David and Jonathan...

[thereselittleflower]

Oh ok, so my interpretations are isogesis, but yours are factual interpretations? How many denominations are there that believe differently?

You are equally not respecting my beliefs, yet I am gay, and have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and I have reconciled with both. I don't need some false doctrine to tell me that I am wrong, when I know I'm OK and right with God....

dave, I respect that this is what you believe.

What is at issue here is your claim you can support your belief from scripture.

To challange that claim is not to disrespect your personal belief regarding your relationship with Christ or how you believe your homosexuality fits in with it.

That is a different issue.

What we are discussing is what the bible supports.


I have demonstrated above how verses being used about Jonathan and David do NOT support the interpretation you are giving them.


Yet you are not addressing the evidence I have provided.

.

 

[david_x]

I feel sorry for you davidjy, It's kinda a four on one show down here.

 

[gwdboi]

Why not take a look at the historic record. Nowhere will you see this kind of presumption being associated with the text until recently. The grammatic form that statements that draw from Gen. 2 use is identical to the form used in Gen. 2 in order to establish the correlation. The terms used in the passages RE: David and Jonathan being knit together as one soul are different because they're speaking to a different topic.

If my analysis of the passage itself is in question, please refer to the analysis itself. I won't cite any sources as this is observation on my part from the grammatic form of the sentence in question.

Compare: 1 Samuel 18, Genesis 2

My question is what qualifies you to make this analysis. Are you relying on an analysis of the English words? If so, that's like trying to use a ruler to measure temperature.

By the appeal to monism - the idea that the body and the soul are not separable - the idea defeats itself. Marriage itself was not viewed in the same way. The marriage covenant was sealed by the physical act of intimacy, which takes it's form in Gen. 2, and by the unison of flesh, the souls are also seen as bound to that covenant through the act of the physical union - the blood is the seal. [what blood?] Saying their souls united, or David loved Jonathan as his own soul, is speaking of a higher level of love than physical intimacy [is there a higher level or rather expression of love?] which necessarily negates the act of physical intimacy because there is no mention of it. It's speaking of a different kind of love entirely. David loved Jonathan as himself would be a clear way of thinking about it in terms of monism, which, as has been pointed out, points forward to what Jesus spoke of in context of "There is no greater love than this..."

Non sequitur
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
This is really becoming an argumentum ad nauseam.

There is no possibility of it from the text. Rebelling against history for the simple sake of rebelling is not helpful in understanding it.

Another argumentum ad ignorantiam

What does the text say? Where is the subject of the second half of the sentence? I can't see anything that would modify it other than 'weep'. It's simple syntax. There was no change of subject, thus it was still referring to the same subject - "...did what more? Wept more? Kissed more? Embraced more? Aged more? Was made notorious more? (as the word alone generally refers to age, sometimes might or notoriety - I.E. 'He grew in God's Grace through his time in his father's house' or 'God will make you great before all men') Which would logically fit this puzzle?"

Or is your presumption that this passage is also carrying a sexual connotation because it has no specific subject?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jos/Jos004.html#14

Literal Passage: David and Jonathan kissed until David became great.

Interpretation 1:
Kissing: a possible sexual action
becoming great: a euphemism for getting an erection

Interpretation 2:
Kissing: a nonsexual greeting
becoming great: ???

No, they're mutually tied together. The language the author uses is a reflection of what the author is attempting to convey with it. Text is not a disconnected statement that we're permitted to alter into whatever we wish it to be.

Sometimes we cannot find the right words to state something or we use different literary devices etc to try to express exactly what we want, these things are up for lots of interpretation by the reader.

true meaning =/= language

If that's your point, why are you arguing with me over this? I'm always open to rational exploration of a topic, but the presuppositions that have to be present to read this kind of message into the text is beyond my ability to rationalize.

I'm not asking anyone to believe that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, just to admit the possibility.

 

[davedjy]

I only mean that Isogesis is adding meaning to a text.

Such as suggesting that what Romans is saying has anything to do with temple prostitutes, It simply isn't there.

nor is their any meaning, implied or otherwise, that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual.

Mine is not a denomonational view point. I hold to no denomination.


Your relationship with God is between you and He, and not my concern. However, I will argue meaning in scripture that is quite evidently ABSENT.

No, but pagan worship is definitely shown...if you think I'm lying read Verse 23 of Romans, and it says "therefore God gave them up...".

I don't imply that David and Jonathan's relationship was homosexual, I don't even care to do that. If they did, i just don't think it's bad...that was my only point.

Arguing that homosexuals have reprobate minds is absent from Scripture. It says they were given up for worshiping and serving created things. If you read verse 23 it makes more sense, it connects the dots for you.

 

[davedjy]

I feel sorry for you davidjy, It's kinda a four on one show down here.

Dude, I'm holding up under pressure, I'm doing fine.
See the reputation number next to my name?

AS long as nobody trolls after my posts....

 

[gwdboi]

Of course, but if you are going to use it, and your source is called into question, then either be preared to defend it or yield and admit it is not defendable.

The reason I use and state my sources is because I don't want people that I'm just making things up... same reason why I ask for sources... to make sure that people are not just making things up.

And what makes this a valid source? What justifies this source as having any real validity?

The source I used is a true scholar and much respected for his expertise in the ancient langauges.

I'm not trying to defend my source, people may make their own opinions about it. All I can say is that the source is much more versed in linguistics etc. than I (which is why I used them anyway)

If you can't defend your source, then you have used your source invalidly, and your supposed "evidence" is invalid and you have proven nothing. If you yourself can't know if your source is right, then we throw out your source as a valid source of factual information.

Just because the source I use may or may not prove that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship doesn't mean that they didn't.

This is just what you said about your own source with your words above. Thank you for confirming what we have been saying about your source .. it is invalid and not credible om this matter.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. Like I've said before, my goal is not to prove anything but to try to get others to expand their minds for just a moment and admit the possibility that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship.

When do you think these things were written? How would the author have gotten ahold of the information regarding Jonathan and David? When would that informaiton have been known? Obviously it was common enough knowledge for it to have made its way into the scriptures, so if these things meant something other than deep friendship, then it was commonly enough known and yes David would have been disqualified as King, and stoned and Jonathan too.

Obviously you don't believe in political intrigue.

Possible scenario:
David told Samuel that he and Jonathan were having a gay relationship and sought counseling about it.

Samuel knew that David was to become king and so did not alert anyone else about it but put subtle hints in his writing.

OR

For an unknown reason, Samuel felt that it was okay for David and Jonathan to have gay relationship (often common amongst warriors by the way)

Just an idea, you don't think that the Bible contains everything that happened throughout David's life do you? There are things that we will never know.

Now, something that has not happened in this thread yet is the dismantling of the initial arguments using scriptures from 1 and 2 Samuel . . . this is because up till now, many have not been aware of tools available on the net. Blueletterbible.com has just put in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, made hundreds of years before Christ . . .this translation is extremely important for it shows us better how to understand some difficult passages (or such passage as some try to make difficult as we see here).

So, in looking at the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint side by side we see something very, VERY interestin.

Remember our discussion of AGAPE LOVe? That pure, non-sexual love?

Well . . there is something very interesting here . .

Let's look at this verse:

2Sa 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.​

The Hebrew word is 'ahabah.

So what Greek word was used to translated 'ahabah?

AGAPE!

If this verse was speaking of any type of sexual love, then the correct Greek word to use would have been EROS.

But this is NOT the Greek word used.

AGAPE! is the Greek word used.

CASE CLOSED.

Now let's look at another verse used, but in a different way:

1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.​

Now, let's look at all instances in the scripture where we find "and they kissed" . . it is quite interesting, for most include "weeping" and or obeisance (bowing) . . . .

Gen 33:4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exd 18:7 And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rth 1:9 The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each [of you] in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 20:37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,​

Now, following the logic that has been presented regarding the original verse in the OP, all of these would be speaking of homosexual relationships as well. . . .

That is patenty absurd. This shows the absurdity of insiting this verse regarding Jonathan and David means anything of the sort either . . .





That is indeed a good self description of your own posts.


.

So, you've proven that the Hebrew was translated to Greek, congratulations.

Anyone who knows two languages will be able to tell you that two words don't always perfectly translate; especially words such as love that have many different meanings and applications.
Your argument would require more information to be valid.

ALSO

with whom would David have had an agape relationship with a woman? This would have been very socially unacceptable and could even have lead to speculations of premarital sex.. it appears that either way, David is in a difficult situation and either way something is being hidden.

 

[intricatic]

My question is what qualifies you to make this analysis. Are you relying on an analysis of the English words? If so, that's like trying to use a ruler to measure temperature.

I don't make grammatic analysis of text in a biblical record by the English words in a translation.

Non sequitur
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
This is really becoming an argumentum ad nauseam.

[what blood?] -- the blood of the breaking of the hymen to seal the marital covenant. It was related to purity code.

[is there a higher level or rather expression of love?]
Yes. Please review this thread, it's been brought up a number of times.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
If you're drawing on this, I can equally do the same to your interpretations. Please keep that in mind.

We can continue to explore how there are absolutely no plausible interpretations of the passages in question to imply homoeroticism unless one wants to read between the non-existent lines. Please provide an exegetical analysis of the grammatic syntax that holds up to logical scrutiny.

Literal Passage: David and Jonathan kissed until David became great.

Interpretation 1:
Kissing: a possible sexual action
becoming great: a euphemism for getting an erection

Where does that thought come from? I don't see anything in the text to imply it. I see a distinct possibility of ANE cultural expression that commonly existed between men, but nothing that alludes to a sexual connotation. Also, have you examined the social context to see whether this was a common euphemism? I don't see it as a utility of the word in scripture anywhere, so perhaps you know of some extra-biblical sources.

Interpretation 2:
Kissing: a nonsexual greeting
becoming great: ???

What makes this any less plausible than reading a sexual connotation into the text when there is no reasonable evidence of one? BTW---- ??? = wept more. Obvious answer, considering the context.

Sometimes we cannot find the right words to state something or we use different literary devices etc to try to express exactly what we want, these things are up for lots of interpretation by the reader.

true meaning =/= language

Only in a very strange world where people can't communicate with one another due to an inability to understand one another. We're discussing this issue right now, so I would presume this is an inconsistent opinion.

I'm not asking anyone to believe that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, just to admit the possibility.

If there's significant evidence presented to me, I will.

 

[davedjy]

DO NOT use multi-color text!!!!!

It is symbolic of something else!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[thereselittleflower]

gw, you have not substantiated you position as valid in the least with all the rhetoric you have presented . . . .

All you have presented to us is speculation . . nothing more. 2000 years of Chrsitian teaching are to the contrary.

Christianity holds the bible out to us as truth. We are commanded in the bible to stand and hold fast to the Traditions the apostles taught, whether by WORD (verbally) or by Epistle . . .


And that TRADITION we are COMMANDED to hold to as Chrsitians has taught, and continues to teach, that homosexuality is a moral abberancy that is an abomination to God.

PERIOD.

All you offer to us in opposition to this clear, unnanimous teaching of the Church for 2000 years is speculation . . . . .

Nothing more.

The Septuagint, by the way, was the Old Testament Scriptures Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church used, so HOW the Septuagint translated the Hebrew into Greek is extremely relevant as to its original meaning and intent, and your dismissive arguments to the contrary do not change this fact.


All you offer us are logical fallacies, invalid dismissive arguments, and speculative theories without any factual basis to support them. . . .

All this is merely just a lot of continuing obfuscation.

Nothing more . . . .

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm not asking anyone to believe that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, just to admit the possibility.

Then you are asking in the wrong place.


,.

 

[davedjy]

Then you are asking in the wrong place.


,.

It is of no consequence, it doesn't change the present or future either way.

 

[intricatic]

It is of no consequence, it doesn't change the present or future either way.

It does a disservice to scripture, though. It's essentially required that one ignore completely the social context to come to the kind of conclusions that interpretation implies.

 

[davedjy]

It does a disservice to scripture, though. It's essentially required that one ignore completely the social context to come to the kind of conclusions that interpretation implies.

I have NEVER said that their relationship was homosexual! To say it "Might", I don't know...but it's not something I think about.

 

[intricatic]

I have NEVER said that their relationship was homosexual! To say it "Might", I don't know...but it's not something I think about.

I didn't say you did. Sorry if I came across that way, I was just giving a general reply.

 

[gwdboi]

I don't make grammatic analysis of text in a biblical record by the English words in a translation.

If you in fact make your grammatic analysis in a language other than English... then what qualifies you to do so intelligibly?

[what blood?] --

the blood of the breaking of the hymen to seal the marital covenant. It was related to purity code.

[is there a higher level or rather expression of love?]
Yes. Please review this thread, it's been brought up a number of times.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
If you're drawing on this, I can equally do the same to your interpretations. Please keep that in mind.

We can continue to explore how there are absolutely no plausible interpretations of the passages in question to imply homoeroticism unless one wants to read between the non-existent lines. Please provide an exegetical analysis of the grammatic syntax that holds up to logical scrutiny.

Here is where you keep assuming that I'm trying to prove something... I'm not. I'm just providing evidence, I personally believe that it is strong evidence.

The following is my own personal belief and there is no scriptural evidence to back it up... it's just what I believe:

I believe that having sex with someone is the highest expression of trust since it is the most vulnerable a person can become. Relationships are built off of trust and love.
Whenever two people have a sexual relationship they become connected to that person in an unexplainable way be it male/male, female/female, or male/female (that is if the relationship is based off of love and not lust), and therefore I believe it is the highest expression of love. AGAIN: this is just my own personal belief, there is no need debating it.

Where does that thought come from? I don't see anything in the text to imply it. I see a distinct possibility of ANE cultural expression that commonly existed between men, but nothing that alludes to a sexual connotation. Also, have you examined the social context to see whether this was a common euphemism? I don't see it as a utility of the word in scripture anywhere, so perhaps you know of some extra-biblical sources.

I don't see any evidence of crying... but you seem to easily put that in there.

What makes this any less plausible than reading a sexual connotation into the text when there is no reasonable evidence of one? BTW---- ??? = wept more. Obvious answer, considering the context.

To me, what you're saying is:
A + B = C
Therefore: C = LMNOP

All I'm trying to say is:
A suggests B and B suggests C; be it right, wrong, or indifferent.

Only in a very strange world where people can't communicate with one another due to an inability to understand one another. We're discussing this issue right now, so I would presume this is an inconsistent opinion.

Speaking with one another is one thing; one can be sure that the other person knows what one is saying.

Writing is another, there is no way for the author to ask the reader if they understand what is going on, nor is there any way for the author to address specific questions any one reader has.

The implications may be there, but there is no way to be sure. But, like I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just presenting evidence for people to contemplate. What disturbs me is the fact that people are unwilling to do so, this is the true problem of this entire issue.

If there's significant evidence presented to me, I will.

You wouldn't need evidence to abstract.

 

[gwdboi]

gw, you have not substantiated you position as valid in the least with all the rhetoric you have presented . . . .

All you have presented to us is speculation . . nothing more. 2000 years of Chrsitian teaching are to the contrary.

Christianity holds the bible out to us as truth. We are commanded in the bible to stand and hold fast to the Traditions the apostles taught, whether by WORD (verbally) or by Epistle . . .


And that TRADITION we are COMMANDED to hold to as Chrsitians has taught, and continues to teach, that homosexuality is a moral abberancy that is an abomination to God.

PERIOD.

All you offer to us in opposition to this clear, unnanimous teaching of the Church for 2000 years is speculation . . . . .

Nothing more.

The Septuagint, by the way, was the Old Testament Scriptures Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church used, so HOW the Septuagint translated the Hebrew into Greek is extremely relevant as to its original meaning and intent, and your dismissive arguments to the contrary do not change this fact.


All you offer us are logical fallacies, invalid dismissive arguments, and speculative theories without any factual basis to support them. . . .

All this is merely just a lot of continuing obfuscation.

Nothing more . . . .

.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not too fond of tradition.

I believe in two commandments given in the Bible:
1. Love God
2. Love others
3. THE END

That's it, the entire Bible in a nutshell, translate it into any language you want but that's the basis of the Bible.

Tradition can be wrong since tradition is based off of people that's why I don't trust it.

I also believe that tradition is used as a crutch so people can avoid having to think for themselves.

 

[intricatic]

I don't see any evidence of crying... but you seem to easily put that in there.

To me, what you're saying is:
A + B = C
Therefore: C = LMNOP

Look very carefully at the sentence structure. I know it might be difficult to miss, so I'll point it out.

41 As soon as the lad had gone, David arose from a place toward the south, fell on his face to the ground, and bowed down three times. And they kissed one another; and they wept together, but David more so.
(1 Samuel 20, NKJV)

41The youth hath gone, and David hath risen from Ezel, at the south, and falleth on his face to the earth, and boweth himself three times, and they kiss one another, and they weep one with another, till David exerted himself;
(1 Samuel 20, YLT)

41When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times And they kissed each other and wept together, but David wept the more.
(1 Samuel 20, NASB)

The word itself I've already posted in Strong's. The sentence works like this;


1Sa 20:41 [And] as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of [a place] toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three time and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

Now, we can understand this to carry sexual connotations, even though it's an obvious anachronism to do so considering there are reasonable customs within the ANE culture that testify to the normative quality of the actions taking place here, but speaking hypothetically, we could do so. If we speculate this is the case, there needs to be a subject that "exceeded" refers to - which there needs to be, regardless of what kind of connotations this passage carries. As I pointed out, the word is This in Hebrew. The subject which takes value in the text is presented below. One from a western mindset might read "kissed" to be a sexual connotation, but that isn't how the original language would have understood it. I say this based on the clear evidence that this is not how the original language understood it.

and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded..

Speaking with one another is one thing; one can be sure that the other person knows what one is saying.

Writing is another, there is no way for the author to ask the reader if they understand what is going on, nor is there any way for the author to address specific questions any one reader has.

We're not braindead.

The implications may be there, but there is no way to be sure. But, like I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just presenting evidence for people to contemplate. What disturbs me is the fact that people are unwilling to do so, this is the true problem of this entire issue.

What disturbs me is that so many people are willing to read western thoughts into the Bible so vulgarly.

 

[david_x]

I'm holding up under pressure

like an animal backed into a corner. I was just kidding around anyway.

What disturbs me is that so many people are willing to read western thoughts into the Bible so vulgarly.

Not that there is a lack of "volgar things." The Bible is riddled with them. On the same note I do agree with you entirly. "kissing" has become very sexual were as even in europe not to long ago it was costumary to caress someone on the fore head. People still do that cheek thing too.

 

[intricatic]

like an animal backed into a corner. I was just kidding around anyway.



Not that there is a lack of "volgar things." The Bible is riddled with them. On the same note I do agree with you entirly. "kissing" has become very sexual were as even in europe not to long ago it was costumary to caress someone on the fore head. People still do that cheek thing too.

There are things that can be taken vulgarly, but they're often taken by shock and then passed over as a result. If you study some of those things, you learn a lot about why they happened. Christianity is a very real religion in that it doesn't avoid those topics. We might, but the Bible doesn't.

 

[catlover]

Have you stripped off your Robe for any guys lately?

There are some guys I would love to strip off my robe for ...but they would run away in fear.