|
Sodomy
Oct 22, 2007 20:21:14 GMT -8
Post by Nathan Jey'Daan on Oct 22, 2007 20:21:14 GMT -8
Unless you can show me a verse that says it, that's a purely hypothetical situation. And let me ask you this. Say a close friend of yours told you they were gay. You tell that person that despite your (lets say really close) friendship, you're going to end it purely due to that fact, and can't hang out with him/her anymore. Can you truly tell yourself that you're being an example and showing the light of God?
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 22, 2007 20:26:12 GMT -8
Post by TFE on Oct 22, 2007 20:26:12 GMT -8
1 Corinthians 5: 9- I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10- I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. Now, this states that it is more or less fine to associate with sinners. Not as in "hang around to admonish them." Obviously, we should admonish them (or whatever), but it's not a requirement to associate with them. Yup. Hold on a sec, all that's saying is that in order to totally escape sinners we'd have to leave the world. Paul goes on to say that we're not supposed to keep company with ungodly people. The very next verse says "But now I have wirtten unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." We're in the world, but not of it, so we can't escape sin altogether because it's prevailant, but we don't have to partake of the sinful lifestyles of others. Yup, he does go on to say that. Of course, brother in this context refers to a brother in Christ, not the secular "brother" i.e. friend. If you have someone living in blatant sin, not bothering to repent, who also happens to be a Christian, this is when the next verses apply. A cursory inspection of the surrounding verses clearly reveals such. Also, that's not at all what the verses I posted meant. Actually, what he's doing is pointing out the illogic of your argument. He's saying that in order to do what you're telling us to do, we'd need to remove ourselves from the world. Until interstellar travel becomes feasible, that's not going to happen. Read and understand what he says: "9- I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10- I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world. . ." Paraphrased that (and the next verses) says "I didn't say to avoid the people of this world, I said to avoid brothers in Christ who are living in sin, and not repenting."
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 22, 2007 20:40:18 GMT -8
Post by jmcmatt on Oct 22, 2007 20:40:18 GMT -8
If you show me a clear verse that said don't be friends with homosexuals, I'd probably stop being friends with homosexuals. and by clear, I mean something that can't be twisted from it's original meaning.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 23, 2007 12:09:34 GMT -8
Post by darthdodo on Oct 23, 2007 12:09:34 GMT -8
1 Corinthians 5: 9- I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10- I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. Now, this states that it is more or less fine to associate with sinners. Not as in "hang around to admonish them." Obviously, we should admonish them (or whatever), but it's not a requirement to associate with them. Yup. Hold on a sec, all that's saying is that in order to totally escape sinners we'd have to leave the world. Paul goes on to say that we're not supposed to keep company with ungodly people. The very next verse says "But now I have wirtten unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." We're in the world, but not of it, so we can't escape sin altogether because it's prevailant, but we don't have to partake of the sinful lifestyles of others. Ulan and Nathan, I understand that you say no matter what is said it's not going to change your mind, so...if the bible said "Don't be friends with homosexuals" would you obey it, or would you still believe what you want to believe? Amen... you know that's exactly what I'd expect... use 2 verses and leave out the last... and I am not using context? tisk tisk tisk
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 23, 2007 12:12:39 GMT -8
Post by darthdodo on Oct 23, 2007 12:12:39 GMT -8
Another valid point is that the Bible was written a few thousand years ago under a different language. You can't pop out the Websters Dictionary and explain the Bible. I find Strong's Concordance quite helpful... also doing quite a bit of Hebrew and Greek language research and cultural research helps in debate... you can't just explain the Bible only using US knowledge. Another thing I see out of some of you guys in a LOT of debates is taking a verse and saying "well... hypothetically it MAY mean that, but if you think about it, couldn't it mean this? *explains a off-topic, weird explanation*, then when I take scripture for what it says instead of what the culture says it says, then I'm all of a sudden the bad guy here. You know, it helps to take a neutral side in terms of doctrines and culture and what you've been taught... throw aside what your church has taught you since you were a baby, throw away what your parents have taught you and read what the Bible says... word by word. Some of you guys wouldn't beleive that in Jewish culture Joseph and Mary were married before Mary was pregnant... but that's because it's what you've always been taught, not what you've read. I'm not saying throw away the knowledge all together. but put it to the side for a second and read the Bible...
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 23, 2007 18:51:04 GMT -8
Post by TFE on Oct 23, 2007 18:51:04 GMT -8
Hold on a sec, all that's saying is that in order to totally escape sinners we'd have to leave the world. Paul goes on to say that we're not supposed to keep company with ungodly people. The very next verse says "But now I have wirtten unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." We're in the world, but not of it, so we can't escape sin altogether because it's prevailant, but we don't have to partake of the sinful lifestyles of others. Ulan and Nathan, I understand that you say no matter what is said it's not going to change your mind, so...if the bible said "Don't be friends with homosexuals" would you obey it, or would you still believe what you want to believe? Amen... you know that's exactly what I'd expect... use 2 verses and leave out the last... and I am not using context? tisk tisk tisk You'll notice that the context is clear without the rest. Should I pull out the next verses? They aren't necessary to my argument, but they only serve to support it. Did you not read my other post? (Although thanks for proving our typical argument of your ignoring certain posts. Thanks again.) Oh, dandy. Now we're going to the nth degree of saying that only the original translations are what we can derive arguments from. By that logic, all your prior arguments are now null and void, as are ours. A convenient out for you, considering you're supposedly delving into Hebrew and Greek studies. Why have people translate the Bible into our languages if we're going to throw them out as infactual? Do you think they don't scrutinize every detail of it to make sure it remains factual? If you don't, then how on earth do you take the Bible at face value, considering we don't have an original manuscripts? Handing down stories makes them more inaccurate than translation.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 23, 2007 18:56:55 GMT -8
Post by Nathan Jey'Daan on Oct 23, 2007 18:56:55 GMT -8
Another valid point is that the Bible was written a few thousand years ago under a different language. You can't pop out the Websters Dictionary and explain the Bible. I find Strong's Concordance quite helpful... TFE pwned the translation argument, and about the few thousand years ago, how come, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (60 years ago), the ones with portions of the Hebrew bible had no significant difference from current texts, though the scrolls are carbon-dated more than 2000 years ago? It doesn't sound to me like it's losing anything over time.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 24, 2007 8:00:43 GMT -8
Post by darthdodo on Oct 24, 2007 8:00:43 GMT -8
Amen... you know that's exactly what I'd expect... use 2 verses and leave out the last... and I am not using context? tisk tisk tisk You'll notice that the context is clear without the rest. Should I pull out the next verses? They aren't necessary to my argument, but they only serve to support it. Did you not read my other post? (Although thanks for proving our typical argument of your ignoring certain posts. Thanks again.) Oh, dandy. Now we're going to the nth degree of saying that only the original translations are what we can derive arguments from. By that logic, all your prior arguments are now null and void, as are ours. A convenient out for you, considering you're supposedly delving into Hebrew and Greek studies. Why have people translate the Bible into our languages if we're going to throw them out as infactual? Do you think they don't scrutinize every detail of it to make sure it remains factual? If you don't, then how on earth do you take the Bible at face value, considering we don't have an original manuscripts? Handing down stories makes them more inaccurate than translation. I use the King James Version, which IS translated into english... but the meaning of it may be different than you think. Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. For instance, in terms of meanings, this verse doesn't mean not to defend yourself, like some would have you say. In Hebraic culture, the term of smiting thee on thy right cheek is slapping. Not punching. Typically you punch with your right hand, meaning you'll hit him on his left cheek. In the Bible it specifically says RIGHT cheek. Why would "right" be put in if it didn't mean something. In Hebraic culture slapping is an insult. So if if you were to by chance know Hebraic culture, which was the culture it was written in, then you'd know that Biblically you can defend yourself against assaults. But insults, you should turn the other cheek. Some people misinterpret that scripture and say Christians should be weaklings who let everyone rape then, and shoot them. That's not what it means. Knowing a culture in which it was written does help. A yes, sometimes the words they (Hebrew) were translated to (English) may mean the same as Webster's dictionary. But sometimes they don't... I can give you an example of just 50 years or so. Dork, 50 years ago, would mean a male whale's private place. Now people have changed the meaning to mean an insult to a person. Gay use to mean happy. Now people mean sodomites. Queer was weird. Now it's sodomites. As a culture changes (for better or worse) the words may change too. It happened in Greek and Hebrew culture, it's happening today. Paul repeats some of the phrases used in the old cultures and he shows Biblical evidence to bash them (so to say). I forget WHERE they are, but I remember reading them. I'll have to do a study on that. But yes, meaning of words do change. Typically it's those who are older, or anyone who studies word meanings a lot that know this little bit of knowledge. Typically young people who do not study word meanings don't tend to know when a word has changed because they weren't there before it was changed.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 24, 2007 9:41:17 GMT -8
Post by Nathan Jey'Daan on Oct 24, 2007 9:41:17 GMT -8
You'll notice that the context is clear without the rest. Should I pull out the next verses? They aren't necessary to my argument, but they only serve to support it. Did you not read my other post? (Although thanks for proving our typical argument of your ignoring certain posts. Thanks again.) Oh, dandy. Now we're going to the nth degree of saying that only the original translations are what we can derive arguments from. By that logic, all your prior arguments are now null and void, as are ours. A convenient out for you, considering you're supposedly delving into Hebrew and Greek studies. Why have people translate the Bible into our languages if we're going to throw them out as infactual? Do you think they don't scrutinize every detail of it to make sure it remains factual? If you don't, then how on earth do you take the Bible at face value, considering we don't have an original manuscripts? Handing down stories makes them more inaccurate than translation. I use the King James Version, which IS translated into english... but the meaning of it may be different than you think. Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. For instance, in terms of meanings, this verse doesn't mean not to defend yourself, like some would have you say. In Hebraic culture, the term of smiting thee on thy right cheek is slapping. Not punching. Typically you punch with your right hand, meaning you'll hit him on his left cheek. In the Bible it specifically says RIGHT cheek. Why would "right" be put in if it didn't mean something. In Hebraic culture slapping is an insult. So if if you were to by chance know Hebraic culture, which was the culture it was written in, then you'd know that Biblically you can defend yourself against assaults. But insults, you should turn the other cheek. Some people misinterpret that scripture and say Christians should be weaklings who let everyone rape then, and shoot them. That's not what it means. Knowing a culture in which it was written does help. A yes, sometimes the words they (Hebrew) were translated to (English) may mean the same as Webster's dictionary. But sometimes they don't... I can give you an example of just 50 years or so. Dork, 50 years ago, would mean a male whale's private place. Now people have changed the meaning to mean an insult to a person. Gay use to mean happy. Now people mean sodomites. Queer was weird. Now it's sodomites. As a culture changes (for better or worse) the words may change too. It happened in Greek and Hebrew culture, it's happening today. Paul repeats some of the phrases used in the old cultures and he shows Biblical evidence to bash them (so to say). I forget WHERE they are, but I remember reading them. I'll have to do a study on that. But yes, meaning of words do change. Typically it's those who are older, or anyone who studies word meanings a lot that know this little bit of knowledge. Typically young people who do not study word meanings don't tend to know when a word has changed because they weren't there before it was changed. But of course you know, because your intelligence is perfect and your interpretation of the Bible is even more so. Also, your preferred Bible translation is perfect and even if I prove you wrong using said translation, I must have misread or misinterpreted because it goes against your interpretation, which, as I said, is perfect. There is not even room for compromise because you have already figured out exactly what the Bible says and means, and I, of course, am just a wannabe who has no clue whatsoever. I defer to your knowledge and will cease debate. Translation: You're a freaking idiot and I'm tired of watching you beat a dead horse, so I'm done debating with you.Just for the record, nothing was lost in that translation.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 24, 2007 20:07:50 GMT -8
Post by TFE on Oct 24, 2007 20:07:50 GMT -8
You'll notice that the context is clear without the rest. Should I pull out the next verses? They aren't necessary to my argument, but they only serve to support it. Did you not read my other post? (Although thanks for proving our typical argument of your ignoring certain posts. Thanks again.) Oh, dandy. Now we're going to the nth degree of saying that only the original translations are what we can derive arguments from. By that logic, all your prior arguments are now null and void, as are ours. A convenient out for you, considering you're supposedly delving into Hebrew and Greek studies. Why have people translate the Bible into our languages if we're going to throw them out as infactual? Do you think they don't scrutinize every detail of it to make sure it remains factual? If you don't, then how on earth do you take the Bible at face value, considering we don't have an original manuscripts? Handing down stories makes them more inaccurate than translation. I use the King James Version, which IS translated into english... but the meaning of it may be different than you think. Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. For instance, in terms of meanings, this verse doesn't mean not to defend yourself, like some would have you say. In Hebraic culture, the term of smiting thee on thy right cheek is slapping. Not punching. Typically you punch with your right hand, meaning you'll hit him on his left cheek. In the Bible it specifically says RIGHT cheek. Why would "right" be put in if it didn't mean something. In Hebraic culture slapping is an insult. So if if you were to by chance know Hebraic culture, which was the culture it was written in, then you'd know that Biblically you can defend yourself against assaults. But insults, you should turn the other cheek. Some people misinterpret that scripture and say Christians should be weaklings who let everyone rape then, and shoot them. That's not what it means. Knowing a culture in which it was written does help. A yes, sometimes the words they (Hebrew) were translated to (English) may mean the same as Webster's dictionary. But sometimes they don't... I can give you an example of just 50 years or so. Dork, 50 years ago, would mean a male whale's private place. Now people have changed the meaning to mean an insult to a person. Gay use to mean happy. Now people mean sodomites. Queer was weird. Now it's sodomites. As a culture changes (for better or worse) the words may change too. It happened in Greek and Hebrew culture, it's happening today. Paul repeats some of the phrases used in the old cultures and he shows Biblical evidence to bash them (so to say). I forget WHERE they are, but I remember reading them. I'll have to do a study on that. But yes, meaning of words do change. Typically it's those who are older, or anyone who studies word meanings a lot that know this little bit of knowledge. Typically young people who do not study word meanings don't tend to know when a word has changed because they weren't there before it was changed. If you'll notice, most of what you're talking about isn't derived from the actual mistranslation, but rather misinterpretation of the translated scriptures. I'd have to agree with that. I really, really wish more people knew the basic etymology of words, but it can't really be helped. Also, I wouldn't generalize the different ages of knowing said etymologies. I'm still rather young, as are you even moreso, and we both clearly know the prior definitions. It really only has to do with the different direction of one's interests and studies. I like words, hence I know a plethora of them. Kids talk slang so they spit out slang. Hearsay, mainly. I read quality books; now I'm reaping the rewards.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 24, 2007 20:45:41 GMT -8
Post by jmcmatt on Oct 24, 2007 20:45:41 GMT -8
I use the King James Version, which IS translated into english... but the meaning of it may be different than you think. Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. For instance, in terms of meanings, this verse doesn't mean not to defend yourself, like some would have you say. In Hebraic culture, the term of smiting thee on thy right cheek is slapping. Not punching. Typically you punch with your right hand, meaning you'll hit him on his left cheek. In the Bible it specifically says RIGHT cheek. Why would "right" be put in if it didn't mean something. In Hebraic culture slapping is an insult. So if if you were to by chance know Hebraic culture, which was the culture it was written in, then you'd know that Biblically you can defend yourself against assaults. But insults, you should turn the other cheek. Some people misinterpret that scripture and say Christians should be weaklings who let everyone rape then, and shoot them. That's not what it means. Knowing a culture in which it was written does help. A yes, sometimes the words they (Hebrew) were translated to (English) may mean the same as Webster's dictionary. But sometimes they don't... I can give you an example of just 50 years or so. Dork, 50 years ago, would mean a male whale's private place. Now people have changed the meaning to mean an insult to a person. Gay use to mean happy. Now people mean sodomites. Queer was weird. Now it's sodomites. As a culture changes (for better or worse) the words may change too. It happened in Greek and Hebrew culture, it's happening today. Paul repeats some of the phrases used in the old cultures and he shows Biblical evidence to bash them (so to say). I forget WHERE they are, but I remember reading them. I'll have to do a study on that. But yes, meaning of words do change. Typically it's those who are older, or anyone who studies word meanings a lot that know this little bit of knowledge. Typically young people who do not study word meanings don't tend to know when a word has changed because they weren't there before it was changed. If you'll notice, most of what you're talking about isn't derived from the actual mistranslation, but rather misinterpretation of the translated scriptures. I'd have to agree with that. I really, really wish more people knew the basic etymology of words, but it can't really be helped. Also, I wouldn't generalize the different ages of knowing said etymologies. I'm still rather young, as are you even moreso, and we both clearly know the prior definitions. It really only has to do with the different direction of one's interests and studies. I like words, hence I know a plethora of them. Kids talk slang so they spit out slang. Hearsay, mainly. I read quality books; now I'm reaping the rewards. git off ur hi horze lol
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 25, 2007 23:43:23 GMT -8
Post by Jango Reiss on Oct 25, 2007 23:43:23 GMT -8
Are you insinuating that his horse takes drugs? *insert hilarious "Haw Haw Drugs" horse image here* (SA is down so I couldn't find it )
|
|
Jacinth Visor
Ungrouped
"I am not just a man vastly lost in this world, lost in a sea of faces." Credits: 8,500
Posts: 789
|
Sodomy
Oct 26, 2007 12:41:36 GMT -8
Post by Jacinth Visor on Oct 26, 2007 12:41:36 GMT -8
Unless you can show me a verse that says it, that's a purely hypothetical situation. And let me ask you this. Say a close friend of yours told you they were gay. You tell that person that despite your (lets say really close) friendship, you're going to end it purely due to that fact, and can't hang out with him/her anymore. Can you truly tell yourself that you're being an example and showing the light of God? This question was directed at Soleia but I've thought about it for myself. If my best friend came to me and told me he or she decided they are gay this would probably be my reaction. I'd ask them why, remind them that it's wrong, then- since they'd be a close friend- explain my disgust in their choices, rant about how gross it is and that it's completely unnatural. If they put up a fight, completely convinced they're right I'd say, "alright, fine." I would probably lower the communication between myself and my friend considerably seeing how I'd be bothered to be around them. That's all just guessing what would happen. who knows really though
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 26, 2007 13:19:00 GMT -8
Post by darthdodo on Oct 26, 2007 13:19:00 GMT -8
Let's see....
I quote 2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
The context is about loving the truth and the return of Christ. He greets the Thessalonian church, then he encourages the church because their in persecution. He mentions their spiritual growth. he commends them and the other churches for their endurance. he assures them of the final outcome. he gives his prayers for them. he tells them that the Day of Christ hasn't yet come and that the man who sins will first be revealed and then for them to stand firm in the assurance of truth and grace.
in the 3rd chapter he asks them to pray for him and to remain steadfast in the Lord and to withdraw from the unruly and sinful and to live a disciplined life. Then he gives his final greetings.
That's the context?
What's the interpretation?
Paul wasn't saying to remove yourself from ALL sinners. Undoubtedly you can't do that. Family is an exception, I beleive. They live with you. What are you gonna do, live in a mud hole?
But you shouldn't be around sinners as a general rule (like friendships and etc)... but acquaintances, of course, you can't deny. You're gonna meet sinners. You have to go to Wal-Mart and the bank and the like places. And you're gonna meet sinners. What this verse is talking about is to not be friends with them. You be a friend with someone and their actions are undoubtedly gonna rub off on you. You don't beleive it? Do a google search with the words "you are who you hang around with" and you'd be amazed at what you find. It's a scientific fact that you do pick up habits and character traits of who you spend time with. whether it be good or bad. this is why Paul tells us not to be around sinners too much.
Also our fellowship with sinners is like sending them the message that we accept what their doing to be right. But rather we should stay away from them to 1: remain our purity and 2: somehow get the message clicking inside them that "duh, I'm wrong."
now first of all, God will convict them, but at the same time, it's also fact that humans can send messages to others by what they do and what they don't do.
God will convict them, and our actions should generate another conviction (given by God as well) that their wrong.
|
|
|
Sodomy
Oct 26, 2007 13:21:49 GMT -8
Post by darthdodo on Oct 26, 2007 13:21:49 GMT -8
Another thing that is really slapping the face of God is someone trying to have a Bible debate and all the opposing people can do is make jokes:
"HAW HAW!!! :B *insert bla bla*
You f00!!! *insert picture*"
I can't see as how the almighty Creator would be pleased with the mocking of everything that is said here.
|
|