I don't understand

[MrPirate]

So, you believe in the interpretations that "set you free" from Satan? Or... make you okay when you sin?
Hmmmm....
Again, how can anyone read the above verses and misinterpret them. How 'bout you tell us what you think they mean.

Davedjy has presented evidence that the translation of the bible is not reflective of the original meaning. It is obvious you do not like this as it conflicts with your desire to justify personal prejudice. Instead of condemning him for not believing as you do, you might to well to actually examine the sources Davedgy presented and learn about the problems of translating form dead languages to modern languages.

 

[MrPirate]

Originally Posted by davedjy


Myth #2: Dave cares about what the scriptures REALLY say.

Davedjy backs up his statements with references. He has obviously studied the topic and the bible.

You cherry pick vases to justify bigotry and attack anyone who dares to not hate the same minority you have chosen to hate and in doing so ignore the message of Jesus and the bible.

I think it is pretty obvious who really cares about what scripture says and who does not.

 

[MrPirate]

teen, you presented yourself as someone who was so confused and doubtful about the whole issue, when you clearly had a crystal clear opinion from before. a little bit disloyal , don't you think?
</IMG>

Disloyal? I think dishonest is a better word

 

[DMagoh]

Davedjy backs up his statements with references.

Davedjy backs up his statements with homosexual propaganda websites.

 

[MrPirate]

Davedjy backs up his statements with homosexual propaganda websites.

Davedjy has presented evidence that the translation of the bible is not reflective of the original meaning.

Simply because that scholarship does not support the hate you have for gays and lesbians does not mean it is acceptable to flame davedjy or the scholars he references. Your personal prejudices do nothing to falsify the evidence presented.

If a researcher presented evidence that did not support your personal prejudice and that researcher happened to be non-white would you attack that research by saying it came from “black propaganda websites”?

Why not?

You just demonstrated you are more than willing to express hatred and denounce one minority why not a different minority

Bigotry based on skin color is no different form bigotry based on sexual oriention.

 

[DMagoh]

Davedjy has presented evidence that the translation of the bible is not reflective of the original meaning.

Simply because that scholarship does not support the hate you have for gays and lesbians does not mean it is acceptable to flame davedjy or the scholars he references. Your personal prejudices do nothing to falsify the evidence presented.

If a researcher presented evidence that did not support your personal prejudice and that researcher happened to be non-white would you attack that research by saying it came from “black propaganda websites”?

Why not?

You just demonstrated you are more than willing to express hatred and denounce one minority why not a different minority

Bigotry based on skin color is no different form bigotry based on sexual oriention.

I have already addressed your misinformed opinion. I am attracted to other men dude. I have been hated, despised, ridiculed, and even had a knife pulled on me before just because of that. (I had to teach that guy a lesson that just because I am attracted to other men doesnt mean I cant defend myself.) I am NOT prejudiced against homosexuals. That's idiotic. And just so you know, you can post it a thousand times and it still wont make it true.

I guess you go around calling Jesse Jackson or other black people racists?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Davedjy has presented evidence that the translation of the bible is not reflective of the original meaning. It is obvious you do not like this as it conflicts with your desire to justify personal prejudice. Instead of condemning him for not believing as you do, you might to well to actually examine the sources Davedgy presented and learn about the problems of translating form dead languages to modern languages[/SIZE]

I will repeat what others have already said. Dave has NOT presented any credible, verifiable, historical evidence of anything. NOTHING! NADA! All he has done is copy/paste unsupported, undocumented, unsubstantiated rubbish from prohomosexual websites. I have shown several times how the articles he copy/pastes do not properly cite any quotes, have internal contradictions, and make illogical statements.

Here OTOH is credible, verifiable, historical evidence WITH proper citations showing that it is in fact the homsexual perversion of, "the bible is not reflective of the original meaning."

This evidence spans approximately 1500 years of church history, from 1200 BC through 300 AD.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence from Talmud, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence from early church fathers, Link

 

[teen4jesus92]

Hey, everyone stop!
This isn't about what so-and-so said about such-and-such. This is about what the Bible says. And the Bible is very clear. If you want to carry on a conversation about something else, please move it some place else. This thread was about what the Bible says.

I'm sorry for the random outburst. Please continue. ... (I need a "Bible" smiley)

 

[ReformedChapin]

Davedjy backs up his statements with references. He has obviously studied the topic and the bible.

You cherry pick vases to justify bigotry and attack anyone who dares to not hate the same minority you have chosen to hate and in doing so ignore the message of Jesus and the bible.

I think it is pretty obvious who really cares about what scripture says and who does not.

Hey if you want to follow illogical interpretion of scripture be my guest. But anyone using reason will shoot it down.

 

[Der Alte]

Hey, everyone stop!
This isn't about what so-and-so said about such-and-such. This is about what the Bible says. And the Bible is very clear. If you want to carry on a conversation about something else, please move it some place else. This thread was about what the Bible says.

I'm sorry for the random outburst. Please continue. ... (I need a "Bible" smiley)

If you were not including me, stop reading and carry on. If you were, my reply.

Here is what the Bible says. Want to discuss this, it is very clear to me?

&#1493;&#1488;&#1497;&#1513; &#1488;&#1513;&#1512; &#1497;&#1513;&#1499;&#1489; &#1488;&#1514;&#1470;&#1494;&#1499;&#1512; &#1502;&#1513;&#1499;&#1489;&#1497; &#1488;&#1513;&#1492; &#1514;&#1493;&#1506;&#1489;&#1492; &#1506;&#1513;&#1493; &#1513;&#1504;&#1497;&#1492;&#1501; &#1502;&#1493;&#1514; &#1497;&#1493;&#1502;&#1514;&#1493; &#1491;&#1502;&#1497;&#1492;&#1501; &#1489;&#1501;

&#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#969;&#962; &#964;&#949; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959;&#953; &#945;&#961;&#961;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#962; &#945;&#966;&#949;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#966;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#954;&#951;&#957; &#967;&#961;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#964;&#951;&#962; &#952;&#951;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#958;&#949;&#954;&#945;&#965;&#952;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#964;&#951; &#959;&#961;&#949;&#958;&#949;&#953; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#953;&#962; &#945;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#955;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#962; &#949;&#957; &#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#967;&#951;&#956;&#959;&#963;&#965;&#957;&#951;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#947;&#945;&#950;&#959;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#953; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#964;&#953;&#956;&#953;&#963;&#952;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#951;&#957; &#949;&#948;&#949;&#953; &#964;&#951;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#945;&#957;&#951;&#962; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#949;&#957; &#949;&#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; &#945;&#960;&#959;&#955;&#945;&#956;&#946;&#945;&#957;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;

My evidence, in the above post, shows how Jewish scholars, from the time of Moses, intrepreted the Hebrew O.T. scriptures. Homosexuals here claim the Bible is mistranslated. NOT according to the historical evidence.

My evidence shows how the Greek speaking early church, between 50 AD and 258 AD, interpreted the Greek N.T. scriptures. Some of the early church fathers I quoted, include Ignatius and Polycarp, disciples of John, the apostle, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp. Homosexuals here claim the N.T. is mistranslated. NOT according to the historical evidence.

 

[MrPirate]

I am NOT prejudiced against homosexuals.

homosexual propaganda websites.

you contradict yoruself

 

[MrPirate]

I will repeat what others have already said. Dave has NOT presented any credible, verifiable, historical evidence of anything. NOTHING! NADA! All he has done is copy/paste unsupported, undocumented, unsubstantiated rubbish from prohomosexual websites. I have shown several times how the articles he copy/pastes do not properly cite any quotes, have internal contradictions, and make illogical statements.

Here OTOH is credible, verifiable, historical evidence WITH proper citations showing that it is in fact the homsexual perversion of, "the bible is not reflective of the original meaning."

This evidence spans approximately 1500 years of church history, from 1200 BC through 300 AD.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence from Talmud, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence from early church fathers, Link

Davedgy’s documentation is more credible than yours as your cut and pastes are all appeals to history.

 

[MrPirate]

Hey, everyone stop!
This isn't about what so-and-so said about such-and-such. This is about what the Bible says. And the Bible is very clear. If you want to carry on a conversation about something else, please move it some place else. This thread was about what the Bible says.

I'm sorry for the random outburst. Please continue. ... (I need a "Bible" smiley)

Actually…if you were to read what was being posted you would notice the debate IS about what the bible says.
At issue is the translation of key verses. On the one hand Davedgy has posted evidence about mistranslation of these verses…and on the other DerAlter appeals to history (we have discriminated for centuries…therefore it is all right to continue)

 

[DMagoh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMagoh
I am NOT prejudiced against homosexuals.

Quote:
homosexual propaganda websites.

you contradict yoruself

Uh....no I dont. He does cut and paste from homosexual propaganda websites.

I know, I know.....you think nobody likes you cause you like boys. Wipe your tears man and quit crying about every little thing somebody says or posts. Every other word out of your keyboard is "minority" or "prejudice".

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Davedgy’s documentation is more credible than yours as your cut and pastes are all appeals to history[/SIZE].

Let me see if I understand this. Dave copy/pastes 2d - 3d hand stuff from some anonymous dood at homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com®, none of which has a proper citation. It is all, "Homosexuality is good, homophobes are bad." A. Scholar. No book or article title, no publisher name, location, or date of publication. No identificaton of who these guys are supposed to be, if they even exist, or said what is being quoted.

And that is more credible than direct quotes from actual primary sources all of which I have read and provide title, dates, and links.

You have just proven you don't have a clue what a cut and paste is. I cite the actual historical primary sources not 2d - 3d hand emesis from anonymous doods. Dave copy/pastes his entire argument from websites. The only way he can reply to anything is cut/paste.

"all appeals to history" Duh-uh! Might want to check dave's copy/pastes from homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com® there are quite a few "appeals to history" but without any supporting evidence. We are just supposed to accept it cuz the dood over there said it.

If e.g. I want to write or study about ancient Roman history, what sources do I use? Who would know more about the language, customs, practices, clothing, tools, etc. of the ancient Romans?

a. Copy paste stuff from homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com®.

b. Consult historical documents, reports, records, letters, artifacts etc. written by scholars at, or near, the time in question, eyeball witnesses in a position to know the persons or events being studied.​

Extend that to any historical topic or era, ancient Greece, Civil War, The eruption of Mount Pompeii, etc. What is the most reliable source? Credible, verifiable, historical or lexical or grammatical evidence described in b., above, or 2d-3d hand stuff from homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com®?

Why would it be any different for any other historical event, such as the history of Gods people?

Do you even know what credible means?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Actually…if you were to read what was being posted you would notice the debate IS about what the bible says.
At issue is the translation of key verses. On the one hand Davedgy has posted evidence about mistranslation of these verses…and on the other DerAlter appeals to history (we have discriminated for centuries…therefore it is all right to continue.[/SIZE]

And the only way we know what the Bible says is by the way the Bible was interpeted by the people of God who actually lived in the era and actually read and understood those languages. NOT the way scripture is perverted at homosexual websites without any grammatical or lexical evidence.

Dave has NOT posted any evidence of anything only copy/pastes of 2d - 3d hand stuff from homosexual websites. There is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence that anything at those websites is accurate, or factual.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And the only way we know what the Bible says is by the way the Bible was interpeted by the people of God who actually lived in the era and actually read and understood those languages. NOT the way scripture is perverted at homosexual websites without any grammatical or lexical evidence.

Dave has NOT posted any evidence of anything only copy/pastes of 2d - 3d hand stuff from homosexual websites. There is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence that anything at those websites is accurate, or factual.

Have you noticed that everytime you say "NO, ZERO, NONE evidence " someone produces is it and yuou end up shifting your goal posts again?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Have you noticed that everytime you say "NO, ZERO, NONE evidence " someone produces is it and yuou end up shifting your goal posts again?

Nah they produce speculation, no real evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Nah they produce speculation, no real evidence.

I think I'm still waiting for you to give a clear and concise definition of what you will accept as "evidence"... I seem to recall that the last time we spoke, you seemed fairly firmly ensconced in the "if it disagrees with my existing views, it isn't evidence" camp

 

[ReformedChapin]

I think I'm still waiting for you to give a clear and concise definition of what you will accept as "evidence"... I seem to recall that the last time we spoke, you seemed fairly firmly ensconced in the "if it disagrees with my existing views, it isn't evidence" camp

Simple, provide historical evidence of church fathers regarding the topic of homosexuality in which they clearly approved it. If you are regarding scientific evidence please show the findings of the gay gene and the individuals theoretical frame work which lead him to that conclusion. Not just "two cats are rubbing against each other that means they are gay."