It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David and Jonathan : more than just holding hands? 1 Sam 20:30 contains sexual verbs and nouns

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   
The idea that David and Jonathan were more than just friends has been doing its rounds for quite some time (centuries).
Same as Ruth and Naomi and Daniel and Ashpenaz.
These relationships have been debated for years all based on two or three sentences. Personally I think the exercise is futile - there is simply too little information, especially if you consider that it's all based on translations...

Take for instance 1 Samuel 20:41:

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." - New International Version


Versus


"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." - King James Version


Versus


"As soon as the boy was gone, David came out from where he had been hiding near the stone pile.e Then David bowed three times to Jonathan with his face to the ground. Both of them were in tears as they embraced each other and said good-bye, especially David." - New Living Translation


From kissing to embracing... It's clear people translate the sentence in a way to fit their believes or personal motives.

Take the word "ahabah" used several times to describe the love between David and Jonathan. Many translate the word as the type of love a man has for a woman (a feminine noun) whilst others are happy translating it as a human love for human object (i.e. man for man, woman or himself).

Now if the people with the thick glasses can't even agree on the correct translation, how will we ever be able to accurately interpret exactly what was going on between David and Jonathan? We can't, so all we have are personal opinions and interpretations. No one can be right or wrong no matter how hard we try or argue.
edit on 28/9/2015 by Gemwolf because: Missing word




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

One has to examine closely the language of the Hebrew in its context to get the gist of what is being said -

see 1 Samuel 20:30

'You son of a perverse & rebellious female - do you think I do not know that you have chosen to wed the son of Jesse to the confusion of your mother's nakedness and to your own confusion?'

with so many sexually charged words in so short a space - and commentators throughout the centuries have had their work cut out for them in getting to the heart of the matter

Latin Vulgate translation (ca. 400 A.D.) of “son of a woman freely seizing a man [whom she desires].”

Most English translations glide over the fact that the Hebrew here is actually quite vulgar.14 A more accurate translation would be “You son of a slut!”. 29) – the latter conjuring up the image of a promiscuous pup in heat. Further, Lucian’s version of the Septuagint adds a second word, 'gunaikotraphe', to the phrase here, meaning and calling Jonathan “[you] women-nourished [= effeminate (man)].”

Soderlund notes that the Samuel recension (a revision based on critical sources) of Lucian of Antioch (martyred 311 CE) appears in particular to preserve elements of great antiquity, which by careful analysis S.R. Driver and others have been able to use to make significant emendations (corrections or additions) to the later Masoretic pointed Hebrew text, which dates from 1000 A.D.16 John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407), bishop of Constantinople, paraphrased this line by describing Jonathan as “You son of a common whore, men-crazy and run after every man who comes into sight; you effeminate nothing of a man.

I can speak for my self in saying that my intellectual curiosity was piqued by the later translators who didn't quite know what to do with the material in front of them...






edit on 28-9-2015 by Sigismundus because: stutteringgg computerrr keyyyboardddd



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Futile indeed;

i'd be more interested in getting to the bottom of the 'thorn' in Paul's 'flesh'!

is there an ATS discussion already about that? would imagine there ought to be!



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The bible thumpers are gonna come along and let you know they were just BFF's.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

It was a bromance, or in Greek to English love "Phileo", people who have read and studied the bible and language know how limiting the English word "love" is, it depends on the context surrounding the word every time. Here is how the 4 Greek words could be used in comparative context.

For example:
I love my wife (Eros)
I love my son (Storge)
I love my best friend (Phileo)
I love Jesus (Agape)

When David said his love for Jonathan was stronger than for women we understand correctly he was not talking about Eros but Phileo, his friendship was stronger with him than even his wives.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You mean phileo as in homo-philia? Bi-philia?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Milah
In the Bible, doesn't God KILL a man for simply spilling his seed?
Onan was killed mostly because he disobeyed God; not because he used the erm.. "pull out" method. He ha been commanded to do something in order to preserve a culture at a time when the ethnic and cultural group was in peril of extinction due to low numbers of reproducing members. He didn't do as ordered. this really says nothing about what amounts to early Birth control or by flimsy analogy to masturbation. He was told to sire a child or children by his deceased kin's widow (if i recall correctly) and he did not comply. he was killed for that. That is one of the themes in the bible. the salvation plan required a savior that fulfilled all of the messianic prophesies and also was of pure genetic decent from Adam and Eve. And of pure spiritual/cultural descent as well. Onan's disobedience would jeopardize the genetic and cultural descent of Christ.

The entire old testament has at least three themes; one theme was of establishing precedent for the law for how sins are punished and how judgement is accomplished. Thus people were being killed to the letter of the law and the spirit of the law was in the shadows. Though in practice the Jews seldom killed anyone by the law. The law is very strict about the conduct of trials and it is nearly impossible to prove capital guilt under those rules.

When it came to God's actions He established that the penalty for disobedience and error no matter the intent was death. In the OT this applied to our flesh incarnation. It is also how our souls will be treated at the judgement.

However all that Old Testament severity also set precedent for salvation. by The rules of the OT law God's covenant allows the guilty to escape punishment using the judicial rules of the Torah. And a sacrifice without blemish (Christ) can pay for all sins permanently. not periodically. Once Christ was on the cross periodic sacrifice was not only pointless it was an insult to God. At the same time by law if someone is punished for a crime/sin then no one else can be punished for that sin even if it turns out the wrong person (Christ) was punished in the first place.

By setting the law and then enforcing them throughout the old covenant God was declaring that He would abide by the restrictions in the covenant. He will not renege. He bound Himself to the rules. If he fails to live up to them he would be in the wrong. and that is impossible. Thus all of that OT stuff; on the surface some of it very dark and bloody was never the less the spirit of it is eternal life. And as weak as it may seem to the nonbeliever: if you have an immortal soul then everything no matter how terrible/evil that we suffer on earth in the flesh is but an act in a play and all the departed actors are behind the curtain getting ready for the after party- very much alive.
edit on 1-10-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Onan broke the law he was under. Fair and simple. Ref. my earlier post in this matter. No mumbojumbo he didn't give his brother a son, thus he went to Sheol a sinner. Like everyone else.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Onan broke the law he was under. Fair and simple. Ref. my earlier post in this matter. No mumbojumbo he didn't give his brother a son, thus he went to Sheol a sinner. Like everyone else.


Nothing i said contradicts that. so what is in contention?

everyone is a sinner. there is no one who has not sinned. there is no one not under a sentence of death. the righteous acts of even saints are as filthy rags to God. There is none righteous. No; not one. lest anyone be able to brag about thier holiness.

According to the rules we are all guilty of capital crimes. But by those same rules that convict us we can be redeemed and freed from the sentence of death through the messiah; yeshua.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

There was quite a bit of bias and conjecture in your post, relating to supposed salvation plan and messianic order in Genesis which is historical anachronism and doesn't make any sense, and you mentioning a supposed demographic bottleneck in the time of the generations of the twelve tribes of Jacob-- I have never heard of that before-- as far as I am concerned they multiplied like rabbits. You are complicating this awfully much here. Supposedly Judah's two sons Er and Onan were killed. To say God killed them means playing along with a highly spurious conjecture in the text which I bet boils down to zealosy and pragmatism, even fundamentalism and perhaps even premeditated murder, I am willing to bet the truth is Judah killed them both for being useless wankers, and claiming innocence since they were found «wicked in the sight of the LORD». The midrash goes Onan and his brother were blotted out of the "book of life" since they were unable to produce offspring. Square and simple. It's quite logical.
edit on 1-10-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stormbringer1701

There was quite a bit of bias and conjecture in your post, relating to supposed salvation plan and messianic order in Genesis which is historical anachronism and doesn't make any sense, and you mentioning a supposed demographic bottleneck in the time of the generations of the twelve tribes of Jacob-- I have never heard of that before-- as far as I am concerned they multiplied like rabbits. You are complicating this awfully much here. Supposedly Judah's two sons Er and Onan were killed. To say God killed them means playing along with a highly spurious conjecture in the text which I bet boils down to zealosy and pragmatism, even fundamentalism and perhaps even premeditated murder, I am willing to bet the truth is Judah killed them both for being useless wankers, and claiming innocence since they were found «wicked in the sight of the LORD» and killed. Onan were blotted out of the "book of life" since they were unable to produce offspring. It's quite logical.


God had a plan from the very beginning or before the foundation of the world. and John says Jesus was there from the very beginning as well. so yeah; the first prophesy about the messiah is found in the garden of eden after the fall.





Gen 3:15

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Her seed is the messianic bloodline. This is why the geneology of Christ are presented in the gospel. The devil did bruise Jeshua's heel on the cross but in triumph by the resurrection Jeshua bruised Satan's head he removed the power/portfolio/title of death over mankind from Satan.

All throughout the bible Satan tries to invalidate every messianic prophesy and destroy Christ's bloodline and legitimacy.

Cain killed Abel. the bloodline continued on through Seth. The proto-jews interbred with neighbors and the Nephelium and their sport offspring until only one valid family was left and on the verge of extinction. Thus the flood. later due to the fact that Noah's offspring and descendants had again not followed God's instructions concerning staying away from neighbors (culturally) and failing to obey fully when ordered to kill this or that tribe, the priesthood itself was compromised about 400 years before Christ's birth when it was found no one in camp had the authority to carry the ark into Jerusalem and they had to send back for people appropriate priestly lineage.

that is a mystery or theme hidden in the language of the bible. why? well The Jews don usually talk about sex and when they do they use euphemisms and hebraisms most of the time.

Eve did not eat an apple or any form of vegetation. it's not in the bible. But what is in the bible; ironically like the OP is trying to use (badly and incorrectly) is the usage for the words in the garden narrative. Eve had sexual relations with satan (not literally a serpent) after being confused and deceived by Satan's twisted take on God's instructions to her. real serpents are victims of obscure linguistic peculiarities of that culture. Cain and Abel were fraternal twins by separate fathers. the evidence is embedded in the original tongues and in subsequent support by the apostles and others when referring to Eve.
edit on 1-10-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
an example of hidden sexual content in the bible (Though i disagree with the OP about David and Jonathon: )

biblestudysite.com...

this is a good start but it does not use all of the biblical ammunition on this topic. it could go into the number of times beguiled is used in the bible where it is plain that it is overtly talking about sexual acts. instead the cited website leaves a lot of that unsaid.



= Greek word #1818 "exapatao" (ex-ap-at-ah'-o); To seduce wholly. This was a sexual act. There can be no misunderstanding as to the meaning of what the serpent did to Eve, as there is only one meaning of the word 'expatao' in the Greek language.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I have many male friends that I love dearly. All of these men I openly embrace and none of which I would shun if they attempted to kiss me. I am not homosexual in any way. I have never experimented with another man, but would not ever be offended if a man came on to me. I am not opposed to entertain the possibility that I may some day choose to try a physical relationship with another man.
I have been with the same woman for over 25 years. I love her with every fiber of my being, but I learned something very important about love along the way. You can love more than one person with all of your heart without diminishing the love that you offer and share with any of them. You can choose to never stop loving anyone you have ever come to love in your lifetime. You do not have to stop loving someone just because you have moved on in your life and are no longer together. If you do find it easy to move on and forget it probably wasn't love to begin with. There is no limit to love. You can not run out of it no matter how much you give. The only thing you cannot do is to do this in secret or attempt to do this if your partner does not accept it. This you owe to them.

The lesson of Christ was to love and forgive all unconditionally. I pray for men and women who cannot learn to do so. They are missing out on so much joy.
edit on 10/1/2015 by Bleeeargh because: ETA statement about love being inexhaustable

edit on 10/1/2015 by Bleeeargh because: Spelling correction(fat fingers syndrome)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

NO & NO




phileo love. Philia refers to brotherly love and is most often exhibited in a close friendship. Best friends will display this generous and affectionate love for each other as each seeks to make the other happy. The Scriptural account of David and Jonathan is an excellent illustration of phileo love: “After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. . . . And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself” (1 Samuel 18:1-3).



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You mean phileo as in homo-philia? Bi-philia?


And....Pedo-philia

a reply to: Blue_Jay33




Suffixes with the common part -phil- (-phile, -philia, -phily, -philic) are used to specify some kind of attraction or affinity to something. en.wikipedia.org...



The word homophile or homophilia refers to a range of positive attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or towards homosexual individuals and their orientation. It is an exact opposite term for homophobia. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stormbringer1701

There was quite a bit of bias and conjecture in your post, relating to supposed salvation plan and messianic order in Genesis which is historical anachronism and doesn't make any sense, and you mentioning a supposed demographic bottleneck in the time of the generations of the twelve tribes of Jacob-- I have never heard of that before-- as far as I am concerned they multiplied like rabbits. You are complicating this awfully much here. Supposedly Judah's two sons Er and Onan were killed. To say God killed them means playing along with a highly spurious conjecture in the text which I bet boils down to zealosy and pragmatism, even fundamentalism and perhaps even premeditated murder, I am willing to bet the truth is Judah killed them both for being useless wankers, and claiming innocence since they were found «wicked in the sight of the LORD» and killed. Onan were blotted out of the "book of life" since they were unable to produce offspring. It's quite logical.


God had a plan from the very beginning or before the foundation of the world. and John says Jesus was there from the very beginning as well. so yeah; the first prophesy about the messiah is found in the garden of eden after the fall.


No, that only make sense if you pile up a library of centuries' worth of creeds, theology and church doctrine. John speaks of the Word, Logos, what Aristotle would refer to as Logics and Reason(ing), often supported by Ethos (Credibility) and Pathos (Emotion). The Logos, possibly the ha-Shem, the Name of God-- was a lifeless object that was worshipped as a god/idol in the days of Enosh, Seth's son-- and was not a person until John's gospel says it turns into a man we know as this Jesus character who was a Jewish rabbi and prophet born around the start of our common era. This Word or Name was supposedly like a phone number to a hotline to God. A sort of magic formular made up from 72 Hebrew letters that if said out loud, God would appear before you. Apparently someone said it out correctly 2000 years ago, so Gabriel was sent out to announce the births of John the Baptist and Jesus. Some might call that an odd response from God.

Jesus was beaten and crucified, and eventually lost his breath (Abel means Breath, Abel as in ha-Baal, the devil) and lost consciousness, but his appeal was heard and he was healed by being pierced by a spear (Cain, the first firstborn Son of Man or Son of God, Cain means Spear) in his chest, and through his resurrection Jesus' divinity was supposedly concluded and his kingdom on Earth established (Seth means constituted, fixed, set). Some might call these names prophecies, others would consider them curses, and yet others would call them irrelevant.

The sentence «Before Abraham was, I am», simply means that Jesus said he was ahead of Abraham. Abraham is dead, but at that time Jesus was alive, so Jesus argues he was closer to his Maker and more relevant simply by being alive.






Gen 3:15

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Her seed is the messianic bloodline. This is why the geneology of Christ are presented in the gospel. The devil did bruise Jeshua's heel on the cross but in triumph by the resurrection Jeshua bruised Satan's head he removed the power/portfolio/title of death over mankind from Satan.


Hehe, no, I'm afraid that this is a sort midrash explaining why all people are instinctively afraid of snakes. All you say here is conjecture and reflects a rather weird and totally ambiguous interpretation of an event that has nothing to do about Satan at all. The snake in the tree was Lilith, Adam's ex.


All throughout the bible Satan tries to invalidate every messianic prophesy and destroy Christ's bloodline and legitimacy.

Cain killed Abel. the bloodline continued on through Seth. The proto-jews interbred with neighbors and the Nephelium and their sport offspring until only one valid family was left and on the verge of extinction. Thus the flood. later due to the fact that Noah's offspring and descendants had again not followed God's instructions concerning staying away from neighbors (culturally) and failing to obey fully when ordered to kill this or that tribe, the priesthood itself was compromised about 400 years before Christ's birth when it was found no one in camp had the authority to carry the ark into Jerusalem and they had to send back for people appropriate priestly lineage.

that is a mystery or theme hidden in the language of the bible. why? well The Jews don usually talk about sex and when they do they use euphemisms and hebraisms most of the time.

Eve did not eat an apple or any form of vegetation. it's not in the bible. But what is in the bible; ironically like the OP is trying to use (badly and incorrectly) is the usage for the words in the garden narrative. Eve had sexual relations with satan (not literally a serpent) after being confused and deceived by Satan's twisted take on God's instructions to her. real serpents are victims of obscure linguistic peculiarities of that culture. Cain and Abel were fraternal twins by separate fathers. the evidence is embedded in the original tongues and in subsequent support by the apostles and others when referring to Eve.


You are confused. No Satan involved in the Eden narrative. All god's angels are serpents. The serpent is the totem of intelligence, healing and cleverness all over the world in all kinds of cultures. It represents the first and only true religion. Science and Justice.
edit on 1-10-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You mean phileo as in homo-philia? Bi-philia?


And....Pedo-philia


And agateo-philia the obsessive love of insanity. You could add the -philia suffix to nearly any Greek word around, if a thing exists, if only in people's minds, certain people would be sexually or otherwise affectionately attracted to it. Francophilia for instance is the obsessive love of anything French.

Apparently, David may have had a thing with little boys, at least the Bible seems to claim so. David sure sends out a few signals in that direction. It was common among the Greeks and Romans too, where same-sex sexual relationships with young boys was fully accepted and did not count as extra-marital.
edit on 1-10-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I find it interesting that some insist No, can't be.

Instead of, yeah maybe.

Says a lot about the poster.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Homosexual love is Eros, Phileo is platonic, this isn't that hard to figure out.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I find it curious that people bring up Greek words when the OT is written in Aramaic language.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join