The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by John Matrix
David cheated. That's adultery because he did not have his wife's consent to have sex with another women, and he also had that woman's husband killed.....that is why he was chastised. I would not call it condemned either, since God loved David and if David was condemned God would have sent him to hell.

BTW: I have lexicons, concordances, study bibles and all kinds of bibles and books from well known authors. As well, I have a ministerial degree.

i find it amazing that the ones with degrees tend to have the most warped opinions on the bible

"Warped" or just different than what your pastor tells you from the pulpit on Sunday mornings? One person's "warped" is another person's "researched and studied for years."

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by passenger

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
First, with what we're learning about homosexual orientation, should we take verses that may be prohibiting homosexual acts written more than 2000 years ago and apply them to the modern phenomenon of homosexuality?

"Modern phenomenon of homosexuality"? (emphasis added) Huh? You mean that gay guys were doing something different than 2,000 years ago? Seems to me that they were, basically, doing the same thing that gay guys are doing today. Or was there a different form of homosexuality back then? Please inform me with the subtle intricacies of this....

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
Should we assume that whoever wrote Leviticus (I doubt it was Moses) knew more about human sexuality than we do today?

Certainly not. We all know more about sexuality and human nature because people 2,000 years ago were completely ignorant about what was going on around them. They had NO IDEA about mating a male and a female to achieve offspring. They certainly didn't know about normal human relations. HA! Those ignorant savages - they didn't even have the interweb!

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
[By the way, if one is arguing from a standpoint of plenary verbal inspiration, there's not much progress that can be made in a conversation such as this, since one side pretty much already has their mind made up.]

Again: Huh? I understand what you are getting at - by why didn't you just say so?!

(methinks I smell a budding flower of Graduate School in the garden, tempting the bees with its educated pollen)

With the phrase "modern phenomenon of homosexuality," I was pointing out the differences in understandings of homosexuality on a psychological level from the time Leviticus was written to now. Of course, the sex acts were the same. Understanding why men (and women - which are strangely absent in the Leviticus prohibition) wanted to have sex with one another is the issue.

"Plenary verbal inspiration" = God gave the exact words to the authors of the Bible.

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
With the phrase "modern phenomenon of homosexuality," I was pointing out the differences in understandings of homosexuality on a psychological level from the time Leviticus was written to now. Of course, the sex acts were the same.

Well, of course, we know better now. But don't intertwine modern interpretations with past injunctions. The Old Laws were talking about men having sex with each other. They weren't interested in Freudian interpretations. They just believed that a man having sex with a man was wrong. Don't fall into the trap of trying to explain the Coliseum games from modern eyes.

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
Understanding why men (and women - which are strangely absent in the Leviticus prohibition) wanted to have sex with one another is the issue.

That's a really good point and the first time that it has been brought to my limited attention. NEVER caught that one! Thanks for the epiphany! Are lesbians OK according to the Bible? Never considered it. You get big respect from me there for that one!

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
"Plenary verbal inspiration" = God gave the exact words to the authors of the Bible.

Again, I got it - but not sure what you meant. "I get sense of it, but I don't understand it" - Nigel Tufnel.

reply to post by pdpayne0418

Almost every single English translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is crap. The word homosexual was not even used until the 19th century. How could a word that wasn't dreamed of until 1800 years after the original word in another language was written be a perfect translation? Arsenakatoi is the original word, and before the word "homosexual" was derived, was translated loosely as "temple prostitute." STOP reading the Bible as if it is modern literature

Saying any part of the bible is crap tells me something about a person. And that is they really have no interest in doing things God's way. That's fine too, but when you take it to the next level and slander scripture that becomes a little more serious, even more serious than the acts of Homosexuality itself.

SO you are totally wrong on the Greek, and I will spend time and prove it too.

Time to get into the Greek, ok let's do that then. The following is some quick research I did from Biblos references.

1 Corinthians 6 GNT: Westcott / Hort, UBS4 Variants (Greek Interlinear)

ἀρσενοκοῖται
arsenokoitai •
homosexuals

ἀρσενοκοῖται
is the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 it
is the last word before verse 10

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

Translated

Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

From Strong's dictionary of Greek
#733

733. arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace) homosexual

Also used in
1 Timothy 1:10

πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται

Translated

for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

Additionally my hard copy book "The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words with Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary" says this under #733

a sodomite: - abuser of (ones's) self with mankind, defile (ones) self with mankind. This word means one who lies with a male as with a female, he is a sodomite, a homosexual (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Ti 1:10)

Sodomites no longer existed as nationality because God exterminated them, and it was well known as to why he did it, so the term became synonymous with Homosexuality.

More interesting comments I found

What is at issue is the meaning of the words μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται The usual view is that they refer to men who engage in homosexual acts. μαλακοι are those taken to play the "feminine" role, αρσενοκοιται those taken to play the "masculine" role. That these refer to homosexuals of some sort is clear from the Latin translation, produced in the 5th century, which uses molles "soft ones" for μαλακοι and masculorum concubitores "those who sleep with men" for αρσενοκοιται. There are two disputes over the translation of these terms. One is valid but not really relevant here. The observation is that the ancient Greeks had no notion of homosexual "identity", so modern terms like "homosexual" and "gay", which describe identities, are not appropriate. This seems to be true, but it means only that the Greek terms must be taken as referring to men who engage in sexual acts with men, not to a male gay sexual orientation or identity. The passage still condemns homosexual activity.

Paul probably did want to single out men who engaged in sexual activity with other men–especially given the context. "Pornoi" (as seen from the English derivative) and 'moichoi' are unquestionably sexual terms. Paul probably did consider it a sin for men to have sex with each other.

With regard to the question of whether arsenokoitai refers only to those who engage in a specific type of homosexual act in the context of a particular type of relationship, such as that typical in classical Greece between an adult man and a boy, it seems to me that the fact that Paul chose an apparent neologism rather than any of the existing terms available to him is in and of itself evidence that he did not wish to limit himself to a particular act and/or relationship, but want to refer to homosexual activity in general.

You want to say Strong's definition is wrong? I would say that is intellectual denial based on an emotional bias.

Talk about "twisting" that in the title of this thread, let's consider one bible verse that is good to ponder and mediate on after reviewing this information that denies ignorance.

2 Peter 3:16 (World English Bible)

as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

As I said at the beginning of this post, slander of scripture is a serious sin, and that bothers me way more then any homosexuals. Because I have had dealings with some very pleasant and nice homosexuals over the years.
Some are even nicer than Christians.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

How about this - how about someone actually responds to my question of why you people choose to ignore some verses you deem old and outdated (go see my first comment as I listed a few), and you choose to take the homosexual ones literally - it is YOUR choice, not gods, or jesus' doing, it is yours, which says alot about that stupid book you proclaim as "the word". If you have to take bits and pieces of it in order to support your own individual beliefs, it is obviously flawed, and there is no harm in calling it BULL# - which I will. It is not divine, it is hateful, spiteful, and selfish - and it caters to those who also share these traits.

reply to post by makinho21

It is not divine, it is hateful, spiteful, and selfish - and it caters to those who also share these traits.

The Bible is clear on what is and isn't a sin. Just because man thinks they aren't doesn't make them any less sinful. People can't say, "Well, murder, stealing, and adultery are sins, but homosexuality isn't because it's hateful." It's either all or nothing. Besides, the Bible says we've ALL sinned. It doesn't matter WHICH sin it is because just one sin means we've fallen short of the glory of God. But God loved us so much that He sent His son to die for us so that we could be forgiven.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by makinho21


The stuff you are mentioning were Jewish laws that applied only the Jews, not to gentiles. God allows each nation to make up rules that govern punishments for crimes in that nation. The only rules from God, that we as Christians need to be concerned with, are the ten commandments:

And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.

reply to post by Totakeke


So do u cut off your hands when you go and knock one off? No you don't..which means your a hypocrite. Jesus said you have to...or pluck out your eye. I don't see many blind Christians walking around

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by Totakeke

 

So do u cut off your hands when you go and knock one off? No you don't..which means your a hypocrite. Jesus said you have to...or pluck out your eye. I don't see many blind Christians walking around

bibletools.org...

Christ does not intend for us to take this instruction literally. Jesus does not want sinners to become physically handicapped. Because sin begins in the mind, the eye, the hand, or the foot cannot sin of and by themselves. Even without these body parts, a person can still sin.

Our Savior often employs figures of speech in His preaching. Here, He is simply using parts of the body to elucidate an important principle—that a Christian should not tolerate sin in his life. Once a sin becomes apparent, we should take immediate steps to eliminate it from our lives. By using the striking example of amputation, Christ also illustrates that the process of overcoming sin may be as painful as losing an arm, a leg, or an eye. Ultimately, it is far better to give up a sinful pleasure than to lose out on salvation (Hebrews 11:23-26). The apostle Paul expands Jesus' instruction in Colossians 3:1-17.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I'm betting the bible burns just as well as my firewood, and also that it lacks any magical blue smoke like computers have.

I am also betting that if I took out a permanent marker and started making editional changes to the book that I wouldn't be struck dead.

Honestly, what is wrong with you people? There is something severely wrong with you when you cannot recognize there are twelve or so completely different sentences in modern ENGLISH about some scriptures being cited.

You cannot say "The word has been protected by GOD" while you are staring at two sentances that are NOT using the same words.

When it comes to the bible being the infallible word of God... if it's printed in English, it isn't any Candy Mountain.

And by God, if I wake up and my Kidney's are gone, I'm sending someone to Acheron!

P.S.
Byrd, if you are still reading, I sometimes wonder at how you can keep contributing to threads when there are so many people that just ignore what the heck you say. It's a damn shame.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

I am also betting that if I took out a permanent marker and started making editional changes to the book that I wouldn't be struck dead.

No, you wouldn't be struck dead, but it wouldn't be the Word of God anymore.

Honestly, what is wrong with you people? There is something severely wrong with you when you cannot recognize there are twelve or so completely different sentences in modern ENGLISH about some scriptures being cited.

If you're referring to different Bible translations, they're all pretty much the same. But some of them omit certain things or change them too much which is why I prefer the KJV or NKJV.

You cannot say "The word has been protected by GOD" while you are staring at two sentances that are NOT using the same words.

They still mean the same thing, don't they? Just because they don't use the same words doesn't mean they're different. But like I said, we have to be careful because some newer Bible translations omit things or radically change the meaning of things.

When it comes to the bible being the infallible word of God... if it's printed in English, it isn't any Candy Mountain.

We just have to trust that it's been translated correctly, and Christians do. It comes down to faith, just like accepting Christ does. We have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and I for one certainly do.

Originally posted by Totakeke
If you're referring to different Bible translations, they're all pretty much the same. But some of them omit certain things or change them too much which is why I prefer the KJV or NKJV.

"PRETTY MUCH THE SAME" Is a far cry from "THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD BREATHED INTO LIFE AND UNALTERED IN INTENT FOR 2000 YEARS".

How many "GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK" Translations have occurred in that timeframe? "Eeeh, Eunechs are kinda like Homosexuals."

They still mean the same thing, don't they? Just because they don't use the same words doesn't mean they're different. But like I said, we have to be careful because some newer Bible translations omit things or radically change the meaning of things.

For CHRIST'S sake! WORDS HAVE MEANINGS! What is it with people and their desire to think that different words MEAN the same thing? THEY ARE DIFFERENT WORDS! THEY CANNOT *MEAN* THE SAME THING! They may be SYNONYMS, but they are not IDENTICAL with identical meanings!

Blue is NOT just another word for AZURE! Verdant is not just another word for GREEN!

Off-White is NOT the same as WHITE or EGGSHELL!

We just have to trust that it's been translated correctly, and Christians do. It comes down to faith, just like accepting Christ does. We have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and I for one certainly do.

So it comes down to it; Faith is a Synonym for willful ignorance. Might as well pluck your brain out, it's not being used for anything.

I may believe in a Creator Being, but I sure as heck wouldn't claim anything translated over 2000 years and then into modern English was accurate enough to rely on. I'd much rather rely on the accuracy of a trebuchet fired by a blind man and the village idiot.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by TheColdDragon]

reply to post by TheColdDragon

"PRETTY MUCH THE SAME" Is a far cry from "THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD BREATHED INTO LIFE AND UNALTERED IN INTENT FOR 2000 YEARS".

God's Word is infallible because the meaning hasn't changed, not because everyone reads their Bibles in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Obviously most people can't read the original pieces of the Bible they've found because most people don't know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

There's no way I can convince you that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. We just have to trust the what the Bible says is true.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Totakeke


There's no way you could convince anyone with any degree or inkling of Linguistics that the bible is the infallible word of god in every translated version of it...

BECAUSE IT'S SMEGGING IMPOSSIBLE.

reply to post by Totakeke


I really want to like you because your avatar is cool, but you are making it rather hard. Once again, it comes down to how you CHOOSE to interpret the bible, which tells us it is not perfect - it is ridiculously flawed. You had to find outside reasoning from someone else to pass off those comments from Jesus as "not to be taken literally". However, how does this source know this? Was he/she there? No. You are simply assuming things to make them work or not work - to fit or not fit. As in the case of gays, most people find it weird (I do as well, but that is because I am wired differently). If you have to bend the meaning of these teachings simply because you don't agree with them, what does that tell us about the teachings? They are ludicrous and stupid. Nowhere in the bible is there a footnote or a prologue which says this or that is a literal demand or this is a 'metaphor' - MAN came to those conclusions.

reply to post by iulslion

I do not need to read the bible to know that its not natural. Its wrong. Forget what the bible says and listen to what your gut tells you.

My gut tells me that who people love is their own damn business, and that i shouldn't be enforcing my views on anyone else.

You can argue all you like, that the words didnt exist at the time. It doesnt matter, the deed did. And it found its way into the bible for a reason. Its easy for someone who doesnt believe in half the bible to debunk the rest, when they dont understand what the bible is.

Ah ok. Now we get down to the crux of the matter. If you're against homosexuality, then fine. Just come out and say that. Don't hide behind the bible. I know fine well what the bible is. It's a huge sham that's been twisted by man for generations to fit an agenda. And it's an agenda of hate, not love.

It is not just a book, it is a living word. Any translation you make will leave the essence untouched. People have tried for centuries to twist its words, but they are still there. Plain for all to see.

Lol! No it won't! Many things are lost in translation. Surely you must know that!!! Deny ignorance right?

I'll direct you to this page:

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

The following passage will give an example of some of the difficulties the translators face when attempting to convert the Hebrew text into an understandable English rendering.

Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. (Genesis 6:16 - RSV)

The above translation seems very clear, concise and understandable. The reader would have no problem understanding the meaning of the text and assumes this translation adequately represents the original text. Behind this translation lies the Hebrew, which must be a translator's nightmare. Below is a literal rendering of the same verse according to the Hebrew.

“A light you do to an ark and to a cubit you complete it from to over it and a door of the ark in its side you put unders twenty and thirty you do.”

This is not an isolated case, but occurs continually throughout the Biblical texts. In order to assist the English reader, the translator has supplied words, phrases, and even whole sentences to enable the reader to understand the text. The reader is rarely aware of the difficulties in translating a certain passage and assumes the translator has accurately translated the text.

Our bible is what we have to go by, you don't understand the language it was originally written in, you probably only no English. I know 3 languages, and I understand how they work.

Then surely, you know that meanings are lost in translation? Then how can you rely on a version of the bible that was written by man? This is not the word of God!

It's as much of a sin to have sex out of marriage as it is to have sex with someone of the same sex. And also to wear clothes woven of wool and linen, if you follow the same ethos. I don't see Christians arguing against the other two very much. It's picking and chosing to fit an agenda of hate against another person. It's not up to us to judge. So let people do what they want!



[edit on 25-7-2009 by Nammu]

reply to post by makinho21


If I told you it's raining cat's and dogs outside you'd know that it's not to be taken literally, right? Because it's impossible for it to actually rain cats and dogs. The same goes for the Bible. People knew that Jesus wasn't telling us to actually physically harm ourselves, it was just an exaggeration to get an important point across.

And thanks for the compliment on my avatar.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Totakeke]

Originally posted by Nammu
reply to post by iulslion

 

“A light you do to an ark and to a cubit you complete it from to over it and a door of the ark in its side you put unders twenty and thirty you do.”

Sounds like Yoda!

Originally posted by Nammu
reply to post by iulslion

 

It's as much of a sin to have sex out of marriage as it is to have sex with someone of the same sex. And also to wear clothes woven of wool and linen, if you follow the same ethos. I don't see Christians arguing against the other two very much. It's picking and chosing to fit an agenda of hate against another person. It's not up to us to judge. So let people do what they want!

I think homosexuality is singled out purely because homosexuals are so vocal about how proud they are. Imagine there were "fornicator pride" marches and people speaking out about how 'natural fornication is' and saying that the Bible has been mistranslated because 'Fornication is really fine with God', and people saying that 'we as fornicators should have equal rights as married couples' etc etc. I think it's really a case of retaliation.

reply to post by the siren


Hi the siren/

Did you know that PRIDE was the only SIN of Lucifer?
He wanted to be God and wouldn't have it any other way!
So, off he went with his pride and became SATAN.
Christianity is about STRUGGLE in a humility way...we all have certain strengths and weaknesses and from these we learn that in order to be rightious,we must STRUGGLE everyday to come closer to God.
If we Love God, we also try to be like Him,we imitate His EARTHLY life as He also showed His Apostles....Follow me,He said.
God became Man to show us that He too was under ATTACK from Satan...He as a Man had Temptations,but Prayed and Fasted...which also should be part of a Christians Life....God showed all this to His Apostles,so that They also,must do as He did!
Those that DISMISS what the Scriptures have to say about SIN,do so because they do not have faith,hope and Love in the True God.
They want to believe in something of their OWN liking and not which is of God and His WORD!
To deliberately change WORDS in Scripture to fit a certain lifestyle or wordly manner in a modern way is rather foolish in Gods eyes.'
SIN....A break away from Gods way....to miss the mark.....to be away from God.
To have people argue over the Word of God is rather stupid...and those that dont believe in His Word is foolish.

ICXC NIKA
helen

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by the siren

 

Those that DISMISS what the Scriptures have to say about SIN,do so because they do not have faith,hope and Love in the True God.
They want to believe in something of their OWN liking and not which is of God and His WORD!

Yep…
Another one of those biblical prophecies that has come true in our time.

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.