NationStates Jolt Archive

[from http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-legitimate-is-bradley-lashawn.html ]

In the latest demonstration of how litigious our society has become, a gay man is suing two Bible distributors for emotional distress stemming from what he claims is a deliberate mistranslation of the Bible that has caused him injury as a homosexual. Specifically, Bradley LaShawn Fowler claims that a single word of 1 Corinthians 6:9 has been mistranslated as "homosexual," and that this mistranslation was fundamentally responsible for the claimant's being estranged from his family and church community.

Legally speaking, it is obvious that this case is of no merit. Firstly, the people he is suing are Bible distributors and not translators, so his claim, even if it were accurate, is not even applicable to the people he is suing. Additionally, it is ridiculous to think that a single, mistranslated New Testament verse would substantially influence anyone's beliefs about homosexuality over and above the other, accurately-translated atrocious slanders and provocations to violence mentioned by the Bible about gay people. So, this guy has to prove that a single verse of the Bible - and not the generally milieu of homophobia routinely engendered by literalist Bible belief - is responsible for his problems, as opposed to, say, his family acting on their Constitutionally-protected beliefs in a way that harms him directly.

But more interesting to me is whether or not he is right- does 1 Corinthians 6:9 actually say that homosexuals will be denied access to the Magic Kingdom in the afterlife? The word in question, arsenokoitai, (which is the third person passive form of the root αρσενοκοίτησ, which in modern Greek means "homosexual"), is not rendered as "homosexual" in most Bible translations: the original King James says "those who abuse themselves with mankind," as does the American Standard Version, Darby's translation reads "who abuse themselves with men," and Young's Literal Translation just uses the very straightforward term "sodomite." Only the World English Bible translates arsenokoitai as "homosexuals," but it is very obvious what is intended here.

Fowler's mistake I think lies in his fundamental assumption that Scripture, unless otherwise abused, is good and holy. This obviously is not the case. It is an unavoidable fact that the Bible is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual documents ever written, and the only thing that this case will do is bring to public (and force prominent Christians and their publishers to defend) the fact that the Bible says that homosexuals are a bunch of hell-bound heathens who deserve to be put to death. While of course any sane society would apply to such violent scribblings the same level of impartial judiciousness that is applied to any document that unduly incites violence against another group, I doubt that any US court will take this case or any like it seriously.

Ceiling Kat sez: don't copypasta. Just link to the blog. Then you must insert your own commentary.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/CeilingKat2.jpg

While of course any sane society would apply to such violent scribblings the same level of impartial judiciousness that is applied to any document that unduly incites violence against another group, I doubt that any US court will take this case or any like it seriously.

No, a sane society would treat religion as not complete sanity, but at the same time allow for absolute freedom of speech, rather encouraging people to criticize speech that is wrong.

Ceiling Kat sez: don't copypasta. Just link to the blog. Then you must insert your own commentary.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/CeilingKat2.jpg

OMG! That pic is so cute!!! Kat, can I take you home?!:eek:

I'm sueing Eragon! I'll say the dragons offends me, and has estranged me from my nerd group! But, what they won't know is I'm sueing it because the books are a bunch of cheap star wars rip offs!

Finally. I've been waiting for years for someone to sue the Bible. Will the judge have to consider the various possible translations? Will intent matter? Can God be sued for libel? :eek:

Aside from the fact that he's sueing distributors and not translators, there are many many bibles that use the word "homosexuals" or define the homosexual act using other words.

A list, by no means exhaustive:

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version (says "men who have sexual relations with other men")
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
New International Version - UK
Today's New International Version (this says "practicing homosexuals", an interesting distinction)
New World Translation (says "men who lie with men")

is this what happens when we give homosexuals minority rights ????


in which case maybe we need to reconsider the status for them.

Finally. I've been waiting for years for someone to sue the Bible. Will the judge have to consider the various possible translations? Will intent matter? Can God be sued for libel? :eek:

I'm wondering when the first gay man will sue LG for ruining sticking one's face in another man's crotch with his rugby accident.

Today's New International Version (this says "practicing homosexuals", an interesting distinction)
Interesting indeed. As I understand, it stresses the fact that feeling attraction to same gender isn't a sin - a sin is submitting to that attraction.

You see, the Bible and the Christianity at all have this concept of suppressing your desires. Greed is a sin, adultery is a sin, even gluttony is a sin. The Christianity doesn't exclude the idea that you might be a natural-born homosexual - but in that case, it's your challenge and burden to live suppressing that desire.

According to Bible, sex is not a right, but a privilege. And not a privilege as a reward, but as a necessity for reproduction - as such permitted in married couples, but just that.

I'm going to sue the calculus textbook publishers for making me feel dumb.

Aside from the fact that he's sueing distributors and not translators, there are many many bibles that use the word "homosexuals" or define the homosexual act using other words.

A list, by no means exhaustive:

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version (says "men who have sexual relations with other men")
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
New International Version - UK
Today's New International Version (this says "practicing homosexuals", an interesting distinction)
New World Translation (says "men who lie with men")
Heh, how interesting. If the Bible doesn't say just what you want it to, tweak your own version of it until it does. Cute way for all these translation companies to treat the word of what I presume is their god. ;)

Heh, how interesting. If the Bible doesn't say just what you want it to, tweak your own version of it until it does. Cute way for all these translation companies to treat the word of what I presume is their god. ;)

Well, in many languages, there are words that don't directly translate. Therefore, the translator has to read the text in its current language, examine the meaning of that statement, and then write a statement in English (or language being translated to) that means what the other statement means in the other language.

It's just like asking two programmers to write the same program. The resulting program should be roughly the same, but the code itself will be completely different according to their styles.

Well, in many languages, there are words that don't directly translate. Therefore, the translator has to read the text in its current language, examine the meaning of that statement, and then write a statement in English (or language being translated to) that means what the other statement means in the other language.

It's just like asking two programmers to write the same program. The resulting program should be roughly the same, but the code itself will be completely different according to their styles.
And that accounts for the "practicing homosexuals" thing? Nah, that's totally agenda-speak. The fact is that, for years, some churches have claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but the verses they have presented as proof have been hotly contested as to what they actually meant in older versions of the Bible. These new versions erase that ambiguity.

I'd be inclined to think that the one that says "men who lie with other men" is attempting to be true to the original texts.

The one that says "men who have sexual relations with other men" is possibly not straying too far, but is still tweaking the text towards a modern agenda by increasing a specificity that was not there to begin with.

The reason I would think these were sticking closer to the original or at least older versions is because I don't know of any part of the Bible that restricts women's sexual behavior except to forbid adultery, whereas it has lots of rules for men to follow.

The listed versions that just mention "homosexuals" or "homosexuality" are, in my opinion, promoting their social agenda, because it makes what had been a gender-specific prohibition instead be a gender-neutral one, so it covers lesbians as well as gay men.

OMG! That pic is so cute!!! Kat, can I take you home?!:eek:

Thank you, Rena (http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn289/RhynoD2/Rena-triplefast.gif).




So, does this mean I can sue the Queer Eye cast for making me feel bad about the way I dress?

And that accounts for the "practicing homosexuals" thing? Nah, that's totally agenda-speak. The fact is that, for years, some churches have claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but the verses they have presented as proof have been hotly contested as to what they actually meant in older versions of the Bible. These new versions erase that ambiguity.

I'd be inclined to think that the one that says "men who lie with other men" is attempting to be true to the original texts.

It's probably a more literal translation to say "men who lie with men", yes.

The one that says "men who have sexual relations with other men" is possibly not straying too far, but is still tweaking the text towards a modern agenda by increasing a specificity that was not there to begin with.

Essentially means the same thing. I don't see the difference really, other than specifically saying "sexual relations" where it was implied in the other.

The reason I would think these were sticking closer to the original or at least older versions is because I don't know of any part of the Bible that restricts women's sexual behavior except to forbid adultery, whereas it has lots of rules for men to follow.

*ponders that for a moment* You could be right. I'll make a note and do some research on the subject.

The listed versions that just mention "homosexuals" or "homosexuality" are, in my opinion, promoting their social agenda, because it makes what had been a gender-specific prohibition instead be a gender-neutral one, so it covers lesbians as well as gay men.

*ponders* Also possible. Like I said, you've piqued my interest in the matter, and I will have to research it.

Essentially means the same thing. I don't see the difference really, other than specifically saying "sexual relations" where it was implied in the other.

Because the older language was closer to "lie with," many modern readers/critics/debaters contested whether that literally meant sex or not. Now, of course, it did mean sex, but now that it actually says "sexual relations," opponents of an anti-gay agenda can't claim it doesn't, as long as the debate uses that version of the Bible as the reference source.

By the way, I could be wrong about what the older versions of the Bible say, because I've only ever skimmed the book. It's not my religion, and in debating gay rights or homophobia, I tend to reject religious arguments entirely, on the grounds that they are of too narrow relevance, so I don't go into parsing out the verses to debunk them.

I'm just noticing how much more strongly these versions make the Bible support some churches' anti-gay arguments.

some churches have claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but the verses they have presented as proof have been hotly contested [...]
I'd be inclined to think that the one that says "men who lie with other men" is attempting to be true to the original texts.

The one that says "men who have sexual relations with other men" is possibly not straying too far, but is still tweaking the text towards a modern agenda by increasing a specificity that was not there to begin with.

Next thing we're gonna do will be asserting that it's not sexual relations because there's no vagina involved.
And so it's not a sin as long as they do it doggy-style.


it makes what had been a gender-specific prohibition instead be a gender-neutral one, so it covers lesbians as well as gay men. I guess imagining lesbian sex these days was just a bit too gross to make its way into the first book of the era.

is this what happens when we give homosexuals minority rights ????

in which case maybe we need to reconsider the status for them.

I know I probably shouldn't even respond to this but, what the hell, I'm pretty bored today...

First of all, what do you mean by "we", what do you mean by "minority rights" and what do you mean by "reconsider the status for them"?

Or, in short, what are you suggesting with this post?

Probably a wise decision Muravyets, but I thought it was a well placed attack.

:p

don't most of the arguments around anti-gay parts of the bible revolve around where the older version would most closely translate to "male temple prostitutes" rather than "homosexuals"?

[from http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-legitimate-is-bradley-lashawn.html ]

-snip-



I'm going to sue every liberal on this site for posting things I think are anti-conservative.

Oh wait, that's right, I don't give a damn, because I don't let every single thing offend me.

Probably a wise decision Muravyets, but I thought it was a well placed attack.

:p
Okay, now I'm confused, because I went back and read Vault 10's other posts and I thought I had misinterpreted his position on the matter. Was I actually right about him instead?

Here's what I deleted in response to him:

"Thank you for providing an example that supports my suggestions about the reasons for these new wordings."

I meant that his remarks were anti-gay (as well as assuming that I was saying something that I didn't).

But then I thought that, in fact, that wasn't his position. I thought he might have been being sarcastic about the possible position of religious homphobes. Was he being sarcastic or not?

I guess imagining lesbian sex these days was just a bit too gross to make its way into the first book of the era.

no. its more of a "2 women cant have sex. there is no penis!"

in the old testament women are forbidden to have sex with animals rather than being forbidden to have sex with each other.

not such a hard rule to follow.

Okay, now I'm confused, because I went back and read Vault 10's other posts and I thought I had misinterpreted his position on the matter. Was I actually right about him instead?

Here's what I deleted in response to him:

"Thank you for providing an example that supports my suggestions about the reasons for these new wordings."

I meant that his remarks were anti-gay (as well as assuming that I was saying something that I didn't).

But then I thought that, in fact, that wasn't his position. I thought he might have been being sarcastic about the possible position of religious homphobes. Was he being sarcastic or not?

Oh, s/he probably was, I don't bother to read the thread much (I'm lazy like that) and since you deleted your post I figured it wouldn't matter if I said anything about it. So then, apparently we both made the same mistake.

By the way, you probably shouldn't think my posts are competent in the future, hell, I still haven't read the entire thread...

This lawsuit will probably be thrown out via the 1st amendment rights of the publishers. Nobody is forcing the man to read the bible. The fact that he is having difficulties with people who do read the book are between him and the people he is having difficulties with. The bible says many things that probably offend many people, but that is no reason to file lawsuits, the appropriate action to grow thicker skin and get on with ones life.

don't most of the arguments around anti-gay parts of the bible revolve around where the older version would most closely translate to "male temple prostitutes" rather than "homosexuals"?

Yes. But it doesn't give the bible-thumpers a free pass for hating and judging gays, so it had to be reworded.

Oh, he probably was, I don't bother to read the thread much (I'm lazy like that) and since you deleted your post I figured it wouldn't matter if I said anything about it. So then, apparently we both made the same mistake.

By the way, you probably shouldn't think my posts are competent in the future, hell, I still haven't read the entire thread...
Oh, well, the hell with you then. :p

Oh, well, the hell with you then. :p

After looking at Vault 10's posts, the position s/he takes isn't really clear, but I am inclined to agree with you that it was probably sarcasm, probabally...

Still, the sarcasm smiley would have been a good addition to that post if it was...

I half suspect that newspapers have a program that keys in words known to increase readership and then scans the wires for stories that fit within those parameters.

Placing 'gay' with 'bible' probably hits all the bells.

This is really a non-story, one that has little value aside from offending the principles of one side or the other.

Well, just if you need to know, two things are:
- I'm completely agnostic. Not entirely an atheist, I just don't have that part of me that could have blind faith.
- I don't care about homosexuals, I believe it's their own business. As such, it should give them neither penalties nor "minority privileges", it's just like a question of whether you drive a Mitsubishi or a Toyota.

As far as NS goes, in NS the Vault 10 treats religions as a mental disease (which are grounds for exile), and homosexuality isn't paid attention to. But it's not my RL position, rather a consequence of what nation I roleplay; although I find much less wrong with it than with religion-states. IRL, I'm a strong libertarian.
---



But, one thing I should point out about religion (as you know, agnostics always read Bible more times than christians).
Bible isn't really anti-homosexual. It's anti-sexual. It forbids sex before marriage, sex outside marriage, sex for hire, just any sex, leaving one exception for reproductive sex in a legal marriage. Very obviously, homosexuality, as non-reproductive by definition, gets the harshest treatment. But so does prostitution, so does adultery, so does fornication.

The Bible tells you to restrain your bodily desires, such as luxuries, eating (gluttony), and sex. It tells you to live with the bare necessity, and non-reproductive sex is a luxury. Sex in marriage was considered reproductive (people needed a dozen children these days to have just a couple survive), otherwise not.
There is a bit of general anti-homosexual attitude of these days reflected in the Bible, but it's just a reflection, not the point; the point is engaging in hedonistic activities.

Yes. But it doesn't give the bible-thumpers a free pass for hating and judging gays, so it had to be reworded.

Oh nonsense. Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint), written hundreds of years before Paul, used two words when referring to active male on male homosexuality in Leviticus, and they were arsenos koiten. Greek-speaking Jews would easily recognize the two root words to form arsenokoites. The relatively recent attempt to pretend the word refers to male temple prostitutes only probably is the reason the guy in the OP thinks the word is mistranslated though.

Muryavets is probably correct, in the regard that the word should be translated as < men who bed men>, or something like that. But she was wrong in saying/thinking that they did it just to include Lesbians though. The word Lesbian exists to differentiate it from Male Homosexuality, what word is there to refer to male homosexual only? I suggest that it is the word homosexual, most people use it in that regard, but they use homosexuality for women and men...

The word Lesbian exists to differentiate it from Male Homosexuality, what word is there to refer to male homosexual only?

The word gay seems to have taken up that hobby...

l-O-l thats just crazy to me. All people got to refer to is the big 1st A!.

OMG! That pic is so cute!!! Kat, can I take you home?!:eek:

If I remember correctly (and I apologize profusely if not!) JuNii did the initial Ceiling Kat is watching... iteration for Nationstates -- I simply changed the wording.

It'd probably be fun until we hit one of the topics we disagree on -- then Katfight! (catfight?)

...It tells you to live with the bare necessity, and non-reproductive sex is a luxury. Sex in marriage was considered reproductive (people needed a dozen children these days to have just a couple survive), otherwise not.
...

Outside of all the other big brush painting you do in that post, this one jumped out. Christian theology does NOT say that sex between a husband and his wife is just for reproduction. That's entirely erroneous. Paul clearly says that sex in the marriage is also for a focus of the sexual appetite.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5
For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Clearly, a man cannot deny his own wifes sexual advances, even in that male-dominated society that viewed women as more property than equals, Christian theology says all people are equals before God and even husbands have obligations to their wives, including their sexual satisfaction.

I find that non-Christians like to pretend that Christians think sex is dirty, its not true. Sex in its proper place is a gift from God, like a well cooked meal, you don't have to be starving to eat it. Not all good eating is gluttony, not all good sex is immoral.

The word gay seems to have taken up that hobby...

A woman can't be 'gay' anymore?

Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Never let is be said that the Bible ain't raunchy :)

'except by agreement for a limited time'? What is this? A lawyer's convention?

A woman can't be 'gay' anymore?

Well, there is an organization called the LGBT that (I think, this is from memory) stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender. Why have both lesbian and gay if gay doesn't suggest male? I think it's called something different in the UK though...

Edit: That's not to say that a lot of people don't see gay as meaning both male and female, but I think people tend to think of gay as being a male term now, at least in the US. Honestly, I have no idea really, gay could probably mean both genders but imply male, perhaps?

Heh, how interesting. If the Bible doesn't say just what you want it to, tweak your own version of it until it does. Cute way for all these translation companies to treat the word of what I presume is their god. ;)

Hmm, that must be why babel fish and all the other translators do such a perfect job... because words can only mean one thing and one thing only, and aren't nuanced according to context or anything like that.

Double plus ungood.

English:
Utz Pretzel Wheels are perfect for dipping... large enough to scoop your favorite dip yet small enough to be eaten in a single bite.

We unconditionally guarantee all UTZ products. If you are ever dissatisfied, return the unused portion to the store where purchased for a full refund or satisfactory replacement.

Translated to French:
Des roues de pretzel d'Utz sont parfaites pour plonger… assez grand pour écoper votre immersion préférée pourtant assez petit pour être mangées dans une morsure simple. Nous garantissons sans réserve tous les produits d'UTZ. Si vous êtes jamais dissatisfait, renvoyez la partie inutilisée au magasin où acheté pour un plein remboursement ou un remplacement satisfaisant.

Translated French to Greek:
Τροχοί του pretzel d' Utz είναι τέλειο για να βουτήξει… αρκετά μεγάλος écoper η που προτιμάται βύθισή σας εντούτοις αρκετά μικρός ναφαγωθεί μέσα σε ένα απλό δάγκωμα. Εγγυώμαστε χωρίς το απόθεμα όλα προϊόντα d' UTZ. Εάν είστε ποτέ, επιστρέψτε το inutilisée μέρος στο μαγαζί που αγορασμένος για μια plein αποπληρωμή ή μια ικανοποιητική αντικατάσταση.

Translated Greek to English:
Wheels pretzel d'? Utz is perfect in order to it dives… enough big écoper that is preferred your immersion nevertheless enough small [nafagothei] in a simple bite. [Eggyomaste] without the reserve all products d'? UTZ. If you are never, you return the inutilisée part in the shop that bought for a plein settlement or a satisfactory replacement.

*hands tinfoil hat*

And yes, I know that it's a mechanical translation and not a human one, but the point still stands: people translate differently as well.

Christian theology does NOT say that sex between a husband and his wife is just for reproduction. It pretty much borders on that.

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
So that you are not tempted because your cock is burning hot.

What it says is simply that "marital rape" is bullshit of epic proportions, and that husband and wife, by marriage, sign a contract entitling any of them to shag whenever he or she wants. As one positive effect, it forbids the "We won't shag because you only bought me a cheap gift" thing, which is getting too common in modern society.


I find that non-Christians like to pretend that Christians think sex is dirty, its not true. Sex in its proper place is a gift from God,
Part one is correct. Part two is not.
Bible denies all hedonism and excess luxuries. Have you noticed most saints weren't doing "carpe diem", seizing the "gifts from god", but rather led pretty ascetic lives?
You're arguing using phrasing and translation being not specific enough, while completely ignoring the overall tendencies and spirit.

my 2 cents:

Ok, i hate bible thumpers as much as the next guy... (there were some people preaching on a busy street-corner in my town, and it was all i could to to supress teh urge to forma torch-weilding mob to drive them from our midsts) but the bible thumpers desrve the same freedom to speak their mind as the rest of us, therefore i will fight to uphold their right to be irritating and annoying...

now that thats out of the way:

it doesn't matter WHAT your sexual orientation is, or what book your upset about, people should never EVER even be able to sue a book destributing company for a book that contains something 'offensive' near-bout anything can be said to cause 'emotional trauma' but you don't see the destributors of self-help books being sued... nor pornographic novels, nor anything else... if this case even makes it into court it sets a horrible precident that you can sue a book company for a book you don't like... do you know how many people are going to be sueing over harry-potter?! (again i reffer back to the irritating bible-thumpers) the point is that this guy sets up a terrible precedent and if he wins the case, the precedent will be even worse. it doesn't matter what the bible says, but it should have the right to say whatever the hell it wants... idiots shouldn't sue because their upset about something they didn't want to hear...

Well, there is an organization called the LGBT that (I think, this is from memory) stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender. Why have both lesbian and gay if gay doesn't suggest male? I think it's called something different in the UK though...

Edit: That's not to say that a lot of people don't see gay as meaning both male and female, but I think people tend to think of gay as being a male term now, at least in the US.

Good point, touché. However, I'm not convinced that the translations to English should read "Gay" instead of Homosexual, I can't imagine the number of problems that would cause for people that use English as a second language... ;)

Good point, touché. However, I'm not convinced that the translations to English should read "Gay" instead of Homosexual, I can't imagine the number of problems that would cause for people that use English as a second language... ;)

That's the thing though, to me, homosexual sounds more like it applies to both genders than gay. Than again, that's just me...

I really, really, absolutely hate semantics...

(This has to be at least the 3rd or 4th time I have said that on NSG)

...
Part one is correct. Part two is not.
Bible denies all hedonism and excess luxuries. Have you noticed most saints weren't doing "carpe diem", seizing the "gifts from god", but rather led pretty ascetic lives?

Try quoting the scripture to support your thesis instead of your impression of what saints and monks do or don't do. Your argument is made in the Bible, but its made by Judas, when a woman poured very expensive perfume on Jesus feet.

John 12:5
"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?"

And how many times does scripture talk about slaughtering the fatted calf to celebrate an event? Or having food and drink at marriages? In fact, Jesus' first miracle in the canon gospels is to make more wine for the wedding party guest. I think your idea is debunked by actually reading the scripture.

1 Corinthians 5
Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

*bolding my me

Oh nonsense. Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint), written hundreds of years before Paul, used two words when referring to active male on male homosexuality in Leviticus, and they were arsenos koiten. Greek-speaking Jews would easily recognize the two root words to form arsenokoites. The relatively recent attempt to pretend the word refers to male temple prostitutes only probably is the reason the guy in the OP thinks the word is mistranslated though.

Muryavets is probably correct, in the regard that the word should be translated as < men who bed men>, or something like that. But she was wrong in saying/thinking that they did it just to include Lesbians though. The word Lesbian exists to differentiate it from Male Homosexuality, what word is there to refer to male homosexual only? I suggest that it is the word homosexual, most people use it in that regard, but they use homosexuality for women and men...
I was comparing the versions that say "homosexual" against those that specify "men" who bed other men. Homosexual can apply to both genders. "Men who bed other men" can't.

And if gay men wanted their own special word, they should have gotten their own special island. :p

Hmm, that must be why babel fish and all the other translators do such a perfect job... because words can only mean one thing and one thing only, and aren't nuanced according to context or anything like that.

Double plus ungood.







*hands tinfoil hat*

And yes, I know that it's a mechanical translation and not a human one, but the point still stands: people translate differently as well.
OK, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your post seems to suggest that we shouldn't expect the Bible to make sense.

I'm wondering when the first gay man will sue LG for ruining sticking one's face in another man's crotch with his rugby accident.

Have you spoken to a lawyer yet?


;)

Finally. I've been waiting for years for someone to sue the Bible. Will the judge have to consider the various possible translations? Will intent matter? Can God be sued for libel? :eek:

Actually, I think God has already been sued in a Jewish court in a procedure called a "pilpul," for abusing his creation. I don't know what the outcome was.

John 10:5
"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?"

Just to be annoying ;)

It's John 12:5
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him,
5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Hmm, that must be why babel fish and all the other translators do such a perfect job... because words can only mean one thing and one thing only, and aren't nuanced according to context or anything like that.

Double plus ungood.

*hands tinfoil hat*

And yes, I know that it's a mechanical translation and not a human one, but the point still stands: people translate differently as well.

I don't understand what is your point here. Any person that has done a little translations in his life can tell you that.
The problem with Bible translations is that some of them are de facto manipulated to convey a particular ideology (i.e. the NIV).

From wiky New International Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIV):
Criticism
It is sometimes claimed that the NIV works in apologetics to smooth out apparent biblical contradictions in more precise translations, such as between Acts 9:7 and 22:9.[12] Examples given of precise translations in the aforementioned criticism are the King James Version and the NRSV[12]. Defenders of the NIV argue that the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version use almost the exact same wording as the NIV in regards to Acts 9:7 and 22:9.[13][14]

Bruce M. Metzger criticizes[15] the addition of just into Jeremiah 7:22, which appears to change the meaning.[16]

King James Only critics criticize the NIV for using eclectic texts instead of the later Textus Receptus.

Some Christians dislike the NIV because they consider it a loose translation that lacks a word-for-word translation style.

To the bolded part. If i'd used that line of defense with my latin teacher I'd been kicked very hard, literally and figuratively.

Oh really? So people can sue the publishers of books that make them feel sad and uncomfortable?

WTF

What a bunch of shit. The judge should throw the case out, and charge the gay guy a shit ton of money for wasting the court's time.

It is an unavoidable fact that the Bible is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual documents ever written.

:rolleyes: Yeah that is all the Bible is for every book (for that is what it is) inside this collection is to point out how bad homosexuals are.

do you know how many people are going to be sueing over harry-potter?! (again i reffer back to the irritating bible-thumpers)

I would sue over the Harry Potter books because of the gross inaccuracies on mythological beings that J.K Rowling wrote in her books.

The rest of your post is valid I believe.

I was comparing the versions that say "homosexual" against those that specify "men" who bed other men. Homosexual can apply to both genders. "Men who bed other men" can't.

And if gay men wanted their own special word, they should have gotten their own special island. :p

i dont think that any of the ones that say "homosexual" can possible be accurate translations. instead they are modernizations. there was no notion of being homosexual back then.

Just to be annoying ;)
...

That's not annoying, that's helpful. Thanks.

I've got to learn to copy and paste instead of typing for myself, I type like crap :)

i dont think that any of the ones that say "homosexual" can possible be accurate translations. instead they are modernizations. there was no notion of being homosexual back then.

Which begs the question... Thousands of years of recorded history, personality insights from Ecclesiastes to Buddha, Ancient Chinese and Hindu Sexuality, Egyptian and Greek, ... no one ever bothered to mention that some people are born irrevocably homosexual? Funny that.

Whatever, its all bollocks!! Someone looking for a fast buck. I have a bigger problem. I've just been to the toilet for a crap, very relaxing it was as well, finished off and proceeded to use the toilet tissue and God damn them to hell and back those bastards in the toilet packing/manufacturing company have somehow managed to make sure i've run out mid wipe.:eek: Who the fuck should I sue, I'm livid :mad: and have a shitty arsehole which has ruined my life.

Whatever, its all bollocks!! Someone looking for a fast buck. I have a bigger problem. I've just been to the toilet for a crap, very relaxing it was as well, finished off and proceeded to use the toilet tissue and God damn them to hell and back those bastards in the toilet packing/manufacturing company have somehow managed to make sure i've run out mid wipe.:eek: Who the fuck should I sue, I'm livid :mad: and have a shitty arsehole which has ruined my life.

[from http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-legitimate-is-bradley-lashawn.html ]

In the latest demonstration of how litigious our society has become, a gay man is suing two Bible distributors for emotional distress stemming from what he claims is a deliberate mistranslation of the Bible that has caused him injury as a homosexual. Specifically, Bradley LaShawn Fowler claims that a single word of 1 Corinthians 6:9 has been mistranslated as "homosexual," and that this mistranslation was fundamentally responsible for the claimant's being estranged from his family and church community.

Legally speaking, it is obvious that this case is of no merit. Firstly, the people he is suing are Bible distributors and not translators, so his claim, even if it were accurate, is not even applicable to the people he is suing. Additionally, it is ridiculous to think that a single, mistranslated New Testament verse would substantially influence anyone's beliefs about homosexuality over and above the other, accurately-translated atrocious slanders and provocations to violence mentioned by the Bible about gay people. So, this guy has to prove that a single verse of the Bible - and not the generally milieu of homophobia routinely engendered by literalist Bible belief - is responsible for his problems, as opposed to, say, his family acting on their Constitutionally-protected beliefs in a way that harms him directly.

But more interesting to me is whether or not he is right- does 1 Corinthians 6:9 actually say that homosexuals will be denied access to the Magic Kingdom in the afterlife? The word in question, arsenokoitai, (which is the third person passive form of the root αρσενοκοίτησ, which in modern Greek means "homosexual"), is not rendered as "homosexual" in most Bible translations: the original King James says "those who abuse themselves with mankind," as does the American Standard Version, Darby's translation reads "who abuse themselves with men," and Young's Literal Translation just uses the very straightforward term "sodomite." Only the World English Bible translates arsenokoitai as "homosexuals," but it is very obvious what is intended here.

Fowler's mistake I think lies in his fundamental assumption that Scripture, unless otherwise abused, is good and holy. This obviously is not the case. It is an unavoidable fact that the Bible is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual documents ever written, and the only thing that this case will do is bring to public (and force prominent Christians and their publishers to defend) the fact that the Bible says that homosexuals are a bunch of hell-bound heathens who deserve to be put to death. While of course any sane society would apply to such violent scribblings the same level of impartial judiciousness that is applied to any document that unduly incites violence against another group, I doubt that any US court will take this case or any like it seriously.

And yet it's wrong to be gay in the Bible's eyes.

Am I the only one who is http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gifing right now?

Ceiling Kat sez: don't copypasta. Just link to the blog. Then you must insert your own commentary.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/CeilingKat2.jpg

LMAO...wow...

Fowler's mistake I think lies in his fundamental assumption that Scripture, unless otherwise abused, is good and holy. This obviously is not the case.

I don't really think this is nearly as completely and blindingly obvious as you seem to think it is. If it were, I don't think that the Bible would have nearly the force in society that it does.

Finally. I've been waiting for years for someone to sue the Bible. Will the judge have to consider the various possible translations? Will intent matter? Can God be sued for libel? :eek:

I believe some guy in Italy already sued the Bible a few years ago. IIRC the case was dismissed.

1. He could buy another Bible, with a different translation. There are many out there.
2. He could stop being a Christian.

1. He could buy another Bible, with a different translation. There are many out there.
2. He could stop being a Christian.

Wouldn't stop his family from reading the wrong one ;)

However - on a more serious note - isn't translating the Bible incorrectly a form of Blasphemy ? Especially if it is done on purpose to further a political agenda ?

If so - shouldn't the Churches be the ones suing the translators ?

Wouldn't stop his family from reading the wrong one ;)

However - on a more serious note - isn't translating the Bible incorrectly a form of Blasphemy ? Especially if it is done on purpose to further a political agenda ?

If so - shouldn't the Churches be the ones suing the translators ?

Most denominations will pick a single translation (or pick the King James Version and one alternative). Some denominations DO have a political agenda - say, to smooth over the parts about gay men. Generally speaking, the more "modern" the translation, the more affected by modern political sensibilities the translation is apt to be.

Most denominations will pick a single translation (or pick the King James Version and one alternative). Some denominations DO have a political agenda - say, to smooth over the parts about gay men. Generally speaking, the more "modern" the translation, the more affected by modern political sensibilities the translation is apt to be.

Oh, I daresay that the older Bibles had their fair share of political sensibilities as well. If only not to piss the local king off.
At least the more modern ones have the benefit of more knowledge and sources being available. Even though modern ideas of feminism and equality shine through more (but hey - maybe they are actually in there, but were ignored in previous eras for being "inconvenient"), a modern translation is almost certainly better than the worthless rape of Gods word that is the KJV.

Oh, I daresay that the older Bibles had their fair share of political sensibilities as well. If only not to piss the local king off.
At least the more modern ones have the benefit of more knowledge and sources being available. Even though modern ideas of feminism and equality shine through more (but hey - maybe they are actually in there, but were ignored in previous eras for being "inconvenient"), a modern translation is almost certainly better than the worthless rape of Gods word that is the KJV.

Each version had its political day. And I believe that most of the more modern versions have their political bent as well.

I wouldn't say that the KJV is a "rape of God's word". But I find it more accurate in general than most of the modern translations.

Which begs the question... Thousands of years of recorded history, personality insights from Ecclesiastes to Buddha, Ancient Chinese and Hindu Sexuality, Egyptian and Greek, ... no one ever bothered to mention that some people are born irrevocably homosexual? Funny that.

its my understanding that some cultures recognize extremely effeminate gay men as a sort of 3rd gender and that you cant expect typical male sex roles from them.

most cultures recognize homosexual behavior and that there are love relationships between people of the same sex. that it is something inborn (or not) is a modern notion driven by modern medical science.

I wouldn't say that the KJV is a "rape of God's word". But I find it more accurate in general than most of the modern translations.

Out of interest: how do you determine its accuracy ?

I'm sueing Eragon! I'll say the dragons offends me, and has estranged me from my nerd group! But, what they won't know is I'm sueing it because the books are a bunch of cheap star wars rip offs!

Oh yeah, well I am going to sue you CM, your offense towards dragons offends me.

I'll see you on Judge Judy!:upyours:

:p

Out of interest: how do you determine its accuracy ?

Haven't done it with the New Testament, but I went to a group of Jewish rabbis, who happen to have the Torah, and compared their translation (to what was in the KJV). It is pretty close to perfect in the first five books.

The parts about gay activity, in Leviticus, are essentially accurate, with no political overtone necessary to show it as an "abomination".

You would have to deliberately rewrite parts of the Old Testament to remove references to gay activity as an abomination before God.

Oh nonsense. Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint), written hundreds of years before Paul, used two words when referring to active male on male homosexuality in Leviticus, and they were arsenos koiten. Greek-speaking Jews would easily recognize the two root words to form arsenokoites. The relatively recent attempt to pretend the word refers to male temple prostitutes only probably is the reason the guy in the OP thinks the word is mistranslated though.

To be fair, when the Old Testament was written it almost certainly didn't include the words arsenos koiten, as it wasn't originally written in Greek. And most of Leviticus is concerned with what behaviors are clean and unclean in terms of being fit to give sacrifice to God. So the argument isn't nearly as clear-cut as you make it sound.

To be fair, when the Old Testament was written it almost certainly didn't include the words arsenos koiten, as it wasn't originally written in Greek. And most of Leviticus is concerned with what behaviors are clean and unclean in terms of being fit to give sacrifice to God. So the argument isn't nearly as clear-cut as you make it sound.

The Septuagint is the greek version of the Old Testament written one to three hundred years before Paul was born. This version was translated to the Greek by Jewish scholars... There are many versions of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

its my understanding that some cultures recognize extremely effeminate gay men as a sort of 3rd gender and that you cant expect typical male sex roles from them.

most cultures recognize homosexual behavior and that there are love relationships between people of the same sex.

That could be, but if so, that makes it sound like you are backing down from the claim that they didn't have a concept of Homosexual? Because that sounds like a 'concept' of homosexual.


that it is something inborn (or not) is a modern notion driven by modern medical science.

This sounds like you are going the other way again. But if true, don't you have to be able to show a consensus that it's accepted by the medical professionals today? Is there no doubt that it's a biological truth that some people are born homosexual? That we can do some sort of physical measurement to determine a person's sexuality? (you don't have to answer that last part, you and I both know that there isn't one)

How does your statement stand up then?: i dont think that any of the ones that say "homosexual" can possible be accurate translations. instead they are modernizations. there was no notion of being homosexual back then.

Either they have a concept of it, i.e., cultures recognize extremely effeminate gay men as a sort of 3rd gender and that you cant expect typical male sex roles from them.

most cultures recognize homosexual behavior and that there are love relationships between people of the same sex.,
and the word homosexual can be used to describe that understanding OR they do not have a concept of homosexual and those descriptions are outside of the historical record.

I suggest that they did have a concept of it, I agree with your perceptions, there were cultures that recognized the existence of it, including the Greeks and thus, the Jews and Christians should have been aware of it as well. I suggest that despite being entirely aware of it, in the modern sense, there were unashamedly against it. No different than they would be against modern wife swapping parties and orgies, they knew that those things went on and they advocated against partaking of such activities.

That could be, but if so, that makes it sound like you are backing down from the claim that they didn't have a concept of Homosexual? Because that sounds like a 'concept' of homosexual.



This sounds like you are going the other way again. But if true, don't you have to be able to show a consensus that it's accepted by the medical professionals today? Is there no doubt that it's a biological truth that some people are born homosexual? That we can do some sort of physical measurement to determine a person's sexuality? (you don't have to answer that last part, you and I both know that there isn't one)

How does your statement stand up then?: i dont think that any of the ones that say "homosexual" can possible be accurate translations. instead they are modernizations. there was no notion of being homosexual back then.

Either they have a concept of it, i.e., cultures recognize extremely effeminate gay men as a sort of 3rd gender and that you cant expect typical male sex roles from them.

most cultures recognize homosexual behavior and that there are love relationships between people of the same sex.,
and the word homosexual can be used to describe that understanding OR they do not have a concept of homosexual and those descriptions are outside of the historical record.

I suggest that they did have a concept of it, I agree with your perceptions, there were cultures that recognized the existence of it, including the Greeks and thus, the Jews and Christians should have been aware of it as well. I suggest that despite being entirely aware of it, in the modern sense, there were unashamedly against it. No different than they would be against modern wife swapping parties and orgies, they knew that those things went on and they advocated against partaking of such activities.

you stated that none of the ancients from anywhere in the world recognized the idea of innate homosexuality.

i commented on that. its true and not true. even the decidedly pro-gay greeks still expected a man to get married and make babies with his wife.

not until the rise of modern scientific medicine did we start to understand that there are people who are gay, that its not a perversion but an inborn preference.

the ancient hebrews fell on anti-gay side and expected that a man would have sex only with his wife no matter what other desires he might have. they had no concept that such a thing might be impossible or burdensome to some men. the idea that someone might be homosexual wasnt part of their thought processes.

I still think it's stupid that you can sue for 'emotional distress'. It's like kindergarteners complaining to the teacher that Lil' Johnny hurt their feelings.

you stated that none of the ancients from anywhere in the world recognized the idea of innate homosexuality.

i commented on that. its true and not true. even the decidedly pro-gay greeks still expected a man to get married and make babies with his wife.

And I based my comment on your statement that they had no concept of homosexual. I was showing what that would mean if it were true. Which it went too far, I think we both agree on that now, at least?

not until the rise of modern scientific medicine did we start to understand that there are people who are gay, that its not a perversion but an inborn preference.

Nuances of the language, nothing about 'sex' is anything but preferences and perversion can be anything society says it is...

the ancient hebrews fell on anti-gay side and expected that a man would have sex only with his wife no matter what other desires he might have.

Exactly right, and as such, they spoke directly against such things as Gene Robinson leaving his wife and children and marrying his boyfriend and expecting the Anglican church to accept him as his is... and even make him a Bishop without him needing to control his sexual urges.

they had no concept that such a thing might be impossible or burdensome to some men. the idea that someone might be homosexual wasnt part of their thought processes.

NO concept of impossible or burdensome? Of course they did, Adultery was as much a problem then as it is now, people seeking sexual satisfaction outside of the marriage is not modern. Burdensome and impossible is what Jesus asks for, but he says we can't do it without is help. People being directed to behave in particular ways is the objective, whether they succeed or not is not the entirety of the point. What's impossible for us is possible with God, we cannot save ourselves but we can improve our behaviors against the stated expectations.

Want to have sex outside of marriage? Too bad, get over it, it doesn't matter about what kind of genitalia you lust for... lust for your spouse or shut up, that's what Jesus spoke about. They had a perfectly good idea and concept of sexual frustration, lust and whatnot.

NO concept of impossible or burdensome? Of course they did, Adultery was as much a problem then as it is now, people seeking sexual satisfaction outside of the marriage is not modern. Burdensome and impossible is what Jesus asks for, but he says we can't do it without is help. People being directed to behave in particular ways is the objective, whether they succeed or not is not the entirety of the point. What's impossible for us is possible with God, we cannot save ourselves but we can improve our behaviors against the stated expectations.

Want to have sex outside of marriage? Too bad, get over it, it doesn't matter about what kind of genitalia you lust for... lust for your spouse or shut up, that's what Jesus spoke about. They had a perfectly good idea and concept of sexual frustration, lust and whatnot.

yes but THERE is the problem eh? YOU HAVE A WIFE, SHUT UP AND FUCK HER.

well if youre gay, that just isnt good enough. they are left with NO sex and that is a very big problem.

The defense calls Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of the Jews, to the stand! Jesus to the stand!
<silence>
Bailiff, please look out into the hallway, and see if Jesus is out there... ;)

Ceiling Kat sez: don't copypasta. Just link to the blog. Then you must insert your own commentary.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/CeilingKat2.jpg

I always felt like someone was watching me, anyways. I just think this guys just wants money, that's all.

yes but THERE is the problem eh? YOU HAVE A WIFE, SHUT UP AND FUCK HER.

well if youre gay, that just isnt good enough. they are left with NO sex and that is a very big problem.

Pick your own spouse? Interesting concept for the ancients.

More to the point though, gays can have sex, the same as Gene Robinson wasn't left with no sex, he just had access to sex he didn't like. Sex with a wife he didn't want to sexually be with anymore, exactly like a middle aged business man leaving his middle-aged wife for a younger secretary type...

If a husband has a dinner date with his wife and he ogles the pretty young lady when she walks by, we all think, what a pig. What's the difference if he ogles the buff young man? Nothing, he has no better excuse, whether this society chooses to 'accept' his lust as giving him permission to feel powerless or not, he's still a pig.

like Nick Annis said:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."
It's an oral history. It was passed down, word-of-mouth, father to son, from Adam to Seth, from Seth to Enos, from Enos to Cainan, for 40 generations, a growing, changing, story, it was handed down, word-of-mouth, father to son. Until Moses finally gets it down on lambskin. But lambskins wear out, and need to be recopied. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian, from Russian to German, from German to an old form of English that you could not read. Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today, which is: a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
You can't put a grocery list through that many translations, copies, and re-telling, and not expect to have some big changes in the dinner menu when the kids make it back from Kroger's.
And yet people are killing each other over this written word. Here's a tip: If you're killing someone in the name of God — you're missing the message.

Pick your own spouse? Interesting concept for the ancients.

More to the point though, gays can have sex, the same as Gene Robinson wasn't left with no sex, he just had access to sex he didn't like. Sex with a wife he didn't want to sexually be with anymore, exactly like a middle aged business man leaving his middle-aged wife for a younger secretary type...

If a husband has a dinner date with his wife and he ogles the pretty young lady when she walks by, we all think, what a pig. What's the difference if he ogles the buff young man? Nothing, he has no better excuse, whether this society chooses to 'accept' his lust as giving him permission to feel powerless or not, he's still a pig.

that is much easier for the man who has a wife he is (or at least was at sometime) interested in having sex with than it is for the man who never even wanted to see his wife naked (and easier on the wife who is desired by her husband)

as i said, it wasnt a concept that the ancient hebrews had. a married man was to have sex with his wife, if he had no interest in her and only wanted men, that made him a pervert not a man who was born gay.

I always felt like someone was watching me, anyways. I just think this guys just wants money, that's all.

Oh, is that all? [I]Whew![I]
Shall we pass the collection plate around?
For the starvin' oppressed kittehs in Dogistan?

is this what happens when we give homosexuals minority rights ????


in which case maybe we need to reconsider the status for them.

One guy sues, so we should deny a broad group of people their human rights?:mad::upyours::upyours::headbang:

Let's try the following varient on what you just posted:

"Do people sometimes act offensively when they are given their freedom?

in which case maybe we need to reconsider that right."

or how about:

"So people can be lazy when they're not forced to work?

in which case maybe we should reconsider emancipation."

But to me your post shows that you probably don't see gays as people with rights. Certainly not very important rights, if one jackass is grounds to get rid of them. Now gay rights is not really my issue, but the defense of freedom and democracy for everyone is. And what you just posted is disgusting on multiple levels, an attack both on homosexuals and the very notion of people having rights in our society.