Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...gwdboi:
First, the text cannot support both interpretations. One of us is wrong. This has nothing to do with being or not being "open minded".
Second, the Bible teaches that the Word of God is directly inspired by the Spirit of God Himself. It is not an option for Christians to believe that man is the official judge or final arbiter of the Scriptures. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it is necessarily inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, self-validating, self-attesting, and self-sufficient. It can mean only one thing, and not what we want it to mean.
Third, it is clear that you and God do not agree on the meaning of "love". God defines true love, and in the Bible, true love precludes "unnatural affection" (cf. Romans 1) -- i.e., homosexual relationships.
I am familiar with the argument, and it has no contextual, grammatical, exegetical or etymological support. It is an argument contrived by modern theological liberals who construct arguments based on what they want to be true, even though it is textually groundless.
gwdboi:
First, the text cannot support both interpretations. One of us is wrong. This has nothing to do with being or not being "open minded".
Second, the Bible teaches that the Word of God is directly inspired by the Spirit of God Himself. It is not an option for Christians to believe that man is the official judge or final arbiter of the Scriptures. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it is necessarily inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, self-validating, self-attesting, and self-sufficient. It can mean only one thing, and not what we want it to mean.
Third, it is clear that you and God do not agree on the meaning of "love". God defines true love, and in the Bible, true love precludes "unnatural affection" (cf. Romans 1) -- i.e., homosexual relationships.
I doubt it very much. Leviticus hadn't yet been written.
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...
Yes the Bible is the only and absolute word of God, but it's only as good as how we interpret it.
You're equivocating again. We can't have two competing, mutually contradictory opinions co-exist together in irreconcilable tension. And you know it. You're not interested in whether "alternative interpretations" "might" exist. You've made up your mind beforehand that the Christian interpretation must be defeated, and the Bible deconstructed to fit your preconceived ideas.Basically what I was trying to say is that people are not OPEN MINDED twards ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.
1 Samuel 18
Saul's Jealousy of David
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. 1 Samuel 20
David and Jonathan
1 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, "What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to take my life?"
2 "Never!" Jonathan replied. "You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn't do anything, great or small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide this from me? It's not so!"
3 But David took an oath and said, "Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, 'Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.' Yet as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death."
4 Jonathan said to David, "Whatever you want me to do, I'll do for you."
5 So David said, "Look, tomorrow is the New Moon festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, 'David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.' 7 If he says, 'Very well,' then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the LORD. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?"
9 "Never!" Jonathan said. "If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn't I tell you?"
10 David asked, "Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?"
11 "Come," Jonathan said, "let's go out into the field." So they went there together.
12 Then Jonathan said to David: "By the LORD, the God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away safely. May the LORD be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like that of the LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David's enemies from the face of the earth."
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
18 Then Jonathan said to David: "Tomorrow is the New Moon festival. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, 'Go, find the arrows.' If I say to him, 'Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,' then come, because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, 'Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then you must go, because the LORD has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the LORD is witness between you and me forever."
It's interesting... I read a book the other day called Jonathan Loved David ... An Investigation of Homosexuality in The Bible. I cannot but the concepts in the words of the author, so it might sound a little confusting. At any rate, these are some of the ideas the author puts forth: 1. Reading the passages in historical context is the only way to get the true meaning.
A) During Bible times it was typical for military men to enter into a homosexual relationship (and not just in Greece)
B) Throughout these passages there is more reference to Jonathan than to David's wife.
C) The oath taken by Johathan and David when read in hebrew mimics typical marrage oaths.
D) 1 Sam. 18:1 states that Jonathan became one with the spirit of David. This resembles this passage: Gen 2:24 "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]David and Jonathan: There have been several attempts to point to alleged homosexual couples in the Bible, primarily Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and Ashpenaz, and David and Jonathan. More recently, there have been a proposal that there was a gay relationship between the Centurion and his servant who requested to be healed by Jesus. The arguments regarding Ruth/Naomi and Daniel/Ashpenaz are far from compelling for me. The arguments regarding David and Jonathan, however, while not quite compelling, leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage. Starting from the crux of the argument at 1 Samuel 18:21, Saul tells David, that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David will be his son-in-law for the second time (Hebrew: "bstym ttctn by hynm"). The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time (NIV being the primary exception, and the RSV is ambiguous):Source: http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#Add4
ASV: Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
RSV: Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
BBE: So Saul said to David, Today you are to become my son-in-law for the second time.
DBY: And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
YLT: Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'
NAS: Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today." The question then becomes what Saul actually meant if he is telling David that he will become his son-in-law for the second time. The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1. Prior to looking at this more closely, an understanding of the story up to this point is helpful. In chapter 17, we find David's older brothers going to war against the Philistines while David stays at home. David is then sent to take food to his brothers, following which is the classic David and Goliath story. As David goes back to Saul after killing Goliath, we see that David is totally unknown to King Saul (17:58). However, as David talks to King Saul, Jonathan falls in love with David, after having never met him, or talked to him (which has a vague sound of "love at first sight" in our culture).
1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
While there is no similarity between the Hebrew phrases in 1 Samuel 18:1-2 above and in Genesis 2:24, there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one:
Genesis 2:24 (NIV)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
When we put together chapter 18, from the beginning, with Jonathan's strong emotional affection towards David and their subsequent covenant, to the end, where we see Saul referring to David being his son-in-law a second time with his marriage to Michal, we see the very strong possibility that David and Jonathan were joined in a covenant that Saul recognized as a marriage. This line of reasoning, while persuasive to me, it is not conclusive. First, I don't know that we have any other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage, which would lead one to question whether or not Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage. If not, then the only possibility for Saul's language in 18:21 is that he was referring to David's second son-in-law status as coming from the original promise by Saul to give Merab to him (18:17), even though Merab married another man. A second possible criticism is that this argument is made from conjecture, that no specific reference is made to marriage (ynh, yqch) or sexual activity. This, however, is not a valid criticism. The words referring to marriage in the Old Testament are typically in the context of being "taken" or "given" (yqch) as property (byvlh) or protector/provider (ybm), since women had no rights in Hebrew culture, and were considered property to be given/sold. This aspect of marriage would not have been applicable to David and Jonathan's relationship. The other primary word translated as marry is actually the exact same word as "woman" (ishh), which obviously isn't applicable in this case. As for the lack of specific reference to sexual activity which would definitively signify marriage, very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity, therefore it is improbable that such a characterization would be applied here either. However, 2 Samuel 1:26 may even be a reference to sexual activity between David and Jonathan. After Jonathan has been killed, David mourns his death, and says the following (NIV):
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathan to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathan's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).
After this analysis we are left with two questions. First, could Saul have legally seen David and Jonathan's covenant as marriage, to the extent that he would call David a son-in-law. Second, is the intensity of the language referring to Jonathan's love and covenant with David, and David's reference to his love for Jonathan, enough to sustain the belief that they were engaged in a marriage covenant? Neither of these questions can be answered definitively. Whether or not Saul would have legally condoned this relationship can only be answered with further research into the marriage documents from that time. However, the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathan and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.
[/FONT]
I doubt it very much. Leviticus hadn't yet been written.
I suggest you begin to investigate the Documentary Hypothesis, eirene. The Torah is a collection of writings not finally completed until after the Exilic period. What it isn't is "written by Moses."what the....
how do you even begin to figure that?
That's plain ignorance.
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...
Edit: Oh, and how exactly do you know what is 'unnatural'. Many studies, especially ones of animals, find that same sex attraction IS natural. Ooops, science again. I'm sorry, I'll be quiet.
I suggest you begin to investigate the Documentary Hypothesis, eirene. The Torah is a collection of writings not finally completed until after the Exilic period. What it isn't is "written by Moses."
This is, I would say, pretty much taken as read by OT scholars.
Either it is the Word of God, a perfect reflection of the mind, intent and will of God, expressing only one meaning; or, "it's only as good as how one interprets it" -- meaning we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.
Either it is the Word of God, a perfect reflection of the mind, intent and will of God, expressing only one meaning; or, "it's only as good as how one interprets it" -- meaning we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.
You've made up your mind beforehand that the Christian interpretation must be defeated, and the Bible deconstructed to fit your preconceived ideas.
The issue is really one of inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and authority. Either God is God, or man is God. This is what the debate is ultimately all about.
Disagree. It's a collection of writings of Moses and his scribes.
This was the beginning of submission...
This is a story of submission
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?