|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:27 pm
aznkiddie So are you suggesting that the Bible is unreliable on God's word thus making it meaningless? Ever taken a foreign language kid? Well, if not, let me tell you, it's hard. Translating stuff to and from english, making sure you have the right conjugation, making sure you have the right bloody word and that word doesn't have certain connotations. In short, it's a total dog. Now, try doing that with a language the pretty much no one speaks anymore, with dialects around 2 millenaia old, and a writer from a completely different culture with entirely seperate ways of thinking about/saying things. yes, translating things is really, really hard.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:21 pm
Quote: He said that we don't know what God said, not that the bible is unreliable and meaningless - you said that. I did not say that. I merely asked if he had suggested if it'll make the Bible meaningless not that it is unreliable and meaningless. Quote: And now, if you're so sure that we have a perfect understanding of the Word of God, then perhaps you'll be so kind as to settle a few issues for those of us not granted the same degree of insight into the machinations of God's mind: Never said I had a perfect understanding of God nor did I ever imply it. Quote: Ever taken a foreign language kid? Well, if not, let me tell you, it's hard. Translating stuff to and from english, making sure you have the right conjugation, making sure you have the right bloody word and that word doesn't have certain connotations. In short, it's a total dog. Now, try doing that with a language the pretty much no one speaks anymore, with dialects around 2 millenaia old, and a writer from a completely different culture with entirely seperate ways of thinking about/saying things. yes, translating things is really, really hard. Actually, I'm bilingual and I'm currently learning Spanish but I'm really bored with it. Of course, you're right if you're trying to translate and old language that no one speaks and that no one knows the exact words of God. I agree on that entirely. But if we keep considering it and thinking up all the new possibilities, aren't we only trapping ourselves into more unecessary ideals. Anyway, just stated that for more clarification. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:11 pm
aznkiddie I did not say that. I merely asked if he had suggested if it'll make the Bible meaningless not that it is unreliable and meaningless. Kid, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I simply said that what was told to the writers of the Bible is not what we know today. YOU added the bit about the bible being meaningless and that stuff. Quote: Never said I had a perfect understanding of God nor did I ever imply it. Quote: Good, because, you see, no one does. Hence the debate, the discussion, and the arguing over just what the Bible says. Quote: But if we keep considering it and thinking up all the new possibilities, aren't we only trapping ourselves into more unecessary ideals. Anyway, just stated that for more clarification. Son, that's just stupid talk right there. I apologize for the rude remark, but it is. So tell me kid, just why shouldn't we be constantly attempting to fully understand the Word of God? Since the Bible was written in (among other things) Roman-era latin (or something like that. Blue could probably tell you exactly), we obviously don't have a complete understanding. So encouraging the lack of study into the original intent of hte Bible is not only actively leading people away from God, but is in direct violation of the ban in Galations 1:8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:23 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor Since the Bible was written in (among other things) Roman-era latin (or something like that. Blue could probably tell you exactly), we obviously don't have a complete understanding. That I can. The Old Testament (by which I mean the Jewish Tanakh) was obviously written in Hebrew, and the New Testament (and the Deuterocanon) was written in Koine Greek, which was essentially the lingua franca of the Western world during the reign of the Roman Empire. The bible was translated into Latin (many times, actually), but it wasn't one of the source languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:59 pm
Anyway, aren't we suppose to discuss about homosexuality in the Bible?
By the way, I never said we shouldn't try to understand God's word but what about the church that accepts homosexuals and other sexual immoralities? I listened from an ex-homosexual speaker talking about how church that accepts homosexuality and other activists try to use Bible verses and twist them to justify homosexuality is right. Like they use David and Jonathan as being possibility of homosexual partners. So you think it's okay for us to accept these too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:44 pm
I've got a question. What happens to homosexuals? Do they go to hell? With your answer can you put some quotes so I can read them in context? thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:54 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:17 pm
aznkiddie By the way, I never said we shouldn't try to understand God's word but what about the church that accepts homosexuals and other sexual immoralities? This enitre debate is about whether or not homosexuality actually is 'sexual immorality'. I listened from an ex-homosexual speaker talking about how church that accepts homosexuality and other activists try to use Bible verses and twist them to justify homosexuality is right. That's impossible. Homosexuality is not something you can simply stop being. It's determined by brain chemistry, yo. Quote: Like they use David and Jonathan as being possibility of homosexual partners. So you think it's okay for us to accept these too? We're supposed to accept all people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Looks like the thread's going to be kicked off with a discussion of the applicability of ceremonial law post-Christ. Alumnus "22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code [i.e. the ceremonial laws of Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy], with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:13-14 (Emphasis mine.) Or, to put it another way, do you, per chance, eat shellfish? Quote: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." In the Greek, the word translated as 'unnatural' or 'against nature' can have several different connotations. It can mean something against nature, but it can also refer to something that is against and individual's nature, or against a society's prevailing social mores. For example, among the Romans, to whom Paul's letter is addressed, it would be considered 'unnatural' for a Roman citizen to take the 'bottom' role in a homosexual relationship insomuch as it would be emasculating and therefore shameful, but not in the sense that it would necessarily be a crime against the natural order of things. The exact meaning of the word in this context is rather ambiguous; certainly ambiguous enough that it ought to give us pause before we interpret it as an implicit condemnation of homosexuality. Moreover, the thrust of the passage has to do with loss of control and God's punishment of those that forsake Him. It is not an explicit condemnation of homosexual relations. Are you saying that none of the OT is applicable today? Either it all is, or none of it is. "Being under the law" has more to do with our salvation. We are saved now by grace not by law. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of that LAW! Other parts of the OT are not then made null and void.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:03 pm
[quote="
Had Romans 1 said 'Homosexuality is a sin' then there would have been an explicit condemnation of same-sex relationships. As it stands, you are extrapolating that homosexuality is bad based on negative connotations attached to the word pathos and a very narrow translation of the term pushin, all while reading a passage who's primary focus is on loss of control and God's wrath and not on homosexuality. You are inferring from the passage that homosexuality is a sin despite the fact that that is never explicitly stated therein. If Romans 1 does condemn homosexual relations then that condemnation is merely implied rather than stated outright, hence said condemnation would be implicit.
Then you better reread verses 27 and 28. If that isn't precise about homosexuality I don't know what is. Or do you not count that because it doesn't use the greek word for homosexuality to descride the relationships described?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:57 pm
jamesthelittle Are you saying that none of the OT is applicable today? Either it all is, or none of it is. "Being under the law" has more to do with our salvation. We are saved now by grace not by law. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of that LAW! Other parts of the OT are not then made null and void. PRetty much. Remember, Galations 2:14, yo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:59 pm
jamesthelittle Or do you not count that because it doesn't use the greek word for homosexuality to descride the relationships described? Yeah, that's pretty much what the arguement is about. I mean, when there already is a word for homosexuality in greek, why didn't/wouldn't it be used if, homosexuality was being condemned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:15 am
I found something interesting the other day... Baker's Dictionary of Theology Paul's Epistles. Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:45 am
Jedediah Smith I found something interesting the other day... Baker's Dictionary of Theology Paul's Epistles. Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Indeed Correct! Paul was a Jew. He was studying to be a Jewsih leader in the temple before his Road to Damascus experience. He had full knowledge of the Septuagint. He knew his Hebrew as well as his Greek. He was also creative in his Greek words as well, using words that were "culturally" relavent for the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:05 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
