Homosexuality is a sin!

StElsewhere · Guest

Well, yes. The translators didn't know what they were doing/let their biases guide them. These problems don't show up in the original Hebrew and Greek when one reads with a knowledge of the historical context.

That is why the version closest to the original version Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic...is the most reliable...that is why any version after the KJV is is a version of a version or a version...get it?

I still never claimed you did. Unless you'd like to point to where I did?

Just checking!

I have a beef with bigots that refuse to consider the reality that the Bible does not support their intolerance of homosexuality.

I hope the mods see that I didn't start calling names...

So now I'm a bigot...just because you don't want to accept the what the WOG says is exactly what it means... Look a man lying with a man is NOT in the will of the True and Living God...There are others gods that you can choose freely to serve...gods who don't consider such behavior an abomination...in fact there are those who even expect that sort of behavior for its believers ...why not look into one of them?...why be bothered with a God like Jesus...who has made His word clear on the matter... Jesus is tolerant...to a big degree...He give us all space to repent...He gives us time to get things right before Him...But it is when we continue in whatever sin...that He gives up...when after chastising ...rebuking ...warning and punishing...the last straw is to give the person or to a reprobate mind...

All you've got is a small collection of verses, each of which having a more reasonable explanation.

No I don't have anything...the WOG is just that...the WOG...since you have at least agreed that I didn't write it. Let me ask you...What is it you want from Jesus? You don't believe His word...you disparage His written tenets... and you call those who uphold the same ...Bigots ...so I ask again...what is it really you want with such a homophobic , anti-gay, anti-lesbian God like Jesus? Cool

FFT · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:29 am Post subject:

StElsewhere · Guest

The KJV was a perversion of earlier translations, very little actual translating was performed in its formation. About the only thing that was changed between the KJV and Tyndale's (which predates it) is that the KJV has more of a Protestant bend to it—and that was the object of the creation of the KJV in the first place.

This is still America for now...believe what you want is so!... don't make it so...

It says exactly what it means—in the original languages. There's an unavoidable gap when one uses translations or doesn't know the historical context of a law.

And you have mastered...Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic??? Nes pa?

Neither is driving a car. Homosexual relationships and homosexual activity within them are never condemned in the Bible.

Cute...but driving a car is not going to send you soul to hell just for the very driving of it... but hey...you don't have a problem with hell...I know...I know...you live in it already...Ahhh! but there is a hell prepared by the LORD God Almighty for all of the unrighteous...and the list is very long...and if you are deluded to the point that you actually believe that homosexuality isn't on that list... well all I have to say about that is...Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

Well, specifically, it was those gods which demanded ritualistic homosexual sex—or particularly that ritual—that was being condemned.

Well ...wouldn't that be right up your alley?...(no pun intended)

I never noticed that Jesus said anything on this subject.

Yes you have...you just don't want to accept it because it is more important to you to wallow in that abominable sin of homosexuality...than to be forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness...and to walk in newness of life...Cool

And you're using that as a distraction from the fact that your interpretation of the Word of God is flawed for multiple reasons.

Dude...there is NOTHING I could say that could distract you from anything...

The Levitical verses condemn ritual prostitution. The identical verses in ... one of the Corinthians letters and one of the Timothy letters? condemn weakness (with no connotation of femininity or passive homosexuality or whatever)

Oh! ...So very twisted...you make me laugh...In your mind...there a distinction between homosexuality and 'passive' homosexuality... Well...ain't that putting lipstick on a pig...LOL...ROLF...

and something else for which we have no objective translation which could be anything from pimps to prostitutes to masturbators.

Now this is really starting to get freaky... Listen...(even through I know you won't) There are many speech terms and words that weren't even dreamed of over the past 5000 years... but there are something which are so fundamentally basic and common to all mankind...like men and women have been just that...men and women ...no matter what the lingo...On this issue the WOG can't get more simple ...and couldn't use more plainer speech than:

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: ...

or when it says:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

This is not written in some mysterious parable!

Sodom was torched because its inhabitants wanted to rape messengers from God.

Correct! ...Sherlock ...you really nail that one...truly...the MEN of SODOM wanted to RAPE the HOLY MEN sent by God...How very sick and twisted things had to be back then...for Lot ...the lone righteous man in all of those 5 cities...to offer his virgin daughters to those MEN to satisfy their lusts...In order to spare the angels of God...BUT...Did they want those virgin women?...hell no!... they weren't after what those virgins had to offer... maybe if Lot had two virgin sons...for certain they would have taken him up on his offer...NO Doubt...

Romans 1 is a condemnation of idol worship and not homosexuality, such is clear if you'd just bother actually reading the chapter instead of basically quote-mining it.

I just did...and I just posted too!...try something new today...READ IT!...then find the part that states idolatry was the cause of those 5 cities were destroyed...

You have no scriptural justification for your insecurities.

Me INSECURE???Dude...My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness...I dare not trust the sweetest 'frain, but wholly lean on Jesus' name... Secure enough for ya!?

Nothing much, really, seeing as I don't believe He ever existed—or at least that He was not the son of God.

So why take such umbrage at what the WOG of the very God you don't believe in? The two views are mutually excluded...What care you what some erroneously translated ancient text? Why participate in a "Bible Discussion" forum?...Since you feel this way...why have anything to do with Jesus at all?...Seriously!

It would be nice if His followers actually upheld His message, though, instead of using the Bible to justify their own irrationalities. See, for instance, my signature.

What do you think I have been doing? Rolling Eyes

kejonn · Show Poodle Joined: 21 Jul 2007 Posts: 251

From Wikipedia on the KJV

The Authorized Version represents a revision of Tyndale's translation.

Despite these controversial renderings, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the basis for most of the subsequent renditions into Early Modern English, although Tyndale's own life ended with being strangled and having his body burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic authorities for his alleged heresy. With these controversial translations lightly edited, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament (see Matthew's Bible) became the in 1539, the basis for the Great Bible, the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII; whose text was to provide the Prayer Book Epistle and Gospel readings up to 1662.

King James' instructions included requirements that:

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit....
2. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.
3. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith....
4. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
5. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another....
6. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz. Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible. (Influence from Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the Douai-Rheims Bible can also be detected, but the Douai Old Testament was published too late to have any effect.)

His [King James] order directed the translators to revise the Bishop's Bible, comparing other named English versions. It is for this reason that the flyleaves of most printings of the King James Bible observe that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)"

Sorry for the OT post, but this was mentioned in this thread.
_________________
Yasna 30.9 - So may we be like those making the world progress toward perfection; May God and the Divine Spirits help us and guide our efforts through Truth; For a thinking man is where Wisdom is at home.

StElsewhere · Guest

Evee · Moderator Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Posts: 638

FFT · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:39 am Post subject:

StElsewhere · Guest

If Lot was such a righteous man, why would he offer for his daughters to be raped?

That response show me that you don't understand what the word "reverence" means...Lot knew the LORD and knew that it was from Him ...that these men were sent...Lot had offered them shelter in his home...and according to deep customs of hospitality...Lot could in no wise allow any harm to befall guests in his home... Lot knew what those degenerated outside his door wanted to do with the 2 angels...and I believe it was a stalling tactic in vain hopes of reaching some sanity in the mob... he KNEW full well they didn't really want his daughters...

Would you have done the same thing? The next time some neighbors come charging on your door to commit homosexual acts (as you say), just offer them your daughters to be raped & God will give you the stamp of approval..... Rolling Eyes

With that godless remark...I see that ...in trying to impart some wisdom to you...I have just inadvertently done something that the WOG says we are not to do...:

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

...and for that I repent...

Reading something off a page & quoting it w/o understanding any of it is exactly what Jesus condemned the pharisees for. The ritualistic idol practices were a common, well-known part of that era. In order to correctly understand what it was Paul was talking about, instead of just quoting & saying, This is what it says, you have to understand the historical context of the era in which this piece was written.

Of course there was idolatry rampant throughout those 5 cities...but there isn't one example of God destroying any city by fire and brimstone for the sin of idolatry...whenever a city was or will be destroyed by the raining down by fire albeit those five or by volcanic molten fire ...like Pompeii...has always been because it was considered in God's eyes a "SODOM"

So when you see same-sex couples holding hands do you go up to them & tell them they're committing an abomination to their face or do you just talk about them behind their back?

Do you know what I really say...in the deepest part of my heart??? I say thank you Jesus for saving me, washing me clean of all my sins...and ...but for the grace of God, go I. Cool

Evee · Moderator Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Posts: 638

StElsewhere · Guest

Well, no. Historical demonstrable fact makes it so. I do so love people like you that can't stand to question their flawed version of the Bible, it makes it all so easy.

I said...for to to believe what you want...are you telling me you don't?

No, but those who have have explained why the passages do not mean what you want them to. And I do have a knowledge of the historical context of Leviticus.

Well then good...then show me where in Lev. ...the book of the LAW...that condones men laying with men....Tick...Tock...I'm waiting!!!

Nope, nowhere in the Bible does it claim that driving a car is a sin. In much the same way, homosexual activity isn't condemned (except as fornication in general, which can be avoided by hey-o letting them get married) except in the cases of temple prostitution and likely by extension prostitution in general.

Since you obviously don't view the "Bible" as the WOG...Why is it soooo very important to you the the "Bible" NOT condemn homosexuality?...You clearly don't believe anything it has to say...neither do you have and need or desire to know the True and Living God...so why care you one bit whether or not the "Bible" says that screwing a men is ok or not?

Not according to the OT, only a heresy perpetuated by Christians as a result of Hellenistic influences.

WHAT?? That is truly beyond me!

Do you like shrimp, StElsewhere? Or pork chops? Both are actually, explicitly forbidden by Levitical laws. The only thing in regards to homosexuality that's condemned in the Bible is temple prostitution.

I don't follow Levitical dietary laws... Jesus came for the perfecting of the law ...wherein the law was weak...grace now abides...The only one of the Levitical Laws and NT observances were as Saints of the Most High God are follow...is keeping the Sabbath Holy... and the Cup and Bread of Communion...no more ...no less

You think because I'm explaining why you're wrong I'm

No...I think you want to put a banner of legitimacy on a "chosen lifestyle" and then put the seal of the WOG on such lifestyles and unions ...Why? Why not just go on living your life the way you want ...and just leave Jesus out of the mix altogether?

Nice, outright accusation of homosexuality.

You act as if I got it wrong!

Of course, it's not like you actually demonstrated that Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality. For shame.

All that Jesus said and did was not recorded...But...Jesus left what He did not have recorded...to be established and recorded by His Apostles...and He gave them authority to establish doctrine after He departed.:

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Meaning the Apostles word IS BINDING...meaning that The LORD God will honor and obey it. So you point that Jesus never said anything on the matter does not stand in the face of the truth.

Many people would like to think that the two are femininity (receiver) and homosexuality (giver). It's completely unjustified (just as much as rendering a gender-neutral word for "weakness" as "feminine" and rendering a word nobody knows the definition for as "abusers of themselves with mankind").

Ridicules...This is nothing more the "Double-Speak- Clap-Trap"

Um, okay, then how would you translate a word which literally translates as "sex-men," that doesn't show up anywhere in Greek literature except lists like the Timothy and Corinthians list? Not even in Greek homosexual literature, where one would expect it to show up if it meant homosexual?

Listen...the WOG keeps the philology down to a barest minimum when something is very serious to God...This was done by describing "the behavior" or the "actions"...so there can be no mistaking...so no matter what the varied languages may have called the "Act" of homosexuality it throughout the millenia ...really wouldn't matter... How much more cleared can this be...right in the same Lev. you say you know:

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

So you go a head a twist this very clear ...non-parable verse into whatever you need to to make it easier for you to swallow...and try as you might you can't make that with is clear...foggy!

Nowhere else in the Levitical passages does it make the disclaimer as one lies with a woman. If it's a condemnation of homosexuality in general, why this specificity? Why not just "if a man lies with another man, both have committed an abomination"?

This is more double speak...did you actually read this before posting???

Further, look at the end of the chapter (28-32). It gives a list of what they did that "should not be done." It's a list, with no mention of homosexuality ("backbiters" means "slanderers").

Why are you still hung up on on the word homosexuality ...it was never used in the WOG... So what!...that invalidates the WOG? ...Silly

Stop. What makes you think the angels were men?

Ummm...will the actual text suffice? ...READ... Lot address the two angels as "lords"... if they were female...wouldn't Lot have said...LADIES? ...But don't let the facts cloud your perception of the truth....

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

Or had any sexually-defining secondary characteristics?

No where in the WOG has there ever been a tale of any angel being thing but male when one was sent to carry out he LORD'S will...you see there are also Archangels of which there were three...Michael..Gabriel...and Lucifer... you see why there are only 2 left...both male... do you have any indication to the contrary?

Angels as known by the ancient Hebrews more resembled animals than people, how do you know Sodom wasn't torched for attempted bestiality?

Hey that freaky stuff was undoubtedly going on there too..

And what makes you think only the men of Sodom were involved?

From your own previous post...just read what it says...it clearly says... "the MEN of the city"...then it repeats the description by saying..."even the MEN of Sodom"...

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [b]even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And the 1611:
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter
Both versions describe MEN as being predominant...Now where did I loose you?[/b]

You just posted the same tired old verses without any demonstration that you understand them.
Where did I take umbrage at the WOG? You're the weakest link, here.

Well you don't believe it is the WOG...you call His word "tired old verses"and you continually twists passages into unrecognizable double-speak...I think umbrage is understating.

It would be nice if His followers actually upheld His message, though, instead of using the Bible to justify their own irrationalities.

I don't have to "justify" the WOG...His word IS just...neither am I the one being irrational...I'm not trying to twist His word to legitimize an ungodly lifestyle

Using the Bible to justify your own irrationalities, of course. You think that I think you're upholding His message? Laughing

You don't know what I think... but what you can surmise I know is that ...unless you plan on going all the way with the One True and Living God...you need to leave Jesus alone...the LORD is not to be played with... because vengeance is His ...and He will repay:

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

That KJV-onlyers are absolutely hilarious and rarely know the facts about their own idol.

Well I don't know if the calling the WOG an idol is apropos... but when you stack the WOG up against ... American Idol... (that waste of space)...I think I get the better part of the deal Cool

FFT · Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: