NationStates Jolt Archive

Think about what our Lord God said in the beginning! "a marriage is binding of a man and woman" not man and aniaml or man and man or even woman and woman

I'm not sure that quote is even in the Bible...

You're a consistant one, and that's even rarer. One of the few to have our respect... even though we're often on opposite sides of the table.

Intentional?

I'm not sure that quote is even in the Bible...

It's not. It's actually an old Roman law.

It's not. It's actually an old Roman law.

Yeah. What the Bible actually explicitly says is that anal sex is an abombanation (misspelling intentional for my own amusement). It could only be inferred from the Bible that homosexual marriages are illegitimate. The evidence of this is in two parts; the mention of homosexual behavior as immoral and the consistent reference to marriage as being a male/female affair.

I've looked at various parts of biblical law, particularly in regard to homosexuality. One main problem is the meaning of the word 'sodomy'. In different Bibles, this is variously translated as all homosexual activity, any act of anal intercourse, homosexual rape, or even simple inhospitability to guests. This is one of the many reasons why I tend not to regard the Bible as a sound basis for modern law and behaviour - if even the translaters didn't agree what something meant hundreds of years ago, how can we know what was originally meant?

It's not. It's actually an old Roman law.

St. Augustine conceived the idea in the 400s, and Justinian (who was more Byzantine than Roman) made it law (so actually the "legal" definition of a "man and a woman in marriage" is considerably older than the Bible itself). However, I think the idea of a "man and a woman" in marriage predates the Romans by a longshot- it probably has existed since the beginning of humankind, simply because a man and a woman was needed to make and raise a child. Regardless, the Bible's inherent contradictions and vagueness (especially in translations) make it almost impossible to follow as a legal code- it's a religious guide, and a religious guide only.

Hmmm. This'll be my last post in this off-topicness.

In addition to Enn's note about difficulties in translation, I'd like to point out another thing most people don't consider when interpreting the Bible.

The Bible is not just one single text, though it's been printed that way. The Bible is a collection of many different individual texts that are of varying ages, literary styles, cultural and historical contexts, languages, and purposes (some theological, some not, and some only partially). All of these factors have to be considered when interpreting a part of the text, as well as more specific items like narrative focus and semantics.

Yeah. What the Bible actually explicitly says is that anal sex is an abombanation (misspelling intentional for my own amusement). It could only be inferred from the Bible that homosexual marriages are illegitimate. The evidence of this is in two parts; the mention of homosexual behavior as immoral and the consistent reference to marriage as being a male/female affair.

Wrong. The word "sodomy" refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with the word is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of sexual activity, but because of a lack of kindness towards strangers. No where is sexual activity even brought up as an issue when it comes to story.

I suggest you check out this site, which is amazingly accurate:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Also, a lot of the problems of certain interpretations of passages, such as the one about not lying with a man as a woman, is the problem of a change in term meanings and certain items where the translators literally had to guess at the equivolent modern meaning. The other problem is that it was speaking out against prostitution, not homosexuality. A lot of the original Hebrew passages directly condemned religious prostitution.

St. Augustine conceived the idea in the 400s, and Justinian (who was more Byzantine than Roman) made it law (so actually the "legal" definition of a "man and a woman in marriage" is considerably older than the Bible itself). However, I think the idea of a "man and a woman" in marriage predates the Romans by a longshot- it probably has existed since the beginning of humankind, simply because a man and a woman was needed to make and raise a child. Regardless, the Bible's inherent contradictions and vagueness (especially in translations) make it almost impossible to follow as a legal code- it's a religious guide, and a religious guide only.

Augustine also believed that the seven days of creation mentioned in Genesis were a metaphor for comming to God and Christ. Don't believe me? Check his books out sometime.

It was actually a Roman law long before Augustine, but that's simply because Romans didn't marry people of the same sex. It's a social law, not a political one.

Wrong. The word "sodomy" refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with the word is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of sexual activity, but because of a lack of kindness towards strangers. No where is sexual activity even brought up as an issue when it comes to story.

Really?

4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Yeah, no sex there. KJ, NIV, NAS, "The Message", Amplified Bible, New Living, English Standard, all reference not only the townsmen wanting to have sex with the angels, but also has them turning down Lot's offer of his two virgin daughters (which raises all sorts of questions at how "righteous" Lot is...) If you want, you can search other versions, http://www.biblegateway.com has about 15 or so different English translations. Several other languages too.

Hack, I didn't say sex was lacking from the story. I said it wasn't brought up as an issue. The whole deal with the sex in there, specifically in Lot offering up his own daughters, shows that the issue the story was taking up was not sex at all. After all, if it was sex, then Lot would never have made the offer at all.

Hack, I didn't say sex was lacking from the story. I said it wasn't brought up as an issue. The whole deal with the sex in there, specifically in Lot offering up his own daughters, shows that the issue the story was taking up was not sex at all. After all, if it was sex, then Lot would never have made the offer at all.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. You claimed that S&G were destroyed because they weren't hospitable to strangers and "[n]o where is sexual activity even brought up as an issue when it comes to story." I just showed that sexual activity was quite central to the story. The men of the village wanted to bugger the two angels, and were willing to kick in Lot's door to do so.

I suppose you could spin that as not being hospitable, but the argue that sex has nothing to do with it is silly.

And I don't understand how you're trying to paint Lot's offering of his daughters as proof that sex had nothing to do with it. He offered them because they were virgins. He was essentially allowing his daughters to be gang-raped so as to keep the same from happening to the angels. This doesn't eliminate sex from the story.

You can argue that sodomy wasn't the central problem and that fornication was, but I don't see how you can claim that sexual activities had nothing to do with its destruction.

Besides, why the Hell would God annihilate a city because of inhopitability? He tended to engage in genocide for sinfullness, not bitchiness.

Huh? This makes absolutely no sense. You claimed that S&G were destroyed because they weren't hospitable to strangers and "[n]o where is sexual activity even brought up as an issue when it comes to story." I just showed that sexual activity was quite central to the story. The men of the village wanted to bugger the two angels, and were willing to kick in Lot's door to do so.

I suppose you could spin that as not being hospitable, but the argue that sex has nothing to do with it is silly.

You just revealed your puppet.

The reason is simple: Whenever the Jewish stories revealed something as bad, they did one of three things. The person was offered a chance to reform, the story spoke out against it in an obvious way, or God punished (one of the most common results). None of those things happened to Lot as a result of his offer.

And I don't understand how you're trying to paint Lot's offering of his daughters as proof that sex had nothing to do with it. He offered them because they were virgins. He was essentially allowing his daughters to be gang-raped so as to keep the same from happening to the angels. This doesn't eliminate sex from the story.

This does eliminate sex as the reason. If sex were the reason, Lot would have been punished for his offer. Plus, sex wasn't really brought up as an issue at the very beginning of the story anyway.

You can argue that sodomy wasn't the central problem and that fornication was, but I don't see how you can claim that sexual activities had nothing to do with its destruction.

I can claim it because I can look at patterns in actions taken and see a lack of a pattern.

Besides, why the Hell would God annihilate a city because of inhopitability? He tended to engage in genocide for sinfullness, not bitchiness.

Back then, inhospitability towards strangers was a sin. It's not these days, but that's because of the thousands of years that have passed since the story was first come up with.

Hell, if we're going to debate S&G here in this level of detail, I might mention that the fate of those cities had been sealed before the angels arrived. They had merely come to tell Lot to vacate before the big KABOOM!

Hack, I'll let you have this one. Hebrew makes my head ache after reading it too much.

Wrong. The word "sodomy" refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with the word is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of sexual activity, but because of a lack of kindness towards strangers. No where is sexual activity even brought up as an issue when it comes to story.

I wasn't even talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.

I suggest you check out this site, which is amazingly accurate:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Also, a lot of the problems of certain interpretations of passages, such as the one about not lying with a man as a woman, is the problem of a change in term meanings and certain items where the translators literally had to guess at the equivolent modern meaning. The other problem is that it was speaking out against prostitution, not homosexuality. A lot of the original Hebrew passages directly condemned religious prostitution.


Ah. Possible translation problems. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible says what it says. A bad translation still says what it says, just like a good translation.

I wasn't even talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.

I know. I was just checking to see if anyone was paying attention before you posted. I also made a point of including the real item you were refering in my post. It made for an interesting discussion.

Ah. Possible translation problems. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible says what it says. A bad translation still says what it says, just like a good translation.

Actually, it does change the fact the Bible says what it does. The Bible is meant as a correct translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. If the translation is wrong, then what you're reading isn't the Bible. The translation being wrong means that whatever is mistranslated is wrong. It also means that the majority of modern Bibles are not legitimate, but false idols that people follow. The reason behind that is the fact the actual message has been changed.

Basically put, whether or not the Bible is correct determines the legitimacy of the religious beliefs of most Christians, which in turn endangers their very souls of recieving the damnation they believe themselves saved from. It's the most important challenge a religion of this type can face.

Actually, it does change the fact the Bible says what it does. The Bible is meant as a correct translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. If the translation is wrong, then what you're reading isn't the Bible. The translation being wrong means that whatever is mistranslated is wrong.

So an incorrectly translated Bible is not a Bible? I suppose you'll be consistent then and say that an incorrectly translated Qur'an is not a Qur'an and an incorrectly translated Das Kapital is not a Das Kapital and an incerrectly translated Art of War is not an Art of War?

It also means that the majority of modern Bibles are not legitimate, but false idols that people follow. The reason behind that is the fact the actual message has been changed.

True. That has long been a largely unrecognized problem in mainstream Christian circles, and one I am particularly saddened about.

Basically put, whether or not the Bible is correct determines the legitimacy of the religious beliefs of most Christians, which in turn endangers their very souls of recieving the damnation they believe themselves saved from. It's the most important challenge a religion of this type can face.

The danger of damnation depends largely on whether God exists and is actually as merciful or vengeful as they think he is. Hard to say for sure, though I have my own opinions on it.

As far as it being the most important challenge...that also depends on their individual beliefs about the authority of the Bible and the importance of the Tanakh.

Ah. Possible translation problems. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible says what it says. A bad translation still says what it says, just like a good translation.

Ah... so when you mistranslate "poisoner" as "witch" (As in mistranslating "One should not suffer a poisoner of mind, body or soul" as "Thou shalt not suffer a practitioner of Wicca or someone who practices beliefs which are not alike your own to live") that's perfectly alright?

*drops the RESPECT-O-METER down a few points for that one*

So an incorrectly translated Bible is not a Bible? I suppose you'll be consistent then and say that an incorrectly translated Qur'an is not a Qur'an and an incorrectly translated Das Kapital is not a Das Kapital and an incerrectly translated Art of War is not an Art of War?

Yes. They're cheap knockoffs of the true versions and are misleading in appearance. A correct translation is necessary for all levels of understanding when it comes to just about anything involving language. Without it, you get just a shadow of the truth.

True. That has long been a largely unrecognized problem in mainstream Christian circles, and one I am particularly saddened about.

Agreed.

The danger of damnation depends largely on whether God exists and is actually as merciful or vengeful as they think he is. Hard to say for sure, though I have my own opinions on it.

I'm more of a relativist. Whether or not he exists doesn't actually matter. If God doesn't, then that leaves me with my backup of Azrael, who does exist.

There might have been an excuse in the past for mistranslation, but in this era there isn't. We have the technology to spread the truth around and allow people to read it. If they don't accept it, it's not my soul they're risking.

As far as it being the most important challenge...that also depends on their individual beliefs about the authority of the Bible and the importance of the Tanakh.

The problem is simple: If one portion is mistranslated, it opens up the possibility other portions are. If the words of Christ are mistranslated, specifically the passages important for today, then pretty much most Christians are pretty much doomed to eternal damnation. The words of Christ are, even if you ignore the rest, pretty much the essential element.

I'd ask for a topic split, but I'm afraid of the flame war this will cause in the General forum. But, anyway, shall we get back to topic for now? We can always continue another day.

Augustine also believed that the seven days of creation mentioned in Genesis were a metaphor for comming to God and Christ. Don't believe me? Check his books out sometime.

I believe you- my main point is that a lot of Church positions come not from the Bible itself (which is mistranslated and contradictory) but from a lot of thinkers like Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (who was a male chauvinist, a fact I didn't know (but probably should have) until I switched to a public high school after being in a Catholic high school where he was the patron saint and gave the school its name). The Bible itself holds very little actual doctrine, some of which might make the heads of Christian fundamentalists explode (e.g. "The Holiness Code" in Leviticus that prohibits the eating of lobster).

It was actually a Roman law long before Augustine, but that's simply because Romans didn't marry people of the same sex. It's a social law, not a political one.

True- Julius Caesar WAS criticized for laying with (ahem) the "Queen" of Bithynia (Nicomedes was a King, but he apparently acted so effeminate that people called him a "Queen"). However, it wasn't until Justinian that this became legalized, although I'd like to point out that neither Justinian or Augustine ever said anything against polygamy (which is included in the Holiness Code as acceptable).

You just revealed your puppet.This isn't a "secret" puppet by any stretch of the imagination.

This does eliminate sex as the reason. If sex were the reason, Lot would have been punished for his offer. Plus, sex wasn't really brought up as an issue at the very beginning of the story anyway.The beginning of the story is simply that it's a wicked city.

I can claim it because I can look at patterns in actions taken and see a lack of a pattern.No comment.

Back then, inhospitability towards strangers was a sin. It's not these days, but that's because of the thousands of years that have passed since the story was first come up with.Must have missed that in the previous 18 chapters of Genesis and in Leviticus. I guess my "pattern recognition" skills aren't up to snuff.

Now can we get back to topic? If we are going to argue this further, we need a separate topic for it to discontinue the hijack for this one, and that separate topic would belong in the General forum due to its subject matter, which would in turn completely ruin the discussion due to the resulting flame war.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg

If anyone wants to continue this, it can be moved to General. Otherwise, I'm content to let it drift downward unanswered.

I wanted to correct a few misconceptions, but am not particularly keen on continuing the debate unless someone else wants to....

1) Much of the bible was originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Hebrew and Greek.
2) Angels are generally considered to be androgynous, i.e. not clearly masculine/male or feminine/female.
3) There is an old adage that says 'Translation is a form of assassination' because the 'message' of the original is killed (OK, that's not strictly a correction, but nevertheless interesting). There is also a hypothesis put forward by Edward Saphir and Lee Whorf that our thoughts are entirely determined by our language, and the corollary of this is that different people who speak different languages cannot share exactly the same thoughts.

The Torah has been accurately rendered, in the original language which we still speak, down to the placement of individual letters on the same scrolls, for at least 2300 years. It should have been longer, but we do not have samples with which to test, unless some stone tablets turn up.

The meaning of “Knowing Carnally” and “Carnal Knowledge” are well understood; as is the dialectical offshoot, “Sodomy”. From a medical perspective, I will just call this unhealthy and suggest it be abolished, along with zoophilia and necrophilia as a health code violation.

Selling daughters may be wrong under most circumstances, but it is not a medically answerable health code violation. In some cultures, where people are very poor, being “Sold” to someone who is rich can be a good thing. Today’s concubine could be tomorrow’s queen.