Letter: Biblical sex talk

It was encouraging to have a two-page centre piece of biblical exegesis in The Scotsman, and to have the author, Stuart Kelly, recognise the importance of a good biblical understanding (28 December).

However, the article was overall a classic example of special pleading and eisgesis (putting in to text) rather than exegesis (taking out of the text).

For example, he argues that the Greek word arsenokoitai is a compound word made up of arseno meaning man, and koite meaning bed.

Except koite means coitus or intercourse, which changes the whole perspective.

Likewise, the dismissal of Paul’s explicit and clear teaching in Romans 1 as being only about cultic Roman sex-worship – an interpretation which requires a great deal of jumping through linguistic hoops and ignoring both literary and historical context.

Stuart starts with the pre-supposition that the current debate is about injustice and human rights.

His inaccurate interpretation of the Bible is acceptable to the prevailing elite opinion precisely because it agrees with them.

The question I have is simply: when will the media allow the opposite point of view to be expressed?

It is not a question of civil rights nor of being anti-homosexual. It is a question of the meaning of marriage, the nature of what it is to be a human being, and the future of our society.

It would be good to hear the other side of the discussion as well.

David Robertson

Solas CPC

St Peters Free Church

St Peter Street

Dundee