Pornoi

I was curious about how the Gothic translated "arsenokoitai" and was looking up 1. Tim 1 (1. Cor 6:9 isn't extant in the Gothic):

Gothic: horam, mannans gaþiwandam, liugnjam, ufarswaram, jah jabai hva aljis þizai hailon laiseinai andstandiþ,
Greek: πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,
English: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

"horam" is "pornois" but after that it jumps to "mannans gaþiwandam" (man-slavers - ἀνδραποδισταῖς), and after that you have "liugnjam" (liars).
So apparently there's no translation of arsenokoitais in the Gothic. I was wondering if you guys might have some other explanation for this rather than just a scribal error or whether you've run into something similar in other translations.

RSVCE Rev 22:14-15 reads,

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

Apparently the Greek for 'fornicator' is "pornoi", translated as sexually immoral, fornicator, whoremonger, and clearly the root of the word 'porn' today. Of course these other translations suggest prostitution, but Jesus teaches one commits adultery even as a thought crime by looking lustfully at others. Moreover, John emphasizes "loves and practices falsehood", which seems clearly to include pornography.
I suggested 'replace X with Y' rather than "quit X" because psychologically, when working with habits -- see James Clear's Atomic Habits -- it is far easier to replace a bad thing with a good thing than it is to only quit a bad thing, insofar as "only trying to quit" fixates our attention upon that which should be invisible (i.e. not our focus).[1] More to the point, at least one earlier passage in Revelation indicates 'wash their robes' means "doing meritorious [good] works", a.k.a. demonstrating your faith through love of neighbor (cf. James), which is what 'loving friendships' involve. Peter also teaches the necessity of good works in Clement of Rome's Book of Recognitions and Clementine Homilies (available at newadvent.org).
Thoughts? Is my analysis here correct or missing something?
[1] So, for example, rather than "quit searching for porn online" is "call a friend when you are tempted".

I see some rules of church that are not clearly stated in the Bible.
For example, I think, I have not read in the Bible condemning masturbation.
I have not read condemning skipping church. There is a verse that says not to give up synagogue but it seems to me as an advice and not as a command. I think the bible also says not to have relationships with non-Christians. However, I guess most Christians believe that it is just an advice and not a command. Then, why not the same applies about the synagogue?
As for lust, there is a verse that says that if someone desires a woman, he has commited adultery in his heart. i used the word "desire" because TO MY opinion ( i may be wrong) fits better as a translation. I think this verse talks about wanting the woman that is married to an other. That would be a sin and even outside of Christianity, I think we can all agree that wanting the woman of an other is wrong. I think, in this specific verse it does not condemn masturbation. at least not directly.
I think, there are verses that condemn sexual immortality in general. There is a verse that says about forcinators but I think the right word (to my opinion again) that comes from the greek word "pornoi" is prostitution. Or maybe to put it more generally, having sex with different people (one night stands). Even outside of Christianity some may agree that changing women and doing one night stands is wrong.
What about a couple who is in love and has moved in together? cant they have sex before marriage? What is marriage? I think, in the Old Testament people were just living together and they were considered to be married ( I may be wrong). I mean, I think I have not seen a verse that condemns directly sex that is made with love. Besides, in the Bible I think there are no verses that talk about the sacrament of marriage. So, if the sacrament of marriage did not exist when Jesus was talking about getting married, then, how could someone attend the sacrament if it did not exist that time? Maybe when a couple that is in love and decide to move in together counts as marriage.
https://anabaptistworld.org/marriage-ceremonies-bible/
I suspect that tradition and church MAY have created some stricter man-made rules. Of course, I know I may be wrong but it is something that I think about a lot. If church was always right why there are disagreements?
1) some believe in evolution, some not.
2) some think that women should not wear pants, some do not care
3) orthodoxy says to fast friday and wednesday. What is fasting exactly? Fasting isn't when we deny pleasures for a day or some days? Then, why orthodxy says just not to eat specific things while there are some substitutes? I mean it would make more sence if the rule would be not to eat even the substitutes and not to have pleasure by watching tv, or listening to music. I think, this can count as a real fasting.
4) I think, there is at least one priest, who believes that the covid vaccine is bad or that we should not wear masks in church etc while an other priest did the vaccine.
So, I came to the conclusion that MAYBE church is NOT always right and may have created stricter man-made rules due to misunderstandings that come from many years in the past and due to tradition, they still exist today. MAYBE Christianity should not be as hard as Christians think.
Write your opinions and support them. Do not write stuff like " you reject church, you reject Jesus. What you say is false teaching, you are sinning, you are deluded, you are following the easy way" etc without supporting them.

I had a converstation with my ex yesterday. I told her my disagreements abouth Christianity.
First, I told her about the sacrament of confession and that some people believe that it is not necessary to confess to Jesus through a priest in order to repent. I also, told her about the verse in which Jesus says about retaining and forgiving sins and that Orthodoxy believes that it is necessary for someone to repent. She said that someone can be forgiven without going to confession. I believe many Christians confess to Jesus or God through prayer without going to confession. Will God tell them that their sins are not forgiven because they did not go for confession to a priest? Yet, a monk told me that it is necessary for someone to attend the sacrament of confession in order to repent.
2) Some believe that missing church is not a sin. Some others think it is. My ex told me that God is everrywhere and it is more important to be with God than be in church while your mind is away from God. I think, I agree with her. There is a verse that says about not neglecting to meet each other. I think in greek, the word "synagogue" or something like that appears. What is synagogue? is it the same as Church? In my opinion, it does not seem as a command to me. I think, a Christian must be close to Christians and the church in order not to lose its faith. I do not think that skipping church is a sin. For example. someone may try to be a good Christian (avoids sinning, prays a lot, repents a lot) but goes to church once per month. I think in Orthodoxy there are almost, 4 main masses per month.(depends on the month/week) If someone attends 1/4, would God send Him to hell for going 1/4 per month to church? I am not sure.
3) I told her that orthodoxy says to fast Friday and Wednesday. My ex told me that it is important for someone to be self-contained and it is not just about food. Its about other things too. She said that if someone does not fast in these days ιs not a sin.
4) We also, talked about sex before marriage. My ex told me that having sex BEFORE marriage with someone that you love is not a sin. She claimed they talked about it in her lesson with a priest-professor and she said that a couple can have sex before marriage. I am not sure if I agree with her. I asked her many times if the professior really, said that or if he was really, a priest. When I went to confession, the priest asked if I have sexual acts. I said yes and I think, (if i remember correctly) he did not condemn it. He was a little skeptical and then I think, he said that everything (in love) begins with sexual urges. As if he believed that it is something natural. I know there is a verse that says that forcinators will not inherit the kingdom of God, but I think, in greek the word "pornoi" is used. Porneia means prostitution. Having sex for money or MAYBE more gerenally, to have one night stands with different persons.
I know church exist in order to be guided but is church always right? Someone told me that orthodoxy has "Pidalion" and that it is a set of church rules based on the Bible and that it was given by God to priests when the priests were praying about guidance. So, probably that is the reason some believe that whatever church says, it is the right thing. Church is being run by people. I believe that since the first church was created, (many years ago) there could have been many human mistakes and misunderstandings that due to repetition, they became a tradition. If church was always right, then, why there are denominations? ? Why church firstly, rejected evolution and now accepts it? Why Some priests believe that a woman must not wear pants and some others probably, do not care? I think that religion/church has created some man-made rules based on the Bible.

I had a converstation with my ex yesterday. I told her my disagreements abouth Christianity.
First, I told her about the sacrament of confession and that some people believe that it is not necessary to confess to Jesus through a priest in order to repent. I also, told her about the verse in which Jesus says about retaining and forgiving sins and that Orthodoxy believes that it is necessary for someone to repent. She said that someone can be forgiven without going to confession. I believe many Christians confess to Jesus or God through prayer without going to confession. Will God tell them that their sins are not forgiven because they did not go for confession to a priest? Yet, a monk told me that it is necessary for someone to attend the sacrament of confession in order to repent.
2) Some believe that missing church is not a sin. Some others think it is. My ex told me that God is everrywhere and it is more important to be with God than be in church while your mind is away from God. I think, I agree with her. There is a verse that says about not neglecting to meet each other. I think in greek, the word "synagogue" or something like that appears. What is synagogue? is it the same as Church? In my opinion, it does not seem as a command to me. I think, a Christian must be close to Christians and the church in order not to lose its faith. I do not think that skipping church is a sin. For example. someone may try to be a good Christian (avoids sinning, prays a lot, repents a lot) but goes to church once per month. I think in Orthodoxy there are almost, 4 main masses per month.(depends on the month/week) If someone attends 1/4, would God send Him to hell for going 1/4 per month to church? I am not sure.
3) I told her that orthodoxy says to fast Friday and Wednesday. My ex told me that it is important for someone to be self-contained and it is not just about food. Its about other things too. She said that if someone does not fast in these days ιs not a sin.
4) We also, talked about sex before marriage. My ex told me that having sex BEFORE marriage with someone that you love is not a sin. She claimed they talked about it in her lesson with a priest-professor and she said that a couple can have sex before marriage. I am not sure if I agree with her. I asked her many times if the professior really, said that or if he was really, a priest. When I went to confession, the priest asked if I have sexual acts. I said yes and I think, (if i remember correctly) he did not condemn it. He was a little skeptical and then I think, he said that everything (in love) begins with sexual urges. As if he believed that it is something natural. I know there is a verse that says that forcinators will not inherit the kingdom of God, but I think, in greek the word "pornoi" is used. Porneia means prostitution. Having sex for money or MAYBE more gerenally, to have one night stands with different persons.
I know church exist in order to be guided but is church always right? Someone told me that orthodoxy has "Pidalion" and that it is a set of church rules based on the Bible and that it was given by God to priests when the priests were praying about guidance. So, probably that is the reason some believe that whatever church says, it is the right thing. Church is being run by people. I believe that since the first church was created, (many years ago) there could have been many human mistakes and misunderstandings that due to repetition, they became a tradition. If church was always right, then, why there are denominations? ? Why church firstly, rejected evolution and now accepts it? Why Some priests believe that a woman must not wear pants and some others probably, do not care? I think that religion/church has created some man-made rules based on the Bible.

1 Co 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, G4202 let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators ( pornoi ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Here is an answer to this question X-posted from /Bestof from /askhistory by BBlasdel and extension of the answer directed at adultery by ShakaUVM:
Jesus himself does not talk about sex much, and only really obliquely when talking about marriage generally, but he did also do a hell of a lot of things that would have profoundly scandalized his audience - particularly interactin with women who were clearly prostitutes in an intimate way. You'll find a lot more in the Pauline epistles. When English translations of the New Testament bible talk about 'sexual immorality' they are really talking about the greek word porneia (πορνεία), it’s used almost every time the topic of sex comes up and generally when talking about the worst sins in general. Now porneia has always been translated into Latin as fornication, while being understood by many conservatives to just be a 1:1 stand in for 'any sexual expression not between husband and wife'. However, Porneia in post-classical Corinthian Greek did not mean generic sexual sin, or sex outside of marriage, at all and neither did fornication in actual Latin. The word porneia as Greeks actually used it was related to the verb to sell, and was only ever used in one context. A porneon was a house of forced prostitution, pornos (πόρνος) were those who sexually assaulted those forced into prostitution, pornois (πόρνοις) were more than one, the pornēs (πόρνης) were specifically those prostitutes who were 'owned' by a sex trafficker to be sold for pathetic sums to any traveler, and those sex traffickers were called pornoboskos, a singularly unpleasant combination with the verb that described the keeping of livestock such as cattle. Paul used the word over and over again in his Epistles to make two primary assertions, that the ubiquitous system of porneia (πορνεία) fed by war and poverty was fundamentally not OK, and that a laundry list of examples were pretty much the same thing. This fundamental position on sex, that it is something that even could, much less must, be divorced from exploitation was profoundly radical and novel for the time - even if it is hard to see today being the water we swim in. It makes sense that Paul was so concerned about sex because it was one of the most fucked up aspects of the world he lived in, and the scale on which it was fucked up is truly unimaginable to us modern readers of the historical records we have. Indeed, the word porneia is one of the more thoroughly defined terms we have from the post-classical greek lexicon, as the ancient greeks were so legally concerned, as well as facetiously fascinated, with it; leaving us with pretty much zero doubt about what it meant to them. To really understand it requires a little bit of context. Under the laws of Draco in ancient Greece, where we get the term draconian today, any man who caught another man having sex with his wife could legally kill that man with perfect immunity. That is, in addition to being able to just get some friends together and safely jump him while he was taking a shit Pulp Fiction style, the cuckold could also capture the adulterer and inflict whatever tortures he imagined so long as he didn't use a knife. In practice this usually resulted in the aggrieved man extracting exorbitant amounts of money from the adulterer in exchange for forfeiting that immunity, but it also formed the basis for some really fascinating trials. Draconian law, as well as later codes, in this instance, only applied to wives (as well as concubines kept for the purpose of producing free children) and explicitly not to pornēs or those like them such as flute players, bridge women, wanderers, alley walkers, or ground beaters. Thus we have copious records of those accused of abetting adultery aggressively defending themselves by declaring the objects of their attentions to pornēs - while very precisely defining the term as describing women available for sale. Its important to keep in mind what sexual immorality - porneia - meant for the society Paul was advising his churches on how to live it. Before Paul, porneia was seen as a totally uncontroversial part of life, the systematic rape of the vulnerable that it represented was regulated by cities in the same way that roads were, as a lucrative public utility. Price caps were established to protect 'consumers', pornoboskoi were given licenses to ensure quality 'product', and districts to operate in (generally near docks or city gates) to manage the noise and filth of the whole business. The 'trade' was also clearly not small, much less a small part of life in the world early Christianity was addressing. While it is very unclear what the exact percentage of women could be described as pornēs would be in any western society before the advent of the modern census, it is clear that at the time it was at least astonishingly large - particularly after military victories against foreigners as writers would report cities flooded with more cheap pornēs than they could rape at any price. It is also important to consider that every woman in that era had the threat of being sold into porneia hanging over her head, as women who lost the social status granted to them by a man for whatever reason could always be sold for 'scrap value.' This would have been true to varying degrees whether that status was by virtue of being somewhere on the sexual partner to a man spectrum between 'wedded wife,' kept as part of a relationship with her father's family and for the purpose of producing heirs, and disposable hanger on or by virtue of being maintained as a sister or daughter or cousin. There are authors who describe, in detail that would make the vilest Pick-Up-Artist blush, how they would make it very clear to their partners that the pornoboskoi were always by the gate should they ever talk back or the sex get bad. In the way Paul uses the word though, it does also pretty clearly have jargon meaning specific to the communities he was addressing in addition to the root concept that underpins it. Indeed, Paul does clearly both put on his judging face and use the word porneia when describing examples of things like adultery or sex outside of marriage, even when there are no pornoboskoi or porneon in sight and no one is exchanging money much less anything as pathetic as sums exchanged for pornēs. However, this also only really makes a lot of sense in the context of the day. Examples of economically independent women who did not rely on sex work in the Roman world were very few and far between, and almost exclusively widows or only daughters still attached to dead men. In the world that Paul was trying to change, the magnitude of male privilege was such that women were fundamentally unable to exist economically independent of men. Sex outside of the commitment of marriage really was functionally very much like porneia, and was a clear path to the real thing. The Pauline model for marriage is about avoiding porneia and the laundry list of examples of things he gives as being just like it. Without Pauline marriage there was no protection from being used by a partner until old and discarded to the elements; Paul stipulated headship but also repeatedly and inescapably mandates that men place their wives before themselves, that apostasy and misconduct are the only appropriate reasons for divorce, and that women are no less than men before God. The early church was flooded with women attracted by this radically feminist message that women were actually people with dignity that was inherent to them and needed to be respected by men. Even today porneia is by no means gone, in absolute numbers there are more women in sexual slavery today than there have ever been at any point in human history. However, most of the women who aren’t will be able to avoid it into a Pauline model marriage, some variety of post-Pauline marriage, a functionally equivalent model, or into a world made safer by them.
ShakaUVM:
Excellent, excellent post. While porneia might have been well defined to the Greeks as abject prostitution, in the New Testament Paul tends to use it as a catch-all term for sexual sin. There are only two verses in which they are actually elucidated - Jesus allows divorce in the case of porneia (translated as adultery) in Matthew, and Paul uses an example of porneia in 1 Corintians 7, IIRC, of a guy sleeping with his father's new wife, which is also a form of adultery. Over time the word porneia came to be translated as 'fornication', which came to mean premarital sex in today's culture, but as you say this is a bad translation, as in both cases shown above it cannot possibly be premarital sex.
Here is the original question with comments HERE