Jesus on Marriage...

[del]

fucking godless linguists

rot in hell

 

[mal]

fucking godless linguists

rot in hell

If there is a Hell...

I'll have to check with a Linguist who Concludes what I dave to hear about regarding the Issue.



peace...

 

[Valerie]

fucking godless linguists

rot in hell

Well, you know what Jesus said about being too cunning...

 

[catzmeow]

But what non-linguistic, non-Christian people always leave out...we have 24000 pieces of ancient text STILL.And you speak as though random people pick up the translation cold, with no consideration for accuracy, and just spin it...either forgetting, not being aware of, or just ignoring the fact that the people who have translated the bible have been committed to accuracy.

What the non-cunning Christian linguists never point out: NONE of those pieces of ancient text from the new testament date from prior to 150 AD. Most date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice try, though.

 

[BluePhantom]

Yea, he's already neg repped me twice in one thread because he is losing.

Go ahead and call him ravi... It's Obviously yet another of her Socks.

800+ rep points since November?...

Yeah, that's a Tool of a Sock being Built right there.

ravi didn't used to show her tits to easily.



peace...

Yes, he's my sock, busted! I sometimes like to pose as a sensible conservative to show you rightwingloons up. bwahahahahaha!

Not one person on this thread offered a credible counter argument. That is saying a lot.

I guess we're busted Ravi. It was really YOU who started threads like The Myth of Republican Opposition to Science, If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney Here It Is, and of course A Lesson in Economics for Liberals. I can't wait to see what these clowns come up with next, since crafting a legitimate counter-argument is clearly out the window.

 

[Si modo]

fucking godless linguists

rot in hell

Well, you know what Jesus said about being too cunning...

Ok, now what the fuck is going on in this thread?

Too many facts for some?

Seems that way.

 

[Si modo]

Blue Phantom would have about 10,000 rep points by the time it had been here as long as ravi and posted as many times...

Who's helping you boost this Sock ravi?...



peace...

Yea, he's already neg repped me twice in one thread because he is losing.

Negged for whining.

 

[mal]

Go ahead and call him ravi... It's Obviously yet another of her Socks.

800+ rep points since November?...

Yeah, that's a Tool of a Sock being Built right there.

ravi didn't used to show her tits to easily.



peace...

Yes, he's my sock, busted! I sometimes like to pose as a sensible conservative to show you rightwingloons up. bwahahahahaha!

Not one person on this thread offered a credible counter argument. That is saying a lot.

I guess we're busted Ravi. It was really YOU who started threads like The Myth of Republican Opposition to Science, If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney Here It Is, and of course A Lesson in Economics for Liberals. I can't wait to see what these clowns come up with next, since crafting a legitimate counter-argument is clearly out the window.

Someone's daving WAY too much about my Accusation...

And yes, I said someONE...



peace...

 

[BluePhantom]

When a book has been translated as many times as the Bible has been, it's easy for things to get lost in translation. Some subjects can also be politicized.

For instance, Phoebe, a patroness of paul in the early church, is referred to in the Greek version of scripture as "diakonos" in Romans 16:1. This is the same term translated as "deacon" in reference to male church leaders, but you'll note that the verses that describe Phoebe are translated as "servant," even though the tense and usage of the words is exactly the same as the usage translated as "deacon."

If you review the English translations currently available, all of them use "servant" in Romans 16:1, but deacon elsewhere for "diakonos."

Political decision or "inspiration"?

It's hard to say. The bible spans almost 2,000 years of widely shifting cultural dynamics. The verses that have influenced a diminished role of women in the church have also been shifted by translators who chose words that reflected the desire to put women in a limited role, as recently as the NIV translation.

MOst people don't even think beyond a single English translation to consider the possible shifts in word and contextual/cultural meaning in these passages that have occurred as the books of the new testament have been translated from their original aramaic into hebrew, then latin, then greek, and then into the King James's English translation, and then modern english translations.

There was an obvious agenda even with the King James edition:

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Link includes a lot of information on the problems with English translations of the Bible).

It deserves to be said that the oldest versions of any new testament book currently in existence date from 100+ years after the books of the new testament were purportedly written...many from 300 or more years since the death of Christ. We don't have ANY of the original versions of these books and letters. Even authorship of some of these books is suspect. And, modern versions eliminate the apocryphyal books, which up until the 1800s were standard.

There have been enough politically motivated shifts just from Greek to English to modern English that saying definitely what the Bible says on any particular moral issue is pretty difficult.

What I would say is this...on a lot of these subjects...it's between you and God. It's up to you to take these issues up with God and come to a place of accountability with him. That's an individual process that each person has to go through. Pretending that you're entitled to tell others what they should believe, as if this is all black/white is simply ignorant. A lot of it isn't black/white, which is why the Southern Baptist denomination (in which I grew up) used to emphasize unity in the essentials (apostle's creed) and tolerance in the non-essentials.

It's a shame that fundamentalist perspectives on this subject have lead to such ignorant dogmatism. In a lot of ways, that ignorant dogmatism does more harm than anything else to the cause of Christ, but that's just my take on it. YMMV.

p.s. Buford has made it clear in this thread that he's here to troll, and that's about it.

Correct...and see here's why I am wrapping up my participation on this thread. Catz makes a great post explaining translations problems and the instructions James I gave to the translators about ensuring that the translation fit his agenda. A mere two posts later KG writes:

...you speak as though random people pick up the translation cold, with no consideration for accuracy, and just spin it...either forgetting, not being aware of, or just ignoring the fact that the people who have translated the bible have been committed to accuracy.

No they weren't committed to accuracy. They were committed to James' agenda fully aware that if they refused they would be put to death. Note as well:

Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.[9] Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.[9]

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words they knew even THEN that there was a difference between what was originally written and what had become "traditional" by the 17th century and chose to go with what was traditional instead of what was accurate. Committed to accuracy my rosy red ass.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, he's my sock, busted! I sometimes like to pose as a sensible conservative to show you rightwingloons up. bwahahahahaha!

Not one person on this thread offered a credible counter argument. That is saying a lot.

I guess we're busted Ravi. It was really YOU who started threads like The Myth of Republican Opposition to Science, If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney Here It Is, and of course A Lesson in Economics for Liberals. I can't wait to see what these clowns come up with next, since crafting a legitimate counter-argument is clearly out the window.

Someone's daving WAY too much about my Accusation...

And yes, I said someONE...



peace...

When all out of any rational thought, just babble on about nonsense, otherwise known as "mal-ing".

 

[Sky Dancer]

Little wonder we have great difficulty hearing God's voice anymore. We have crowded Him out. The one voice we need more than any.

Hmm, how you do know it's God's voice you're hearing?

 

[Buford]

I'm pretty certain that Buford hasn't read a single one of BP's posts.

Talk about gay.

BP stated that every Biblical translation available on the planet is incorrect.

You and BP are very ill.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Buford--

What bothers you most about people who don't agree with your every utterance?

 

[Ravi]

Go ahead and call him ravi... It's Obviously yet another of her Socks.

800+ rep points since November?...

Yeah, that's a Tool of a Sock being Built right there.

ravi didn't used to show her tits to easily.



peace...

Yes, he's my sock, busted! I sometimes like to pose as a sensible conservative to show you rightwingloons up. bwahahahahaha!

Not one person on this thread offered a credible counter argument. That is saying a lot.

I guess we're busted Ravi. It was really YOU who started threads like The Myth of Republican Opposition to Science, If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney Here It Is, and of course A Lesson in Economics for Liberals. I can't wait to see what these clowns come up with next, since crafting a legitimate counter-argument is clearly out the window.

Your one reason for voting for Mitten is my one reason for voting for Obama!

 

[Sky Dancer]

Matthew 19:3
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’,
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away’?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12 For some men are eunuchs because they are born that way; others are made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Doesn't that seem to address marriage equality?

John chapter 8. The religious police brought an adulterous woman to Jesus. He said ‘I do not condemn you’ (an astonishing statement at that time, which perplexed many early Church fathers) before he said ‘Go and sin no more.’ You’ll meet conservatives who only remember the last injunction, and liberals who know only those earlier loving words. How easy to submit to only part of what Jesus said! In our quest to follow Jesus we should put the two together – in his order.

What Did Jesus Say? » 43. “Marriage Is The Maker’s Design. So Stick To Your Wife. Don’t Split Another Couple.” – Jesus

 

[Ravi]

When a book has been translated as many times as the Bible has been, it's easy for things to get lost in translation. Some subjects can also be politicized.

For instance, Phoebe, a patroness of paul in the early church, is referred to in the Greek version of scripture as "diakonos" in Romans 16:1. This is the same term translated as "deacon" in reference to male church leaders, but you'll note that the verses that describe Phoebe are translated as "servant," even though the tense and usage of the words is exactly the same as the usage translated as "deacon."

If you review the English translations currently available, all of them use "servant" in Romans 16:1, but deacon elsewhere for "diakonos."

Political decision or "inspiration"?

It's hard to say. The bible spans almost 2,000 years of widely shifting cultural dynamics. The verses that have influenced a diminished role of women in the church have also been shifted by translators who chose words that reflected the desire to put women in a limited role, as recently as the NIV translation.

MOst people don't even think beyond a single English translation to consider the possible shifts in word and contextual/cultural meaning in these passages that have occurred as the books of the new testament have been translated from their original aramaic into hebrew, then latin, then greek, and then into the King James's English translation, and then modern english translations.

There was an obvious agenda even with the King James edition:

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Link includes a lot of information on the problems with English translations of the Bible).

It deserves to be said that the oldest versions of any new testament book currently in existence date from 100+ years after the books of the new testament were purportedly written...many from 300 or more years since the death of Christ. We don't have ANY of the original versions of these books and letters. Even authorship of some of these books is suspect. And, modern versions eliminate the apocryphyal books, which up until the 1800s were standard.

There have been enough politically motivated shifts just from Greek to English to modern English that saying definitely what the Bible says on any particular moral issue is pretty difficult.

What I would say is this...on a lot of these subjects...it's between you and God. It's up to you to take these issues up with God and come to a place of accountability with him. That's an individual process that each person has to go through. Pretending that you're entitled to tell others what they should believe, as if this is all black/white is simply ignorant. A lot of it isn't black/white, which is why the Southern Baptist denomination (in which I grew up) used to emphasize unity in the essentials (apostle's creed) and tolerance in the non-essentials.

It's a shame that fundamentalist perspectives on this subject have lead to such ignorant dogmatism. In a lot of ways, that ignorant dogmatism does more harm than anything else to the cause of Christ, but that's just my take on it. YMMV.

p.s. Buford has made it clear in this thread that he's here to troll, and that's about it.

Correct...and see here's why I am wrapping up my participation on this thread. Catz makes a great post explaining translations problems and the instructions James I gave to the translators about ensuring that the translation fit his agenda. A mere two posts later KG writes:

...you speak as though random people pick up the translation cold, with no consideration for accuracy, and just spin it...either forgetting, not being aware of, or just ignoring the fact that the people who have translated the bible have been committed to accuracy.

No they weren't committed to accuracy. They were committed to James' agenda fully aware that if they refused they would be put to death. Note as well:

Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.[9] Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.[9]

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words they knew even THEN that there was a difference between what was originally written and what had become "traditional" by the 17th century and chose to go with what was traditional instead of what was accurate. Committed to accuracy my rosy red ass.

That is a great point. You'd think the uberChristians would be up in arms over this perversion of God's word.

 

[Si modo]

I'm pretty certain that Buford hasn't read a single one of BP's posts.

Talk about gay.

BP stated that every Biblical translation available on the planet is incorrect.

You and BP are very ill.

Based on the history of the translations, I'd say that is quite an accurate statement by her.

If we had any "originals" closer to the time it was written, that might be helpful.

Did you ever play the game "telephone" in grammar school? I think all small children should be exposed to that game - it's a great learning experience at an age where they remember that lesson the rest of their lives. Well, most will remember it.

They need to call it "my first lesson in critical thought", IMO.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Typically a eunuch is defined as a castrated male. This is incorrect. Castration means to remove the testicles (that were already there) or emasculate. If all eunuchs were castrated males then why would Jesus say that "some were born that way?" A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. These men were commonly used to protect the harems. Since the Word of God is for everyone we can apply the spiritual concept found in Galatians 3:28 where the Apostle Paul says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Therefore, a eunuch can be male or female in this passage.

Jesus addressed three types of eunuchs.

1. Those born that way. (That's people like me who are born gay.)

2. Those made that way by men. (Those castrated or those sexually abused people who choose to be gay as a result of this abuse rather than because it is their natural sexual affinity.)

3. Those who elect not to have a sexual relationship for the sake of the kingdom. (For example a priest or nun. This group makes the decision on their own.)

So here, our Lord Jesus states that not everyone will marry according to the custom as in male and female. He also said that not everyone can accept this. He says that those that can accept it should accept it. Can you accept what Jesus said? I can.
What Did Jesus Say?

 

[mal]

I guess we're busted Ravi. It was really YOU who started threads like The Myth of Republican Opposition to Science, If You Need Only One Reason to Vote for Romney Here It Is, and of course A Lesson in Economics for Liberals. I can't wait to see what these clowns come up with next, since crafting a legitimate counter-argument is clearly out the window.

Someone's daving WAY too much about my Accusation...

And yes, I said someONE...



peace...

When all out of any rational thought, just babble on about nonsense, otherwise known as "mal-ing".

I'm not out of Rational Thought... I'm just done Playing this Dishonest game with Ravi and her Sock...

We got all of the way to Direct Hebrew Translation and it's simple Dismissals and Referring back to Convenient Liguists with an Angeda.

Now I am simlpy being Entertained by this Thread.

God LOVES the Perversion of his Creation also known as Homosexuality...

He was Translated Correctly in Leviticus 18 regarding Bestiality but not about Homoseuxality...

Rinse and Repeat.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

"mal-ing"

LMAO!