And his one boat full of people had enough genetic diversity to repopulate a world... Without inbreeding!
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)
- Thread starter Profesco
- Start date
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Okay, what I'm going to say to Zevn should be noted by everybody in this debate.
Most of the things you mentioned are expressly indicated as supernatural occurrences. The biblical authors didn't think that virgins could conceive naturally. The resurrection is never presented as a natural event, but instead is an act of God. If you think that everything in the Bible is supposed to be a natural event, you will get the wrong idea, plain and simple.
In any case (and this is the part that I especially want everyone to hear), the whole issue of the age of the earth caused me to become a sharp critic of creation-science. From the claims I heard in one particular Young Earth Creationist book, I realized that their whole case is far shakier than they most often acknowledged. I still believe that the earth is probably not much more than six thousand years, but I don't attempt to prove it unless one already believes the Bible. I don't know how to reconcile the data with the literal reading of the text. And I don't hold to this belief anywhere near as strongly as I believe the core of the faith, that Jesus gave His life to pay for sins and came back from the dead by God's power. I struggle with this age of the earth difficulty, and will probably continue to for the rest of my time on earth.
In this case, it may be necessary to use different terms. I'm just going to say up front that when I'm talking about whether the Bible has been mistranslated by King James (or something like that), I'm going to use words like "altered" or "changed." (I will still use terms like "mistranslation" or "manuscript error.") When I'm discussing whether the original text of any biblical document contains erroneous statements put there either by the original author or by the God I believe to be behind it all, I will say something like "mistake," "incorrect" or "wrong."
(Since I'm sure it's obvious, I apologize for taking your post completely out of order!)
Regarding the site you linked there, I point out first that they say of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, "This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes." The documentation for this bold claim is found where? We should take seriously the Christopher Hitchens quote at the very top of the page: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
That doesn't disprove the claim, but it suggests carelessness. And examining the evidence shows that the basic claim is also careless. The Hebrew word used in that passage means more than just "non-traditional/against tradition," and we can find this out by comparing usage elsewhere. Good examples include Deuteronomy 7:25; Proverbs 11:1; 12:22; and especially Proverbs 16:22. These positively refute that reductionist definition.
In a way, I think this helps answer your other question. There was no need for such a judicial command. Additionally, just based on the evidence from the Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6, it appears lesbianism is not condemned as strongly as males lying with males. As you've mentioned, I hope the responses I get won't make me need any brain bleach, but just from what I have heard about the difference between male homosexuality and lesbianism, I don't think that is fishy at all.
In addition to all of this, you still have passages like I Corinthians 7:2, "But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband." If God were going to allow homosexual marriage, could He not have said so somewhere? (I'm not sure whether you believe David and Jonathan were a same-sex couple, but one of the very texts used to support this notion actually disproves it.)
The author also needlessly muddies the waters by suggesting that if people don't know the meaning of some passages, this somehow disproves inerrancy. It also uses terms like "fundamentalist" and "Bible Inerrancy Camp" in highly misleading ways. It suggests--wrongly--that only fundamentalists believe in inerrancy, even though this belief is found in non-fundamentalist groups. That page also fails to properly distinguish between people who claim that a certain version is inspired (KJV, Textus Receptus), and "regular" fundamentalists like me who do not assign any special status to versions that are not the original.
In fact, I have to make one quote of the page:
Now, I believe he has a good point about the Old Testament. Though I believe it is possible some OT texts indicate a division between the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked, I'm not really concerned about that, because the author is incorrect to take this as evidence that we should not believe in eternal punishment. On the first page that you linked from that site, the (other) author quotes a scholar who says neither hell nor heaven is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. I may doubt whether that is fully accurate, but heaven does not seem to be clearly mentioned. If that doesn't argue against heaven's existence, then it cannot argue against hell's existence.
Consider further this author's argument along the lines of "If hell is real, why didn't Paul mention it?" This is exactly the sort of argument that would be used by the very inerrantists he argues against. In addition to that hypocrisy, this argument is no more valid than saying, "If heaven is real, why didn't the Old Testament clearly mention it?" Also, this pits Paul against a number of Jesus' statements--an unwise tactic.
In fact, we can ask the same sort of question about a lot of things. Remember what I said about the age of the earth? Why did God allow the author of Genesis to write something that is so difficult to square with the radiometric data? We can ask similar questions about statements in the gospels: Why did God allow the gospel writers to give different ideas of when the Last Supper occurred? Why did God allow it to be difficult to reconcile Luke's statements about when Jesus was born and what we know of the time period from other historians? Those issues remain difficult to this day. If I just said, "God is not the author of confusion," and apply it the way Tentmaker does, I'd have to dismiss most of the Bible, or most of human history, or both. In fact, how can he say, "But the Father, in His sovereignty allowed the church to fall away"? Not only does that sound an awful lot like the gates of hell prevailing against the Jesus' church, we can legitimately ask, "How is God not the author of confusion?"
I don't believe it is right to let any preconceptions about God's character influence translation work. The text must speak for itself. Certain verses may seem to contradict something we believe about God's nature, but then again, that gives us no right to impose our view on the text. Since the text is the source from which we are supposed to get our ideas of God's character, imposing our view on the text is circular reasoning, and thus fundamentally dishonest to the text.
Now is the time for me to respond to Tentmaker's view of Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 20:10. First, I want to point out that the few, generally single-person translations that use "age-lasting punishment/life" do not prove what that author thinks they do. Or, more accurately, they would prove something he positively rejects, for the parallelism would prove that our reward in heaven is of finite duration, just like the "age-lasting" punishment. Thus he has used this evidence selectively, and that is not honest. Basically, the whole problem is that while that Greek word can mean "an age" that is not its most common meaning, and the parallelism of that verse ruins attempts to argue for a limited punishment, since the wicked are punished for the same amount of time that the righteous are rewarded.
To add on to that, it should be noted that the phrase in Revelation 20:10, "forever and ever" means exactly what most translations think it does. The notes in some that say "to the ages of the ages" do not provide evidence against this. The NET Bible's note on I Timothy 1:17 says, "Grk 'unto the ages of the ages,' an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek." This phrase is applied to God here, and it is elsewhere. Especially important is Revelation 15:7, which speaks of God, "who lives forever and ever" (Greek, "unto the ages of the ages"). If the length of the punishment can be reduced, so can the length of God's life.
In response to something else you said, it is true that humans can only commit a finite number of sins, and only spend a finite amount of time sinning on earth. But compare how long it would take to commit murder and how long it would take to steal billions of dollars in change. Do you think the only thing human courts take into account is how long it took to commit the crime? Or how many individual offenses were committed?
Hebrews 9:27 says that people die once, and afterwards is the judgment. Now consider some of Jesus statements. In Matthew 7, after Jesus talks about the paths that lead to life and destruction (v. 13), He goes on to say, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). In verse 23, He says He will tell them to depart, saying "I never knew you." Moreover Mark 3:29, in any translation (even Young's Literal Translation which Tentmaker used to support its Universalism) indicates that there is some sin which cannot be forgiven. At this moment, I need not have any preconceived ideas about what this sin is, though it must be exceedingly serious. Clearly, some people will choose to rebel against God in finality.
Could they be resurrected to choose for God? I doubt it, but in any case, it won't allow all to go to heaven. When Daniel mentions the resurrection (Dan. 12:2), he says that some will gain life, but some receive shame and everlasting contempt. In fact, Jesus mentions that there are two separate resurrections, one "of life" and the other "of condemnation" (John 5:29).
I realized something important since starting this discussion. Some verses may seem to be interpreted to allow for the annihilation of the wicked, and they have important implications for a debate about Universalism. The end of the first Psalm says, "the way of the ungodly shall perish," and Paul says that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Paul also says that the lawless one (most likely the Antichrist) will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's appearing. John the Baptist said that Jesus would, "gather the wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire" (Luke 3:17). These passages do not refute Annihilationism, but they positively refute Universalism. And if you wish, I can provide further evidence against Annihilationism.
In any case, I am quite certain that hell exists to allow for both human free will and divine judgment. It may not be easy to understand, but the other possibilities bring up difficulties that are, yes, even worse.
To respond to the last first, God doesn't exist inside the universe. The laws of physics, chemistry, etc. are not the laws of all reality, and in fact, we cannot exclude the possibility of something existing outside of this plane of existence.
Most of the things you mentioned are expressly indicated as supernatural occurrences. The biblical authors didn't think that virgins could conceive naturally. The resurrection is never presented as a natural event, but instead is an act of God. If you think that everything in the Bible is supposed to be a natural event, you will get the wrong idea, plain and simple.
In any case (and this is the part that I especially want everyone to hear), the whole issue of the age of the earth caused me to become a sharp critic of creation-science. From the claims I heard in one particular Young Earth Creationist book, I realized that their whole case is far shakier than they most often acknowledged. I still believe that the earth is probably not much more than six thousand years, but I don't attempt to prove it unless one already believes the Bible. I don't know how to reconcile the data with the literal reading of the text. And I don't hold to this belief anywhere near as strongly as I believe the core of the faith, that Jesus gave His life to pay for sins and came back from the dead by God's power. I struggle with this age of the earth difficulty, and will probably continue to for the rest of my time on earth.
I'm just going to seriously caution you about this usage: Many skeptics argue that the Bible has been corrupted, whether by translation or by manuscript errors. Also, textual critics (people who study manuscripts) use the term "corruption" to denote errors in manuscripts, places where the manuscript doesn't reflect the original text. Neither group uses the word in the way you are using it, which strongly suggests that your usage will cause considerable confusion.
In this case, it may be necessary to use different terms. I'm just going to say up front that when I'm talking about whether the Bible has been mistranslated by King James (or something like that), I'm going to use words like "altered" or "changed." (I will still use terms like "mistranslation" or "manuscript error.") When I'm discussing whether the original text of any biblical document contains erroneous statements put there either by the original author or by the God I believe to be behind it all, I will say something like "mistake," "incorrect" or "wrong."
I don't know how I forgot, but the Douay Bible is supposed to have been translated from Latin, because Catholics considered the Vulgate the version to use. I think it best to translate from the original; translating from a secondary translation could indeed help add to confusion.
(Since I'm sure it's obvious, I apologize for taking your post completely out of order!)
I would agree that I should look at the argument on its own merits, and I continually seek to test any such claims against proper linguistic resources. The problem I see is that if these arguments are apparently almost always coming from the pro-gay side, then they have an obvious motive for claiming that these verses don't condemn homosexuality. I don't think this disproves their claim, but it certainly hurts it.
Regarding the site you linked there, I point out first that they say of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, "This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes." The documentation for this bold claim is found where? We should take seriously the Christopher Hitchens quote at the very top of the page: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
That doesn't disprove the claim, but it suggests carelessness. And examining the evidence shows that the basic claim is also careless. The Hebrew word used in that passage means more than just "non-traditional/against tradition," and we can find this out by comparing usage elsewhere. Good examples include Deuteronomy 7:25; Proverbs 11:1; 12:22; and especially Proverbs 16:22. These positively refute that reductionist definition.
Lesbianism was almost unheard of back in those times. It was still rare at around the time Romans 1 was written, just not quite as rare. (It's still not common today.)
In a way, I think this helps answer your other question. There was no need for such a judicial command. Additionally, just based on the evidence from the Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6, it appears lesbianism is not condemned as strongly as males lying with males. As you've mentioned, I hope the responses I get won't make me need any brain bleach, but just from what I have heard about the difference between male homosexuality and lesbianism, I don't think that is fishy at all.
The passage does not allow for different people to have different natures. This passage discusses what is fundamental to human nature, and not tendencies of individual humans.
In addition to all of this, you still have passages like I Corinthians 7:2, "But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband." If God were going to allow homosexual marriage, could He not have said so somewhere? (I'm not sure whether you believe David and Jonathan were a same-sex couple, but one of the very texts used to support this notion actually disproves it.)
How could statements like, "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whom earth and heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them." (Rev. 20:11 NKJV), and "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away." (Rev 21:1) be a symbol representing God keeping the present heavens and earth going?
There are a few preliminary things I wanted to point out about the site. First and most importantly, I noted the heavy use of emotionally charged language and baseless conspiracy theories. It is just an exaggeration to say that many translations were politically motivated, or that this allowed people to insert doctrines on any scale (from what I've heard, Catholic translations don't even include stuff about purgatory). And to suggest that modern translations are just out to make money distorts the facts. The NET Bible is available on the internet, with the expressed desire to be freely available to all. They include the teaching about hell through no monetary motive.
The author also needlessly muddies the waters by suggesting that if people don't know the meaning of some passages, this somehow disproves inerrancy. It also uses terms like "fundamentalist" and "Bible Inerrancy Camp" in highly misleading ways. It suggests--wrongly--that only fundamentalists believe in inerrancy, even though this belief is found in non-fundamentalist groups. That page also fails to properly distinguish between people who claim that a certain version is inspired (KJV, Textus Receptus), and "regular" fundamentalists like me who do not assign any special status to versions that are not the original.
In fact, I have to make one quote of the page:
I agree that "King James Only" Christians are very much mistaken, and it is a shame that most modern editions of the KJV do not include the preface. Yet I do not think the evidence supports his claim that fundamentalists are the ones who removed it.
Now, I believe he has a good point about the Old Testament. Though I believe it is possible some OT texts indicate a division between the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked, I'm not really concerned about that, because the author is incorrect to take this as evidence that we should not believe in eternal punishment. On the first page that you linked from that site, the (other) author quotes a scholar who says neither hell nor heaven is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. I may doubt whether that is fully accurate, but heaven does not seem to be clearly mentioned. If that doesn't argue against heaven's existence, then it cannot argue against hell's existence.
Consider further this author's argument along the lines of "If hell is real, why didn't Paul mention it?" This is exactly the sort of argument that would be used by the very inerrantists he argues against. In addition to that hypocrisy, this argument is no more valid than saying, "If heaven is real, why didn't the Old Testament clearly mention it?" Also, this pits Paul against a number of Jesus' statements--an unwise tactic.
In fact, we can ask the same sort of question about a lot of things. Remember what I said about the age of the earth? Why did God allow the author of Genesis to write something that is so difficult to square with the radiometric data? We can ask similar questions about statements in the gospels: Why did God allow the gospel writers to give different ideas of when the Last Supper occurred? Why did God allow it to be difficult to reconcile Luke's statements about when Jesus was born and what we know of the time period from other historians? Those issues remain difficult to this day. If I just said, "God is not the author of confusion," and apply it the way Tentmaker does, I'd have to dismiss most of the Bible, or most of human history, or both. In fact, how can he say, "But the Father, in His sovereignty allowed the church to fall away"? Not only does that sound an awful lot like the gates of hell prevailing against the Jesus' church, we can legitimately ask, "How is God not the author of confusion?"
I don't believe it is right to let any preconceptions about God's character influence translation work. The text must speak for itself. Certain verses may seem to contradict something we believe about God's nature, but then again, that gives us no right to impose our view on the text. Since the text is the source from which we are supposed to get our ideas of God's character, imposing our view on the text is circular reasoning, and thus fundamentally dishonest to the text.
Now is the time for me to respond to Tentmaker's view of Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 20:10. First, I want to point out that the few, generally single-person translations that use "age-lasting punishment/life" do not prove what that author thinks they do. Or, more accurately, they would prove something he positively rejects, for the parallelism would prove that our reward in heaven is of finite duration, just like the "age-lasting" punishment. Thus he has used this evidence selectively, and that is not honest. Basically, the whole problem is that while that Greek word can mean "an age" that is not its most common meaning, and the parallelism of that verse ruins attempts to argue for a limited punishment, since the wicked are punished for the same amount of time that the righteous are rewarded.
To add on to that, it should be noted that the phrase in Revelation 20:10, "forever and ever" means exactly what most translations think it does. The notes in some that say "to the ages of the ages" do not provide evidence against this. The NET Bible's note on I Timothy 1:17 says, "Grk 'unto the ages of the ages,' an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek." This phrase is applied to God here, and it is elsewhere. Especially important is Revelation 15:7, which speaks of God, "who lives forever and ever" (Greek, "unto the ages of the ages"). If the length of the punishment can be reduced, so can the length of God's life.
Your first quote above touches on something that I at times find difficult. A punishment that lasts forever is hard to fully understand. However, I do not believe it fatally contradicts His character, or that it falls apart like a house of cards, for God's character includes both perfect love and perfect righteousness. And by so many statements in the Bible, it is clear that God plans for people to choose for or against Him. How could a loving God force everyone to spend eternity with Him?
In response to something else you said, it is true that humans can only commit a finite number of sins, and only spend a finite amount of time sinning on earth. But compare how long it would take to commit murder and how long it would take to steal billions of dollars in change. Do you think the only thing human courts take into account is how long it took to commit the crime? Or how many individual offenses were committed?
I was going to ask you some further questions, but this means I do not need to do that. I merely direct your attention to a number of very important passages of Scripture:
Hebrews 9:27 says that people die once, and afterwards is the judgment. Now consider some of Jesus statements. In Matthew 7, after Jesus talks about the paths that lead to life and destruction (v. 13), He goes on to say, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). In verse 23, He says He will tell them to depart, saying "I never knew you." Moreover Mark 3:29, in any translation (even Young's Literal Translation which Tentmaker used to support its Universalism) indicates that there is some sin which cannot be forgiven. At this moment, I need not have any preconceived ideas about what this sin is, though it must be exceedingly serious. Clearly, some people will choose to rebel against God in finality.
Could they be resurrected to choose for God? I doubt it, but in any case, it won't allow all to go to heaven. When Daniel mentions the resurrection (Dan. 12:2), he says that some will gain life, but some receive shame and everlasting contempt. In fact, Jesus mentions that there are two separate resurrections, one "of life" and the other "of condemnation" (John 5:29).
I realized something important since starting this discussion. Some verses may seem to be interpreted to allow for the annihilation of the wicked, and they have important implications for a debate about Universalism. The end of the first Psalm says, "the way of the ungodly shall perish," and Paul says that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Paul also says that the lawless one (most likely the Antichrist) will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's appearing. John the Baptist said that Jesus would, "gather the wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire" (Luke 3:17). These passages do not refute Annihilationism, but they positively refute Universalism. And if you wish, I can provide further evidence against Annihilationism.
In any case, I am quite certain that hell exists to allow for both human free will and divine judgment. It may not be easy to understand, but the other possibilities bring up difficulties that are, yes, even worse.
If there was a verse in the Bible that said, "In the 16th year of King Uzziah, the Lord said unto the prophet Jezebel, the Earth was created 4,500 years ago." Then yes, that would be a clear, indisputable example of the Bible making a claim that flies counter to everything science has found. But such a verse does not exist.
How long ago was creation?
Was it really in seven, literal, 24 hour days?
What were the circumstances of creation?
How did God do it (did he mold everything like a potter or simply will it all immediately into existence)?
None of these questions are directly answered anywhere in the Bible. And speaking of unanswered questions.
How long ago was creation?
How old is the Earth?
How did life begin on Earth?
If the static universe model is unlikely, how did all the matter and energy that we see around us get here in the first place?
What is all this "dark matter" that supposedly makes up 75% of the matter in the Universe?
Are there other Universes, or existence outside of what we understand to be time and space?
The most educated men and women, and the most respected scientific organizations do not, 100%, completely agree on these questions either.
To suggest that science has all the answers and has unquestionably proven the Bible's claims to be false is beyond exaggeration.
How long ago was creation?
Was it really in seven, literal, 24 hour days?
What were the circumstances of creation?
How did God do it (did he mold everything like a potter or simply will it all immediately into existence)?
None of these questions are directly answered anywhere in the Bible. And speaking of unanswered questions.
How long ago was creation?
How old is the Earth?
How did life begin on Earth?
If the static universe model is unlikely, how did all the matter and energy that we see around us get here in the first place?
What is all this "dark matter" that supposedly makes up 75% of the matter in the Universe?
Are there other Universes, or existence outside of what we understand to be time and space?
The most educated men and women, and the most respected scientific organizations do not, 100%, completely agree on these questions either.
To suggest that science has all the answers and has unquestionably proven the Bible's claims to be false is beyond exaggeration.
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Yes. It centers on the belief that the literal meaning is correct, which can only be presented as an argument to someone who accepts the text as a record from God. Although I should add that the genealogies don't allow it to be less than six thousand. Hence, not much more than six thousand. Just from the way some ancient genealogies skipped a few generations occasionally, you might be able to get a few more thousand years, but only a few. It's hard to see the biblical data allowing more than ten thousand.
As a side note, I've also become a lot more friendly to Big Bang cosmology in recent years. It is a shame how often Creation-scientists label the Big Bang a part of evolutionary theory. This is one of the other things that has led me to become critical of their errors and flawed methods.
Though I may be getting off on a tangent that is not part of the tangent topic (LOL!), it seems most scientists don't view that as much of a problem. I have heard scientists say it that way, even stating the Big Bang in terms of the mass-energy "coming from nowehere." On the other hand, it seems more hold that the mass-energy could have always existed. If it is inactive, that would be (at least effectively) like having no time. Then, the problem is starting it all. With a Bang.
I agree with this, but I'd advise some caution. Many conservative Christian apologists like to cite a famous biblical archaeologist as saying that no biblical statement rightly understood has ever been controverted by archaeology. As I found out by doing some research, he's no Genesis literalist, so "rightly understood" means nobody can use his testimony to pit Genesis against radiometric dating.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
How rude. At least TFP isn't passing judgment on your entire existence within a single sentence. I wish you guys would stop rambling; this is a topic about Bible Interpretation currently, so TFP, JDavidC, and mattj have a legitimate place here to debate about the Bible, which is quite different from debating whether it is true or not...
View on religion is one's entire existence? That summary is fairly insulting.
I was answering mario's question about the denial of scientific evidence, in favor of belief in the supernatural. Being concise is something I value. I was not attempting to be rude, but clear. Here you are:
This might seem like a loaded question to you, but it is a legitimate thing to wonder. If you missed them, here are some posts that deal more specifically with what you consider the debate's focus to be: I & II
________________
I don't claim to know if there is a God or not, simply that if God exists, they must also follow the fundamental laws of the Universe. It is my interpretation of the Bible, that: The Bible is mostly a collection of artful metaphors used to explain some of mankind's burning questions at a time when science was unable.
Last edited:
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
It is a completely subjective thing to wonder, regardless of whether it is 'legitimate'. Not all people have the same train of thought; anything that doesn't run congruent to your train of thought isn't necessarily 'shutting your brain off'. I keep hearing 'God has to follow the laws of the universe to exist' which actually shows a line of thought that is very narrow, not in terms of what you believe, but in terms of the beliefs you understand. In a subject like this, various supernatural and non-scientific events are the least of your priorities in terms of what you have to address, because the presense of belief is a God is what is central to what you're rejecting, and the events are just peripheral. If there is a God, then He doesn't follow the laws of the Universe - or the Universe would be God, rending the follower of the Universe's laws irrelevant. If you think God has to follow all of your known conventions, you've completely missed the point of what 'God' is.
Even though you don't believe in something, it's extremely beneficial to respect a basic knowledge of how the other side's perspective is constructed, or you can't communicate with them at all. If you analyse the Bible already from the perspective that the universe is a certain way and this concept of God has to fit into it, you're just going to confirm your own knowledge, and that's just patting yourself on the back. Semantics aside, and whether you meant to be offensive, your armchair-psychoanalysis of why TFP embraces Creationism (pretty much why anybody makes an effort to suspend disbelief for religion), after marioguy and you steered it into questioning their beliefs in the first place is really quite demeaning and intrusive.
Even though you don't believe in something, it's extremely beneficial to respect a basic knowledge of how the other side's perspective is constructed, or you can't communicate with them at all. If you analyse the Bible already from the perspective that the universe is a certain way and this concept of God has to fit into it, you're just going to confirm your own knowledge, and that's just patting yourself on the back. Semantics aside, and whether you meant to be offensive, your armchair-psychoanalysis of why TFP embraces Creationism (pretty much why anybody makes an effort to suspend disbelief for religion), after marioguy and you steered it into questioning their beliefs in the first place is really quite demeaning and intrusive.
Last edited:
As a seemingly irreligious person, I can understand why you might not understand how a person's religion could be such an enormous part of anyone's life, but incase you didn't know, it really is for many people. My religion dictates what I eat, what I drink, where I go, who I'm friends with, what I wear, what I watch, what I listen to, even where I live. Not even every religious person is like me, but please do keep that in mind.
And, concerning shutting your brain off, I do say this with the utmost respect, but you do realize that the same allegation could be leveled against you, right? I don't see how allegations like those further the conversation.
And, concerning shutting your brain off, I do say this with the utmost respect, but you do realize that the same allegation could be leveled against you, right? I don't see how allegations like those further the conversation.
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
That's the thing--I'm not denying the evidence. In fact, I have no problem saying that the evidence is in a much better state than most Genesis literalists give it credit for. It's almost like not having a working theory.
It genuinely looks like you didn't pay attention to what I said, what SunnyC said, or even what you said. Take a look:
When SunnyC said this, he was not referring to someone's religious beliefs as someone's entire being. Consider your statement to which SunnyC was responding:
When I'm saying that I don't know how to reconcile a difficulty, and pointing out that I refuse to perpetuate erroneous Creation-scientists arguments dismissing radiometric dating, that is the opposite of a lifetime of indoctrination making me irrationally closed-minded. Perhaps SunnyC could have used "entire psyche," but the point is the same. It is insulting to presume, especially with such extreme confidence, that someone's motivations for forming their opinions must be irrationalities like fear of death.
I do no deny spirituality, nor the validity of your belief in God. I believe the Bible to be flawed, and I find it's dictations very judgmental. My goal is not to insult you, but rather to get you to examine the logical fallacies that exist. I do not think you should forgo Christianity.
I could have worded it differently, but the intent is the same.
Simply that it is my belief that some people can't live happily without answers to questions like:
"What happens to me after I die?"
"What is the meaning of life?"
"How do I know what I'm doing, is the right thing to do?"
I answered in the way I did, because it is my opinion that not delving into the possibilities, and finding these answers for yourself is the easy way out. Whether or not you end up deciding that Christianity, or any religion is the correct way to live your life, it often seems like if you deny proven science you are not thinking for yourself.
Last edited:
One definition I found was 'a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct'. This would actually fit my definition quite well. If you want to define/use more specific terms, that is certainly fine.
Indeed. Multiple translations have more potential for error.
NP.
I'm not going to be able to guarantee that I can find unbiased sources, so I'll try to find several:
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html - mentions 'toevah' to mean ritually unclean, not 'abomination'.
I believe the (mis)translation itself was what the change was. That is why I am going through websites to try to find out what the Hebrew word 'toevah' is supposed to mean.
Be careful, the meaning of the word may change with context. If you want to quote passages as examples, you have to provide an analysis of the examples, and state how 'toevah' appears. I'm having trouble finding where 'toevah' appears in those passages you quoted (and in any case, technically, it is not my job to search for evidence to support your claim), so I'm afraid you will have to provide links to actual translations to back up your claims that those passages are good examples. Furthermore, God may have deliberately been setting up traditions to avoid practices in neighbouring countries that have the potential to lead people to corruption (I'm not saying all the practices GUARANTEE people are lead to corruption, an important distinction).
http://www.tcpc.org/library/article.cfm?library_id=809
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm - I'd like to point out that if people are going to quote from old laws, such as the ones found in the book of Leviticus, then why not follow ALL of them? Surely God has a good reason for them applying. If you don't agree with this, then maybe you need to look into which laws do not make sense any more. Bear in mind that a lot of laws may have been dished out based on the culture of the people receiving them, as well as trying to keep them from engaging in behaviour of morally bankrupt neighbours, rather than simply what is pure Godliness as far as behaviour is concerned. Notice how men and women are not treated as equal! Clearly, sexism has NO place as far as morality is concerned, so God would have had to put in laws that would stop the people's culture from falling apart, even if it was corrupt. Thinking that a law applies today just because God dished it out in the path simply does not make any sense. It really is NOT that simple. You must think through any possible motives God had for dishing out those laws in the first place.
FINALLY, it must be noted that the Leviticus passages must be interpreted carefully, rather than simply going for what appears obvious and appealing. Lying with a man as with a woman, may imply 2 men, one on the ground facing upwards, and another man, on top of him, facing downwards. A great deal of homosexual acts do NOT involve lying in this manner. 'You shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman' is open to far more interpretation than it first appears to be. Note how it does not explicitly say 'you shall not have sex with someone the same gender as you'. It is VERY dangerous to conclude something that is not explicitly stated, without any further analysis (doing so would be a logical fallacy). I can find no explicit statement of people who have a hard-wired homosexual nature being forbidden from engaging in homosexual sex, and without such an explicit statement, it is very hard for me to believe such a thing is expressly forbidden by God. Furthermore, the world changes, law changes, a lot of laws in Leviticus forbid eating stuff like lobster! A lot of laws are no longer followed today. You have to ask, WHY? This is especially important if you're going to take an ancient law and say that it must be applied today because it was applied in the past. That last sentence is (hopefully), a blatantly obvious logical fallacy of epic proportions.
Next up, 1 Timothy 4:1-5
Verse 1 seems to be speaking about the present, people are going away from Christianity, or specifically, TRUE Christianity (when the text refers to the 'faith', I believe it would be referring to real Christianity, not counterfeit versions floating around today). There are a whole lot of false teachings out there, and this verse warns of 'doctrines of demons'. Where would people get these doctrines from? Copies of the Bible, and their own interpretation. The doctrine of eternal punishment (note that I am not equating this with Hell existing, an important point to note) leaves no room for interpretation, as it has made it into English Bibles, despite evidence that suggests it may not have been there to begin with. It would seem that Timothy is hinting at both the potential for biblical corruption AND for intentional misinterpretation of the Bible to use it as a tool to oppress others and gain power.
Verse 2, let's see, people preaching hate against homosexuals for violating what they claim is said in the Bible , yet they ignore the teachings in the Bible about love thy enemy, and love thy neighbour as thyself, which is pretty much impossible to misinterpret. If this isn't an example of hypocrisy and lying, I don't know what is. These biblical prophecies are being fulfilled today, as we type!
Verse 3, forbidding to marry! The people who preach hate against homosexuals would also oppose their marriages. It would seem that Timothy is actually opposing people, such as those who use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, and to prevent marriages.
Verse 4, every creature of God is good. OK, so if people end up with a homosexual nature, because they end up being created that way, then according to this verse, they are good! They are not sinful abominations on the basis of their nature. That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
Some of this may be due to cultic practices in the past, and some of the laws in Leviticus may have been put in there by God specifically to stop people from going astray, rather than as general, absolute moral laws. I can also understand health risks varying based on gender, given the physical differences in the human body in each case.
I don't think you understand what I mean by nature. I mean hard-wired, immutable (i.e., cannot be changed) aspects of a person. e.g. The type of brain they have. Different people think in different ways, and those people work best if they learn about these parts of themselves that they cannot change, and adapt to fit the strengths and weaknesses of what they do have to work with. Homosexuality turns up with some people, possibly as part of their brain. There are things about myself that I don't understand the reasons for, yet they are a part of who I am, and I can't simply 'change' them, even if I want to. I cannot change the fact that I have Autism, I have to work with it. It makes my nature different, and that nature cannot be changed, so rules need to be made to allow for this. To think that one set of rules fits all people (unless you somehow allow for ALL the exceptions), is very, VERY naive thinking. The same principle applies to people with hard-wired homosexuality. I cannot believe people would want to choose homosexuality if they were not hard-wired for it, given the benefits of a relationship (and sexual acts, relatively low health risk etc) of a heterosexual nature.
Let's get the context for 1 Corinthians, http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/1cor.htm . I am only linking that to establish the context, but not to use any interpretation within as part of my argument. It is vital to understand that this is a letter to a church regarding queries about events happening AT THAT TIME. It is important to note that a great deal of the Bible is historical accounts, and must be viewed as such. Now, this refers to immoralities at the time around the people of the Church of Corinth.
Furthermore, I decided to try to get as close to the original as possible, by looking for a translation from the KJV (btw, I'd like to note that I do not entirely agree with the way the KJV is written, but I use it when I want to avoid 'interpreted' bibles, rather than ones that have been changed through translation alone).
There was a specific reason given for this at this particular time, and bear in mind, Paul was not speaking with the authority of God (he states when he is doing so later in that letter/book). What is to be prevented? Typing define:fornication into Google will give you a definition like this, 'sex outside marriage'. Now, in today's world, PREVENTING civil marriages, or whatever, for homosexual people, doesn't make any sense. If they got married, then, by definition, they could not be guilty of fornication if they then engaged in consensual sex. Once again, you have to analyse the history, and figure out possible motives for laws being put in place, rather than simply making the assumption that 'God said this, therefore these laws are eternal and are to be obeyed at all times'. Such assumptions are what cause so many false doctrines and utter madness to pop up in the first place. I really cannot stress the importance of learning the teachings involving critical thinking, and using them on the Bible itself, enough.1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV said:
Think of them being transformed from an old state to a new one. It's an alternative interpretation, and a lot of the Bible simply does not make sense if taken literally. What does 'passed away' mean? Simply ceased to exist in its current state? That is a valid interpretation, and a transformation would certainly fulfil such a prophecy.
Although I do refer to articles, it may be best to focus on the parts that go with my argument. Still, you can look at other parts to search for bias if needed. I don't read through every single word of any page I link to, it's already time-consuming as it is trying to find the pages in the first place. Also, just because I refer to an article, it does not mean that I agree with every single point it makes, but the point that I am trying to get across is what I agree with.
Sorry if I'm skipping over too much again, but this is taking up way too much of my time at the moment. I'm going to speak explicitly about Hell later on. As for the last paragraph, it is correct just to focus on the translation, and forget anything else. When it comes to interpretation, a need for consistency does arise. That is when you want to have the original Bible in your hands, and then you get to start looking for interpretations that do not generate incosistencies/contradictions with itself, or with reality. The problem is, the original Bible may well be lost.
Here, I think you do have a legitimate point. After all, if righteous people were to start behaving wickedly, I'd imagine that eternal rewards would go away very quickly, and punishments would start coming out. If righteous people are going to be rewarded eternally, they may well need to, at the very least, not do anything wicked, but many people would naturally want to continue being righteous.
Even though the same phrase may be used in Greek, the context still needs to be considered when interpreting. God could choose to not live forever, but simply for a very long time, if he wanted. However, when I look into eternal punishment, applying the same interpretation causes a contradiction (see later).
How long could someone, other than God, want to go on trying to be evil, in spite of punishments, or simply living away from God, before they even try to attempt his methods of living? I doubt anyone spending an 'eternity' away from God would have the patience to resist trying out God's way of living FOREVER. God on the other hand, would not have a problem with waiting any finite length of time, if it is necessary. I could try explaining in far more detail, but I will have to start explaining my own Theory of God in order to do that.
No, I imagine humans that know what they are doing, and to a greater extent, God, would take far more factors into account. The motives for all the crimes, for example, would need to be considered.
I will be subjecting these to analysis.
Yes, but this verse does NOT say anything about what happens AFTER the judgment, which may include more deaths.
I won't deny that there will be people too wicked to get in to the kingdom of Heaven at that time.
Firstly, even if the original Greek does, in fact, use 'eternal', it still doesn't add up when interpreting the Bible. It's like saying 'Blasphemy against God the Holy Spirit is so evil you will never be forgiven, yet, nuking the Earth, torturing billlions of people, blowing up the entire universe etc is A-OK, you will be forgiven!'. It. Does. Not. Make. ANY. Sense. WHATSOEVER.
I found the following quotes on Wikipedia:
Mark 3:28-30: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit’.”
Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”
Hebrews 6:4-8: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case — the things that have to do with salvation.”
Hebrews 10:26-29: “For we, sinning wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?”
Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Luke 12:8-10: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”
Hebrews 6:4-8: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case — the things that have to do with salvation.”
Hebrews 10:26-29: “For we, sinning wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery zeal about to consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has considered as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who have insulted the Spirit of grace?”
This begs the question: What on Earth is this apparent madness and insanity doing in the Bible in the first place, especially if it was inspired by someone who is NOT supposed to be the author of confusion? Well, I think I may be able to answer this question. A lot of it would be to have to do with cultures, and laws given that do not deviate too far from a group of people's culture, which lacks mercy and has over-the-top penalties as punishment. In the time these biblical books were being written, I'd imagine these people may not have been very logical, and instead they needed something that would make sense to them, even if it was, technically, false. Furthermore, there would be societies with cultures like this today, and this sort of talk might make sense to them, and they may not have a problem with death penalties and so on being levied against them. I stated that last sentence because Jesus refers to people in the future age. Given that some people would not be logical, God the Almighty and Jesus Christ may very well have to use troll logic (which may well include blatant lies, such as eternal sin) to save them, rather than perfect, flawless logic, as the latter would not actually work as well. Now, I do not have a problem with lying, if it is done properly, for the sake of the person being lied to, but it is something that would be the exception rather than the rule. God would naturally know all these exceptions, and lying in order to protect people would be consistent with his character. Would God lie? Well, there is this bit of prophecy in Thessalonians, relating to what the book of Revelation is about:
So, God intends to delude people in the future? This is the work of a liar, although there may well be 'Good' reasons behind it. Being omnibenevolent does not rule out lying completely. It would seem that both God, and Jesus Christ, will, technically, have to lie in order to save some people, because the truth may not work. There are always exceptions to general rules, so naturally, people like these, especially God, will end up behaving in a way that appears VERY strange, AKA 'God works in mysterious ways.'.NET Bible 2 Th 2:11 said:
The fact that God may have had to deal with barbaric societies in the past may have explained why he had to go barbaric with his laws, because going with what would suit him down to a T would be so alien to the people he is giving the laws to, that it would not work. Given the barbaric nature of these societies, God may well have had to go along with mightily smiting people for reasons that make no sense to the people of today in order to stop events that might tear apart the societies. Sadly, as I am not omniscient, I can only speculate into reasons behind actions that God takes that appears to contradict his nature. But, given what I have said, laws, and passages, such as those dealing with homosexuality, must be dealt with using a considerably high degree of skepticism, and the Bible teaches the use of skepticism, not to mention I do not believe God would give humans the ability to be rational/skeptical. Surely if our brains are designed for this by God, then God would expect humans that want to do good to use their brains in this way.
It isn't just God The Almighty that does this, Jesus Christ has to do this, and laws get changed, but societies are still different enough to the point where rational logic may not be the best option, and so this may explain the real reason for Jesus Christ being crucified as the ultimate 'sin offering'. It seems symbolic, rather than a literal payment of a 'sin debt'. The literal interpretation of Jesus Christ dying to pay for sins just falls apart utterly, as that in no way absolves people of their sins. People who do so still have to be put through correcctive punishment and to pay for ALL of their sins. The thought of 'believing' in someone else to take your place for something that YOU deserve is nonsensical. My brain just can't understand the reason for Jesus Christ dying on the cross if it was a literal payment of sin debt, and that's because the reason is contradictory under that interpretation. This begs the question, what is the REAL reason Jesus Christ was crucified and killed? Was it 'troll logic' for people who would not work under proper logic? It's the only alternative that could make sense to me. 'Believe in Jesus, and you will be saved', seems to be a horribly corrupted doctrine.. What you need to focus on is using your brain, starting with 1 Thessalonians 5:21 before going off to the rest of the Bible, and then trying out the teachings to see what works? 'Believe in Jesus' only seems to make sense if you try following the teachings in the Bible that have logic behind them, not a literal interpretation of sin debt'. If you don't use your brain, you won't be able to see what you're doing wrong, the sins you're committing, and as a result, you will be lost, with your vision so badly distorted you are unaware of how much damage you are doing to yourself and others, without trying to think of ways of stopping this, and making sure it does not happen again (i.e. repentance). Repentance only really makes sense if you interpret 'Believe in Jesus' properly, it does not make sense if you get into the belief where you can effectively hide behind Jesus to escape Hell and get into Heaven. BTW, as far as the Kingdom of Heaven is concerned, when you face judgment, both God and Jesus will be involved (see Romans 2:16).
The Hebrew word 'owlam, which matches 'everlasting' in your description, has the possible meanings:
long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.
long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.
Firstly, the WAY of the ungodly is what shall perish, that psalm says nothing about the fate of the ungodly themselves. Secondly, if people sin, ultimately, people are going to get hurt so badly that they die. That seems like the most logical interpretation in my view. Furthermore, when John talks of burning chaff with unquenchable fire, you need to look into fire as purifying people, burning off the lies that lead them to sin, and not stopping until its job is done. http://www.saltshaker.us/Hell-Fire/Hell-Aim-Free-Sample.html is an article on this, I'd recommend reading the Bible verses separately from the commentary they give, as that is what I intend to focus on when presenting that link as evidence.
There may very well be a 'Hell', if it is defined as a separate dimension with lots of fire (and it may not be of the destructive/torturous kind, there may well be a purifying nature in there), where Satan and his demonic angel buddies are holed up, yet it need not be a place of ETERNAL punishment/torture. I am not going to deny the possibility of Hell altogether. It may well be a prison for its current occupants, and it may well serve much the same purpose as human prisons are supposed to serve.
Last edited:
^ I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
Concerning eternal punishment, I can't think of a single denomination anywhere that rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment. I mean, I can't imagine any other way to understand scriptures like Matthew 25:46:
Concerning whether or not the Bible has been "changed incorrectly (whether accidentally or maliciously)"; again, I'd have to ask you to provide an example. Respectfully, you haven't been able to so far. In absence of an example of such an error, I'd have to believe that the Bible doesn't contain one.
And finally concerning whether or not the Bible condemns the act of homosexuality; I've already addressed this, but there really are no other ways to interpret those various scriptures. You have to do hermeneutical backflips to make them mean anything else than what they plainly mean and have been interpreted to mean by millions of people throughout thousands of years.
Respectfully, when the Bible plainly says "Thou shalt not" its not an instance of some random person today making up new rules. The Bible quite plainly condemns certain actions. Its not just a matter of personal interpretation.
Concerning eternal punishment, I can't think of a single denomination anywhere that rejects the doctrine of eternal punishment. I mean, I can't imagine any other way to understand scriptures like Matthew 25:46:
Matthew 25:46 (NASB) said:
Concerning whether or not the Bible has been "changed incorrectly (whether accidentally or maliciously)"; again, I'd have to ask you to provide an example. Respectfully, you haven't been able to so far. In absence of an example of such an error, I'd have to believe that the Bible doesn't contain one.
And finally concerning whether or not the Bible condemns the act of homosexuality; I've already addressed this, but there really are no other ways to interpret those various scriptures. You have to do hermeneutical backflips to make them mean anything else than what they plainly mean and have been interpreted to mean by millions of people throughout thousands of years.
TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
First, I must sincerely apologize for waiting so long to get back on the forums. Indeed, I thought this tangent topic would surely be finished after my two-week absence! In any case, I think, JDavidC, hat your most recent response did a lot to simplify my response. So here I go:
1. Regarding Homosexuality:
Also, before anything else, I'd like to return to an earlier discussion. That website with the Christopher Hitchens quote was dead wrong about the King James translators changing this word. I checked the Bishop's Bible of 1568 and in it Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lye with mankynde as with womankynde, for it is abhomination." Furthermore, even the late 1300s translation made by John Wycliffe and his followers renders this verse, "Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun." Thus whoever put up that page was incorrect, they really didn't take their own advice about asserting things without evidence. Whoever wrote that knows that there are people who distrust monarchy and authority, so feels he or she can get away with such slander.
Now, when I cite examples and don't happen to link to them, that's not me requiring you to search for evidence to support my claim. It would be if I said, "I know there are passages which refute that definition," but since I know you have enough resources right in front of you, my citations provide much more information than that. The real problem is that for my prime example I made a typographical error. I meant Proverbs 16:12, so for that I must apologize. Take a look:
"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
In this verse, the word "abomination" is used to translate the same Hebrew word used in Leviticus. Just try swapping the word out for the definitions in the links you've mentioned:
"It is [ritual uncleanness] for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
"It is [a cultural taboo] for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
It doesn't work, because that's not how the word was used. The word means "abomination," and modern conspiracy theories don't provide anywhere near enough evidence to refute the definition known to be correct by linguistic scholars.
That's just about the heart of the problem here. If you want to show that something has a different definition than most scholars believe, you still need to show scholarly sources. I have no idea of the qualifications of the person who runs that "Lion King" website, but they cited no sources on that page (unless you count their passing reference to Boswell, who, as I've said before, was not a linguistic scholar). Basically, I need to see some Hebrew or Greek linguistic source for these claims, not some person on the internet who says so.
2. Regarding eternal punishment:
Since you have several times allowed for the possibility of there being a place of temporary punishment, I need to point out something crucial. In objecting to the biblical teaching about hell, skeptics sometimes say things like, "I couldn't send anyone to hell for a minute!" Since you seem to be saying this, do you think God sending everybody to temporary hell gets you out of this difficulty?
In fact, I'd say it puts you in a much worse difficulty regarding God's moral character. If hell exists as a place of temporary punishment, and people get out when they stop rebelling against God, isn't God still trying to get something out of them? What do we call it when a person inflicts pain on another until they give in to what that person wants?
3. Finale:
Second...do you hear what you're saying? You really believe one of the fundamentals of the faith is "troll logic"? What would you have said if I'd defended the existence of an eternal hell as an instance of troll logic? I say this with no malice, but once you make a statement like that, your view hardly puts up a fight. It kicks its own butt.
1. Regarding Homosexuality:
First, just to clarify, I never said that homosexuals "are abominations." I believe the actions are the abominations, and some of your "brain bleach" comments tend to suggest you have some idea what I'm talking about. There is a big difference between hating actions and hating people, and I constantly seek to preserve that distinction.
Also, before anything else, I'd like to return to an earlier discussion. That website with the Christopher Hitchens quote was dead wrong about the King James translators changing this word. I checked the Bishop's Bible of 1568 and in it Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lye with mankynde as with womankynde, for it is abhomination." Furthermore, even the late 1300s translation made by John Wycliffe and his followers renders this verse, "Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun." Thus whoever put up that page was incorrect, they really didn't take their own advice about asserting things without evidence. Whoever wrote that knows that there are people who distrust monarchy and authority, so feels he or she can get away with such slander.
Now, when I cite examples and don't happen to link to them, that's not me requiring you to search for evidence to support my claim. It would be if I said, "I know there are passages which refute that definition," but since I know you have enough resources right in front of you, my citations provide much more information than that. The real problem is that for my prime example I made a typographical error. I meant Proverbs 16:12, so for that I must apologize. Take a look:
"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
In this verse, the word "abomination" is used to translate the same Hebrew word used in Leviticus. Just try swapping the word out for the definitions in the links you've mentioned:
"It is [ritual uncleanness] for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
"It is [a cultural taboo] for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness."
It doesn't work, because that's not how the word was used. The word means "abomination," and modern conspiracy theories don't provide anywhere near enough evidence to refute the definition known to be correct by linguistic scholars.
That's just about the heart of the problem here. If you want to show that something has a different definition than most scholars believe, you still need to show scholarly sources. I have no idea of the qualifications of the person who runs that "Lion King" website, but they cited no sources on that page (unless you count their passing reference to Boswell, who, as I've said before, was not a linguistic scholar). Basically, I need to see some Hebrew or Greek linguistic source for these claims, not some person on the internet who says so.
2. Regarding eternal punishment:
Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where any statement is made about hell to the effect that it could be for purifying? I seriously don't see that, and even if a few did seem like that, using a few passages to contradict the many clear ones is an unsound interpretive method.
Since you have several times allowed for the possibility of there being a place of temporary punishment, I need to point out something crucial. In objecting to the biblical teaching about hell, skeptics sometimes say things like, "I couldn't send anyone to hell for a minute!" Since you seem to be saying this, do you think God sending everybody to temporary hell gets you out of this difficulty?
In fact, I'd say it puts you in a much worse difficulty regarding God's moral character. If hell exists as a place of temporary punishment, and people get out when they stop rebelling against God, isn't God still trying to get something out of them? What do we call it when a person inflicts pain on another until they give in to what that person wants?
3. Finale:
First, the teaching that Jesus Christ died as a substitute does not fall apart utterly. Just think of someone paying the bail for someone in jail.
Second...do you hear what you're saying? You really believe one of the fundamentals of the faith is "troll logic"? What would you have said if I'd defended the existence of an eternal hell as an instance of troll logic? I say this with no malice, but once you make a statement like that, your view hardly puts up a fight. It kicks its own butt.
Last edited:
I'll beg to differ TFP the line you are walking is a very fine one. If for instance you hate the act of fishing, you thus hate the actions of fishermen. and it's a sneeze away from hating the person for the act they perform.
Isn't this kinda like saying because I created an Aquarium, and put fish in it, I must breath water? The laws of the of the "Universe" as seen by fish... before they forget to care!something that I just saw said:
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
I have nothing against left-handed people, but I hate people who use their left land as their dominant hand.
The Residential Director of our dorms showed as a great movie about Christianity and homosexuality called For the Bible tells me so.
I have nothing against people who wear cloth made of two or more fibers, I find the act of wearing a cloth of 2 or more fibers a abomonation. LOL
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
But who should put them to death?
I've been away from this for far too long, my apologies.
First, the transcription error.
2 Chronicles - 2:22 http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/22-2.htm - You will note, that in some cases, Ahaziah's age was listed as 22 (the correct age), yet for some reason, in some of the translations, you will see it listed as 42 (the transcription error I was talking about).
In 2 Kings - 8:26 , this does not happen: http://bible.cc/2_kings/8-26.htm .
Next, an equivocation fallacy. What do I mean by this sort of fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
I am going to show a part of the Bible where the term 'reign' is used in two senses, in the same verse.
OK, the first italic part is year 27 of Asa's reign, when Omri becomes (disputed) king.
The emboldened part is when he becomes the undisputed king.
The second italic part puts his death in the 38th year of Asa, whiich is close enough to 12 years (bear in mind that there would be rounding going on here, so being off by one is acceptable).
Now, there are two problems. The first one is minor, but the author says Omri becomes king twice, but at least it is easy enough to see that the sense of the word is different each time. However, the author messes things up by doing this again with an equivocation fallacy, right here:
The point of this is to show that the prophets that wrote the Bible are NOT perfect, they make mistakes. The ONE time that they should be expected to be perfect in every way, is when they are prophesying. There, the slightest mistake will see them swiftly branded as a false prophet. i.e. God's prophets may have written the Bible, but they were fallible human beings nonetheless, outside of prophesies from God. I want to dispel the myth that everything in the Bible is supposed to be 100% perfect. A lot of history would be rather difficult to record. e.g. There's a 'contradiction' where 2 different prophets view a census at 2 different times, and the 2nd prophet there is viewing an updated census, even though this does not seem to be explicitly mentioned.
I'll get to TFP's post later.
The problem is, figuring out precisely, down to the last detail, what the actions are, and, in some cases, to which people those actions are condemned. I view the Bible as one of two things. A. A historical document, and B. A prophetical document. It's the best way of viewing the book, without trying to go along with common assumptions about the Bible, beyond the basic one about it being written by prophets inspired by God. I have to take into account what is happening in the world when God applies his laws to people, and to the state of society/culture for those people.
What I'm thinking of may not be a denomination, but it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism . The question is, which denomination, or group, is right? I could go into detail about Universalism if needed to (and an epic length post with my Theory of God if you're really not convinced).
I'll provide a transciption error, and a fallacious error by the author of 1 Kings.
First, the transcription error.
2 Chronicles - 2:22 http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/22-2.htm - You will note, that in some cases, Ahaziah's age was listed as 22 (the correct age), yet for some reason, in some of the translations, you will see it listed as 42 (the transcription error I was talking about).
In 2 Kings - 8:26 , this does not happen: http://bible.cc/2_kings/8-26.htm .
Next, an equivocation fallacy. What do I mean by this sort of fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
I am going to show a part of the Bible where the term 'reign' is used in two senses, in the same verse.
15 In the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah, Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days. The army was encamped near Gibbethon, a Philistine town.
16 When the Israelites in the camp heard that Zimri had plotted against the king and murdered him, they proclaimed Omri, the commander of the army, king over Israel that very day there in the camp.
17 Then Omri and all the Israelites with him withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah.
18 When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace and set the palace on fire around him. So he died, 19 because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit.
20 As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
21 Then the people of Israel were split into two factions; half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri.
22 But Omri’s followers proved stronger than those of Tibni son of Ginath. So Tibni died and Omri became king.
23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them in Tirzah.
24 He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents[a] of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill.
25 But Omri did evil in the eyes of the Lord and sinned more than all those before him.
26 He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.
27 As for the other events of Omri’s reign, what he did and the things he achieved, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
28 Omri rested with his ancestors and was buried in Samaria. And Ahab his son succeeded him as king.
29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria over Israel twenty-two years.
16 When the Israelites in the camp heard that Zimri had plotted against the king and murdered him, they proclaimed Omri, the commander of the army, king over Israel that very day there in the camp.
17 Then Omri and all the Israelites with him withdrew from Gibbethon and laid siege to Tirzah.
18 When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace and set the palace on fire around him. So he died, 19 because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit.
20 As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
21 Then the people of Israel were split into two factions; half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri.
22 But Omri’s followers proved stronger than those of Tibni son of Ginath. So Tibni died and Omri became king.
23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them in Tirzah.
24 He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents[a] of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill.
25 But Omri did evil in the eyes of the Lord and sinned more than all those before him.
26 He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.
27 As for the other events of Omri’s reign, what he did and the things he achieved, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
28 Omri rested with his ancestors and was buried in Samaria. And Ahab his son succeeded him as king.
29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria over Israel twenty-two years.
The emboldened part is when he becomes the undisputed king.
The second italic part puts his death in the 38th year of Asa, whiich is close enough to 12 years (bear in mind that there would be rounding going on here, so being off by one is acceptable).
Now, there are two problems. The first one is minor, but the author says Omri becomes king twice, but at least it is easy enough to see that the sense of the word is different each time. However, the author messes things up by doing this again with an equivocation fallacy, right here:
This is an error. When he started his reign as undisputed king, it was 4 years into his actual reign as king, disputed or not; he lived only 8 more years after that, so he could not have reigned twelve years as undisputed king. However, if you take into account when he first became king, disputed or not, THEN the twelve years makes sense. The problem is, the author used reign in two ways, one starting with the reign, and the other with the undisputed reign, leading to apparent contradictions, when the actual problem is equivocation, the word reign being used in multiple senses in one sentence. When Omri became king of Israel, his reign would start at THAT time, not 4 years before, yet that is what seems to have happened, because there was a disputed section, it would have been correct to say his UNDISPUTED reign started in the 31st year of Asa being king, and he reigned for EIGHT years after that. His TOTAL time reigning as king was indeed 12 years, but that verse I pointed out was poorly written, and made it seem like a contradiction was in the Bible.Verse 23 of the above said:
The point of this is to show that the prophets that wrote the Bible are NOT perfect, they make mistakes. The ONE time that they should be expected to be perfect in every way, is when they are prophesying. There, the slightest mistake will see them swiftly branded as a false prophet. i.e. God's prophets may have written the Bible, but they were fallible human beings nonetheless, outside of prophesies from God. I want to dispel the myth that everything in the Bible is supposed to be 100% perfect. A lot of history would be rather difficult to record. e.g. There's a 'contradiction' where 2 different prophets view a census at 2 different times, and the 2nd prophet there is viewing an updated census, even though this does not seem to be explicitly mentioned.
I would argue that in many cases, it does condemn it, but between heterosexual people. However, some people have a different nature, or programming, in their brain, that they can't explain (I know about this first hand, but I don't want to talk about it). I don't see why someone would actually WANT to choose homosexuality over heterosexuality if they were given a choice. Furthermore, just because millions of people interpreted things in a specific way, it does not mean they're right. However, that very same argument can also be applied to me.
I'll get to TFP's post later.