⁽⁹⁾We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ⁽¹⁰⁾for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers — and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
⁽¹¹⁾that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

   The problem we have with using this verse to condemn gay people is the same problem we have with using the
1 Corinthians passage: The language used.
   Again, let us look at the word used in the originals. It is again, arsenokoites. Again, it is still a word coined by Paul for which an absolute meaning is impossible to know since it is simply not used outside of Paul's writings.
   Indeed, many word for word (interlinear) translations come up with the word paederasts in this verse... child molesters. This translation has no more evidence for it than does homosexual or pervert as used in other translations, but it does help explain where the misconception that 'all homosexuals are child molesters' comes from. I do believe that the translation of "child molesters" (paederasts) is far more correct than "homosexual" both here and in Corinthians.
   But, without more concrete evidence, I cannot support that belief anymore than can those who believe it should be homosexual. The only other evidence I can offer is that the term 'child molester' seems to fit much better with the rest of Scripture.
   Since there is really little new to say about this passage that hasn't already been said in my Corinthian study, I don't see a need to spend much time with this. The fact of the matter is, again, that Paul used a word for which there is no clear translation. One thing that is clear is that Paul is most certainly condemning something... something sexual.
   If the rest of Scripture clearly condemned homosexuality, then perhaps that term could rightly be used to translate this passage. But the rest of Scripture does not do so. Therefore, to force that meaning into this passage seems to twist the rest of Scripture. We need to allow Scripture to be consistent.