1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Profesco, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    Okay, so I figure we could use a little experiment here. This'll be called "The Tangent Topic," and we'll use it as a detour thread, of sorts, for brief discussions that break off from the topics of our main debate threads. This will come in handy if we have mini-topics we want to settle for the purpose of use in another debate that are too indirect to fit the debate, but a thread specifically for them hasn't been opened yet.

    Things we see in here might become full-fledged debates, or they might just get talked about and then get replaced by new tangential topics. So, in order to promote both of those outcomes, the limit for a single topic in this thread will be two pages of Serebii default (specifically, 40 posts). After that, the topic will be changed or closed, whatever suits our needs.

    If this turns out not to be too useful, or not to work the way I envision it, we can scrap the idea. No biggie. =P

    Our first topic can be opened with the following post from JDavidC:

     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  2. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    Is this a thread to combine debates together?
     
  3. Hejiru

    Hejiru Rev up those fryers

    He just said what it was for. When people in a debate thread start arguing about something not entirely related to the topic (like what happened in the "Santorum bans porn" thread) they move to here to continue the argument. It's actually a really good idea; people can continue their argument without derailing the original topic.
     
  4. mattj

    mattj .

    You are a genius Profesco.

    ...if you want though you really could just name it "The 'geez mattj stop spamming up threads every time somebody makes a disagreeable offtopic comment about the Bible' thread." though, just so its clear...

    First off, I want to thank you JDavidC for you well thought out, well organized, on-topic post. Its quite clear that you did a lot of thinking and a lot of research. I appreciate that. Very good work. We need more people like you here in Debate.

    I also can't help but mention that my little step-brother's name is James David (where I get the J in mattJ), and my last name is Carter, so everyone used to call him James Carter, thinking we were natural brothers. So every time I see your username I can't help but think of my little brother James David/Carter. Thanks. :3

    I broke everything down into spoilers because this is a 26,900 or so character post. Every time someone makes a post longer than 12 inches, a baby seal dies. I'm doing my part to save the baby seal population.

    You were very wise to define your terms at the beginning. I'm down with that definition.
    We agree again! Believing the Bible because the Bible says to believe the Bible is pretty much as bone-headed as rejecting the Bible outright. You've gotta actually take time to look into this stuff yourself. Ask questions! Investigate!
    Although I disagree with the direction you're going with the "potential for corruption" comment, I really don't disagree with any of this. You do need to take where and when and by whom any book was written into account in order to understand it.
    The Bible is a sizable tome. Google tells me that there are 774,746 words in the King James Version of the Bible. Considering the amount of what has been said, by so many authors, at different time periods, and in different cultures, it is no surprise that alleged contradictions have been pointed out for literally thousands of years. Lists of contradictions like the one you linked to are common.

    However, linking to a lengthy list like that alone could easily leave the impression with the uninformed that there must definitely be contradictions contained within the Bible. If there's such a long list, surely at least one of them is right!? What many people don't realize is that quite literally each and every alleged contradiction on that list, and very literally every other list or individual contradiction ever thought up has been addressed many times over in the 3,500 or so years that the different books of the Bible have been discussed and debated. If I can still count, there were 63 alleged contradictions listed in that link you provided. Here are a few links I had prepared for a thread that I may or may not post some time in the future (KI:U is eating all my time atm).

    Christian Responses to Various Bible Difficulties and Contradictions:
    http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html
    Many hundreds addressed, but listed by book/chapter/verse instead of topic
    http://carm.org/bible-difficulties
    Again, many hundreds addressed, but listed by book/chapter/verse instead of topic
    http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX
    143 addressed
    http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/2004/11/index-of-alleged-contradictions.html
    50 or so addressed

    Now, obviously, I'm not going to stand here and attempt to say: "LOOK! SEE! MY LIST IS LONGER THAN YOURS THEREFORE I'M RIGHT!!" I'm only pointing out that such a list is not immediately evidence that there are or are not contradictions or errors contained in the Bible. Also, quite literally, every imaginable difficulty has been addressed at one time or another. Whether or not one personally accepts that address is none of my concern. They've been good enough answers for me and millions of others throughout history.
    Thus far we really haven't disagreed much. But I've got to draw the line here. I Kings 9:23, I Kings 5:16, and II Chronicles 8:10 do not in any way contradict each other. What you linked to was not a comparison to prove a contradiction. It was a comparison of different projects that the Bible claims Solomon worked on.

    The order your link happened to list them in:
    Now, if these three verses were talking about the same project and the same supervisors, yes it would be a clear contradiction. But with even the most cursory glance of the context of each scripture it immediately becomes clear that each verse is talking about different things.

    I Kings 5: 16 mentions "the project". What project? Skipping back to verse 5 of the same chapter we find that "the project" is Solomon's famous temple (part of the base of which may still stand to this very day). At this point in the narrative, he had just begun cutting down trees and chiseling out rock for the foundation. That is "the project" that those 3,300 "chief deputies" (natsab) were in charge of.

    I Kings 9:23 says that 550 "chief officers" (again, natsab) were in charge of "Solomon's work". What work? Skip back to verse 10 and you'll see that chapter 9 takes place a full twenty years after chapter 5. Verse 15 clearly mentions that the verses following (including verse 23) are an "account of the forced labor which King Solomon levied to build the house of the LORD, his own house, the [fn]Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer." Chapter 5 is concerned solely with the cutting of trees and chiseling of rock for the foundation of the temple. The second half of chapter 9 is concerned not only with the entirety of the temple project, but also the king's palace, four towns, and an enormous wall. I don't think it takes a leap of blind faith to realize that these two verses are not talking about the same things.

    Finally, II Chronicles 8: 10 actually does happen to be concerned with the same events as I Kings 9:23. Verse 1 and following of II Chronicles 8 matches I kings 9 quite well. Although the difference between the two verses isn't immediately apparent when comparing any English translations, it quickly becomes apparent when comparing the ancient Hebrew itself. I Kings 5:16 and 9:23 both speak of "chief deputies" and "chief officers" respectively. As I already pointed out, the ancient Hebrew word found in the existent texts for this is "natsab". The common English translations of II Chronicles 8:10 all read "chief officers" or something to that effect too, and that definitely is a fine enough translation for general purposes. But in fact, the ancient Hebrew texts that we translate the Bible from contain an extra adjective, netsiyb. Netsiyb means "set over", or "pillar", or "something perfect". While the perfect translation may or may not escape us, it should be simple to understand that netsiyb meant that these weren't just plain old officers. They weren't even just chief officers. These were a step above chief officers. Therefore, when II Kings 9 says there were 550 chief officers, and II Chronicles 8 says there were 250 higher chief officers, there is no contradiction to be found.

    In review, I Kings 5:16 says that 3,300 chief deputies oversaw the cutting down of trees and chiseling of stone at the beginning of the temple project. I Kings 9:23 says that 550 chief deputies oversaw the entire temple project, the building of the king's palace, the building of 4 cities, and a wall, 20 years later. II Chronicles says that 250 high chief officers oversaw the same projects.

    This actually makes a whole lot of sense. At the factory building I work in, there are about 350 workers in the building. There are around 30 line leaders, 8 supervisors, two plant managers, and one plant manger's boss. At different points in time, there have been more or fewer workers and people of differing levels of authority. The spread of command mentioned in those verses is within reason.

    There are no contradictions there.
    I sort of agree with you on this. If you or anyone else could demonstrate a single, unapologetic error in the Bible, I'd be the first one to agree with you. But as I've already shown, every conceivable difficulty has been addressed many times over. Pick any contradiction, error, or what have you and just google it. "Does ____ really contradict ____?" You'll find several answers coming at it from several directions.

    Honestly, when I started out, there really was a lingering question in my mind "What if there really are errors and contradictions and mistakes in the Bible? What do I do then? Does it disprove the Bible's claims? Does it mean it wasn't from God? But after... geezidunno... 12 or so years of reading it, and debating with people like you, and taking serious and honest looks into these alleged difficulties, I've come to the conclusion that there are no unanswered objections out there. I have never once seen, and firmly believe I never will see, a single difficulty that does not have a simple answer. And in my experience, please no offense please, the vast majority of objections like the one you provided have ridiculously simple answers that require merely reading the given verses in immediate context.

    Honestly, if I understand you correctly, I am quite impressed by your ability to accept these alleged difficulties and yet still maintain respect for its other parts! Props to you bud!
    Well, lets first take a look at the verse.
    To begin with, note the lack of the word "bed". If you look into the ancient Hebrew contained within the verse you'll notice that it too does not contain the word "bed", even though there are several ancient hebrew words for "bed". This verse is not concerned with defiling furniture. Its concerned with men and women who have homosexual sex. The phrase "lie with a male as one lies with a female" has historically and universally been understood to mean "homosexual sex". One cannot seriously take the coy, naive stance that a man and a woman lying in a bed are not going to have sex. Sure. Maybe the first time. Or the second. Maybe the kids are still up or you've got a headache tonight. But eventually, hormones kick in even with the chastest, or even the fuggliest of couples. Its just human nature. That is clearly what this verse is talking about, and only the (please no offense please) most liberal of liberal and the most uninformed would interpret this verse any other way.

    Leviticus 18:22 clearly condemns homosexual sex.
    You know, for the most part, I think that there are simple, generally understood reasons behind 90% of what the Bible lists as "sin". "Thou shalt not murder". Fine. Makes sense to everyone. "Thou shalt not steal". Duh. But I don't think that there of necessity must be a simple, universally accepted, easily explainable reason for each and every dictate of the Bible. If the God of the Bible is what the Bible says He is, he is wise enough, just enough, and loving enough to make whatever rules he wants to.

    It'd be a bit like complaining that American Football leagues don't allow us to play with basketballs. Its their game. They made the rules. Why should they need a reason beyond "I just want it that way." Now, yes, the penalties make sense when people break most rules, but why that oblong shaped ball? Because the founders wanted it to be that way. That's all the reason needed. Its the same way with God. What logical reason could the God of the Bible have for prohibiting homosexual sex? Who cares of Jimbob wants to stuff it up Pete's pooter? Why is that such a big deal? Because the Creator said so. That's really all the reason needed.

    And as I demonstrated in the previous post, he most definitely did say so.
    Again, lets look at the verse in question.
    Note that the verses do not say "what feels natural to them", but rather says "the natural function". The natural function of a penis is to stimulate a woman's vagina and inseminate her. The natural function of a vagina is to stimulate a man's penis and hold and direct that semen. Yes there are other functions, but considering that passion, desire, and lust are all mentioned, it should be obvious which functions Paul is talking about here. It cannot be argued that the natural function of a penis is to go into a rectum. It cannot be argued that the natural function of a tongue or finger is to fondle a vagina. It. Can. Not. Not in a secular/evolutionary sense, and not in a Biblical sense. God created us male and female. Paul does not condemn "doing what just doesn't feel right". Here, he condemns homosexual acts.
    I seriously do not mean to offend you, but you've got this story all wrong.

    Firstly, lets look at the verses in question and see what they say.
    Firstly, notice that homosexuality clearly is mentioned in this passage. I'll give you that the men of Sodom wanted wanted to rape those two angels. Rape clearly is mentioned too. But its quite clear that the men of the city wanted to rape those angels because they looked like men. This is a clear mention of homosexuality, men on men. Lot even offered his two female daughters to which the men of the city replied, "Get out of our way or we'll butt rape you too!"

    To say that homosexuality wasn't the problem but rape was, is an argument without a factual, textual basis. There is no part of these or other scriptures that condemns the rape while excusing the homosexuality. It is completely possible for rape and homosexuality, as well as many other things, to be condemned in this chapter. If there was a line of text somewhere in this chapter where God said "Well, its not that they're gay, its that they're all rapists", yeah you'd have an argument. But it doesn't say that. It just says, God viewed these people as sinful and here's a few things they did: rape, homosexuality, murder. No offense to you at all, but the whole "but the homosexuality is okay" doesn't come from the Bible, it comes from you. Genesis 19 clearly condemns rape, murder, and homosexuality.
    Respectfully, as I've already pointed out, that verse means exactly what most scholars, preachers, priests, pastors, rabbi and yes even laity have believed it means for thousands of years now. It really does mean that men should not have homosexual sex with men and women should not have homosexual sex with women. You have to either be extremely naive, or do hermeneutical backflips to make it mean anything else. So in this case, this is not an example of distortion in the Bible.

    But what about other alleged distortion? What about the process of replicating texts pre-printing press? What about scheming monks? What about translating a translation of a translation of a translation?

    Bring a single example of any of those and I'll address it. Or better yet, just google "Does ______ really prove that the Bible was tampered with/distorted?" and you'll get the same answer I'll probably provide myself.

    Here's a challenge I'll make right here and I'd be happy to take on anyone who wishes to take me up: Provide a single, physical, textual example of Biblical distortion, either purposeful or unintentional. You can't because they don't exist. There's this ridiculous urban legend/myth that the Bible is a translation of a translation, and that devious monks wrote extra stuff in and erased other stuff and that foolish scribes accidentally mispelled celibate when they were supposed to spell celibrate and therefore changed the meaning of of the text. That's all fine and well. It makes for good "what ifs". But provide a single, physical, textual example of it.

    I personally see the fact that such examples have not been found, over the 3,500 or so years that the books of the Bible have existed as evidence that such examples do not exist at all.

    So, in retrospective, I appreciate your thoughts, I really do. But I cannot help but disagree with several points you made. The Bible quite clearly does condemn homosexuality in multiple places. There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Bible contains errors or contradictions anywhere. In like manner, there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been tampered with in any manner beyond the normal evolution of language and the normal limitations of translation, neither of which are serious enough to warrant any concern. And finally, God's rules do not have to make sense to you and me before he puts them into practice.

    Now, off to play more KI:U

    wooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  5. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    First, I'm going to point out that it is flat-out wrong that translating from an ancient language "has a massive potential for corruption." At least generally, people do not make this claim about ancient Greek historians, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. Many of the people who make this claim tend to forget that people who study ancient languages actually do have knowledge. Their work is not made up of, "Hmm...I'm going to have to just make a huge guess about this chapter, because I have no idea what any of the words mean." (I hope everyone can realize I'm being a bit ridiculous here for effect--I don't mean to imply that anyone on the Debate Forum has recently made any claims about Bible translation being guesswork.)

    I do not deny that there is some potential for error in translation. I believe some translations are better than others (though I am gaining some respect for translations that I had previously heard negative things about). However, the very fact that there are many translations allows us to compare them. Such a comparison shows that corruption has not occurred on any kind of scale. It is not as though the original Christians worshiped a goddess, or that translators added most of Jesus' sayings, or that translators made up many of the miracles in the Bible.


    Since I'm not sure what you meant in your post, please bear with me because I'm starting out by responding to something I'm not sure you mean: If you mean that different translations of that verse give different numbers, I just want to point out that all the translations on that page quoted that verse as saying that there were 550 chief officers/officials/supervisors. That would disprove claims that the verse as we now have it has been garbled as a result of translation.

    Now, I will move on to what I'm pretty sure you are saying. For the moment, and for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume these passages are contradictory. This does not prove that any one of them is the result of anything that people should label "corruption." There does not appear to be any manuscript or translation issue here. You haven't shown that these texts got this way by some process of tampering. If I agreed that these verses contradicted, I would have to conclude that they most likely contradicted as long as each text has been in existence. If I believed this were the case, it would be best to label this, not a corruption, but an error in the text.

    However, consider the fact that there are some commentaries on that webpage, and some of them seek to explain that apparent discrepancy. I'm not going to get into the issue, but it is possible that these different texts are counting different things. There are passages in the gospels which confuse me waaaaay more than the ones you cited.


    I really want to thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, those are two of my favorite verses. In any case, I'm glad to be able to say that, even if we don't agree on everything, we agree on some things.

    First, I'd like to say that the webpage does not argue that any teachings were, properly speaking, added to the Bible. Take note of what the author does say:
    Here he says, not that people changed the biblical texts, but that they simply misinterpret them. Once again, this is not the same as corruption. If, to take a really bizarre example, Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet had never said that anybody died in the end and people simply misinterpreted it as saying that these two lovers died, that would not mean that Romeo and Juliet had been corrupted.

    But to examine some of his specific claims, note a few very important things that he says early on. In the section on Adam's punishment, he rightly points out that the text never specifies an afterlife as the punishment for disobedience. However, note one of the scholars he quotes in the next section:
    Mark these words carefully, for they do not deny simply eternal punishment, but also eternal reward. If we are to take the alleged silence of the Old Testament as evidence against an afterlife with punishment for evildoers, it would also be evidence against an afterlife with rewards for the righteous. Yet the author himself does not wish to take that conclusion. thus his usage of that quote, as well as of that general area of data, is not honest.

    Let's look at another example, from his discussion of "the strait gate". First, he quotes Luke 13:23, which I will not discuss. In any case, he goes on to quote Matthew 7:13-14:
    It is one thing to point out that this passage doesn't specify any punishment being eternal. Yet it does not allow for everyone eventually being saved. His argument is very much inaccurate. To say that all who believe the wicked will be punished eternally also believe that many will be saved is simply an inaccuracy. In fact, when the author says he believes that few were being saved in Jesus' day, he sets fire to his own argument. Think of all the nonbelieving pagans who lived in Jesus' day. Though extremely few worship the Roman gods today, could we possibly believe that the billions of Hindus, Muslims, and name-only Christians do not outnumber the Christians who are saved? Also, it is entirely arbitrary to take the verse as being only about "the exacting nature of the religion." It doesn't just say that the gate is narrow; Jesus makes it plain that many choose the path of destruction.

    There are just a few more things I'd like to point out. In the section on "The Bad Cast Away," the author makes more erroneous statements. It is amazing that he quotes a scholar presumptuous enough to say that we can know for sure that no Christians died in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. Now that is uncritical thinking. Also, he is inaccurate to say that the Bible never says the world will end. Since II Peter 3 and Revelation 20 speak of earth and heaven being completely gone, and new heavens and a new earth replacing them, the Bible does indicate that the world will end, even if the word "world" is not used there.

    Finally, he simply doesn't deal properly with Matthew 25:41. In this section, he argues that the punishment described in most translations as "eternal" or "everlasting" cannot be so because of grammar, despite the fact that many translations agree in using this term. Additionally the author is spouting insane things by arguing that this passage could speak of a remedial punishment, since it expressly says that this fire is prepared for the devil and his angels!



    With apologies for taking this out of the spoiler, I'd like to add that it is one thing for a manuscript, some manuscripts, or even all manuscripts to contain spelling errors somewhere. It just happens. Yet these are easy to detect and correct. However, there are also other scribal errors in many manuscripts, and they can be corrected by the many other manuscripts in existence. In any case, errors in some manuscripts or translations do not mean that the Bible as we know it contains deliberate or accidental alterations that prove it is not the same writing or collection of writings it once was.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  6. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Mattj, when you make the distinction between 'natural' and 'natural function' where does it say in Romans 1:26-27 that the natural function of a man and a woman is the same thing natural function of their respective sexual organs? I apologize that I can't understand a majority of this conversation, but I still have a few thoughts, so be patient with me. So if I'm understanding this, women abandoned men for other women and men abandoned women for other men. Is it possible that this passage mourns the division between the sexes in general and how being exclusionary puts their morals at a disadvantage? 'Indecent acts' could refer to the rise of sexism and the pitfalls of having a male-only cabal in charge of society. Think of predominantly male occupations and how they have a reputation of being rude, perverted, and indecent. Men can act in a certain indecent ways when they only stay around their own gender and exclude women. All of the same goes for an exclusively feminine group in different ways, although I hear there are less examples of that historically.

    It seems to me that your answer to this point just took the debate back to the well-established fact that 'natural' is the most vague, fuzzy and subjective term anyone can use, and it doesn't really help to pair it with the word 'function' because function can refer to anything since everything functions. When you jumped to describing the natural function of sex organs, I had de ja vu of some of the posters who come in and don't use any religious support, and jump to 'men and women are supposed to have sex with each other!' and leave it at that. This just seems to validate the reoccuring claim that any devout Christian could be an athiest and still have the same opinion about homosexuality not because they are following their religion, but because of their personal assumptions that they pick up for whatever reasons.
     
  7. mattj

    mattj .

    @ TheFightingPikachu:
    When I said "the normal evolution of language and the normal limitations of translation" in my conclusion, I should have included "the normal limitations of transmission" i.e. typos. You are 100% correct and I would not want to give the false impression that the transmission of the Biblical texts was 100% flawless all the time. Archaeologists dig up dump sites chock full of typo'd manuscripts all the time over in Israel and thereabout. I don't see this as evidence that the scribes did a bad job though. I see it as evidence that they did a good job. If there were no dumps full of almost finished typo'd manuscripts, and we know they didn't have erasers, that would mean that those inevitable typos would definitely have made it into circulation. The dumps are evidence that they didn't. But yeah. People are fallible and typos did happen.

    @SunnyC:
    I'll be as patient as you need me to be. :)

    I'm certain that Romans 1:26-27 is speaking of homosexuality and not the division and segregation of the sexes because of the phrase:
    . Natural function can really only mean 1 thing here. It doesn't say "camaraderie toward one another". I'm sure you know there are numerous Koine words to describe all kinds of relationships from platonic to loving to lustful. Here it says "burned in their desire/lust (orexis) toward one another". The whole section is chock full of sexuality too; "passion, burning desire, lust of their hearts". These weren't just chums.

    The point I attempted to make was that while JDavidC claimed that Romans 1 condemns "Doing what doesn't feel natural to you personally", the text says "natural function" not "feels natural". A function is not a feeling. The words of the text itself do not support his position.

    My position is that Romans 1 here condems the act of homosexuality. The words of the text themselves clearly back this up.

    Homo: "men abandoned ... wom[e]n and burned in their desire toward one another" "men with men "
    Sexual: "the lusts of their hearts" "their bodies" "degrading passions" desire toward one another" "committing [fn]indecent acts"

    If I'm not making any sense just say so and point out where and how.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  8. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    I guess now that we have the tangential thread, the Santorum porn thread can finally be moved to the debate forum. We can have all the Bible talk here from now on.
     
  9. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    Thanks man! Honestly, it is rather amazing how even some of the greatest manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls have quite a few obvious, easily corrected errors of spelling.

    BTW, I also wanted to mention that the "celibate"/"celebrate" thing is absolutely hilarious, especially because it only makes sense in English!



    Now, to respond to a few more things from JDavidC's post:
    I'm going to note a few things. First, you have loaded down your argument with beliefs about the goodness of God and the inborn nature of homosexuality. I would agree that God is good, but I would disagree that homosexuality is inborn. In addition, I would not argue that it is right to start translating with the perspective that "we know God is good, therefore we must avoid translations that make Him sound bad." Translation should be done objectively, and if a passage does not square with what people believe about God, then we are left with something difficult.

    To take an example, I don't believe David and Jonathan were gay. However, I facepalm at non-gay Christians who simply argue, "That translation can't be correct because the Mosaic Law condemned homosexuality and we don't hear anything about them being in trouble with the law on that account." Since the meaning of passages in the Mosaic Law is also being debated by just about everyone who thinks David and Jonathan were gay, this is to ignore the basic problem that each text needs to be analyzed without assuming that all these other texts support the traditional view.

    Second, I'd like to see a neutral Hebrew source that indicates that "taboo" is the meaning, not "abomination." With only pro-gay sources, I have strong grounds for believing that this is just a pro-gay revision.

    Third, I'd like to point out that the word that pro-gay Christians like to translate as "bed" is a word that clearly indicates sex. Even with the woodenly literal, hardly English that the pro-gay sites tend to use for that passage, the meaning would be "You shall not lie (sexually) with a man in the lying (sexually) of a woman." The attempt to remove the condemnation of homosexual actions does not work; it is undoubtedly the result of modern people who have a motive for avoiding this conclusion. There is a reason why this claim is proposed by pro-gay websites.

    Regarding your argument about Romans 1, I'm first going to agree with mattj, the passage doesn't say anything about something being "natural for you." When natural is used in that way, the meaning refers to things that are natural for humanity, not for any one human's tendencies. Natural does not mean "something that isn't artificial" (so as to condemn the drinking of canned soda), nor does it mean "existing or taking place in the natural world" (which would mean everything in the world is okay!).

    Also, I'd like to point out that that passage does not say anything about pagan sex orgies. It also fails to say that these God-ignoring people only did these things at certain times, as something like a temple ritual might indicate. It uses the word "abandoned," which very strongly indicates that these people were not just doing all sorts of bad sexual stuff on-again-off-again. They abandoned natural sexual relations, the ones that have been around just about as long as humans have.
     
  10. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Whelp, that's about all I had to say for the subject. It was speculation anyway. Interested to see what JDavidC comes back with.
     
  11. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    OK. This is going to be very long, considering what I have to respond to. I'm not going to put in my entire response at once, as this will take way too long, so I wil be editing this post. BTW, I'm named after King David (and Jonathan), in the Bible. I'm going to have to use spoiler sections myself now.

    We agree section - TYVM. Not much more for me to say here.
    Contradiction section - The line I put in after linking to that site states that I am agreement with the fact that you must check to see whether a claimed contradiction is a genuine one. I looked for one involving numbers specifically because the only room for interpretation is approximating numbers. 250 and 3,300 are so far apart, that it cannot be interpreted as anything other than a contradiction. However, I just noticed a later section of your post, which brought up something that I feared, lack of context analysis. I'll have to check to see if i can find something contradictory again. Furthermore, I went into something that appeared contradictory at first glance, but then looked for an interpretation that would be possible (the one involving whether or not to respond to a fool).

    *Gets a hard-copy of the Bible (Youth Bible, New Century Version) and does his own analysis.*
    I Kings 5-16: 3,300 workers in 'Preparing to Build the Temple', this is not referred to in the other two verses, so one 'contradiction' is gone.
    I Kings 9-23: 550 people in 'Solomon's Other Achievements' (after the Temple was built), that are project supervisors, mentioned just after the people mentioned in II Chronicles 2-8.
    II Chronicles 2-8: 250 workers to direct the people in 'Solomon's Other Achievements', but not in relation to any specific project. It's much harder to see that different people are being referred to here than in I Kings 9-23, but it does resolve the other 'contradiction'.

    Conclusion: It would appear that I have been well and truly pwned by mattj. Well done. If anyone knows where I can order some Humble Pie (TM), please let me know. By looking at cross-referenced verses online, I thought that they may have been talking about the same thing. In one case, nope; in the other case, not quite. This is a rather careless oversight on my part. Sorry for misleading anyone.
    When did Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah, become king of Judah?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaziah_of_Judah - Maybe there was no contradiction in the original Bible, but an error in copying would definitely count as tampering (even if accidental), or 'corruption', under my own definition. In one case, it is listed as 22, but the other, as 42. Both verses seem to refer to the same Ahaziah. The version I have changes the verse with 42 to 22.
    How long did Omri reign?
    Verse 23: The claim is made that Omri ruled for 12 years, during the 31st year of Asa's rule as king of Judah.
    Verse 28: Omri dies, and Ahab takes over as king in his place.
    Verse 29: Ahab becomes king during the 39th year of Asa's rule as king of Judah.

    The time difference between verses 23 and 29 are given by 39 - 31 = 8 years, if you look at the differences between the amount of time Asa has been ruling in year. Omri's entire reign, and subsequent death, are covered during 8 years. It is kind of impossible to rule a country when you are dead. So, Omri was king for no more than 9 years (assuming the maximum length possible of 1st January in the 31st year of Asa's rule to 31st Dec in the 38th year, which is one day less than 9 years). Here is the problem, verse 23 explicitly states he ruled for 12 years! This is clearly impossible, and a fatal contradiction, he is a bit too 'living-impaired' for the last 3-4 years of the 12-year reign. I will admit that it's hard to search for contradictions given that the entire Bible is very large, but this one is related to contradictions confined with several verses, so it would be very difficult to make a mistake based on wrong context. Still, it is possible for a mistake in context. After some further research, I found this:

    OK, so Omri is now being made king 4 years earlier? This would fix the 12 year rule problem perfectly. The thing is, the definition of 'reign' seems to vary (whether or not it is undisputed). The 12 years in verse 23 includes the 4-year period where he was not the undisputed king, as well as everything up to the time he died. It says he began to reign over Israel, and this would seem to be around the time that he became the undisputed king. Yet, the time of his reign given in the same verse, 12 years, would by necessity include the 4 years where his kingship was in dispute, as well as the time where it was not in dispute. I could argue that the author of 1 Kings 16:23 made the mistake of inadvertently altering the definition of the word 'reign' while writing the verse. At worst, it's a mistake in definitions, but the history itself isn't contradictory. Omri became king, and 4 years afterwards, he became undisputed king, and reigned undisputed for a further 8 years until he died, for a total of 12 years a king (but only a reign of 8 years, given that there was a 4 year dispute).
    Regarding errors in the Bible - Even though I found out that the claim was made that human authors wrote the Bible, with inspiration from God, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from making ANY mistakes. Judging any of the authors as false prophets would require something far more... decisive. Anyway, TY for what you said here.
    I'm going to have to consider other possible angles, rather than the one I was just in. For starters, medicine would be nowhere near as advanced, so using genitalia in any non-standard fashion may well have had health risks that would outweigh the health risks of simply not engaging in any sexual activity, or even something that requires only one person (masturbation). I'm wondering if the mere existence of alternatives such as masturbation to sex with another person is enough to condemn homosexual sex on health and safety grounds (NOT simply a homosexual relationship, it's important I make a distinction here, but the actual acts where bodies have parts used in non-standard ways).

    Personally, I'm heterosexual by nature, although I'm planning on lifelong celibacy, rather than any romantic relationship. This is just opinion, but some of the acts that I've heard about that do not involve the standard method of sex feel: A. Risky to health, B. Likely to cause serious discomfort, C. Going with B... unnatural, in some ways. D. A combination of A, B, C. However, I'm unsure how much of this is due to me having the 'standard' sexual orientation, and hence whether there is some sort of bias in how I feel, compared to how much of this is due to objective thinking. I hope I do not come across as bigoted to anyone. If anyone has a GENUINE choice between various sex acts, I'd recommend heterosexual sex (the norm, but still watch out for health risks, and unwanted pregnancies), or acts that only involve one person (e.g. masturbation), or none (if this is a viable option). As far as engaging in homosexual sex is concerned, an investigation of health risks is definitely required, and I'd recommend trying to exhaust the alternatives first.

    What I'm trying to say, is that there is a possibility that the interpretations I, and others have been going with, regarding the act of homosexual sex (not homosexual relationships, but sex), may be wrong, under the grounds that there may well be health risks that outweigh any benefits. Furthermore, on any verse that mentions it, it may be worth looking at the context and seeing if there were any additional health risks that would make that sort of behaviour non-viable on health and safety grounds (i.e. sinful in that it (is likely to) causes harm).

    The other point to consider is that laws may well have exceptions to them. e.g. A person blackmailed into giving false testimony against one of his/her neighbours in court would have an extremely legitimate reason for committing perjury and violating a 'common sense' commandment (the 9th one, specifically). I will grant you that heterosexual people should not engage in homosexual relationships, let alone homosexual sex, although I would greatly appreciate it if you did not give any more graphic descriptions that will make me want to soak my brain in brain bleach. There's a reason I'm avoiding doing so myself. When it comes to people being created, as far as I'm aware, God was directly involved in creating Adam, Eve, and Jesus Christ. What about everybody else? What about cases where variations to the norm pop up? How are these meant to be dealt with? How many of the laws and teachings against homosexual sex are supposed to apply to people who have a fundamentally different nature? How many of the laws and teachings should apply in today's world? Some laws won't make sense if circumstances are too different. e.g. You cannot seriously expect someone to avoid stealing if the only alternative is for that person to die of starvation/thirst.

    I'll edit this later with an explicit response to points made here, but for now I'll move on.
    I'll need to look for any two Bibles where they clearly state different things. BTW, I would like to state, that I do not see myself as part of any denomination or specific sect/church of Christianity.

    1And God spake all these words, saying,

    2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

    6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

    13Thou shalt not kill.

    14Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    15Thou shalt not steal.

    16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

    18And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

    19And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

    20And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

    21And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

    22And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

    23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

    24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

    25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

    26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

    1And the Lord spoke all these words:

    2I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    3Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

    4Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

    5Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

    6And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    7Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.

    8Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.

    9Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works.

    10But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

    11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

    12Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

    13Thou shalt not kill.

    14Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    15Thou shalt not steal.

    16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is his.

    18And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off,

    19Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die.

    20And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin.

    21And the people stood afar off. But Moses went to the dark cloud wherein God was.

    22And the Lord said to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.

    23You shall not make gods of silver, nor shall you make to yourselves gods of gold.

    24You shall make an altar of earth unto me, and you shall offer upon it your holocausts and peace offerings, your sheep and oxen, in every place where the memory of my name shall be: I will come to thee, and will bless thee.

    25And if thou make an altar of stone unto me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones: for if thou lift up a tool upon it, it shall be defiled.

    26Thou shalt not go up by steps unto my altar, lest thy nakedness be discovered.
    The two chapters are too long to quote, so I have to spoiler them instead.
    There is something very strange regarding the second commandment (Exodus 20:3 in both cases above). In the Douay-Rheims version, it has been modified to have no strange gods before God, where in many other versions, including the KJV, it refers to have no gods before God, regardless of whether or not they are strange. It seems very suspect to say the least. The only way this could not be tampering would be for all gods except God to be 'strange'. I don't see any amount of mental gymnastics that could be employed in order to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Exodus 20:3 say the same thing in both Bibles. Therefore, as far as I can tell, there is enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt (the standard used in courts of law), to prove that the Bible has been tampered with. Specifically, the meaning, and any legitimate interpretation of the 2nd commandment at Exodus 20:3 has been altered.

    Furthermore, the Douay-Rheims Bible I mentioned has 7 additional books that do not exist at all in other Bibles. Is this tampering by itself? The end of Revelation contains a passage, however, it appears to concern not modifying the prophecy in Revelation specifically. It's hard to tell whether something like adding 7 books counts as tampering, considering that people would have decided which books belong as an anthology, and people may have decided differently. I don't know the answer to this question myself, and in any case, I'm done with research for the time being.
    I'll get on to answering other posts at a later time, by editing this one if necessary. I'll get on to TFP's post later, as it's going to take a lot of time to try to respond to it propperly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  12. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    What you mention is interesting. First in regard to the different books, it is crucial to understand that the Douay-Rheims Bible is a Catholic translation. Thus it is understandable that they include some books that Protestants do not. (Protestant, just to be clear, means "non-Catholic.") I'm not one to defend the inclusion of these other books, as I believe they are not from God. On the other hand, it should be noted that the original version of the 1611 KJV also contained these books, which is something that very few "KJV Only" Protestants know (but that's neither here nor there).

    Now, I want to avoid making it sound like, since I'm not Catholic, well, I'm just totally suspicious that this Catholic translation is badly done, and full of places where the translators tried to insert Catholicism in the text. While it may have happened, I think it was pretty rare. In fact, I'm glad to have met several Catholics on these Forums who hold so many beliefs in common with me. Honestly, I tend to note that translations can be misunderstood because of being several centuries old, like the one you mentioned and the KJV. But in any case, the way that particular verse is translated hardly seems like an attempt to insert Catholic doctrine, nor like something that is just hard because time has passed. It could be a poor translation--that happens to the best of them, Protestant, Catholic, liberal or conservative. Now, if you note which words are parallel in those two translations, it seems that "strange" and "other" are meant to translate the same word. Those words aren't quite synonyms in English, but there is some connection between them. Maybe "strange" isn't the best rendering, but it doesn't seem like a bad translation either.


    Also, take as long as you need in responding to me! I just want to add that even though there have been plenty of areas about which we have disagreed, you have explained your view calmly, and generally been an enjoyable guy to debate. For that, I give you thanks!
     
  13. Zevn

    Zevn Lost in Translation

    The Bible also indicates that the Universe is ~6000 years old, and that the Earth was created in six days(as God rested on the seventh day).

    Since we know the speed of light, and the distance of stars that we have mapped, this is proven incorrect.
     
  14. mattj

    mattj .

    Could you post the scripture that indicates that the universe is around 6000 years old so we can all discuss it? I can't seem to find it in my Bible.
     
  15. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    You need to get the author's definitive issue then. Just kidding. The whole idea that the Bible says that the earth is about 6000 years old comes from some idiots called Young Earth creationists who estimated the Earth's age based on various things in the Bible including the lineage of Joseph located in in Mark. Since, Joseph is like only 40 generations away from Adam, people thought that the Earth could only be a few thousand years old.
     
  16. Zevn

    Zevn Lost in Translation

    No, the idea is far older than that. It is based on the estimation of generations until Jesus from Adam, and Eve(four thousand years). The New Testament makes the claim that Jesus lived about two thousand years ago. Viola, six thousand.


    If you want to deny the implications made about the generations from Adam to Jesus, I can always refer you elsewhere:

    -the talking snake
    -the talking, burning bush
    -kill your son Abraham {just 'cause}
    -persecute Job {win a bet with Satan}
    -"virgin birth" of Jesus
    -walking on water
    -rising from the dead
    -faith healing

    I've got more.

    To exist in our Universe, you must obey the laws of science. God(if he/she/it exists) must obey these laws as well. The laws that govern reality do not refute the existence of God, but they do bind the ability to interact in an omnipotent sense on this plane of existence.
     
  17. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    Time to invoke the power of multi-quote!
    I'm going to refer to this site again: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html

    OK, why did I link that? I'm aware that it is a very long read, but there are 2 major issues. Translating words such as 'Sheol' and so on into Hell. Not only that, but the greek word aeonian is mistranslated into eternity, rather than an indefinite, or long period of time. Put together, you get Bible verses suggesting an eternity in Hell. Furthermore, people may have their own agendas with going for inaccurate translations, such as scaring people into believing God with threats of eternal punishment, or more sinister people may use it as a tool to control people with a false, modified religion. The entire doctrine of Hell popped up with these translations, and it is by far the most damning doctrine against Christianity today. While it is not possible to understand how the mind of God works, and hence rendering judgment is nigh-impossible, when it comes to matters that deal with effects that last forever, judgment of character is possible. Eternally punishing anyone is inconsistent with the character of a perfect, good, all-powerful being that is supposed to have infinite/maximum love. A lot of the other things God does in the Bible, along with letting evil events happen, may well have hidden reasons that go way into the future that we cannot see, but with eternal punishment, it stops making sense. This sort of mistranslation proves my point that there IS a massive potential for corruption. The doctrine of eternal punishment is an error, and a corruption, of truly cataclysmic proportions. It's brutally defamatory to God. I'm not surprised that people that believe this doctrine is a part of Christianity end up leaving it. Not only that, but this doctrine of Hell corrupts the central doctrine of Christianity. What is Jesus Christ REALLY supposed to be saving humanity from, if not an eternity in Hell? I'd say the answer is sinful behaviour that leads people, and people around them, to ruin, which would mainly be due to ignorance of God's teachings for humans (regardless of whether or not the teachings came from the Bible, or elsewhere).

    As I said above, I'd have to disagree. The doctrine of eternal punsihment fails to make sense when logically analysed. It contradicts the loving character of a pure good god. It also blatantly contradicts justice as eternal punishment is a supremely disproportionate punishment. Applying 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to the doctrine of Hell causes it to fall apart like a pack of cards.

    See mattj's rebuttal. It's interesting to note that similar uses of language can lead people into the logical fallacy that they refer to the same group of people. There are actually no contradictions here.

    In the definition of corruption I used, I included 'error' in it. Errors corrupt the truth, and render logical arguments faulty.

    I did mention the need to check them out yourself, a lot of 'contradictions' are resolved with the right sort of critical analysis.

    YW.

    Actually, when he refers to no text in scripture, properly understood, being consistent with Christianity, I'm certain he's referring to the original text, not all texts out there. Some modern texts clearly mention eternal punishment, which cannot be true (Revelation 20:15 for example). Translators themselves are vulnerable to misinterpreting scripture, especially if they are not really adept with the language they are translating from, and the language they are translating to.

    I'm sorry if I'm skipping over things a bit too quickly, but it's hard to get at the Bible verses I need at times. A lot of what happens after death, from Adam to the future, would appear to be resolved in the future. I'm not saying I agree with everything on the website I linked, but I am saying that I agree Hell is a false doctrine, and universalism will result in everyone getting saved at the end, so there must be some form of resurrection along the way.

    I'm not going to claim that everything said by that author is accurate, but some of the points do make sense. As for heaven and earth passing away, is there a possibility that this is symbolic, rather than literal, especially considering Revelation is full of symbology?

    Actually, I'm going to disagree here. I feel that the majority of translations are actually incorrect, on the grounds that they fatally contradict God's character. I cannot ignore contradictions, even if everybody else claims it is the truth. However, some of the stuff I see there stops making sense. I don't agree with the part about Jesus's second coming being spiritual, and having already occured in the past. Any punishment that isn't remedial (all of them would have to be, part of the whole point of punishment is to correct the person being punished) does not make sense. As for the fire being for Satan and his fallen angel buddies, they may be there for imprisonment, not simply a remedial punishment. They would be very different from humans, so different measures would be needed to deal with them. BTW, I might not be able to respond to everything right now, please tell me if there's anything I haven't responded to in your next post.

    If we assume that homosexuality is not inborn as a part of a nature of some humans, then this begs the following question: Why on Earth would anyone want to engage in relationships where they get ostracised, relationships where private parts are used in a non-standard way, relationships were procreation is completely impossible, relationships were there should be no natural attraction to physical bodies? The problem is, this question has no answer, barring complete ignorance of the facts within it. As the question has no real answer, then the assumption must be faulty. Humans are not all created 'normal', some humans do have very different natures. People with Autism, for example, think very differently about things, and tend to be introverted, by their NATURE. I should know, I've been Autistic my entire life. I can see no real evidence to support the suggestion that homosexuality is not a part of the nature of some humans, but plenty of evidence to the contrary. People engage in homosexual relationships despite it deviating from the norm of heterosexuality, and the only logical explanation I can think of is because their nature deviates from the normal nature. I cannot believe that this makes them sinful. Nature is not something that can be changed easily, if at all.

    To take an example, I don't believe David and Jonathan were gay. However, I facepalm at non-gay Christians who simply argue, "That translation can't be correct because the Mosaic Law condemned homosexuality and we don't hear anything about them being in trouble with the law on that account." Since the meaning of passages in the Mosaic Law is also being debated by just about everyone who thinks David and Jonathan were gay, this is to ignore the basic problem that each text needs to be analyzed without assuming that all these other texts support the traditional view.

    http://givesgoodemail.com/tag/toevah/ BTW, I would advise you to analyse the argument on its own merits. You can choose to use potential bias as a means for reducing the probability that it is true, but to go as far as to dismiss it as false is a logical fallacy. Ad hominem arguments are limited to altering evidentiary weight of some arguments, but not for going all the way to definitely true/false. Furthermore, now this is just a guess, I suspect that maybe, you may be quick to dismiss pro-gay sources because there is the possibility that you may have a bias, due to homosexuality being radically different to heterosexuality. There are parts that I would find very different to my own nature too, and I wouldn't want to act in a way that matches their nature, because it does not match my own nature (which is heterosexual). Also, given what I have said previously, I seriously doubt that pro-gay people are like that because they want to choose sin, they would be like that because homosexual nature is part of who homosexual people are, and I don't see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

    For starters, the passage deals with men lying with other men, what about women? There's something fishy about the law being gender-specific here, if it is supposed to condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, if homosexuality was being condemned, then why not simply say do not engage in homosexual relationships explicitly? Other verses are quite explicit about what is not acceptable, why wouldn't this one be?

    Note that Romans 1, there were people exchanging their existing heterosexual relationships for homosexual ones. i.e. People, with the normal nature, goes for an alternative one that is in violation of their own nature. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    They may well not have cared about doing what is natural, they may have been more about 'I'll just do what feels fun, and follow my urges', throwing all caution to the wind. Some people are like that.

    It's still a translation issue that would be confusing, I might have to investigate later to see if strange and other are supposed to be synonymous here.

    NP, I may not have answered all the points adequately, as this is eating up a lot of my time. You may need to respond with more points later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  18. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    Thank you for not correcting me. If it was the lineage of Jesus, the line would feature Mary, but it instead featured Joseph, Jesus's adoptive dad. It was from Joseph to Adam.
     
  19. Zevn

    Zevn Lost in Translation

    Not much point in it, the indication of the age of the Universe is clearly implied by the Bible.

    There is only so long someone can live, and even assuming everyone in the line bred at the latest possible time, it's still vastly incorrect.
     
  20. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    "Bob son of Bob," could account for multiple generations. Noah was said to live for 900 years.
     

Share This Page