King james was gay!

[High_Gravity]

Lebron James is gay?

 

[guno]

You made a positive assertion.

A positive assertion that you have no valid evidence?

Well, I suppose I did.

You said the evidence had been revised.
Show that, please.

I say that the conclusions presented are not based on any evidence at all, but rather the typical alteration of history from agenda driven zealots.

And your sources, not your opinion

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not poor scholarship at all, even some fundamentalist churches have moved away from the Kjv because of his homosexuality issue

the King James Version (KJV) is the ... Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we ..... revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life

King James Homosexual, From Earliest Teens to His Death & Burial Tomb!

Not poor scholarship? I submit that ad hominem isn't scholarship at all. The homosexual movement is at war against Christians. You engage in fanciful flights in your efforts to smear your enemy. In this case, you employ a complete lack of standards to portray a figure long dead as homosexual, purely for the purpose of an emotional appeal.

I find it laughable, and evidence of the fact that the homosexual movement ain't ready for prime time.

Are citations from some of the king's contemporaries "flights of fancy"?
It is posts like these that cripple your credibility and show you to be an uneducated, agenda driven rube.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equality IS NOT war against Christianity, merely a rebuke to the far right reactonary social cons who do not understand they are not the bellwether of who is Christian and who is not.

 

[guno]

Not poor scholarship at all, even some fundamentalist churches have moved away from the Kjv because of his homosexuality issue

the King James Version (KJV) is the ... Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we ..... revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life

King James Homosexual, From Earliest Teens to His Death & Burial Tomb!

Not poor scholarship? I submit that ad hominem isn't scholarship at all. The homosexual movement is at war against Christians. You engage in fanciful flights in your efforts to smear your enemy. In this case, you employ a complete lack of standards to portray a figure long dead as homosexual, purely for the purpose of an emotional appeal.

I find it laughable, and evidence of the fact that the homosexual movement ain't ready for prime time.

ad hominem? You have yet to cite any sources just christian talking points (what a surprise!), I have given you sources and you have given opinion, strange how you talk about academic research

 

[Chuckt]

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says
Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Forgeries in the Bible's New Testament? : Discovery News

Craig, a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., pointed out there is a distinction between "scholarly Bart" and "popular Bart" or what he termed “Good Bart” and "Bad Bart.”

"Scholarly Bart knows that the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy," said Craig during the Jan. 11 lecture at Azusa Pacific University.

"Popular Bart misrepresents this to unsuspecting laymen through innuendo and implication to make them think that the text of the New Testament is highly uncertain."

Apologist Responds to Bart Ehrman's Critique of Historical Jesus

Strange how Christianity needs an entire movement to come up with illogical excuses to defend which should be obvious to all if it were true, it is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith (good luck with that!)

Isn't Bart selling a book? Sounds like he is peddling his wares with innuendo and making himself look good with other people's money.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who cares?

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

At least you aren't trying to deny the historical evidence that has been presented like the ridiculous Uncensored2008 is doing.
Baby steps.

just because evidence exists doesnt mean it's credible. Quite frankly I don't care if it is or not. No one has made any persuasive argument why it matters if it's true. So who cares?

 

[guno]

Apologist Responds to Bart Ehrman's Critique of Historical Jesus

Strange how Christianity needs an entire movement to come up with illogical excuses to defend which should be obvious to all if it were true, it is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith (good luck with that!)

Isn't Bart selling a book? Sounds like he is peddling his wares with innuendo and making himself look good with other people's money.

Ahh assign a motive for him posting scholarship and assign the motive as money. A christian tactic used for millennium:, never answer the scholarship and sources that are based on the facts given

 

[thebrucebeat]

Apologist Responds to Bart Ehrman's Critique of Historical Jesus

Strange how Christianity needs an entire movement to come up with illogical excuses to defend which should be obvious to all if it were true, it is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith (good luck with that!)

Isn't Bart selling a book? Sounds like he is peddling his wares with innuendo and making himself look good with other people's money.

Even his critics almost always acknowledge his expertise and his explanation of textual criticism. None of them accuse him of innuendo. His books are thoroughly documented and researched.
Does Zondervan sell books?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Apparently the Original poster and some blind followers.

They still haven't given a good reason why we should care about the sex life of a king who died nearly 500 years ago.

At least you aren't trying to deny the historical evidence that has been presented like the ridiculous Uncensored2008 is doing.
Baby steps.

just because evidence exists doesnt mean it's credible. Quite frankly I don't care if it is or not. No one has made any persuasive argument why it matters if it's true. So who cares?

Avatar, if you are interested in the argument of positivism vs metaphysical naturalism that is trying to make all evidence relative, go to Mormon Interpreter online and read up on Alan Goff and Dan Vogel.

 

[Flopper]

I can read Hebrew and Greek even better, and the original manuscripts that are available point out homosexual sex as sin. Period. End of story. Stop posting "scholars" opinions.

There aren't any original manuscripts available.
Period. End of story.

Oh sheesh. They are copies, and according to manuscript theory, even in the non-Christian world, they are reliable representations of the originals. Get an education before you make statements like that.

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

 

[Smilebong]

There aren't any original manuscripts available.
Period. End of story.

Oh sheesh. They are copies, and according to manuscript theory, even in the non-Christian world, they are reliable representations of the originals. Get an education before you make statements like that.

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

Do some homework.

Summary:
Any document from antiquity has no originals.

Homer's Odyssey, Plutarch, etc., etc., etc.

The study of those documents has produced an entire science called manuscript theory.

And the way the originals are best approximated is by studying the copies. And the thousands of copies of Biblical texts is multitudinously more than the number of manuscripts of any other document from antiquity. And the agreement among them is astounding.

 

[MrMax]

Lebron James is gay?

Don't ALL black men do it on the down low?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Difference between this thread;

AND THIS ONE?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/348378-michelle-obama-was-born-a-male-6.html

None at all..... Two sides of the same coin.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Oh sheesh. They are copies, and according to manuscript theory, even in the non-Christian world, they are reliable representations of the originals. Get an education before you make statements like that.

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

Do some homework.

Summary:
Any document from antiquity has no originals.

Homer's Odyssey, Plutarch, etc., etc., etc.

The study of those documents has produced an entire science called manuscript theory.

And the way the originals are best approximated is by studying the copies. And the thousands of copies of Biblical texts is multitudinously more than the number of manuscripts of any other document from antiquity. And the agreement among them is astounding.

It is called textual analysis and criticism.
You still incorrectly made a reference to "original manuscripts" and the agreement of multitudes of copies does nothing to change that.

 

[The Irish Ram]

An educated person wouldn't call them "original manuscripts". We have no idea if they reliably represent the originals as none of them are extant.
I hope you know Hebrew and Greek better than you do English.

Yes, an eduicated person would. You don't know your arse from a hole in the ground.

The righteous indignation doesn't hide your error.

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

 

[koshergrl]

The illiterate and historically ignorant anti-Christians perpetuate the myth that we cannot confirm the accuracy of modern text. According to them, there is no reliable record, or ancient texts.

They're wrong about this as they are about everything else they spout.

 

[Chuckt]

There aren't any original manuscripts available.
Period. End of story.

Oh sheesh. They are copies, and according to manuscript theory, even in the non-Christian world, they are reliable representations of the originals. Get an education before you make statements like that.

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

So you are going by theory? That means you are going by a theory and theory isn't fact which means you are basing your life on what you don't know.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes, an eduicated person would. You don't know your arse from a hole in the ground.

The righteous indignation doesn't hide your error.

There is no error. Want to read the original Ezekiel? Would the stones his book is written on, taken from his tomb, count? Job is the oldest manuscript to survive.

There was a one hundred year rampage against Christianity following the death of Christ.
Everything Christian was burned, and authors and believers were soaked in oil, hung on poles that were inserted rectally and shoved up along their spine and then were lit to provide light for strolls in the garden. Followers were killed en masse.

Fortunately for us Christianity survived by manuscripts being spread to various locations, and scribes that painstakingly did their job. Don't trust "copies"? Look up the criteria that scribes had to follow. They were precise copies to the letter.

Bruce, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Are you mad at Jesus?

Again, no originals.
We agree.
The earliest copies were done by the most literate person in a village, often someone who wasn't very. The profession of "scribe" evolved as the faith got more proscribed and codified, but the earliest copies were not the products of professionals in the least, and many errors have been catalogued in copies of all kinds, whether simple errors or doctrinal additions, by even the most careful professional scribes. They were not "precise copies to the letter", and no scholar of textual criticism would ever suggest that.
By the way, I'm not mad at Jesus at all. Quite love the depiction. You seem to follow him more closely than most who profess their allegiance to him on these boards (with this touchy post of yours as a notable exception).
The chip on my shoulder is always about blind faith, hypocrisy and very poor argumentation.
Those get under my skin.
Your posts are usually quite lovely.
I'm interested to know why this one of mine ruffled your feathers so uncharacteristically.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Oh sheesh. They are copies, and according to manuscript theory, even in the non-Christian world, they are reliable representations of the originals. Get an education before you make statements like that.

How do you know it's a reliable representation since there are no original manuscripts, just copies of copies. Have the copies been altered, chapters added or lost? To believe that alterations over the many centuries have not been made for political or religious reason or attempts to clarify passages is bit far fetched. You can only accept on faith that what we have today is the world of God.

So you are going by theory? That means you are going by a theory and theory isn't fact which means you are basing your life on what you don't know.

I am basing it on what we DO know, and discounting your unfounded theories.
I don't know if they are reliable records of the authors original intent. We don't have that data. They might be. How could we prove it? We know absolutely that stories got added to scripture by scribes. We have that proof.
Your theory is "it's what I believe".
You are basing your life on what you don't know, also.
The only difference is I am perfectly comfortable with admitting it.