewundert Kross die poetische askese Georges. Er traute sich selbst eine solche askese nicht zu. Er hielt sich für zu sinnlich, zu dionysisch dafür. Und hat’s noch überboten! AL

Meine hapax und dis legomenon-einschätzungen sind insoweit unsicher und vorläufig, als es noch sehr viele handschriften gibt, an die ich noch kaum herangegangen bin. Das veröffentlichte werk und den digitalen nachlaß kenne ich gut. Insoweit dürfte die liste in etwa stimmen. AL

Hapax-pflanzen bei Kross: – minze – ampfer – lilie – mohn – feige (als wortspiel mit dem adjektiv) – veilchen Hapax-tiere: – schwäne (einziges hapax-tier) – tier (im kontext: schmetterling, seidenspinner o.ä.) ›Dis sigomenon‹-tier: – (schlange), zweimal verschwiegen. AL

Für meine wahrnehmung haben diese hapax-pflanzen bei Kross eine leicht humoristischen note. Es ist spielerisch. Ich vermute, daß es allesamt anspielungen (auf andere lyriker) sind, insoweit auch ernsthaft. Kross kontexualisiert seine gedichte uneindeutig mit solchen pflanzen. AL

minze. die wuchs dir im feld. schnees unterm auge. zur nacht erst gebreitet darüber. J Kross minze: hapax legomenon. AL @Bartzissey

Unlearned man, took a hapax legemenon from deep within your scriptures, paired it with word to word attributes of guidance and blessing as in your scriptures, referencing a name him and his ancestors never used, coincidentally about a dry arid land. Stats check out

You must understand that what you read in your English Bible is but one interpretation of the Greek, and much of the English translation is opinionated, or biased, based on prior belief. It’s rather lengthy, but important if we really want to know how Scripture can be interpreted. Let me explain: There are 6 main places in the Bible where the English is interpreted to speak against homosexuality. The first two are in the OT book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.. In Leviticus 18:22, the Hebrew says, “with a male you shall not lie as with a woman”. Where the translation says ‘male’, the Hebrew word zakar is used, which was normally used to denote a younger male, instead of a mature man, which is the Hebrew word ‘ish’. This verse can be interpreted, “With a young male you shall not lie. As with a woman”. Notice again the way the Hebrew is worded. It says ‘male’ and not man. Why say male and woman instead of male/female or man/woman? The Hebrew makes a distinction here, which can infer that zakar (male) can mean a young male. Basically don’t lie with a young boy as with a mature woman. An older man taking a young man child as a sexual partner is called pederasty. This is very similar to verse 20:13 which I’ll discuss later. The next two places are in 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10 where the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. When the OT was translated into the Greek, it was called the Septuagint, or LXX. When Lev. 20:13 was translated into the Greek for the LXX, the words arseno and koiten were used. Arsenokoitai is a combination of those two words: arseno (meaning man) and koite (mat or bed). These two verses are where it is currently translated as homosexual, which started in 1947 Since Leviticus 18 could be interpreted as pederasty versus homosexuality, Martin Luther used the pederastic opinion in his 1534 German interpretation of 1Cor 6 and 1Tim 1. He used the German word for boy molester, knabenschander, where the Greek used arsenokoitai in the two verses. The German versions kept this boy molestation interpretation until around 1798, when they also included Sodomite and buggerer along with pederasty. Something to note about the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is that it is a hapax legomenon, which means that it is not used anywhere else in Greek literature. It literally only exists in the LXX for Lev. 18, and in the NT in the two passages mentioned. The word as Paul wrote it is the noun ‘man-bed’. As the word itself is so vague, with no other usage to determine what it definitely means, it could mean pederasty, as Martin Luther, believed, or it could mean any sexual promiscuity in some sense. There is also other hermeneutics (ways to interpret) which could give the word a spiritual sense. Additionally, the classical Greek had two words, ἐρώμενος (passive male sex partner) and ἐραστής(lit. Love-with, courted the ἐρώμενος) which were the common terms for those in a typical homosexual relationship, so for the term ‘arsenokoitai’ referring to homosexuality, there’s no concrete basis for what Paul was speaking against. So homosexuality in these passages are very debatable, but what about the effeminate of the same passage in 6:9? Where the Bible mentions a person being ‘effeminate’, the Greek word there is debated as to how it should be translated in the English. For instance, in Matt 11:8, Luke 7:25, the word μαλακός, malakos is translated as ‘soft’ concerning the types of clothing worn in a king’s palace, or what type John the Baptist’s clothes weren’t. The translation of ‘effeminate’ is a stretch by any hermeneutic. So when 1Cor 6 says that ‘malakos’ shall not inherit the kingdom of God, what does that mean? Does it mean that people who wear finer don’t experience a true spiritual experience in this age? Does it mean that people who aren’t physically strong (aka physically soft), or maybe not of a strong moral character (ethically soft)? There are many ways to interpret this word. Cont.

클로드가 지금 나의 rig에 제일 필요한건 hapax라고 너무 미는데... ... 무슨 스폰서를 받았나? digitakt mk2를 사야 할 이유/사지 말아야 할 이유를 대보랬더니 쫙 나열 후 "그치만 전에도 말했다시피 지금 니한테 필요한건 hapax"라고...

#oulipo #oupas #hapax #titre #inédit ~ Facebook.com/groups/oulipo

Admittedly, επιουσιον is also a hapax legomenon, only appearing in the Lord’s Prayer, so any translation (even into Latin) is relying on etymology, where either quodtidianum or supersubstantionem has reasonable arguments behind it.

私の自然観をブログ記事にしてみました。お時間のあるときにでも、お読みいただけると幸いです。 自然を見つめ直す｜Tomo hapax legomenon @Tomo_NightBird note.com/tomoki_d/n/nc733cc6…

Yeah a lot of his words are extremely domain specific I looked up a word “dacebright” and it turns out it’s a hapax he made up. Dace is a type of fish

shatnez (שעטנז) isn’t in any other ancient texts. It is a hapax legomenon, and only occurs twice in the entire text God Himself defined the meaning of the word you absolute moron

I have zero obligation to follow your poor understanding of the text. Shatnez is defined and clarified for anyone who is confused. Shatnez refers to specifically linen and wool mixed together. It literally never means anything else, and God Himself defined what it is shatnez (שעטנז) isn’t in any other ancient texts. It is a hapax legomenon, and only occurs twice in the entire text

I can’t speak for Zach, but ou must understand that what you read in your English Bible is but one interpretation of the Greek, and most modern English Bibles are very opinionated, or biased, in their interpretation. It’s rather lengthy, but important if we really want to know how Scripture can be interpreted. Let me explain: There are 6 main places in the Bible where the English is interpreted to speak against homosexuality. The first two are in the OT book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.. In Leviticus 18:22, the Hebrew says, “with a male you shall not lie as with a woman”. Where the translation says ‘male’, the Hebrew word zakar is used, which was normally used to denote a younger male, instead of a mature man, which is the Hebrew word ‘ish’. This verse can be interpreted, “With a young male you shall not lie. As with a woman”. Notice again the way the Hebrew is worded. It says ‘male’ and not man. Why say male and woman instead of male/female or man/woman? The Hebrew makes a distinction here, which can infer that zakar (male) can mean a young male. Basically don’t lie with a young boy as with a mature woman. An older man taking a young man child as a sexual partner is called pederasty. This is very similar to verse 20:13 which I’ll discuss later. The next two places are in 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10 where the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. When the OT was translated into the Greek, it was called the Septuagint, or LXX. When Lev. 20:13 was translated into the Greek for the LXX, the words arseno and koiten were used. Arsenokoitai is a combination of those two words: arseno (meaning man) and koite (mat or bed). These two verses are where it is currently translated as homosexual, which started in 1947 Since Leviticus 18 could be interpreted as pederasty versus homosexuality, Martin Luther used the pederastic opinion in his 1534 German interpretation of 1Cor 6 and 1Tim 1. He used the German word for boy molester, knabenschander, where the Greek used arsenokoitai in the two verses. The German versions kept this boy molestation interpretation until around 1798, when they also included Sodomite and buggerer along with pederasty. Something to note about the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is that it is a hapax legomenon, which means that it is not used anywhere else in Greek literature. It literally only exists in the LXX for Lev. 18, and in the NT in the two passages mentioned. The word as Paul wrote it is the noun ‘man-bed’. As the word itself is so vague, with no other usage to determine what it definitely means, it could mean pederasty, as Martin Luther, believed, or it could mean any sexual promiscuity in some sense. There is also other hermeneutics (ways to interpret) which could give the word a spiritual sense. Additionally, the classical Greek had two words, ἐρώμενος (passive male sex partner) and ἐραστής(lit. Love-with, courted the ἐρώμενος) which were the common terms for those in a typical homosexual relationship, so for the term ‘arsenokoitai’ referring to homosexuality, there’s no concrete basis for what Paul was speaking against. Jude 1:7 is the fifth verse that is interpreted as being against homosexuality. In this verse, where it is translated ‘strange flesh’, σαρκὸς ἑτέρας the word is literally ‘another flesh’, which can refer to any sexual encounter outside of an intimate bond. This ‘another flesh’ relies on opinion. Also, the Greek for ‘another’ is heteras, where we get the English hetero, so it’s actually not opposed to homo. This is debated to be either a sexual union between humanity and angelic beings, or again as a spiritual metaphor. Cont.

You must understand that what you read in your English Bible is but one interpretation of the Greek, and most modern English Bibles are very opinionated, or biased, in their interpretation. It’s rather lengthy, but important if we really want to know how Scripture can be interpreted. Let me explain: There are 6 main places in the Bible where the English is interpreted to speak against homosexuality. The first two are in the OT book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.. In Leviticus 18:22, the Hebrew says, “with a male you shall not lie as with a woman”. Where the translation says ‘male’, the Hebrew word zakar is used, which was normally used to denote a younger male, instead of a mature man, which is the Hebrew word ‘ish’. This verse can be interpreted, “With a young male you shall not lie. As with a woman”. Notice again the way the Hebrew is worded. It says ‘male’ and not man. Why say male and woman instead of male/female or man/woman? The Hebrew makes a distinction here, which can infer that zakar (male) can mean a young male. Basically don’t lie with a young boy as with a mature woman. An older man taking a young man child as a sexual partner is called pederasty. This is very similar to verse 20:13 which I’ll discuss later. The next two places are in 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10 where the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. When the OT was translated into the Greek, it was called the Septuagint, or LXX. When Lev. 20:13 was translated into the Greek for the LXX, the words arseno and koiten were used. Arsenokoitai is a combination of those two words: arseno (meaning man) and koite (mat or bed). These two verses are where it is currently translated as homosexual, which started in 1947 Since Leviticus 18 could be interpreted as pederasty versus homosexuality, Martin Luther used the pederastic opinion in his 1534 German interpretation of 1Cor 6 and 1Tim 1. He used the German word for boy molester, knabenschander, where the Greek used arsenokoitai in the two verses. The German versions kept this boy molestation interpretation until around 1798, when they also included Sodomite and buggerer along with pederasty. Something to note about the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is that it is a hapax legomenon, which means that it is not used anywhere else in Greek literature. It literally only exists in the LXX for Lev. 18, and in the NT in the two passages mentioned. The word as Paul wrote it is the noun ‘man-bed’. As the word itself is so vague, with no other usage to determine what it definitely means, it could mean pederasty, as Martin Luther, believed, or it could mean any sexual promiscuity in some sense. There is also other hermeneutics (ways to interpret) which could give the word a spiritual sense. Additionally, the classical Greek had two words, ἐρώμενος (passive male sex partner) and ἐραστής(lit. Love-with, courted the ἐρώμενος) which were the common terms for those in a typical homosexual relationship, so for the term ‘arsenokoitai’ referring to homosexuality, there’s no concrete basis for what Paul was speaking against. Jude 1:7 is the fifth verse that is interpreted as being against homosexuality. In this verse, where it is translated ‘strange flesh’, σαρκὸς ἑτέρας the word is literally ‘another flesh’, which can refer to any sexual encounter outside of an intimate bond. This ‘another flesh’ relies on opinion. Also, the Greek for ‘another’ is heteras, where we get the English hetero, so it’s actually not opposed to homo. This is debated to be either a sexual union between humanity and angelic beings, or again as a spiritual metaphor. The sixth and last is Romans 1. In Romans 1:26, the translation of ‘degrading passion’ is literally dishonorable suffering or strong emotion. This is followed by ‘and they exchanged the natural use for that which is besides the inner nature.’ Many infer this to be sexual due to the word ‘likewise’ in the next verse 27, where Paul speaks about burning with lust. Cont.

Hapax legomenon: -It comes from Ancient Greek: hapax ("once") legomenon ("said" or "spoken"). It refers to a word or expression that appears only once in a given body of text, an author's complete works, or even an entire language's surviving corpus.

You must understand that what you read in your English Bible is but one interpretation of the Greek, and most modern English Bibles are very opinionated, or biased, in their interpretation. It’s rather lengthy, but important if we really want to know how Scripture can be interpreted. Let me explain: There are 6 main places in the Bible where the English is interpreted to speak against homosexuality. The first two are in the OT book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.. In Leviticus 18:22, the Hebrew says, “with a male you shall not lie as with a woman”. Where the translation says ‘male’, the Hebrew word zakar is used, which was normally used to denote a younger male, instead of a mature man, which is the Hebrew word ‘ish’. This verse can be interpreted, “With a young male you shall not lie. As with a woman”. Notice again the way the Hebrew is worded. It says ‘male’ and not man. Why say male and woman instead of male/female or man/woman? The Hebrew makes a distinction here, which can infer that zakar (male) can mean a young male. Basically don’t lie with a young boy as with a mature woman. An older man taking a young man child as a sexual partner is called pederasty. This is very similar to verse 20:13 which I’ll discuss later. The next two places are in 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10 where the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. When the OT was translated into the Greek, it was called the Septuagint, or LXX. When Lev. 20:13 was translated into the Greek for the LXX, the words arseno and koiten were used. Arsenokoitai is a combination of those two words: arseno (meaning man) and koite (mat or bed). These two verses are where it is currently translated as homosexual, which started in 1947 Since Leviticus 18 could be interpreted as pederasty versus homosexuality, Martin Luther used the pederastic opinion in his 1534 German interpretation of 1Cor 6 and 1Tim 1. He used the German word for boy molester, knabenschander, where the Greek used arsenokoitai in the two verses. The German versions kept this boy molestation interpretation until around 1798, when they also included Sodomite and buggerer along with pederasty. Something to note about the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is that it is a hapax legomenon, which means that it is not used anywhere else in Greek literature. It literally only exists in the LXX for Lev. 18, and in the NT in the two passages mentioned. The word as Paul wrote it is the noun ‘man-bed’. As the word itself is so vague, with no other usage to determine what it definitely means, it could mean pederasty, as Martin Luther, believed, or it could mean any sexual promiscuity in some sense. There is also other hermeneutics (ways to interpret) which could give the word a spiritual sense. Additionally, the classical Greek had two words, ἐρώμενος (passive male sex partner) and ἐραστής(lit. Love-with, courted the ἐρώμενος) which were the common terms for those in a typical homosexual relationship, so for the term ‘arsenokoitai’ referring to homosexuality, there’s no concrete basis for what Paul was speaking against. So homosexuality in these passages are very debatable, but what about the effeminate of the same passage in 6:9? Where the Bible mentions a person being ‘effeminate’, the Greek word there is debated as to how it should be translated in the English. For instance, in Matt 11:8, Luke 7:25, the word μαλακός, malakos is translated as ‘soft’ concerning the types of clothing worn in a king’s palace, or what type John the Baptist’s clothes weren’t. The translation of ‘effeminate’ is a stretch by any hermeneutic. So when 1Cor 6 says that ‘malakos’ shall not inherit the kingdom of God, what does that mean? Does it mean that people who wear finer don’t experience a true spiritual experience in this age? Does it mean that people who aren’t physically strong (aka physically soft), or maybe not of a strong moral character (ethically soft)? There are many ways to interpret this word.

No, Dillon, they aren’t. You must understand that what you read in your English Bible is but one interpretation of the Greek, and most modern English Bibles are very opinionated, or biased, in their interpretation. It’s rather lengthy, but important if we really want to know how Scripture can be interpreted. Let me explain: There are 6 main places in the Bible where the English is interpreted to speak against homosexuality. The first two are in the OT book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13.. In Leviticus 18:22, the Hebrew says, “with a male you shall not lie as with a woman”. Where the translation says ‘male’, the Hebrew word zakar is used, which was normally used to denote a younger male, instead of a mature man, which is the Hebrew word ‘ish’. This verse can be interpreted, “With a young male you shall not lie. As with a woman”. Notice again the way the Hebrew is worded. It says ‘male’ and not man. Why say male and woman instead of male/female or man/woman? The Hebrew makes a distinction here, which can infer that zakar (male) can mean a young male. Basically don’t lie with a young boy as with a mature woman. An older man taking a young man child as a sexual partner is called pederasty. This is very similar to verse 20:13 which I’ll discuss later. The next two places are in 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10 where the Greek word arsenokoitai is used. When the OT was translated into the Greek, it was called the Septuagint, or LXX. When Lev. 20:13 was translated into the Greek for the LXX, the words arseno and koiten were used. Arsenokoitai is a combination of those two words: arseno (meaning man) and koite (mat or bed). These two verses are where it is currently translated as homosexual, which started in 1947 Since Leviticus 18 could be interpreted as pederasty versus homosexuality, Martin Luther used the pederastic opinion in his 1534 German interpretation of 1Cor 6 and 1Tim 1. He used the German word for boy molester, knabenschander, where the Greek used arsenokoitai in the two verses. The German versions kept this boy molestation interpretation until around 1798, when they also included Sodomite and buggerer along with pederasty. Something to note about the word ‘arsenokoitai’ is that it is a hapax legomenon, which means that it is not used anywhere else in Greek literature. It literally only exists in the LXX for Lev. 18, and in the NT in the two passages mentioned. The word as Paul wrote it is the noun ‘man-bed’. As the word itself is so vague, with no other usage to determine what it definitely means, it could mean pederasty, as Martin Luther, believed, or it could mean any sexual promiscuity in some sense. There is also other hermeneutics (ways to interpret) which could give the word a spiritual sense. Additionally, the classical Greek had two words, ἐρώμενος (passive male sex partner) and ἐραστής(lit. Love-with, courted the ἐρώμενος) which were the common terms for those in a typical homosexual relationship, so for the term ‘arsenokoitai’ referring to homosexuality, there’s no concrete basis for what Paul was speaking against. So homosexuality in these passages are very debatable, but what about the effeminate of the same passage in 6:9? Where the Bible mentions a person being ‘effeminate’, the Greek word there is debated as to how it should be translated in the English. For instance, in Matt 11:8, Luke 7:25, the word μαλακός, malakos is translated as ‘soft’ concerning the types of clothing worn in a king’s palace, or what type John the Baptist’s clothes weren’t. The translation of ‘effeminate’ is a stretch by any hermeneutic. So when 1Cor 6 says that ‘malakos’ shall not inherit the kingdom of God, what does that mean? Does it mean that people who wear finer don’t experience a true spiritual experience in this age? Does it mean that people who aren’t physically strong (aka physically soft), or maybe not of a strong moral character (ethically soft)? There are many ways to interpret this word.