Jason D. Van Arkel’s July 17 letter tries valiantly to refute a letter of mine, which debunked the Bible’s alleged condemnation of homosexuality.

Unfortunately, he made two gigantic mistakes, and they’re important and dangerous enough that they must be addressed.

First, he’s assuming the English translation of a translation of a translation he’s reading is the real McCoy. It’s not.

If he goes back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts, he’ll see quite clearly they did not mention homosexuals or homosexuality where his modern English Bible does.

There have been many liberties taken by translators who were each greatly influenced by their own cultural prejudices in different periods of history.

The Greek word most often translated as “homosexual” in today’s Bibles means “soft” in Greek. Another word translated today as “homosexual” means only “other.”

Second, he infers so much into what he reads. How can he know, for instance, that “lying” with a man means “taking an active sexual role”? Couldn’t it mean something else? (And if two men are having sex, wouldn’t one have to take the passive role?)

The “unnatural acts” and “perversions” mentioned in the Bible usually refer to pagan prostitutes who hung around temples to attract customers. Van Arkel doesn’t know this because he hasn’t bothered to understand the Bible. He just quotes it.

Clearly Mr. Van Arkel knows absolutely nothing about the cultural context of the Bible. How can he be so intellectually lazy?

The cultures in which the Bible was written did not include the concepts of homosexuality or homosexuals.

How irresponsible and terminally silly of Van Arkel to try to impose a 20th-century construct — homosexuality — upon texts written 2,000 years ago!

Scott Miller

St. Louis