1 Timotius 1:9-10

1:9 realizing that law ¹  is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, ²  kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.

1 Timotius 6:4-5

6:4 he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, 6:5 and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness ³  is a way of making a profit.

[1:9]  ¹ sn Law. There is no definite article (“the”) with this word in Greek and so the inherent quality of the OT law as such is in view. But the OT law is still in mind, since the types of sinful people surveyed in vv. 9b-11a follow the general outline of sins prohibited in the Decalogue.

[1:10]  ² tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

[6:5]  ³ tc Although most witnesses, including some early versions and fathers (D² Ψ Ï sy Cyp Lcf Ambst), have ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων (afistaso apo’ twn toioutwn, “stay away from such things!”) after εὐσεβείαν (eusebeian, “godliness”; thus, “who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit; stay away from such things!”), there seems to be little good reason for this clause’s omission in some of the oldest and best witnesses (א A D* F G 048 6 33 81 1175 1739 1881 lat co). It is likely that it crept into the text early, perhaps as a marginal comment, but it should not be considered authentic in light of the strong external evidence against it.