NIRV is pretty good.

[Brieuse]

Again - all of that is agenda-driven.

Unfortunately I have to agree.

To say the NIRV is correct because they have qualifications and I don't is a silly argument. BTW, I do have qualifications but not in theology. However I have the web, I have God, and I have some degree of intelligence to cross analyse the Word of God.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Again - all of that is agenda-driven.

I also agree, mainstream Christian agenda.

 

[Brieuse]

dubbel post

 

[BAFRIEND]

That's correct. Every ancient text I've browsed, not once do they use a loving monogamous relationship in their examples of "homosexual sin". Not once. Never.

I am going with your opinion, or the mainstream Christian and Judaic tradition for the last 3,000 + years ?

They translated the meaning of the passages to reflect the accurate translation and proper Christian Judaic values.

Please get over it.

 

[Brieuse]

I am going with your opinion, or the mainstream Christian and Judaic tradition for the last 3,000 + years ?

They translated the meaning of the passages to reflect the accurate translation and proper Christian Judaic values.

Please get over it.

Actually, the opinion changed around 450AD if you track the Ancient Texts.

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm

 

[MrPirate]

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 2 Timothy 2:14

As has been said, it serves no purpose to do a Word study with folks who are looking for excuses to justify sin.

Are you referring to the sin of prejudice?

 

[MrPirate]

No and I don't need to, they were already judged by the editor and publisher and the pastors of the congragations that use them.

I would only need qualifications to refute them because their authenticity has already been certified by academia.

And neither does TheFathersDaughter

 

[MrPirate]

Does too. Jesus and the OT only refer to a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The Ten Commandments forbids adultery.

Homosexual relationships and sex is adultery and scandal against the sacrament of marriage.

Using Genesis to argue in favor of prejudice suffers from a massive weakness



Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Nothing.

In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man might leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this is the only path available. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy (well technically he is speaking more about his misogamy. Which indicates that marriage is not required for anybody. Without any sort of proof that homosexuality is a sin, (and there is no biblical evidence to support this) there is no reason to automatically assume that same sex marriage is not permissible.

Unless of course one could cite a biblical injunction specifically against same sex marriage.

 

[MrPirate]

I am going with your opinion, or the mainstream Christian and Judaic tradition for the last 3,000 + years ?

They translated the meaning of the passages to reflect the accurate translation and proper Christian Judaic values.

Please get over it.

Appeal to history. Just because discrimination was acceptable in the past does not mean that it is acceptable now.

 

[artybloke]

I also agree, mainstream Christian agenda.

More like homophobic fundagelical (or fundacatholic)agenda.

 

[GeorgeFox]

Does too. Jesus and the OT only refer to a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The Ten Commandments forbids adultery.

Homosexual relationships and sex is adultery and scandal against the sacrament of marriage.

Sure the OT does, and it also condemns eating pork, shellfish, wearing polyester blends, etc. and calls them abominations using the same Hebrew word (to'evah) that calls "homosexuality" an abomination. So, if both are considered the same type of abomination or are detestable, why do you selectively pick and choose what part of scripture to follow. When you become a kosher Christian who follows halakhic practices, then you can do the finger pointing???

Now, you or someone else will tell me that food has to do with ceremonial law and we aren't bound to follow it, right??? Funny, again, the same word calling those foods abominations or detestable is the same word used to supposedly condemn homosexuality...Hmm...

Also, homosexuality as we know it today, and egalitarian and loving partnership, was unknown to the Hebrews (as I said elsewhere, the word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until the 1800's), so how could the bible condemn "homosexuality" as we know it today...It Cant!

 

[BAFRIEND]

Also, homosexuality as we know it today, and egalitarian and loving partnership, was unknown to the Hebrews (as I said elsewhere, the word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until the 1800's), so how could the bible condemn "homosexuality" as we know it today...It Cant!

So, if the Bible and ancestral Christian communities did not condemn homosexuality, then why was it unknown by the Hebrews ? Was it because it carried the sentence of death in their culture and was frowned upon ?

The Bible is God's message to His people on how to live life. That is why scripture regarding homosexuality is miniscule.

 

[GeorgeFox]

So, if the Bible and ancestral Christian communities did not condemn homosexuality, then why was it unknown by the Hebrews ? Was it because it carried the sentence of death in their culture and was frowned upon ?

The Bible is God's message to His people on how to live life. That is why scripture regarding homosexuality is miniscule.

The Scriptures regarding Homosexuality are so miniscule because they deal with only two types of specific male-to-male sex acts: that of sacred sex committed by temple prostitutes (condemned in both men and women, heterosexual and homosexual forms) see Romans 1, and that of rape for humiliation and to show dominance...see Genesis either 18 or 19 (It's one of the two) and the story of the Benjamanites in Judges. This is also the form of homosexuality most well known among the Greeks (that of the "superior" male taking sexual license with youths, slaves, and women [none of whom had the same rights or protections as the older male citizen])

And, glaringly, none of the above examples were ever called homosexuality as that term came into use in the 1800's to describe egalitarian relationships between members of the same sex. The same-sex sex acts that were open to the public eye were not loving egalitarian relationships, but rather abusive, culturally constructed, religious or societal acts.

History, archaeology, and Cultural Anthropology all can attest to this.

 

[RMDY]

Doesn't sound like a very good translation to me. The Greek word "porneia" is not that easily translated. The Bible only condemns homosexual rape and homosexual temple prostitution, not loving homosexual relationships.

My young adult pastor, who understands greek, translated pornia to me as sexual immorality: hence where we get the word "porn" from. My greek-speaking friend told me that pornia includes homosexuality.

According to this website, http://www.greekbible.com/, in Galatians 5:19, pornia means these following things:

porneia,n {por-ni'-ah}
[SIZE=-1] 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols



[/SIZE]

 

[LoveAlways]

I'll stick with my New Oxford, but thank you for the recommendation. I haven't been a Bible reader since a young age, like many members of CF, and so I appreciate something easy to read with study notes.

 

[RMDY]

I'll stick with my New Oxford, but thank you for the recommendation. I haven't been a Bible reader since a young age, like many members of CF, and so I appreciate something easy to read with study notes.

Really?
Which post are you replying to? Are you replying to mine?

"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16

 

[MrPirate]

Sure the OT does, and it also condemns eating pork, shellfish, wearing polyester blends, etc. and calls them abominations using the same Hebrew word (to'evah) that calls "homosexuality" an abomination. So, if both are considered the same type of abomination or are detestable, why do you selectively pick and choose what part of scripture to follow. When you become a kosher Christian who follows halakhic practices, then you can do the finger pointing???

Now, you or someone else will tell me that food has to do with ceremonial law and we aren't bound to follow it, right??? Funny, again, the same word calling those foods abominations or detestable is the same word used to supposedly condemn homosexuality...Hmm...

Also, homosexuality as we know it today, and egalitarian and loving partnership, was unknown to the Hebrews (as I said elsewhere, the word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until the 1800's), so how could the bible condemn "homosexuality" as we know it today...It Cant!

In Leviticus only male on male rape is considered to be an abomination (strange how male of female rape is not) not homosexuality itself.

 

[BAFRIEND]

In Leviticus only male on male rape is considered to be an abomination (strange how male of female rape is not) not homosexuality itself.

Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? Don't be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts. 1 COR. 6:9 NIRV

I don't see the word rape in there ?

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 1 COR 6:9 NIV

Where is the word rape IN THERE ?

Or [Rom 6:16] do you not know that the unrighteous will not [Acts 20:32; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5] inherit the kingdom of God? [Luke 21:8; 1 Cor 15:33; Gal 6:7; James 1:16; 1 John 3:7] Do not be deceived; [Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 1:10; Rev 21:8; 22:15] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [I.e. effeminate by perversion] effeminate, nor homosexuals, NASB 1 COR 6:9

DON'T SEE RAPE THERE.

Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality AMPLIFIED BIBLE

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. NLT

Do you not know that the unjust [ Lk 16:10;] will not inherit God's kingdom? [ Mk 1:15; Ac 20:25;] Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, [ Eph 5:5;] adulterers, [ Lk 18:11;] male prostitutes, homosexuals, [ Gn 19:5;] HOLMAN CSB

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals TNIV

WHERE IS THE WORD RAPE ?

THOSE ARE 7 WIDELY USED ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS THAT TRANSLATE HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL EVIL OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF RAPE.

Are you more educated and inpired than all those educated tranlators and academic publishers ?

 

[GeorgeFox]

Carmody...maybe you are ingnoring this...I don't know, but it would be very hard to translate a two thousand year old document as saying "homosexual" since the word "homosexual" did not exist until 18 centuries after this document was written.

"Homosexual" was not coined until the 1800's.

Now, there were a plethora of words in Greek to speak of various "homosexual" sex acts, but Paul did not ever use any of them. Instead he made up his own (arsenokoites).

Also, the word that your NASB translates as "Effiminate" does not mean "Effiminate." Ask any modern Greek speaker what "malakos" (the word the NASB translates into English as "Effiminate") and they will automatically say "Jerk-off" would be way more accurate. At least, that is what my native 1st language Greek speaker friend Sofia says...I tend to trust her more than Greek "scholars." She actually uses the language and has insight into its ancient antecedents.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Carmody...maybe you are ingnoring this...I don't know, but it would be very hard to translate a two thousand year old document as saying "homosexual" since the word "homosexual" did not exist until 18 centuries after this document was written.

"Homosexual" was not coined until the 1800's.

Now, there were a plethora of words in Greek to speak of various "homosexual" sex acts, but Paul did not ever use any of them. Instead he made up his own (arsenokoites).

Also, the word that your NASB translates as "Effiminate" does not mean "Effiminate." Ask any modern Greek speaker what "malakos" (the word the NASB translates into English as "Effiminate") and they will automatically say "Jerk-off" would be way more accurate. At least, that is what my native 1st language Greek speaker friend Sofia says...I tend to trust her more than Greek "scholars." She actually uses the language and has insight into its ancient antecedents.

maybe you are ignoring the fact that the entire point of translation is to translate foreign or ancient texts into modern meaning ?

Get it ?