Examination of some proffered “references” to texts from deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books in the New Testament

Proffered “references” to texts from deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books in the New Testament which Catholics wrongly contend (see linked page) were removed from a settled canon by Martin Luther. However, the reality is that what is meant by a reference is often misleadingly thought to be a quote or something that would qualify as a citation when at best it may only be a similar referenced statement or ossible allusion. And none of the proffered references here nor that I have seen from the deuteros are actual quotations, and the rare few that are close are also found in the Hebrew canon, as is often the case with many other texts presented as references. Moreover, none of the alleged references to the deuteros are called “Scripture” or “it is written,” “the Lord/God said,” “the prophet said,” nor have any like authoritative attribution as can be seen in multitudinous actual quotes of the OT in the NT below. Only texts from the Hebrew canon are quoted and referred to as Scripture, or are called “it is written,” “the Lord/God said” or similar, and given authoritative attribution in the New Testament. Note however, that simply quoting an isolated statement does not necessarily mean that the source text from which it came was inspired, since Paul even quoted a statement he attributed to a pagan (Acts 17:28) and Jude invoked a prophetic statement by Enoch. (Jude 1: 14) As with references to the deuteros these are never called Scripture. And the wholly God-inspired books were established as being so essentially due to their endured profound Heavenly qualities and attestations, as like men of God were. And as regarding the use of the words “quotes” and “references,” I will provide what one source partly provides on the matter: A quotation is a direct citation of an OT passage that is clearly recognizable by its clear and unique verbal parallelism. Many of these quotations are introduced with an introductory formula, such as “that what was spo ken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled” (Matt. 2:15) or “it is written” (Rom. 3:4) and other similar expressions. Other citations without such introductory indicators are so obviously parallel to an OT text that it is clear that a quotation is being made (e.g., see Gal. 3:6; Eph. 6:3)...There is, however, debate about whether or not writers like Paul adapt quotations and intersp erse their own wording or merely quote various OT texts in unaltered form. 2 It is likely that he does both at various points. It may sometimes be difficult to know when there is a direct unaltered quotation or when authors are clearly citing the OT Hebre w, since there is room for debate about when a Greek translation is “literal” or not. It needs to be recalled that it is often impossible to translate a word or expression in exactly the equivalent way from the source language into the receptor language. When the Greek Septuagint is the source of citations, it is still hard to know how much Paul, for example, may be altering the reference, since he may be citing from different forms, proto - revisions or variant textual traditions of the Septuagint, some of which may no longer be extant. Nevertheless, that he sometimes does alter his quotations is highly probable. One writer has counted 295 separate quotations of the OT in the New (including quotations with and without formulas). In Paul, for example, there are about one - hundred quotations, the majority of which come, to one degree or another from an OT text most resembling the Greek Septuagint... In contrast to quotations, there is, on the other hand, greater debate about the definition of an “allusion” and the criteria by which one can discern an allusion. Accordingly, commentators differ about how many allusions there are in the entire NT. The count goes anywhere from around 600 allusions to 1,650 and even up to about 4,100. 5 In the book of Revelation, for example, where there are no formal quotations, the tally of allusions goe s anywhere from 394 (UBS 3 ) to 635 (NA 26 ) up to 1,000. 6 The wide disparity in the calculation is due to the disparity in how scholars define an allusion. To make matters more complicated, most commentators acknowledge that the validity of allusions must be judged along a spectrum of virtually certain, probable, and possible allusions, the latter being essentially equivalent to “echoes.”... In contrast to a quotation of the OT, which is a direct reference, allusions are indirect references (i.e., the OT wording is not reproduced directly as in a quotation). Some believe that an allusion must consist of a reproduction from the OT passage of a unique combination of at least three words or so. While this may be a good rule of thumb, it remains possible that fewer than three words or even an idea may be an allusion. The telltale key to discerning an allusion is that of recognizing an incomparable or unique parallel in wording, syntax or in concept or in a cluster of motifs in the same order or structure. When both unique wording (verbal coherence) and theme are found, the proposed allusion takes on greater probability. Recognizing allusions is like interpretation: there are degrees of probability and possibility in any attempt to identify an allusion. (http://www.theofil.nu/files/Beale%20-%20CriteriaForQuotesAndAllusions.pdf)
Assertion:	NT text:	Deuterocanonical text:	Hebrew Canonical Text:	Correspondence:
Matt. 6:7 references Ecclesiasticus 7:14 [Sirach]	But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Matthew 6:7)	Use not many words in a multitude of elders, and make not much babbling when thou prayest. (Sirach 7:14)	And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. (1 Kings 18:26)	Sirach 7:14 is an admonition, yet “many words/babbling” is not the same as vain repetitions of words as the heathen do under the premise that such will obtain the request, which 1 Kings 18:26 examples, but the latter is not an admonition, and lacks that form. Neither is a quote or paraphrase, but Matthew 6:7 provides some expression of both. 1 Kings 18:26 most precisely conforms to what Matthew 6:7 reproves, while Sirach 7:14 partly conforms in basic thought and form but is lacking in fullness of what is reproved. It cannot be shown that Matthew 6:7 alludes to Sirach but the former most directly reproves 1 Kings 18:26 without referencing it.
● Matt. 23:37 references 2 Esdras 1:30	O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:37,38)	I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. (2 Esdras 1:30)	And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:15-16)	Principle: 2 Esdras 1:30 is a statement addressing Israel of what God did in gathering as a hen, contrasted with the punishment He will do (cast you out from my face), while Matthew 23:37,38 is a statement addressing Jerusalem as representing the nation, of what Christ yearned to do in gathering them as a hen and of punishment that will follow (house is left unto you desolate)while 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 expresses all this. Neither is a quote or paraphrase but 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 shares the words of of a hen gathering her chickens and foretells of judgment, with 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 describing what Matthew 23:37,38 and 2 Esdras 1:30 poetically express, and the latter can be said to be an allusion to Matthew in concept of attitude and punishment by God due to impenitence, while the latter verses allude to what 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 expansively describes as regards the impenitence of the people to Divine appeal. 2 Esdras 1:30 has some correspondence to 2 Chronicles 36:15-16 and both have correspondence to Matthew 23:37,38 in allusion.
● Matt. 27:43 references Wisdom 2:15-16	He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. (Matthew 27:43)	He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father. Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him. For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies. (Wisdom 2:15-18)	All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. (Psalms 22:7-8)	It is actually Wisdom 2:18 that has correspondence of the principle that God delivers the just which principle the unbelieving crowdin Matthew 27:43b expresses, but it is Psalms 22:7-8 that actually prophecies and describes this, and is what Matthew 27:43 references..
● Luke 6:31 references Tobit 4:15,16	Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:30-31)	Do that to no man which thou hatest: drink not wine to make thee drunken: neither let drunkenness go with thee in thy journey. Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked; and according to thine abundance give alms: and let not thine eye be envious, when thou givest alms. (Tobit 4:15-16)	Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? (Isaiah 58:7) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)	Tobit 4:15 states the converse (do not do”) of Luke 6:31 and which is also how it is usually found in some other religions and is different than “do ye also,” for it is proactive rather than restrictive at face value. And the proactive sense of Luke 6:31 finds correspondence in Leviticus 19:18, that of “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Luke 6:31 thus does not reference Tobit 4:15, Meanwhile Isaiah 58:7 is what is quite similar to Tobit 4:16a. And while both expresses of some of what Luke 6:30 in essence entails, yet Luke is different than Tobit (goods versus bread) and excludes greediness in a different way (withholding versus repossession), and overall does not evidence actually referencing Tobit, In essence Luke 6:30-31 covers what both the above texts require, but is not actually referencing either but confirms what they teach.
● Luke 14:13 references Tobit 4:7	But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. (Luke 14:13-14)	Give alms of thy substance; and when thou givest alms, let not thine eye be envious, neither turn thy face from any poor, and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee. (Tobit 4:7)	Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine: And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. (Deuteronomy 16:13-14) He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again. (Proverbs 19:17)	Luke 14:13-14 exhorts what was required under the law in feasts, and promises recompense which Proverbs 19:17 also assures, but Luke distinctly places it at the resurrection of the just (versus the unjust, which is separated by 1,000 years: Revelation 20:6-15), while Tobit 4:7 exhorts alms-giving, and promises mercy in response. It does not mention feasts, nor recompense at the resurrection, and is more similar to Proverbs 19:17 in this aspect, but exhorting in principle what Deuteronomy 16:13-14 required as does Luke 14:13-14. However, it is the latter which references feasts for souls which Deuteronomy required such as for the the fatherless and the widow, and with all 3 sources promising recompenses, which Proverbs most distinctly promises. A correspondence of allusion to both can be seen in Luke 14:13-14 but which is not directly referencing them.
● John 10:22 references 1 Maccabees 4:59	And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. (John 10:22-23)	Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Israel ordained, that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept in their season from year to year by the space of eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, with mirth and gladness. (1 Maccabees 4:59)		John 10:22-23 merely alludes to Jews engaging in a historical feast which 1 Maccabees 4:59 describes, which the Lord used to evangelize. There is no reference to the latter as Scripture or even as any source of Divine inspiration validating this, but 1 Maccabees is one historical source that is corespondent to John 10:22-23.
● Rom. 9:21 references Wisdom 15:7	Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:21)	For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge. (Wisdom 15:7)	O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. (Jeremiah 18:6)	Wisdom 15:7 expresses what the potter does while Romans 9:21 asks the rhetorical question as whether the potter can do so, as does Jeremiah 18:6, which shows the most correspondence and allusion o it.
● Rom. 11:34 references Wisdom 9:13	For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? (Romans 11:34)	Wis 9:13 For what man is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lord is?	Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14)	Isaiah 40:13-14 expresses most directly and fully what Romans 11:34 expresses.
● 2Cor. 9:7 references Ecclesiasticus 35:9	Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)	In all thy gifts shew a cheerful countenance, and dedicate thy tithes with gladness. (Sirach 35:9)	Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. (Exodus 25:2)	Sirach 35:9-10 expresses the most direct correspondence of allusion to 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, though no mention is made of it or any other source of this Truth.
● Heb. 1:3 references Wisdom 7:26	Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)	For she [wisdom] is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. (Wisdom 7:26)	Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15) For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)	Wisdom 7:26 expresses the most direct correspondence to Hebrews 1:3a, though no mention is made of it or any other source of this Truth.
● Heb. 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7:7	Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: (Hebrews 11:35)	So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body? But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did. (2 Maccabees 7:7-8)		2 Maccabees 7:7-8 provides an example of what Hebrews 11:35 describes though no mention is made of the former or any other source of this Truth.
Partial complication of quotes of the OT (Hebrew canon) in the NT along with references to the word of God being written (hover mouse over ref. to see pop up of text). Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 Glory to God.

THE USE OF THE SLUR "HOMOPHOBIC"

The broad uncritical pejorative use of the title "homophobic"  is a perversion of the word as used against anyone who opposes or even fails to affirm homosexual relations regardless of their position being based upon sincere moral objections and or the overall negative medical effects and being not driven by some irrational fear of homosexuals or of being one.

For the term “homophobia” does not accurately define any and all persons who do not approve of homosexual relations or homosexuality any more than a person is necessarily carnophobic  if they oppose eating meat, or ombrophobia if he/she does not like going out in the rain, or anthophobic if he does not like flowers, places outdoors, and to label all who like to stay inside as agoraphobia would be wrong.

Which are just some of the phobias listed in endless but extensive lists of phobias, while  a "phobia is a type of anxiety disorder defined by a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation...Those affected will go to great lengths to avoid the situation or object, to a degree greater than the actual danger posed. If the object or situation cannot be avoided, they experience significant distress." (Phobia - Wikipedia)

 "A phobia is an overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal." (Overview - Phobias) 

"A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder that causes an individual to experience extreme, irrational fear about a situation, living creature, place, or object." (Phobias: Symptoms, types, causes, and treatment)

“an intense, persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, situation, or person that manifests in physical symptoms such as sweating, trembling, rapid heartbeat, or shortness of breath, and that motivates avoidance behavior." - Definition of phobia | Dictionary.com;

 "Phobia, an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation." - Phobia | psychology; 

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no real danger...People with phobias try to avoid what they are afraid of. If they cannot, they may experience Panic and fear Rapid heartbeat Shortness of breath Trembling A strong desire to get away. - Phobias | MentalHealth.gov; 

"phobia - an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations." - phobia.

And while it has come to be used more broadly, it actually means fear, not mere dislike. Etymologically,

"irrational fear, horror, or aversion; fear of an imaginary evil or undue fear of a real one," 1786, perhaps based on a similar use in French, abstracted from compounds in -phobia, the word-forming element from Greek phobos "fear, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror," originally "flight" (still the only sense in Homer), but it became the common word for "fear" via the notion of "panic flight" (compare phobein "put to flight; frighten"), from PIE root *bhegw- "to run" (source also of Lithuanian bėgu, bėgti "to flee;" Old Church Slavonic begu "flight," bezati "to flee, run;" Old Norse bekkr "a stream"). 

The psychological sense of "an abnormal or irrational fear" is attested by 1895. Hence also Phobos as the name of the inner satellite of Mars (discovered 1877) and named for Phobos, the personification of fear, in mythology a companion of Ares. - Origin and meaning of phobia by Online Etymology Dictionary

And in 2012, even the liberal  Associated Press  removed  "homophobia"  from its Style Book, stating that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia."

AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO. "Homophobia especially -- it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case." (https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/ap-nixes-homophobia-ethnic-cleansing-150315)

By God's grace - and as a sinner saved by grace - I (as with many other evangelicals) for years I have sought to outreach and help all sorts of people, from Hell's Angels to homosexuals, and give a gospel tract (and sometimes food) but the latter tend to want to avoid me once they understand I implicitly represent a threat to their lifestyle.

However, "homophobic" falls under "Non-medical, deterrent and political use" as the word is abused in assigning that label to any and all who oppose of even will not affirm homosexual relations and hold that the condition behind such is disordered.

And thus its typical use is indeed a psychological tactic designed to intimidate and silence opposition to the same - however conscientious - by placing them the defensive via charging them with being possessed by an irrational fear. Which plays off of a social phobia phobia, that of katagelophobia = fear of ridicule, being maligned by the prohomosexual lobby as being irrational, backwards, etc, and thus those who are intimidated by such could be the ones called homophobic.

And it is not simply some poster as me that objects to the use of homophobia, but scholars*

And which tactic follows (knowingly or not) the strategy set for in the book "After the Ball" years ago by two homosexual Harvard-trained graduates, Marshall Kirk (1957–2005), a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill) whose social marketing advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors.

Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[58] " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."

Moreover, as for fear, there should be a healthy fear of the unhealthy effects of sodomy. For

according to the CDC (chart), in 2017 male to male sexual contact was the mode of transmission in 93% of new HIV cases among male youth aged 13 to 24, and MSM accounted for 82% of diagnoses among males and 70% of all new HIV diagnoses, and 2 out of every 3 diagnoses in the United States. Which is despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population). . Also, "transgender women [worldwide] are 49 times more likely to have HIV than other adults of reproductive age." (Transgender people)

And which practice is primarily responsible for more than 700,000 people with AIDS having died since the beginning of the epidemic - despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe." (Worldwide, 77.3 million people have contracted HIV and 35.4 million have died of AIDS-related illnesses since the beginning of the pandemic in 1981: https://health.usnews.com/conditions/hiv-aids/articles/hiv-statistics.)

Also "STIs and their complications amount to about $16 billion annually in direct medical costs. HIV imposes the largest financial burden, costing $12.6 billion in direct medical costs, followed by HPV at $1.7 billion, chlamydia at $156.7 million, gonorrhea at $162.1 million, and syphilis at $39.9 million." (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/STI-brief.pdf)

More.

*Scholars such as Beverly A. Greene and Gregory M Herek in Lesbian and Gay Psychology (pp. 27,28)  stated:

...as Herek (1986a) notes, the term itself is unfortunate. Technically, homophobia means fear of sameness, yet its usage implies a fear of homosexuals. Although negativity toward gay men and lesbians is no doubt based on fear to some extent, the –phobia suffix implies a specific kind of fear—one that is irrational and characterized by a desire to remove oneself from the object of the fear. Because some people labeled homophobic not only fail to avoid homosexuals but also seek them out to harass and physically assault them, this term does not accurately rep-resent negativity toward gay persons (cf. Herek, 1986a). 

In addition, because such fear-based reactions to homosexuals appear to be more common among males than females (Herek, 1986b; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978), the term may be more applicable to heterosexual men than to heterosexual women. Another problem is that attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are likely to be multifaceted and complex (e.g., Millham, San Miguel, & Kel-logg, 1976; Plasek & Allard, 1984; Weinberger & Millham, 1979), and holding negative attitudes toward homosexuality likely serves different functions for different people (Herek, 1986a). Hence fear or aversion may comprise one component of beliefs about homosexuality, but other fac-tors are unquestionably important.

Several alternative terms have been offered to better reflect the ante-cedents of prejudicial attitudes toward gay men and lesbians and to sidestep the problems inherent with the term homophobia. These include homonegativism (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), homosexism (Hansen, 1982), and heterosexism (Herek, 1986a). Unfortunately, none has gained wide-spread acceptance.

Also, in the Journal of applied Psychology, Gary Colwell stated,

The charge of homophobia, indiscriminately made in a large part of our Western culture today, is ill conceived, illogical and false. This sweeping charge may be pictured as a triangle of informal logical fallacies. The more prominent side, the one which the general public encounters first, is what I shall call the fallacy of turning the tables: the rhetorical device of making the source of criticism the object of criticism. The other side of the charge is the fallacy of equivocation. The boundary of the term 'homophobia' is made so elastic that it can stretch around, not just phobias, but every kind of rational fear as well; and not just around every kind of fear, but also around every critical posture or idea that anyone may have about the practice of homosexuality. At the base of the charge, and undergirding the other two fallacies, is the fallacy of begging the question. A commitment to the complete acceptability of the practice of homosexuality enables its proponents to 'know' beforehand that all criticisms against it must originate in the defective psychology of the critic. (Journal of applied Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1999; Turning the Tables with 'Homophobia' on JSTOR)

Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles stated in 1993 that "as [homophobia] is usually used, [it] makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve. (O'Donohue, William; Caselles, Christine, September 1993,  "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues". J Psychopathol Behav Assess) 

Finally, etymology may tell us what a word means today, but that does not mean it is correct. Or that it’s use is, regardless of what Google reports.