Homosexuality is a mental illness.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Whenever the KJV wants to describe a sexual relationship, it always states as to come into to, or the man went into or the male knew the woman intimately.
Now why am I not surprised that you read the NIV instead of the KJV? It's your pattern to read the watered-down Dick and Jane version of things. Good God, I pity the poor sod who has to mark the tripe you try to pass off as research.
The less overtranslated KJV states: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain".
"Twain" in this instance is translated as "twice over", referring to Michal [b]after Jonathan, since things never took off between David and Merab.
Once again, sloppy, sloppy sloppy.
And it's adept, not "adapt" you fool. You really expect to pass yourself off as educated? Talk about trying to mislead people![/b]
The word cleave as described by the oxfod dictionary of current english, is as a verb used in old english which means to adhere or to stick fast to. There is no sexual connotation implied in its usage and I am sure people of the time and even now understand its usage.
Also your translation of the word twain, it does not mean twice over, it means second.
Me thinks you have to brush up on your english. Now please don't try to mislead people by being very very sloppy indeed.
Also please do not use words in hebrew that you do not understand to describe soemthing that is not. the words chesed v'rachamim mean mercy and compassion or to have affection for (not in a sexual context). If you are not jewish, please do not use the words out of their cultural context. These words are commonly used in the jewish language to describe Yahweh. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
The NIV is based on an older and better text than the text that was the basis for the translation of the KJV. It is a completely new translation made directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
Now why am I not surprised that you read the NIV instead of the KJV? It's your pattern to read the watered-down Dick and Jane version of things. Good God, I pity the poor sod who has to mark the tripe you try to pass off as research.
The less overtranslated KJV states: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain".
"Twain" in this instance is translated as "twice over", referring to Michal [b]after Jonathan, since things never took off between David and Merab.
Once again, sloppy, sloppy sloppy.
And it's adept, not "adapt" you fool. You really expect to pass yourself off as educated? Talk about trying to mislead people![/b]
By the time work was begun on the NIV, the thinking had become widespread that the Greek text of the KJV was a late and an inferior text, and that a couple of recently discovered, quite old, Greek manuscripts represented a much better text, a text much closer to the autographa (the originally inspired writings of the apostles). There was no dispute then, as there is no dispute today, that the text behind the KJV is the text of the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. For this reason this text is often referred to as the Majority Text (also the Received Text, or the Byzantine Text, or the Western Text). But the notion promoted by a number of Biblical scholars was that this other text was to be preferred.
Jack P. Lewis in his book, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, wrote, 'It is unfortunate in Bible transmission that the KJV was based on a late text rather than upon an early one.... To state that the text now available is superior to that of 1611 is to repeat a truism.'
The report of the Bible Translation Committee of the Christian Reformed Church to its Synod of 1980 echoed these same sentiments.
'But by now most persons have learned that there is no reason for using the KJV as the basis for comparison; the KJV was itself based on inferior manuscripts of the Bible. Without detracting from its beauty, and the significant impact it has had on the English-speaking world, the judgment must be made that the Hebrew and the Greek text used by the KJV is not as accurate as the text available today.'
And later:
'Because of the discovery of ancient biblical manuscripts and the advance of the science of textual criticism, biblical scholars agree that today we have a much more accurate text of the Bible; that is, the text available to translators today more closely approximates the original writings of the biblical authors than the text used by the King James translators in the seventeenth century. This text developed by the textual critics has been used as the basis of the NIV.'
As for the rest of Gedanken's insults which are as vile and malicious as his attacks on Christianity, we should take no notice. As the book Proverbs says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." -
BZZZT! Sorry, try again. Cleave can also mean "penetrate". Shoulda checked up on that. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Looks like you're the one who needs to brush up on your English, or at least read to the end of the definitions instead of stopping at the point where you go "aha!".Originally posted by breytonhartge:Whenever the KJV wants to describe a sexual relationship, it always states as to come into to, or the man went into or the male knew the woman intimately.
The word cleave as described by the oxfod dictionary of current english, is as a verb used in old english which means to adhere or to stick fast to. There is no sexual connotation implied in its usage and I am sure people of the time and even now understand its usage.
BZZT! Whoopsie again. It does mean the second time, but as I said, it didn't take with Merab, so that leaves Jonathan.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Also your translation of the word twain, it does not mean twice over, it means second.
Me thinks you have to brush up on your english. Now please don't try to mislead people by being very very sloppy indeed.
So you're Jewish and know all about it? If not you're being hypocritical, aren't you? Besides, you've missed something here - "chesed" indeed means mercy, but "v'rachamim" adds an aspect of importance that would make it translate to various meanings including physical love.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Also please do not use words in hebrew that you do not understand to describe soemthing that is not. the words chesed v'rachamim mean mercy and compassion or to have affection for (not in a sexual context). If you are not jewish, please do not use the words out of their cultural context. These words are commonly used in the jewish language to describe Yahweh.
Nice try, but trying to get away with proposing one thing without excluding the possible alternatives is just sloppy, and when i'm around you're not going to get away with that sort of thing.
Your first post was good, but this one smacks of mushroom. -
ding! wrong! I am married to a jew. So I think I have some authority on the subject... i think you do not understand jewish... physical is not one of the translations, I checked...Originally posted by Gedanken:So you're Jewish and know all about it? If not you're being hypocritical, aren't you? Besides, you've missed something here - "chesed" indeed means mercy, but "v'rachamim" adds an aspect of importance that would make it translate to various meanings including physical love.
Nice try, but trying to get away with proposing one thing without excluding the possible alternatives is just sloppy, and when i'm around you're not going to get away with that sort of thing.
Your first post was good, but this one smacks of mushroom. -
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! This coming from someone who's gone:Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As for the rest of Gedanken's insults which are as vile and malicious as his attacks on Christianity, we should take no notice. As the book Proverbs says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."
What's that they say about casting stones?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There you go spouting your ignorance again, Gedanken.
You're not only a fool, you're a hypocrite. -
Hmm, your wife says it isn't, my Jewish mate says it is (nice fellow, ex-classmate from Israel). Go figure.Originally posted by breytonhartge:ding! wrong! I am married to a jew. So I think I have some authority on the subject... i think you do not understand jewish... physical is not one of the translations, I checked... -
Jesus is God.Originally posted by HENG@:Jesus is God? Since when? I know there are debates amongst Xtians about Jesus being God himself, or Jesus being God's son ad etc. But the mainstream belief, as I understand it, is that Jesus is not God. So Jesus did not say it.
next, I didn't know u're a Jew. If u believed Jesus was the messiah and that he died on the cross for your sins, why do u still hold the OT as valid and true?
Since u adhere so strictly to the OT, I shall ask then, if u do not shave and trim the hair around your temples, if you do not wear clothing of mixed fibres, and if you are willing to sell your daughter into slavery
Yah Lor, only the Christians (Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Charismatics ...) believed this mah.
jokes aside,
The view/belief of the deity of Jesus Christ is part of Christians belief from since the begining of Christianity and is one of the commonity among the various denominations.
We christians believed the the Bible (OT+NT) are the written words of God and carried absolute authority in teaching and reproaching and training. so, yes, OT is still valid, the thing to remember is that one need to understands the various parts of it, the traditions, the covenants, the commandments, the historical events, prophecies ...etc
-
Next course of action is to spread the message of love. Stop the hatred and discrimination against homosexuals. BTW, What has the NT got to do wth this?Originally posted by Icemoon:Jesus is definitely not the Father. When Jesus pleaded with the Father to take the cup away from him, it is not wayang one. Jesus prayed .. but the Father bochup.
Jesus is Jesus. Anything less will be heresy.
Shady .. you want to play on ambiguity I can also play on ambiguity. Heh.
Jesus didn't say homosexuality is a sin .. hmm . so what's the next course of action? Trash the NT save the gospels? -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
according to the jewish version of the OT in hebrew, the original word used here is made up of the letters dalet, bet and kof, meaning to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch , and not penetrate as you so translate it. It carries no sexual connotations whatsoever. Unless you have a hebrew bible and can understand the grammar and context, please don't go shooting off on things you are not clear about.
[b]
BZZZT! Sorry, try again. Cleave can also mean "penetrate". Shoulda checked up on that. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Looks like you're the one who needs to brush up on your English, or at least read to the end of the definitions instead of stopping at the point where you go "aha!". [b]
in the bible when it talks about a sexual relationship, the hebrew word used in the bible in hebrew is made up of the letters, yod, dalet and ayin. FYI.
Looks like you need to check your definitions more carefully. -
Oh me, oh my, mushroom, you've gone and done it again. In your sloppy incomplete Googling, you failed to read further in the article (http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_61.html), which says:Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The NIV is based on an older and better text than the text that was the basis for the translation of the KJV. It is a completely new translation made directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
By the time work was begun on the NIV, the thinking had become widespread that the Greek text of the KJV was a late and an inferior text, and that a couple of recently discovered, quite old, Greek manuscripts represented a much better text, a text much closer to the autographa (the originally inspired writings of the apostles). There was no dispute then, as there is no dispute today, that the text behind the KJV is the text of the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. For this reason this text is often referred to as the Majority Text (also the Received Text, or the Byzantine Text, or the Western Text). But the notion promoted by a number of Biblical scholars was that this other text was to be preferred.
Jack P. Lewis in his book, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, wrote, 'It is unfortunate in Bible transmission that the KJV was based on a late text rather than upon an early one.... To state that the text now available is superior to that of 1611 is to repeat a truism.'
The report of the Bible Translation Committee of the Christian Reformed Church to its Synod of 1980 echoed these same sentiments.
'But by now most persons have learned that there is no reason for using the KJV as the basis for comparison; the KJV was itself based on inferior manuscripts of the Bible. Without detracting from its beauty, and the significant impact it has had on the English-speaking world, the judgment must be made that the Hebrew and the Greek text used by the KJV is not as accurate as the text available today.'
And later:
'Because of the discovery of ancient biblical manuscripts and the advance of the science of textual criticism, biblical scholars agree that today we have a much more accurate text of the Bible; that is, the text available to translators today more closely approximates the original writings of the biblical authors than the text used by the King James translators in the seventeenth century. This text developed by the textual critics has been used as the basis of the NIV.'The Reformed Christian, in evaluating the NIV, cannot but conclude that it is weighed and found wanting.
This is too damned funny. The article that you've chosen to quote has just proven that you're wrong! That's what you get for only reading things as long as Dick and Jane!
This is true, first of all, in the matter of the allegedly older and better text on which the NIV is based. The presupposition is that older is necessarily better. But is this presupposition correct? Was it not the case that from the very beginning of the new dispensation there were those who corrupted the truth of the Word of God? Was it not true that the early church was involved in a fierce struggle for the truth of God's Word, especially for the truths of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ? Was it not true that the heretics and various heretical groups produced their own translations of the Scriptures that were perverted to support their pet teachings, much like the Bible versions today of the Roman Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses? We know, for example, that this was precisely what the heretic Marcion did. What evidence is there to support the notion that a few manuscripts, chiefly two, lately discovered, contain a much more faithful text, a text much closer to the original? How can the vast majority of manuscripts, which have been preserved and up until recent times have been the basis of all the translations coming out of the Reformation, be so easily set aside?
This is the height of presumption! This is not scholarship, but scholarly conceit! More than this, it is a fundamental denial of the work of the Holy Spirit. Let me explain.
The Bible is the product of the work of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter writes in IIPeter 1:20, 21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There are many outstanding works of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Bible. Certainly there is the great work of the Spirit to inspire the human writers, so that what they wrote was the very Word of God without any error. Not only was there a work of the Holy Spirit in moving the human writers, but a work prior to that, preparing them to be the writers of the Word of God. There was the work of the Holy Spirit to cause the church to recognize the writings of Scripture as the Word of God, discerning between writings which were genuinely Holy Scripture and writings which were not genuine but in some instances claimed to be. There is the work of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures in the individual Christian to cause him to understand the Scriptures and believe them.
But one very important work of the Holy Spirit was also to preserve the Scriptures in copying, in transmission, so that in every age and down to the present the church has had the Word of God. In the words of the Westminster Confession Of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8: "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
The late David Otis Fuller, distinguished champion of the KJV, writes in the book of which he is the editor, Which Bible?:
"These are the true Word of God, and through His gracious providence and infinite wisdom the stream of the life-giving water of God's inspired Word has come to us crystal clear.... the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative Word of God and there has been a gracious exercise of the Divine providence in its preservation and transmission." 9
This important aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit is denied by the notion that the text underlying the KJV, the Majority Text, is an inferior text and that the text underlying the NIV is far and away superior. We repudiate this contention!
Dammit, mushroom, if you're not going to read to the end of things, how the devil do you expect to get your thesis passed? Blackmailing or bribing the examiners? -
Refer to my earlier post. This commandments were meant for people , who were barbarians, living at that time which was eons ago.Originally posted by breytonhartge:well since you asked...
refer to Leviticus 18:22, please note that this is prefaced at the start of the chapter in 18:1 "Than the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,...."
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
To make it very clear it goes on in verse 24 "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things;...."
This is not adding salt and pepper like the pharisees, it is a word spoken by the LORD.
Are you still living under Moses times?
Can you find any verse in the Bible where Jesus commands people or teaches them not to be a homosexual? -
Hmm, interesting. I'll go look it up myself if you don't mind. If I find you're right, I'll pop back in and say so. If not we're right back here again.Originally posted by breytonhartge:according to the jewish version of the OT in hebrew, the original word used here is made up of the letters dalet, bet and kof, meaning to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch , and not penetrate as you so translate it. It carries no sexual connotations whatsoever. Unless you have a hebrew bible and can understand the grammar and context, please don't go shooting off on things you are not clear about.
in the bible when it talks about a sexual relationship, the hebrew word used in the bible in hebrew is made up of the letters, yod, dalet and ayin. FYI.
Looks like you need to check your definitions more carefully. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
obviously, you did not read that particular passage of the bible carefully, how did jonathan become involved in david becoming the son in law of sha'ul?
[b]
BZZT! Whoopsie again. It does mean the second time, but as I said, it didn't take with Merab, so that leaves Jonathan. [b]
taken from 1 samuel 17 to 21
And Sha'ul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merav, her I will give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD's battles. For Sha'ul said, Let not my hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Phelishitm be upon him. And David said to Sha'ul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Yisra'el, that I should be son in law to the king? And so it came to pass at the time when Merav Sha'ul's daughter should have been given to Davie, that she was given to 'Adri'el the Meholati to wife. And Mikhal Sha'ul's daughter loved David: and they told Sha'ul, and the thing pleased him. And Sha'ul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Phelishitm may be against him. And Sha'ul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law through the second.
meaning that David was to become Sha'ul's son in law through his second daughter Mikhal. -
question, did Jesus say He came to abolish the law? No He said He came to fulfil it. God is not inconsistent, His laws apply to all the earth, unless you consider the jewish people barbarians?Originally posted by shade343:Refer to my earlier post. This commandments were meant for people , who were barbarians, living at that time which was eons ago.
Are you still living under Moses times?
Can you find any verse in the Bible where Jesus commands people or teaches them not to be a homosexual? -
Hmm. It appears that Dalet(ã) and Ayin (òÈ) appear in the Hebrew version of Ruth 1:14. I'll have to run this one by my mate.
EDIT: whoops - the Hebrew characters don't seem to show up here. -
Jesus came to fulfill the law for the people of our times. WHen he was around, did he say anything that homosexuality is a sin?Originally posted by breytonhartge:question, did Jesus say He came to abolish the law? No He said He came to fulfil it. God is not inconsistent, His laws apply to all the earth, unless you consider the jewish people barbarians?
I consider people living during the time of moses barbarians. Thats is why they were living under so much commandments. -
Oh, I read it, including 1 Samuel 18:2 - "And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house".Originally posted by breytonhartge:obviously, you did not read that particular passage of the bible carefully, how did jonathan become involved in david becoming the son in law of sha'ul?
taken from 1 samuel 17 to 21
And Sha'ul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merav, her I will give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD's battles. For Sha'ul said, Let not my hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Phelishitm be upon him. And David said to Sha'ul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Yisra'el, that I should be son in law to the king? And so it came to pass at the time when Merav Sha'ul's daughter should have been given to Davie, that she was given to 'Adri'el the Meholati to wife. And Mikhal Sha'ul's daughter loved David: and they told Sha'ul, and the thing pleased him. And Sha'ul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Phelishitm may be against him. And Sha'ul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law through the second.
meaning that David was to become Sha'ul's son in law through his second daughter Mikhal.
Now hold on a minute, doesn't Genesis 2:24 say "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"? Why did Saul get David to leave his father and mother?
All depends on how you cut it, I say. -
if you read the hebrew version of the OT, ayin does not appear at all.Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm. It appears that Dalet(ã) and Ayin (òÈ) appear in the Hebrew version of Ruth 1:14. I'll have to run this one by my mate.
EDIT: whoops - the Hebrew characters don't seem to show up here. -
Just dug it up and it looks like Ayin and Dalet are in the passage - I'm fairly certain it was Ayin and not Tsadi.Originally posted by breytonhartge:if you read the hebrew version of the OT, ayin does not appear at all.
Lemme check up on that one with my mate and get back to you, but like I said before, I'd like to find out and confirm for myself. -
Anyway, it's been a gas, but I'm going to cop some Z's (just stayed up to watch the British GP on telly). MacArthur.
-
hold on a minute, I think you are getting this mixed up. Yes the bible says that a many shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, but the reason why Sha'ul took David into his house because David slayed the Pelishtian and he was brought before Sha'ul and Sha'ul took David to be the leader of his army. Verse 5-6 of 1 samuel, Sha'ul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in teh sight of Sha'ul's servants.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, I read it, including 1 Samuel 18:2 - "And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house".
Now hold on a minute, doesn't Genesis 2:24 say "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"? Why did Saul get David to leave his father and mother?
All depends on how you cut it, I say.
since you agree with me that homosexuality is a sin, and we know that God is consistent in His laws and commandments, would you think that God would allow this sort of behaviour to occur amongst His chosen leaders and champions? I think not. -
as you say, Jesus came to fulfil the law, so we can agree that the law is not abolished. If the law is not abolished, then by all means as we are living in a world created by Yahweh, His laws prevail, so therefore, homosexuality is still an abomination in the sight of Adonai Yahweh.Originally posted by shade343:Jesus came to fulfill the law for the people of our times. WHen he was around, did he say anything that homosexuality is a sin?
I consider people living during the time of moses barbarians. Thats is why they were living under so much commandments.
I think my friend, it is wise for you not to say too much about things you have absolutely no understanding about. The jewish people are still and will always be God's chosen people, I do not think that God would have chosen a race of barbarians for His chosen people. Think about who are the most successful people? the Jews. -
good night!Originally posted by Gedanken:Anyway, it's been a gas, but I'm going to cop some Z's (just stayed up to watch the British GP on telly). MacArthur.
-
just hop down to Melb and have a one-on-one with GedOriginally posted by breytonhartge:good night!
Hee hee -
that will be a lot of hoping to do.....Originally posted by laurence82:just hop down to Melb and have a one-on-one with Ged
Hee hee
quiet night huh