|
Post by christian on Jun 30, 2005 12:50:22 GMT -5
So homosexual behaviour is not a sin? I certainly can't prove that it is, at least not from what I've read and researched from the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jun 30, 2005 13:07:09 GMT -5
So homosexual behaviour is not a sin? I certainly can't prove that it is, at least not from what I've read and researched from the Bible. Again, this is something I do not believe to be the most accurate translation. I have a wonderful book on the subject I'd be willing to send once I find in my storage facility. I read it several years ago and references many texts concerning the Bible. This verse in the orginal text is seem more by scholars to deal with the abuse of children. I have no way knowing for sure what the orginal intent of the Bible was none of us do. It has been rewritten so many times over the past couple 1000 years. The best we can do is adhere to the basics and let God decide on his own. I personally find it hard to believe that the God I've known in my heart would send someone to hell for something that is not a choice but something born into a person. Think for second, do you really believe that ANYONE would wake up one morning and decide that want to be something that is ostracized in societies across the world? I doubt that very much.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 1, 2005 13:11:38 GMT -5
I certainly can't prove that it is, at least not from what I've read and researched from the Bible. Again, this is something I do not believe to be the most accurate translation. I have a wonderful book on the subject I'd be willing to send once I find in my storage facility. I read it several years ago and references many texts concerning the Bible. This verse in the orginal text is seem more by scholars to deal with the abuse of children. I have no way knowing for sure what the orginal intent of the Bible was none of us do. It has been rewritten so many times over the past couple 1000 years. The best we can do is adhere to the basics and let God decide on his own. I personally find it hard to believe that the God I've known in my heart would send someone to hell for something that is not a choice but something born into a person. Think for second, do you really believe that ANYONE would wake up one morning and decide that want to be something that is ostracized in societies across the world? I doubt that very much. Actually, the King James version of the Bible is regarded as being the best of all the translations. The Hebrew Bible contains the original manuscripts of God's Word from which the King James version has been directly translated to within the highest possible degree of accuracy. Homosexuality is not genetic. Our genes determine our physical characteristics, not our moral choices. No one is born homosexual. And homosexual behaviour is a sin in the sight of God. God Bless, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jul 1, 2005 13:26:48 GMT -5
Yes it is. It is your religious views that make you think otherwise.
Despite what you have been conditioned to believe, homosexuality is not a moral issue.
Again, this is only through the eyes of a religion - not God. There is no such thing as sin. It is your religion that demands that there is. It is a creation only of dogma.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 1, 2005 14:51:38 GMT -5
Actually, the King James version of the Bible is regarded as being the best of all the translations. The Hebrew Bible contains the original manuscripts of God's Word from which the King James version has been directly translated to within the highest possible degree of accuracy. Homosexuality is not genetic. Our genes determine our physical characteristics, not our moral choices. No one is born homosexual. And homosexual behaviour is a sin in the sight of God. God Bless, Andy. For a second I thought you might be willing to engage in a give and take debate and perhaps open your eyes to something other than your hard line view of things. Too much to ask for I suppose. I hope that someday God opens your heart and you are able to see beyond your narrow perception of things.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 1, 2005 22:14:06 GMT -5
I certainly can't prove that it is, at least not from what I've read and researched from the Bible. Again, this is something I do not believe to be the most accurate translation. I have a wonderful book on the subject I'd be willing to send once I find in my storage facility. I read it several years ago and references many texts concerning the Bible. This verse in the orginal text is seem more by scholars to deal with the abuse of children. I have no way knowing for sure what the orginal intent of the Bible was none of us do. It has been rewritten so many times over the past couple 1000 years. The best we can do is adhere to the basics and let God decide on his own. I personally find it hard to believe that the God I've known in my heart would send someone to hell for something that is not a choice but something born into a person. Think for second, do you really believe that ANYONE would wake up one morning and decide that want to be something that is ostracized in societies across the world? I doubt that very much. Actually, the King James version of the Bible is regarded as being the best of all the translations. The Hebrew Bible contains the original manuscripts of God's Word from which the King James version has been directly translated to within the highest possible degree of accuracy. Homosexuality is not genetic. Our genes determine our physical characteristics, not our moral choices. No one is born homosexual. And homosexual behaviour is a sin in the sight of God. God Bless, Andy. Andy, You are wrong about the KJV. They have since found older manuscripts than what the KJV was translated from. And do you know why it's called the King James Version? Because King James had a hand in choosing what stayed and what went.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 1, 2005 23:51:47 GMT -5
You are wrong about the KJV. They have since found older manuscripts than what the KJV was translated from. And do you know why it's called the King James Version? Because King James had a hand in choosing what stayed and what went. Babysis, I wanted to point that out myself, but it would simply fall on deaf ears.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 4, 2005 7:06:36 GMT -5
Actually, the King James version of the Bible is regarded as being the best of all the translations. The Hebrew Bible contains the original manuscripts of God's Word from which the King James version has been directly translated to within the highest possible degree of accuracy. Homosexuality is not genetic. Our genes determine our physical characteristics, not our moral choices. No one is born homosexual. And homosexual behaviour is a sin in the sight of God. God Bless, Andy. Andy, You are wrong about the KJV. They have since found older manuscripts than what the KJV was translated from. And do you know why it's called the King James Version? Because King James had a hand in choosing what stayed and what went. Are you saying that the KJV is unreliable? If so, please provide examples. Andy.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 4, 2005 14:22:20 GMT -5
I'm saying the KJV is not the be all end all of scripture. Like most decent translations it's good for those who are able to read and understand the language. But there are other translations out there and some are using older manuscripts that have been discovered since the time the KJV was written.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 5, 2005 7:08:50 GMT -5
I'm saying the KJV is not the be all end all of scripture. Like most decent translations it's good for those who are able to read and understand the language. But there are other translations out there and some are using older manuscripts that have been discovered since the time the KJV was written. Says who? I've heard and read about various more recent translations of the Bible having been deliberately tampered with. The KJV is available in modern English and has been around for centuries. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. God Bless, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 5, 2005 8:10:41 GMT -5
Problem is, it was "broke" some. It's a good enough translation to continue to be used, I give you that, but it is not the most accurate. Christian scholars are ALWAYS looking for older, more accurate scrolls and such, and since the penning of the KJV they have founds such scrolls and have used those to make more accurate translations.
I'm sorry if you are one of those people who believes the KJV is perfect and the only translation, those people make me sad.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Jul 5, 2005 8:33:42 GMT -5
I'm saying the KJV is not the be all end all of scripture. Like most decent translations it's good for those who are able to read and understand the language. But there are other translations out there and some are using older manuscripts that have been discovered since the time the KJV was written. Says who? I've heard and read about various more recent translations of the Bible having been deliberately tampered with. The KJV is available in modern English and has been around for centuries. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. God Bless, Andy. Read this and tell us what you think: snottitude.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=biblestudies&action=display&thread=1065551105&page=1
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 5, 2005 16:43:02 GMT -5
Let's look at 1 Corintians 6:8-10 in the koinê' (common) Greek. I'll interlace it with grammatical data and English word-by-word translations. The Greek text was transliterated from the Nestlé-Aland Greek New Testament, Edition 26 ...
8 alla'conj (but) humei'spn per/pos nom 2nd pl (youpl) a***i'teverb 2nd pl pres act ind (<youpl> do wrong) kai'conj (and) aposterei'teverb 2nd pl pres act ind , (<youpl> cheat,) kai'conj (even) tou'topn dem nom sg neu (this) adelphous'noun acc pl mas . (brothers.) 9 ê'conj (or) oukadv ({neg}) oi'dateverb 2nd pl perf act ind (<youpl> have known) ho'ticonj (that) a'dikoiadj nom pl mas (an unrighteous one) theou'noun gen sg mas (<of/from> God) basilei'announ acc sg fem (a kingdom) ouadv ({not}) klêronomê'sousinverb 3rd pl fut act ind ; (<they> will inherit a portion?) mê'adv ({neg}) plana'sthexverb 2nd pl pres pkmtyolp imp : (<youpl> must continue to be lead wandering about;) ou'teconj (and {neg}) po'rnoinoun nom pl mas (fornicators) ou'teconj (and {neg}) eidôlola'trainoun nom pl mas (idolaters) ou'teconj (and {neg}) moichoi'noun nom pl mas (adulterers) ou'teconj (and {neg}) malakoi'adj nom pl mas (faint-hearted, cowardly ones) ou'teconj (and {neg}) arsenokoi'tainoun nom pl mas (those who lie with males as with females) 10 ou'teconj (and {neg}) kle'ptainoun nom pl mas (theives) ou'teconj (and {neg}) pleone'ktainoun nom pl mas , (geedy, arrogent ones,) ouadv ({not}) me'thusoinoun nom pl mas , (constantly drunken ones,) ouadv ({not}) loi'doroinoun nom pl mas , (abusive ones,) ouchadv ({not}) ha'rpagesadj nom pl mas (excessively covetous ones) basilei'announ acc sg fem (<a> kingdom) theou'noun gen sg mas (<of/from> God) klêronomê'sousinverb 3rd pl fut act ind . (<they> will inherit a portion.)
8 But youpl do wrong and cheat, even this brothers. 9 Or have youpl not known that an unrighteous one will not inherit a portion of God's kingdom? Youpl must not continue to be lead wandering about; And fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, faint-hearted, cowardly ones, those who lie with males as with females, 9 theives, geedy, arrogent ones, constantly drunken ones, abusive ones, and excessively covetous ones will not inherit a portion of the kingdom of God.
The koinê' Greek word arsenokoi'tai is the plural of the noun arsenokoi'tês which means "one who lies with a man as with a female." (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940), in a word, a homosexual.
TB
abbreviations used: adv - adverb conj - conjunction dem - demonstrative fem – feminine gender fut – future tense gen – genitive case imp – imperative mood ind – indicative mood mas – masculine gender neu – neuter gender nom – nominatve case pkmtyolp – pkmtyolpive voice per/pos – personal/possesive perf - perfect pl – plural number pn - pronoun pres – present tense sg – singular number
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 5, 2005 18:57:32 GMT -5
I think it's time I post one of my favorite quotes from my favorite TV show The West Wing:
Jed:"I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Jacobs:"I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does."
Jed: "Yes, it does. Leviticus." Jacobs: 18:22.
Jed: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-*** Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jul 5, 2005 20:24:11 GMT -5
I think it's time I post one of my favorite quotes from my favorite TV show The West Wing: Jed:"I like how you call homosexuality an abomination. Jacobs:"I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does." Jed: "Yes, it does. Leviticus." Jacobs: 18:22. Jed: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would be a good price for her? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-*** Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits. I love that episode. It's from season 1 or 2 when the show was still really great.
|
|