reply to post by pause4thought
thats not true... its trying to correct a misrepresentation,/misuderstanding of the word , pasteing a stament to a scripture that it doesnt belong to
would fall under faslifying the word of god...i.e preaching a false gosipel
[edit on 20-5-2008 by scorand]
Does the bible condemn homosexuality?, page 15
privacy
reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 01:54 AM by scorand
reply to post by Conspiriology
and comes off the same as when Bill Clinton answered
why do u keep clumping homosexuality with infidelity...
and comes off the same as when Bill Clinton answered
why do u keep clumping homosexuality with infidelity...
reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 10:49 AM by pause4thought
reply to post by scorand
I am afraid that is complete bunkum. No true disciple of Christ is led by dogma. We are led by the words of the prophets, the Son of God and the apostles: the Bible. Any real Christian would take your position very seriously indeed if you were able to put forward a biblical argument that does not involve ignoring clear Scriptures that contradict your position and even twisting some of them.
It is not dogma that prevents those who believe the Bible from accepting your arguments, it is the fact that they tend to be agenda-driven, i.e. 'we believe homosexuality is a) purely genetic and b) morally acceptable to God - so there must be some way of explaining away the numerous biblical references to homosexual practice as immorality in God's sight'.
I say 'tend to be' because I accept there must be some who simply swallow what has been presented to them as a sound biblical argument while they remain unaware that the case being put forward contradicts how Christians have understood the languages and the passages until the 20th century, when secular society changed its attitude to homosexual practice, and those who practice it perceived it might now be possible to infiltrate the church with their views and unrepentant behaviour.
However it is no coincidence that those who adhere to the Bible as the Word of God and base their beliefs and practices on it have not been taken in by this movement, while those who take a liberal attitude to the Bible have generally shown little resistance. That is because they base their convictions on what God is like and what his attitudes are on their own choice of what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, or on someone's personal adaptation of what it teaches, whether it be their own interpretation or that of some theologian.
As long as the Church remains faithful to God's Word it does not and cannot accept homosexual practice in exactly the same way it does not and it cannot accept any sexual relations outside marriage. No-one living this way would be accepted into membership of a local Bible-based church, and anyone who had previously claimed to have believed and repented of their sin but then fell into immorality would not be offered communion unless and until they had turned back from it.
As I mentioned previously, people might create, say, a 'church' which accepted people into membership who practiced any other type of immorality, such as adultery. Their are, I suppose other religions which already do this, and I daresay even 'churches' that operate this way. However to claim that they follow the Bible would be nothing but falsehood and deception, which is in fact the case with 'churches' that accept homosexual practice in their membership. Call them what you wish. But they are not Biblical churches.
[edit to correct typo]
[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]
I am afraid that is complete bunkum. No true disciple of Christ is led by dogma. We are led by the words of the prophets, the Son of God and the apostles: the Bible. Any real Christian would take your position very seriously indeed if you were able to put forward a biblical argument that does not involve ignoring clear Scriptures that contradict your position and even twisting some of them.
It is not dogma that prevents those who believe the Bible from accepting your arguments, it is the fact that they tend to be agenda-driven, i.e. 'we believe homosexuality is a) purely genetic and b) morally acceptable to God - so there must be some way of explaining away the numerous biblical references to homosexual practice as immorality in God's sight'.
I say 'tend to be' because I accept there must be some who simply swallow what has been presented to them as a sound biblical argument while they remain unaware that the case being put forward contradicts how Christians have understood the languages and the passages until the 20th century, when secular society changed its attitude to homosexual practice, and those who practice it perceived it might now be possible to infiltrate the church with their views and unrepentant behaviour.
However it is no coincidence that those who adhere to the Bible as the Word of God and base their beliefs and practices on it have not been taken in by this movement, while those who take a liberal attitude to the Bible have generally shown little resistance. That is because they base their convictions on what God is like and what his attitudes are on their own choice of what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, or on someone's personal adaptation of what it teaches, whether it be their own interpretation or that of some theologian.
As long as the Church remains faithful to God's Word it does not and cannot accept homosexual practice in exactly the same way it does not and it cannot accept any sexual relations outside marriage. No-one living this way would be accepted into membership of a local Bible-based church, and anyone who had previously claimed to have believed and repented of their sin but then fell into immorality would not be offered communion unless and until they had turned back from it.
As I mentioned previously, people might create, say, a 'church' which accepted people into membership who practiced any other type of immorality, such as adultery. Their are, I suppose other religions which already do this, and I daresay even 'churches' that operate this way. However to claim that they follow the Bible would be nothing but falsehood and deception, which is in fact the case with 'churches' that accept homosexual practice in their membership. Call them what you wish. But they are not Biblical churches.
[edit to correct typo]
[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]
reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 01:04 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by scorand
My word, you really are scraping the barrel here. Christians follow dogma and change the Bible to make sure it fits with it?! This is a choice morsel of desperation.
Of course the Bible translators change the words. Language changes with the course of time. The nuances and even the basic meaning of words changes from generation to generation. In fact meaning can change significantly in the space of a few years. Take the word 'gay' for example...
If Bible translators didn't change the wording of the translation over time, the text of the target language would become less and less easy to comprehend as the translators intended. That is why although I have immense respect for the King James version I never use it - the English language has moved on enormously. One notable anomaly is as follows:
(Gospel of Mark 2:4)
Now unless Rupert Murdoch surreptitiously employed a time machine to gain exclusive coverage, I rather doubt foreign correspondents were there, much less the paparazzi. A modern version has it:
Mark 2:4 (New American Standard version)
The longer a translation remains unrevised, the less accurate it becomes in terms of contemporary usage, no matter how faithful to the original when first published. One more example, just for good measure:
2 Peter 3:11
2 Peter 3:11
Bearing in mind that in the King James version words in italics are those which are required for correct English but not present in the Greek (many modern translations have done away with this practise) the two translations above are actually identical. However whereas a 17th century word for behaviour was 'conversation' this is no longer the case (-and many who read it today would actually think the translators were trying to convey something about holy speech, which they were not).
When it comes to word selection in modern translations to convey aspects of homosexuality, the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any church dogma. The decisions are made a) on the basis of scholarship in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and b) on modern usage. Granted, there are cults that deliberately twist their translation to fit their blatant agendas, but translations that are accepted across the Christian denominations are the fruit of years, even decades of interdenominational cooperation involving unquestionably eminent linguists whose expertise pertains to rigorous extraction of the original meaning and intent alone, and conveying it in the language of the day.
What you are suggesting is that Bible translators are involved in a conspiracy! Isn't the truth that the original languages convey something you would rather not be conveyed?
Let the reader be left in no doubt, the Bible is clear on this matter no matter what lengths proponents of homosexual practice go to in their attempts at obfuscation.
Romans 1:26&27 New American Standard version
Romans 1:26&27 New International version
Roman 1:26&27 New Revised Standard Version
Three versions will have to suffice, for the sake of space. But pick up any version, even a foreign one, and the reader will find that once the original Greek has been translated it leaves no room for ambiguity on this matter. The only people who protest what the Bible actually says are those with an agenda against its teaching, not those whose sole purpose is to provide a faithful rendering.
[edit to correct a number]
[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]
they r faithfull to the book as they r very willing to change it when desired..
My word, you really are scraping the barrel here. Christians follow dogma and change the Bible to make sure it fits with it?! This is a choice morsel of desperation.
Of course the Bible translators change the words. Language changes with the course of time. The nuances and even the basic meaning of words changes from generation to generation. In fact meaning can change significantly in the space of a few years. Take the word 'gay' for example...
If Bible translators didn't change the wording of the translation over time, the text of the target language would become less and less easy to comprehend as the translators intended. That is why although I have immense respect for the King James version I never use it - the English language has moved on enormously. One notable anomaly is as follows:
"...they could not come nigh unto him for the press..."
(Gospel of Mark 2:4)
Now unless Rupert Murdoch surreptitiously employed a time machine to gain exclusive coverage, I rather doubt foreign correspondents were there, much less the paparazzi. A modern version has it:
...being unable to get to him because of the crowd...
Mark 2:4 (New American Standard version)
The longer a translation remains unrevised, the less accurate it becomes in terms of contemporary usage, no matter how faithful to the original when first published. One more example, just for good measure:
...what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness...
2 Peter 3:11
...what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness...
2 Peter 3:11
Bearing in mind that in the King James version words in italics are those which are required for correct English but not present in the Greek (many modern translations have done away with this practise) the two translations above are actually identical. However whereas a 17th century word for behaviour was 'conversation' this is no longer the case (-and many who read it today would actually think the translators were trying to convey something about holy speech, which they were not).
When it comes to word selection in modern translations to convey aspects of homosexuality, the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any church dogma. The decisions are made a) on the basis of scholarship in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and b) on modern usage. Granted, there are cults that deliberately twist their translation to fit their blatant agendas, but translations that are accepted across the Christian denominations are the fruit of years, even decades of interdenominational cooperation involving unquestionably eminent linguists whose expertise pertains to rigorous extraction of the original meaning and intent alone, and conveying it in the language of the day.
What you are suggesting is that Bible translators are involved in a conspiracy! Isn't the truth that the original languages convey something you would rather not be conveyed?
Let the reader be left in no doubt, the Bible is clear on this matter no matter what lengths proponents of homosexual practice go to in their attempts at obfuscation.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26&27 New American Standard version
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandonned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:26&27 New International version
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Roman 1:26&27 New Revised Standard Version
Three versions will have to suffice, for the sake of space. But pick up any version, even a foreign one, and the reader will find that once the original Greek has been translated it leaves no room for ambiguity on this matter. The only people who protest what the Bible actually says are those with an agenda against its teaching, not those whose sole purpose is to provide a faithful rendering.
[edit to correct a number]
[edit on 20/5/08 by pause4thought]
reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 11:48 PM by FalknFerno
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
You have to remember, man has put only what they wanted in the bible for their own purposes. Who really knows what the bible should really say. Even on the history channel has a thing about it, pretty good. Even in history class has taught us that, well my generation. The pope and some bishops way back then. Every so often new versions come out, but back then, it was changed and changed over again, trying to translate it, and purposely changing some to make some stories sound more herioc, but no biggie there, but some other things are left out for purposes of their own, but in general, it really doesn't matter for the most part. Humanity knows what is right and what is wrong, common logic and sense. But even common sense people don't have, why? who knows. But it does seem like, this is the only planet in the universe that has free will, like this place was a testing ground in the beginning, no matter who created us, that was a big mistake, very common logic to the basic. Maybe that's when God figured out what love was maybe, kind of? All these aliens are there, just watching us for the most part. The area 51 thing might exist, or something like that maybe? I don't care if that's true or not, it really doesn't matter in the end. Soon we will know the truth, as we know the truths of many things, whether we deny it or not, just to make us feel better. Revelations speaks quite clear to us how the end shall be. Just read it again, I have many many times, and do lots of research on it, as many other things. Knowledge will be the power that will remain after all this crap blows over. Instead of all this other crap that people think gives them power. Anyways, there shall be rumors of a great war, Jerusalem will be basically be pointed with weapons from all sides. There are many other signs that tells us how the end of a new beginning shall be. Yet we still don't pay attention to it. But sorry if I went off subject at spots, but as a homosexual, they don't see it like that, because they feel like they it's not. Homosexuals even change their sex, depending on their hormone and testosterone levels. Humanity is shown many many different genetic defects, why? Figure that on your own is all i got to say. Too much to talk about that. But, for one, we are needed to show our imperfections. I know that they won't be condemned, but we were not created that way. We were created man for woman, for the soul purpose of growing. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time, thousands of years, but I know some time before christ, but not too far back.
All I know is, there is a God that created all this in space, but can he or it be on top of everything at once as people think. In a sense, yes, but still takes time I'm sure, why there are these messengers, we call angels. God used to hang out with humanity for awhile until things got too crazy, then he assigned his angels to take care of things in a sense, but they still have to ask permission. Yet why are we being watched all the time by all these aliens, who knows for sure. Maybe humans were created genetically, then God steps in as God finds out. I have several theories, not just one. Yet I do know there is a God, and aliens. I'm sure God created many many types of beings, and these aliens I'm sure know more about God than we do. It's all dogma, really hard for me to try to imagine what God really is and like, who can. And what is what with the aliens. All I know, soon we will find out, and I can't wait.
P.S, sorry for all this other stuff
You have to remember, man has put only what they wanted in the bible for their own purposes. Who really knows what the bible should really say. Even on the history channel has a thing about it, pretty good. Even in history class has taught us that, well my generation. The pope and some bishops way back then. Every so often new versions come out, but back then, it was changed and changed over again, trying to translate it, and purposely changing some to make some stories sound more herioc, but no biggie there, but some other things are left out for purposes of their own, but in general, it really doesn't matter for the most part. Humanity knows what is right and what is wrong, common logic and sense. But even common sense people don't have, why? who knows. But it does seem like, this is the only planet in the universe that has free will, like this place was a testing ground in the beginning, no matter who created us, that was a big mistake, very common logic to the basic. Maybe that's when God figured out what love was maybe, kind of? All these aliens are there, just watching us for the most part. The area 51 thing might exist, or something like that maybe? I don't care if that's true or not, it really doesn't matter in the end. Soon we will know the truth, as we know the truths of many things, whether we deny it or not, just to make us feel better. Revelations speaks quite clear to us how the end shall be. Just read it again, I have many many times, and do lots of research on it, as many other things. Knowledge will be the power that will remain after all this crap blows over. Instead of all this other crap that people think gives them power. Anyways, there shall be rumors of a great war, Jerusalem will be basically be pointed with weapons from all sides. There are many other signs that tells us how the end of a new beginning shall be. Yet we still don't pay attention to it. But sorry if I went off subject at spots, but as a homosexual, they don't see it like that, because they feel like they it's not. Homosexuals even change their sex, depending on their hormone and testosterone levels. Humanity is shown many many different genetic defects, why? Figure that on your own is all i got to say. Too much to talk about that. But, for one, we are needed to show our imperfections. I know that they won't be condemned, but we were not created that way. We were created man for woman, for the soul purpose of growing. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time, thousands of years, but I know some time before christ, but not too far back.
All I know is, there is a God that created all this in space, but can he or it be on top of everything at once as people think. In a sense, yes, but still takes time I'm sure, why there are these messengers, we call angels. God used to hang out with humanity for awhile until things got too crazy, then he assigned his angels to take care of things in a sense, but they still have to ask permission. Yet why are we being watched all the time by all these aliens, who knows for sure. Maybe humans were created genetically, then God steps in as God finds out. I have several theories, not just one. Yet I do know there is a God, and aliens. I'm sure God created many many types of beings, and these aliens I'm sure know more about God than we do. It's all dogma, really hard for me to try to imagine what God really is and like, who can. And what is what with the aliens. All I know, soon we will find out, and I can't wait.
P.S, sorry for all this other stuff
reply posted on 21-5-2008 @ 12:05 AM by Neo Christian Mystic
I can read a NEICain Look up words and I can use common sense and I am not an d id'diota. Fire the bushes, theyare not supposed to sit at all. He
can't be president no more, he wasn't really a good soldier, and now he's old, just like I feel I am myself. I am not silly, just speaking frankly
at anytime, abit mad -dough.
Marken Schrøder
Marken Schrøder
Originally posted by FalknFerno
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
You have to remember, man has put only what they wanted in the bible for their own purposes. Who really knows what the bible should really say. Even on the history channel has a thing about it, pretty good. Even in history class has taught us that, well my generation. The pope and some bishops way back then. Every so often new versions come out, but back then, it was changed and changed over again, trying to translate it, and purposely changing some to make some stories sound more herioc, but no biggie there, but some other things are left out for purposes of their own, but in general, it really doesn't matter for the most part. Humanity knows what is right and what is wrong, common logic and sense. But even common sense people don't have, why? who knows. But it does seem like, this is the only planet in the universe that has free will, like this place was a testing ground in the beginning, no matter who created us, that was a big mistake, very common logic to the basic. Maybe that's when God figured out what love was maybe, kind of? All these aliens are there, just watching us for the most part. The area 51 thing might exist, or something like that maybe? I don't care if that's true or not, it really doesn't matter in the end. Soon we will know the truth, as we know the truths of many things, whether we deny it or not, just to make us feel better. Revelations speaks quite clear to us how the end shall be. Just read it again, I have many many times, and do lots of research on it, as many other things. Knowledge will be the power that will remain after all this crap blows over. Instead of all this other crap that people think gives them power. Anyways, there shall be rumors of a great war, Jerusalem will be basically be pointed with weapons from all sides. There are many other signs that tells us how the end of a new beginning shall be. Yet we still don't pay attention to it. But sorry if I went off subject at spots, but as a homosexual, they don't see it like that, because they feel like they it's not. Homosexuals even change their sex, depending on their hormone and testosterone levels. Humanity is shown many many different genetic defects, why? Figure that on your own is all i got to say. Too much to talk about that. But, for one, we are needed to show our imperfections. I know that they won't be condemned, but we were not created that way. We were created man for woman, for the soul purpose of growing. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time, thousands of years, but I know some time before christ, but not too far back.
All I know is, there is a God that created all this in space, but can he or it be on top of everything at once as people think. In a sense, yes, but still takes time I'm sure, why there are these messengers, we call angels. God used to hang out with humanity for awhile until things got too crazy, then he assigned his angels to take care of things in a sense, but they still have to ask permission. Yet why are we being watched all the time by all these aliens, who knows for sure. Maybe humans were created genetically, then God steps in as God finds out. I have several theories, not just one. Yet I do know there is a God, and aliens. I'm sure God created many many types of beings, and these aliens I'm sure know more about God than we do. It's all dogma, really hard for me to try to imagine what God really is and like, who can. And what is what with the aliens. All I know, soon we will find out, and I can't wait.
P.S, sorry for all this other stuff
reply posted on 21-5-2008 @ 01:44 AM by pause4thought
reply to post by scorand
Thank you for your kind words.
With regard to this thread I don't know how I could have made it clearer that I believe God is on the side of the sinner, so to speak. Jesus lived and ate with 'sinners' and his true disciples treat all people with honour and respect, believing they are made in the image of God, and knowing 'there, but for the grace of God go I', no matter what another person has committed. I won't link to my post on the thread about Westboro Baptist "Church" (what a misnomer) again to demonstrate this - I linked to it earlier and people can look it up via my profile should they so wish.
There may be people in authority in the visible Church - RC or Anglican/Episcopalian clergymen - who think like this, perhaps you are right. Within the true Church of Christ - the not-outwardly-visible Church comprising all who have turned from sin and believed the Gospel (be they RC, Anglican, true(!) Baptist, Pentecostal or whatever other flavour you care to mention) - the problem the Church has is that they find arguments to suggest the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice as sin unconvincing.
This just doesn't hold water when you look at the vocabulary used in Romans 1:26&27. There is nothing in the words or the context to suggest it is adultery, not homosexual acts that are being condemned. A post from Bigwhammy in an earlier thread brought this home with tremendous force: www.abovetopsecret.com... It is therefore the force of the Scriptural evidence that prevents truly born-again people from changing their minds - they will not stop believing that God calls homosexual acts sin.
...And I for one trust the straightforward words of the Bible more than 'scholars' who question its authority. They invariably have not been born again and are not speaking from the Spirit of God. What you describe sounds like clever people clutching at straws to excuse politically incorrect teaching in the Bible.
You are now hinting at removing things from the Bible, and this proves what Bible-believers have been saying all along: the Bible is clear; if you don't accept its teaching that is at least a consistent position, but if you start hinting things need to be cut out it exposes that you have an agenda that you will promote at all costs.
What was included in the New Testament was decided on this basis: was the text self-evidently inspired by God and consistent with apostolic teaching? It is way too late to start tampering with the books in the Bible - two millennia - and remain within orthodox or historical Christianity.
As to your point about the Bible being misinterpreted to support the slave trade, the answer is simple. In any debate on what the Bible taught proponents of the anti-slavery movement could provide unambiguous Scriptures in favour of freeing slaves without having to twist or hint at changing what the Bible says! (But that is another subject altogether.)
Thank you for your kind words.
With regard to this thread I don't know how I could have made it clearer that I believe God is on the side of the sinner, so to speak. Jesus lived and ate with 'sinners' and his true disciples treat all people with honour and respect, believing they are made in the image of God, and knowing 'there, but for the grace of God go I', no matter what another person has committed. I won't link to my post on the thread about Westboro Baptist "Church" (what a misnomer) again to demonstrate this - I linked to it earlier and people can look it up via my profile should they so wish.
homosexuals as the sin and not adultery.. which homosexuality has been so ungracously dumped into that catagory which is about cheating not not homosexuality.. which the problem the church has is that if gay marriage is allowed people will question their authority..
There may be people in authority in the visible Church - RC or Anglican/Episcopalian clergymen - who think like this, perhaps you are right. Within the true Church of Christ - the not-outwardly-visible Church comprising all who have turned from sin and believed the Gospel (be they RC, Anglican, true(!) Baptist, Pentecostal or whatever other flavour you care to mention) - the problem the Church has is that they find arguments to suggest the Bible does not condemn homosexual practice as sin unconvincing.
u'r still talking about how the people were cheating on their spouse. and i'm talking about adding words that are obviously misrepresnetaions of the contex..i.e homosexuals as the sin and not adultery..
This just doesn't hold water when you look at the vocabulary used in Romans 1:26&27. There is nothing in the words or the context to suggest it is adultery, not homosexual acts that are being condemned. A post from Bigwhammy in an earlier thread brought this home with tremendous force: www.abovetopsecret.com... It is therefore the force of the Scriptural evidence that prevents truly born-again people from changing their minds - they will not stop believing that God calls homosexual acts sin.
scholors r questiong the contex in which it was written, the point of view of the writer at the time and a host of other reasons..besides that should be a clue as tohow long ago this was started remember the church decided waht was to be in the current bible.. and regaurdless of supposed divine right.{sic} they were human and suject to misinterpretation and mistakes..
...And I for one trust the straightforward words of the Bible more than 'scholars' who question its authority. They invariably have not been born again and are not speaking from the Spirit of God. What you describe sounds like clever people clutching at straws to excuse politically incorrect teaching in the Bible.
You are now hinting at removing things from the Bible, and this proves what Bible-believers have been saying all along: the Bible is clear; if you don't accept its teaching that is at least a consistent position, but if you start hinting things need to be cut out it exposes that you have an agenda that you will promote at all costs.
What was included in the New Testament was decided on this basis: was the text self-evidently inspired by God and consistent with apostolic teaching? It is way too late to start tampering with the books in the Bible - two millennia - and remain within orthodox or historical Christianity.
As to your point about the Bible being misinterpreted to support the slave trade, the answer is simple. In any debate on what the Bible taught proponents of the anti-slavery movement could provide unambiguous Scriptures in favour of freeing slaves without having to twist or hint at changing what the Bible says! (But that is another subject altogether.)
reply posted on 22-5-2008 @ 12:51 PM by geekfan
I think that when tackling the bible, one should consider the quality of the translation.
The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same,” and the Latin term sexualis, meaning “sex.” The term homosexual is of modern origin, and it was not until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) New Testament was the first translation to use the word homosexual.
There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy” or “sodomite.” A Sodomite would have been simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite would have been an inhabitant of Moab, though the word sodomite does not show up in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Any translation of the Bible making use of the words sodomy or sodomite are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.
There's more here
Humans are extremely flawed creatures and Christianity is notoriously political and often with agenda. Because of this, it's extremely unlikely that the bible you're reading is the one that was first published.
The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same,” and the Latin term sexualis, meaning “sex.” The term homosexual is of modern origin, and it was not until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) New Testament was the first translation to use the word homosexual.
There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy” or “sodomite.” A Sodomite would have been simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite would have been an inhabitant of Moab, though the word sodomite does not show up in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Any translation of the Bible making use of the words sodomy or sodomite are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.
There's more here
Humans are extremely flawed creatures and Christianity is notoriously political and often with agenda. Because of this, it's extremely unlikely that the bible you're reading is the one that was first published.
reply posted on 22-5-2008 @ 01:07 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by geekfan
What are you trying to do, blow my mind through irony overload?
All I can add is that the debate concerns what the Bible says, not what any particular section of the church or church-related organisation says.
Please read what I said two posts back. Then please reconsider whether you can still use this argument in favour of saying the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts!
...Christianity is notoriously political and often with agenda.
What are you trying to do, blow my mind through irony overload?
All I can add is that the debate concerns what the Bible says, not what any particular section of the church or church-related organisation says.
I think that when tackling the bible, one should consider the quality of the translation... Because of this, it's extremely unlikely that the bible you're reading is the one that was first published.
Please read what I said two posts back. Then please reconsider whether you can still use this argument in favour of saying the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts!
reply posted on 22-5-2008 @ 06:29 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by scorand
Associate those who trust and teach the Bible in its entirety with the Nazis if you insist. You are already in the habit of calling what is bad good, so what not call bad what is good too? If you scrape the barrel any deeper you'll be through to the proverbial floor.
No, that is a shameless fabrication. There is no such verse in the entire Bible.
Associate those who trust and teach the Bible in its entirety with the Nazis if you insist. You are already in the habit of calling what is bad good, so what not call bad what is good too? If you scrape the barrel any deeper you'll be through to the proverbial floor.
lets not forgett revelations.. i believe it says in there..{cant think of the particular scripture off hand} that man shall lay with man without shame..
No, that is a shameless fabrication. There is no such verse in the entire Bible.
reply posted on 22-5-2008 @ 10:52 PM by skyshow
reply to post by andre18
Yeah, they bend and twist and cherry pick items from select translations to justify their backward views and blatant bigotry! Even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. It's unbelievable how passionate and adamant some people are about justifying their bigotry. And of all issues to place all that energy into and for what good? It serves no purpose other than to create hatred and discontent. If ever there was needed some spiritual cleansing and healing here it is right here with these folks!
Yeah, they bend and twist and cherry pick items from select translations to justify their backward views and blatant bigotry! Even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. It's unbelievable how passionate and adamant some people are about justifying their bigotry. And of all issues to place all that energy into and for what good? It serves no purpose other than to create hatred and discontent. If ever there was needed some spiritual cleansing and healing here it is right here with these folks!
What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Whitney Housten died of drugs or maybe Illuminati related.
General Conspiracies, Posted 8 minutes ago
General Conspiracies, Posted 8 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 28 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 28 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 8 hours ago, 26 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 8 hours ago, 26 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 11 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 11 hours ago, 19 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 10 hours ago, 17 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 10 hours ago, 17 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Above Politics, Posted 15 hours ago, 13 flags
Protests Planned for 'Child Witch-Hunting' Preacher Headed to US for 'Deliverance' Tour
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 6 hours ago, 9 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 6 hours ago, 9 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 132 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 14 hours ago, 132 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 11 hours ago, 75 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 11 hours ago, 75 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 14 hours ago, 71 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 14 hours ago, 71 replies
Second most devastating oil spill? Massive oil spill in Venezuela
Fragile Earth, Posted 16 hours ago, 52 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 16 hours ago, 52 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.595 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.595 seconds
