Please learn how to use quotes correctly. It's really, really not that hard.
Queen Kelley1
neutral Um, Is betiality humans with animals?
mrgreen
...yes.
Queen Kelley1
linaloki
So, because humans had sex with humans, interracial marriage was okay? ...wouldn't that reasoning make same-sex marriage okay, too?
Deuteronomy 7:1-4, NIV
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons
away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
This is
clearly a ban on interracial marriage, no?
No, it's of other religion.
And yet, when I or someone else points out those context clues to you and others like you in verses used in this debate about homosexuality and homosexual sex and homosexual marriage, you tell us we're twisting the Bible.
Example response: No, you're twisting what is says! It names those of other
countries, not of other religions. It doesn't say, "Don't marry worshipers of Ba'al." Why can't you see you're just twisting scripture to make it say what you want?
Queen Kelley1
linaloki
The Bible mentions the University of Alabama?
Verse, plz.
Also, explain WTH the capstone is on about.
Conspiracy theory. If you do research on the the NIV while doing the same on the conspiracy theory. You'll later find out that they relate.
...
Yeah, don't really care. Bible Code and all that other mess can *phbbbt* jog on.
Once again, it doesn't matter. Replace my NIV verses with their KJV equivalents. The arguments still work. Most often because I go back to the original language.
Queen Kelley1
linaloki
The NIV was written in the 60s, I think. Something like that. The KJV was written in 1611. The original Hebrew and Greek? Written a heckuva long time before even your Vulgate.
This "which Bible is better" crap doesn't really matter anyway. My arguments coincidentally do not hinge on any single Bible version.
... That's just childish, but wasn't it you that was all about "The NIV Bible is the better bible? ".
All I said was, I don't believe in the NIV. If you check back in my previous post, you'll see a whole lot of, "You're using the KJV, not the NIV. " or "The NIV this, the NIV that. Not KJV"
Yes, I think the NIV's better than the KJV, for many reasons. And I, and others, can pull up our own websites to support us. But I didn't say the KJV was unusable. Or that it was "Satan," as you said the NIV was. Which, btw, still no verse on the Jesus = Satan NIV thing from you.
But whether or not the KJV sucks and whether or not the NIV sucks, you can use any translation you darn well please and my arguments continue to hold. Go ahead and try it.
Queen Kelley1
linaloki
Let's not be blacks, Asians, or Italians either, just in case.
Oh, wait... you don't choose those things. Just as you don't choose your sexuality
I don't understand what you are saying.
You know Christ was bronze with wool hair? He wasn't white [It was in all the channels]. You don't go to hell just for being a certain race/sex. The things YOU choose, can actually put you in hell [Like being an atheist.], not the things you can not choose to began with.
He did not have wool for hair. He was not a sheep. What the crap.
And the "choice" thing is my point. You see,
you don't choose to be gay. Or straight. So, if sins are only choices, and being gay isn't a choice...
Also, your capstone thing still means absolutely nothing to me. What the heck does it matter that the NIV translated a word as "capstone"? What effect does that have on anything?