|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 5, 2005 22:52:53 GMT -5
Here's Genesis 19:5 in Hebrew According to the Masoretic Text ...
וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה; הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ, וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם.
Here's the text transliterated into English characters ...
wayyiqere'ûw 'el-lôwt wayyô'merôw lôw, 'ayyêh hâ'anâshiym 'asher-bâ'ôw 'êleykhâ hallâyelâh; hôwtsiy'êm 'êlêynôw, wenêde`âh 'ôthâm.
Here's a word by word translation from Hebrew to English ...
wayyiqere'ûw (and they called) 'el-lôwt (to Lot) wayyô'merôw (and they said) lôw, (to him) 'ayyêh (where?) hâ'anâshiym (the men) 'asher-bâ'ôw (who came in) 'êleykhâ (to you) hallâyelâh; (tonight;) hôwtsiy'êm (bring out them) 'êlêynôw, (to us,) wenêde`âh (and we will know) 'ôthâm. (them.)
Here's my complete translation ...
And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where {are} the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and we will know them."
A few comments: The Hebrew word hôwtsiy'êm is translated as "Bring them out." This is a compound word made up of an inflection of the verb yatsa' meaning "he brought out" and the suffix "êm." This suffix is third person plural masculine.
The same goes for the final word, 'ôthâm. This is also a compound word made up of 'ôth, the definite object marker, and the suffix âm meaning "them." Again This suffix is third person plural masculine.
We know the Sodomites weren't talking about women by the suffixes used. The suffix an would have been used had the Sodomites been talking about women.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 10:21:48 GMT -5
Some have said that the KJV is not an accurate translation and that there are more reliable translations made from more recently discovered texts. No examples were offered; however, here's Romans 1:27 from one of the oldest and most reliable Greek texts ...
27 homoi'ôs te kai' hoi a'rsenes aphe'ntes tê'n phusikê'n chrê'sin tê's thêlei'as exekau'thêsan en tê'i ore'xei autô'n eis allê'lous , a'rsenes en a'rsesin tê'n aschêmosu'nên katergazo'menoi kai' tê'n antimisthi'an hê'n e'dei tê's pla'nês autô'n en heautoi's apolamba'nontes . Romans 1:27 Nestlé-Aland Greek New Testament, Ed. 26
Here's the same text with grammatical information and word-by-by translation ...
homoi'ôsadv (resembling) teconj (and) kai'conj (and/also/even) hoipn art nom pl mas a'rsenesadj nom pl mas (the males) aphe'ntesverb aor act part nom pl mas (who had put away) tê'npn art acc sg fem phusikê'nadj acc sg fem (the natural) chrê'sinnoun acc sg fem (need) tê'spn art gen sg fem thêlei'asadj gen sg fem (of the female) exekau'thêsanverb 3rd pl aor pkmtyolp ind (<they> were inflamed) enprep (by) tê'ipn art dat sg fem ore'xeinoun dat sg fem (the desire) autô'npn per/pos gen 3rd pl mas (of them) eisprep (unto) allê'louspn per/pos acc pl mas , (to one another,) a'rsenesadj nom pl mas (males) enprep (to) a'rsesinadj nom pl mas (males) tê'npn art acc sg fem aschêmosu'nênnoun acc sg fem (the obscene conduct) katergazo'menoiverb pres mid part nom pl mas (performed among them) kai'conj (and/also/even) tê'npn art acc sg fem antimisthi'announ acc sg fem (the recompense) hê'npn rel acc sg fem (that) e'deiverb 3rd sg imp act ind (<he/she/it> has bound) tê'spn art gen sg fem pla'nêsnoun gen sg fem (<of/from> the wanderer) autô'npn per/pos gen 3rd pl mas (of them) enprep (in/on) heautoi'spn per/pos dat pl mas (themselves) apolamba'nontesverb pres act part nom pl mas . (taking/receiving from.)
And here's here's my translation ...
And resembling also the males who had put away the natural need of the female, they were inflamed by the desire of them unto to one another, males with males performed among themselves the obscene conduct and receiving the recompense in themselves that he has bound of the wanderering of them.
Homosexual behavior is obscene. Homosexuals will receive payment within themselves for their wandering away from God's way.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 6, 2005 10:53:40 GMT -5
Hey TB.
My reference to the KJV not being absolutely perfect was in no way a way to justify the sin of homosexual behavior.
I was just pointing out to Andy that it is not the be-all-end-all of Bibles.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 12:19:20 GMT -5
babysis,
I appreciate your clearing up your stance there. I personally feel the KJV isn't the best translations for a 21st century American-English speaking Christian to be using. Its basis, the Received Text, wasn't a complete text but a cobbled together work from several texts (including the Latin Vulgate). It's mostly a revision of the Bishop's Bible. Changes were made to suit the English monarchy's goal of emphasising rule of law, the divine right of kings, and male superiority.
I chose to study NT Greek and OT Hebrew so that I might understand the Word of God directly as written instead of a translator's imposed views.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 6, 2005 13:55:41 GMT -5
Hey TB. My reference to the KJV not being absolutely perfect was in no way a way to justify the sin of homosexual behavior. I was just pointing out to Andy that it is not the be-all-end-all of Bibles. For the record I am the only one challenging the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Again, how can something that is a part of someone a birth be a sin? It is not a choice is a part of persons genetic make up.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 20:46:58 GMT -5
A homosexual act is a sin. Claiming that Bible translations are wrong will not work. The best original language texts agree with one another. The Greek noun arsenokoi'tês does not refer to male prostitution (of any kind). It means "one who lies with a male as with a female." It is a compound word made from arsen- meaning "a male" and -koitês meaning "to bed as if married." The so-called "homosexual" gene is a myth. The human genome has been completely mapped. No "homosexual" gene has been found. The studies done in the 1960s through the 1990s were flawed. See the following: www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp. If you disagree, please name the study and those who did discover the gene linked to homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 6, 2005 21:29:32 GMT -5
A homosexual act is a sin. Claiming that Bible translations are wrong will not work. The best original language texts agree with one another. The Greek noun arsenokoi'tês does not refer to male prostitution (of any kind). It means "one who lies with a male as with a female." It is a compound word made from arsen- meaning "male" and koitês. I've read many books that present the evidence how I see it. I personally cannot read greek or any language other than English. You could say anything means anything and I would know no difference. I disagree and you and Andy can say homosexuality is a sin all you like. I refuse to believe it. I have too many friends that live with the pain that society forces their way simply over who their heart loves. You can't choose who you love, Man or Woman.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 21:45:40 GMT -5
You also are not a microbiologist. When the Gay Community says people are born gay, they are, like you, taking the word of people with an agenda. They do not have first hand knowledge of the scientific studies concerning genetics and sexual orientation. They need someone to tell them they don't have a choice so that they can say it's not a sin.
Sorry, science caught up with with the pseudo-scientists who skewed their results. No one has been able to reproduce the 1993 data that seemed to yield a statistical link between biological factors and sexual orientation that suggested a genetic factor in homosexuality. It is the opinion of the American Psych. Assoc. that no such gene exists.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 6, 2005 21:56:05 GMT -5
You also are not a microbiologist. When the Gay Community says people are born gay, they are, like you, taking the word of people with an agenda. They do not have first hand knowledge of the scientific studies concerning genetics and sexual orientation. They need someone to tell them they don't have a choice so that they can say it's not a sin. Sorry, science caught up with with the pseudo-scientists who skewed their results. No one has been able to reproduce the 1993 data that seemed to yield a statistical link between biological factors and sexual orientation that suggested a genetic factor in homosexuality. It is the opinion of the American Psych. Assoc. that no such gene exists. I am aware there is no conclusive proof, but I believe that eventually there will be such proof and this debate will put to an end. You're right I am not a micro-biologist. I am a political scientist and I am well aware of the manipulation of people via religion. There may be no specific gene, but group of genes or could have nothing at all to do with genes, but rather brain chemistry. None-the-less, I will continue to believe it is not a sin and that it is written into the Bible by those who wish to discriminate. They've been a part of all of history.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 22:13:13 GMT -5
I've read many books that present the evidence how I see it. I personally cannot read greek or any language other than English. You could say anything means anything and I would know no difference. I disagree and you and Andy can say homosexuality is a sin all you like. I refuse to believe it. I have too many friends that live with the pain that society forces their way simply over who their heart loves. You can't choose who you love, Man or Woman. Then basically you're saying a person can't choose to love anyone. It just happens. You "fall in love" and "live together" in a "commited relationship." And when you you don't feel the the love anymore, you split up and each go your merry way. Right? No! You can make a commitment to someone of the opposite sex to stay with just them "until death do you part." Even on the days when you don't feel "in love" you stick with them just like you promised. You love them. Love's not a feeling. It's a verb. You put their needs ahead of your own, no matter what. You forget it when they mess up, and you make a real big deal of it when they do even the smallest thing right. When things are hard, hope for the best and stick together. Love is a choice. Obeying God is a choice. It is how we love him. The people who hurt because of their choices can change. It's my opinion that they do not "love" one another. They may gratify each other's desires but that is not real love. Real love comes only from God. He doesn't give anyone the power to "love" another in a homosexual manner. It's against his word. I don't think anyone should be hated because they practise homosexuality. Nor should they be given special rights. As far as sins go, all are the same. I don't rank them. My kidney doc is gay. I don't give him any grief over it. He knows how I feel about it. His "partner" has had my family over to his house. When he has a problem (car won't start, etc.) I help him out. He is my "neighbor." But I don't call him my friend. I can't have a close relationship with somebody whom I know can disregard God's word like that.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Jul 6, 2005 22:21:11 GMT -5
Well then ... you're saying the Bible (or parts you don't agree with) is not God's word. That's my only source of moral ground to argue from. Why didn't you just say you didn't believe it was true in the first place. No point in arguing with you.
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Jul 6, 2005 22:22:26 GMT -5
Then basically you're saying a person can't choose to love anyone. It just happens. You "fall in love" and "live together" in a "commited relationship." And when you you don't feel the the love anymore, you split up and each go your merry way. Right? You have half of what I meant right, you can't choose who you love it just happens and if it's real it never ends. There hasn't been a day in 3 years I haven't felt absolutly in love with my girlfriend. That won't change when we marry when she finishes her undergrad and I finish law school. I will always be committed to her and she'll be committed to me.
|
|
|
Post by Snottitude on Jul 8, 2005 5:05:44 GMT -5
Then basically you're saying a person can't choose to love anyone. It just happens. You "fall in love" and "live together" in a "commited relationship." And when you you don't feel the the love anymore, you split up and each go your merry way. Right? You have half of what I meant right, you can't choose who you love it just happens and if it's real it never ends. There hasn't been a day in 3 years I haven't felt absolutly in love with my girlfriend. That won't change when we marry when she finishes her undergrad and I finish law school. I will always be committed to her and she'll be committed to me. Even if you can't choose who you love, you still choose what you do. Even if you say that homosexuals are predispositioned to be attracted to the same sex, they still choose whether or not they lust after the same sex, engage in relations with the same sex, or even approve of same sex relations. It's their actions that will be judged by God, not their DNA. The same holds true for heterosexuals. Sex is supposed to be God glorifying. And in regards to you and your girlfriend, I hope what you say is true, but I'm sure there are many divorced couples who said the same thing when they were first together. I don't mean to be a downer, but no one who's in love thinks its going to end. Sincerely, [glow=green,3,300]Snotty ;D[/glow]
|
|