| Bible Study | |
|
Koyi Donita - Student  |
Yep. Here it is. My first offical Forum and of course it's about my favorite topic, The Bible. Basically, I would like this to be an open forum based on the Bible and the truths held with in. If anyone has any Biblical truths that they would like to share with everyone, I ask for you to please put it up on the table as we will all search for truth in God's Word. If anyone has any questions, maybe collectively we may be able to help them through the Bible God willing. I only ask that if you have no faith or have nothing constructive to post, please respect my wishes and just ignore this forum. All questions from non-believers are welcome as long as you seriously seek God's truth. May God bless us all through his wonderful Word. Quote: For those of you who like, this site has every translation. Plus search, studies, GREAT RESOURCE The Bible Gateway -DM- Thank you Darth Mobility.  _______________ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 I love my babyface. Smilykrazy is my baby and I love her. ...Swimming through the void we hear the Word, we lose ourselves but we find it all... System Of A Down.  This post was edited by Koyi Donita on Apr 30 2005 05:38pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
DJ Sith - Jedi Council 
|
Quote: If you truely want to study God's Word, I would suggest learning the other languages and trying to get your hands on the purest form of original text you can. You caould always pick up a torah, but biblical hebrew is absolutely nutty to translate. Oh and you won't get any goods on the sequal. _______________ My car is made of Nerf. |
|
Rainer - Student |
Quote: Ahh, that makes things a bit clearer now. Do you know if these groups tend to stick to any particular versions of the Bible? I'm going to head out and get one, I just want to make sure I get the right version. The KJV was a great translation for its time, but it leaves much to be wanting. My favorite translation is the ESV(English Standard Version). Here's an article on the ESV: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december2002.htm EDIT: But for the record, I too don't believe there is one superior translation. If you want to get real serious about studying, and don't want to blindly accept doctrine handed to you, then I'd learn some Greek at least. I personally have a NRSV(Oxford Study Bible with Apocrypha), ESV(Pocket Bible), NASB(Ryrie Study Bible), NIV, KJV(A really, really old one), and I think a Catholic Bible somewhere. That's it as far as translations go. I have a Greek New Testament and a Greek English interlinear New Testament as well. It has the Greek on top and a literal word for word translation underneath the words. I haven't learnt much Greek yet though. _______________ The Jedi formally known as Ranja. ---------------------- "I can list among my experience and skills: leadership, extensive travel, logistical organization, intimate understanding of firearms, and a knowledge of security measures at numerous banks." - Jesse James This comment was edited by Rainer on Apr 28 2005 05:23am. |
|
Jeramia Adept - Student 
|
IN MY OPINION ALL BIBLES ARE the same, just worded differently, its all about how one reads, it all say s the same thing, and it all means the same, but most just twist the word into the devils means. _______________ The Force is my ally, and a powerful ally it is. Padawan Brother to Darth Sirius |
|
Koyi Donita - Student 
|
Mike, it's really hard to answer that question. You see, as Kenyon has pointed out, some believe the original text that the Bible was written in to be the true Word of God as I do as well. Others believe that any Bible or the more accurate ones to also be the Word of God because God is after all very interested in His Word going into the world to all nations and would protect it or influence the translations enough to where it would be His Word. Hard to say for me and I can't tell you this one or that but I feel that the KJV of the Bible is a good solid translation although translation errors accure even in that one. If you truely want to study God's Word, I would suggest learning the other languages and trying to get your hands on the purest form of original text you can. _______________ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 I love my babyface. Smilykrazy is my baby and I love her. ...Swimming through the void we hear the Word, we lose ourselves but we find it all... System Of A Down.
|
|
 - Student |
Ahh, that makes things a bit clearer now. Do you know if these groups tend to stick to any particular versions of the Bible? I'm going to head out and get one, I just want to make sure I get the right version. |
|
DaRtH-MoBiLiTy - Student 
|
Yeah Mikecore, sorry man. I feel stupid for even posting at this point, NOT MY DAY. Thats all I can say...... Evangelist is someone who goes out and preaches the word abroad. Fundamentalist is a Protestant view that affirms the absolute authority of the Bible, holds that Jesus died and was bodily resurrected as a sacrifice for humanity's sins, denies the theory of evolution, and holds that alternate religious views within Christianity or in other religions are false. Pentecostalism is a Christian religious movement emphasizing the "gifts of the Holy Spirit," traditionally first bestowed on the day of Pentecost. Like if you have ever heard of speaking in tounges or gifts of prophecy and things like that. I think they all beleive the same thing basically, they just have more emphasis on certain things. Hope that helps. -DM- _______________ One Day, it will all end. |
|
 - Student |
I think this is getting kind of pathetic. This is straying off from a study of The Word, and has become a dispute about what may or may not be the subliminal intentions of Kenyon's posts. Anyway, I had some questions concerning the different "versions" of Christianity. Could someone explain the differences between say, Evangelists and fundementalists? Thanks. |
|
DaRtH-MoBiLiTy - Student
|
thewind, It is what it is man. Obviously you have not been involved in this thread from the begining. There are plenty of reasons why I posted what I did. And if you dig back through the garbage that has been posted on this thread you'll see why. I am not telling Kenyon to shut up. I am merely saying that this thread is for the sake of studying the word, and as far as which translation is the word, they all are. In particular, I study the KJV, NIV and Greek Inner linear. I beleive each translation was inpired by God, and there is no way he is going to let it be screwed up so that all of us can be led astray. That would not be fair or just and the Bible clearly states he is just and fair. So take it how you want it, I told you it was only worth one cent anyways.........if that. -DM- _______________ One Day, it will all end. |
|
thewind - Student |
Quote: I for one take the Word at face value, that is not to say that I have not done indepth studies of the original greek, cause I have. A study that tells us that words meant a whole lot more back then than they do now. But basically, if you want to bend original greek words around to suit your argument, it is pretty easy to do, on both sides. Then give us an example, and enlighten us like Kenyon did. I speak four languages and am very aware of the danger of inaccurate translations. However, I have yet to see a case where the original language can be reasonably twisted without modifying the original words or take anything out of context. But please, give us an example of what you mean. Quote: So lets not confuse this any longer. We all know your smart Kenyon, We all know your feelings on Christians, the Bible and anything you can't touch, taste, feel, and hear. I find that difficult to believe. Surely Kenyon would not spend all that time and energy to study a subject if he did not find it interesting and hold it in great respect? Quote: Lets not dance around it anymore and get back to what this thread is actually for, studying the Word. You want to start up a "History" thread to debate the validity of the word, then go right ahead. But I won't stand by and watch this thread get patronized any longer. Sorry man, just my one cent. I respect you and value your freedom to opinion, so dont take this wrong, okay? So which translated version do you consider to be THE word, then? Which version are the readers of this thread allowed to quote from? Please clarify so no one else makes that mistake again. All that Kenyon has done is to offer the scriptures in their very original languages. I would think that anyone who takes the word of God literally(from what I understand, Koyi himself, the founder of this thread takes the word of the bible literally) would feel that he had an obligation to make an effort to seperate God's word from human fallibility. I understand your frustration and respect your beliefs, but it seems to me what you are suggesting to Kenyon is nothing short of censorship. I am shocked that you would imply that Kenyon has disrespect toward Christians when it is obvious that this man has spent many more hours studying the bible in far more completeness than most readers here. You could prove him wrong by the sheer infallible logic of your argument or the enlightening grace of your faith. Sadly, right now, you are doing neither and are just telling people to shut up. This comment was edited by thewind on Apr 27 2005 11:40pm. |
|
DaRtH-MoBiLiTy - Student
|
Alright, I have one cent to throw in. Normally you guys know you can count on me to throw in my studies regarding various subjects. You also know that all my study is based on the Word of God. I do have quite alot on this subject of homosexuality. But honestly at this point in the thread, I feel like it would be a waist of time posting it, especially since the scriptures I have are pretty much already visible on this thread. But this conversation is disguised as a debate on homosexuality, but it is actually a debate on the validity of the Bible in it's translated forms. Thanks Kenyon. So what I will say is this before we get to far off here, just like any religon, Christianity requires Faith. Faith that the Word is True. Faith that if the Bible is the only thing us Christians have to go by, then God knows this and there is no way he would let man, whom he created, screw it all up for the rest of us. I for one take the Word at face value, that is not to say that I have not done indepth studies of the original greek, cause I have. A study that tells us that words meant a whole lot more back then than they do now. But basically, if you want to bend original greek words around to suit your argument, it is pretty easy to do, on both sides. I respect the fact that you like history and seem to have quite alot of resources to back up your arguments. But history did not teach you these arguements. These are your own and you take history and exerpts from it to back you up. If you were a Christian Kenyon, you could find just as many, if not more arguments stating why the Word IS true. So lets not confuse this any longer. We all know your smart Kenyon, We all know your feelings on Christians, the Bible and anything you can't touch, taste, feel, and hear. Lets not dance around it anymore and get back to what this thread is actually for, studying the Word. You want to start up a "History" thread to debate the validity of the word, then go right ahead. But I won't stand by and watch this thread get patronized any longer. Sorry man, just my one cent. I respect you and value your freedom to opinion, so dont take this wrong, okay? -DM- _______________ One Day, it will all end. |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance 
|
Quote: Also the Bible states that God opens ones eyes and reveals the scriptures to His believers so us going back and forth over text and translations, etc. would only be a waist of time probably leading to some form of argument. According to which translation does God say it opens ones eyes?  No, of course I understand what you mean, and what you believe, but I'm assuming this belief is based on what you read in your Bible - and the comparison of translations to earlier versions than yours usually offers a lot of insight, at least to me.Quote: I also looked into that site that you got most of your material from and it appears you chose one translation to a particular verse that you felt fit best with your debate and didn't even mention the others. A valid point. However, I feel the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic versions take precedence over the contemporary English versions in a debate where authenticity of the texts is important. If you truly care about God's message, and if you consider the Bible God's words, then you must recognize that the original versions are closer to whatever the source may be. A lot of stuff happened, especially in the years 1200 - 1600, to influence modern translations. Naturally, this influence depends entirely on the version you're reading. So yes, I'm specific because I select certain translations, but I don't merely select them to serve my argument - I also select them on the basis of authenticity. Quote: I've noticed when looking into the original text languages that some words can have close to 20 or more meanings or translations. Oh yes, I certainly agree. You'll find that happens a lot when studying old languages. The question here is, are the current translations in the Bible so accurate because they managed to sort out the exact meaning, or were they simply selected on the translator's fancy? This is what I'm talking about in my previous post when I say the modern translations are 'biased', and this is also why many modern translations are so different from eachother. Quote: I do not speak those languages in the slightest bit. I can read and write both Hebrew and Greek. I have not studied Aramaic, but fortunately it is close enough to Hebrew to recognize sentences. I always use annotated versions though, because I trust in the scholars' greater wisdom when it comes to translations. Quote: I read the old King James version of the Bible because it is one of the oldest translated text and compared to others and can be shown to be one of the most accurate however flawed itself. Other translations loose key words and add whole phrases and such which just are not part of the Bible at all but seem to add the translators personal feelings to the original text. The King James version is more accurate than many later versions, and I appreciate you selected it because it's one of the oldest translated Bibles. I also like it because it's simply well written. It's also full of many errors because of the way it was translated from mostly Greek texts, and numerous inconsistensies are documented, probably in your local library but also on the Internet. In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place - even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (the KJV was, after all, the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars). Quote: As far as the scripture I had in mind, I'll toss it up in the air for you to blow holes into. I just want my personal feelings toward this site and your post to be noted as well. I do believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God in it's origin text. This has never changed. I do believe it was written under the insperation of God in the Holy Spirit and not by the men who were so-called pressured, coxed, influenced, etc. to write it according to their own feelings, environment, status, etc.. Verses which have already been posted shows this to be true, (in Biblical perspective and study [outside of possible translation error]) and to believe anything but this is unprofitable for this discussion unless can be shown to be faulty. I'd disagree it being unprofitable for this discussion, but I respect your belief. My posts were never intended to influence your belief - I write them because readers of this thread will have another perspective on the texts, and this always helps in open-minded discussion. Quote: Bringing in historical facts, assumptions, and a whole lot of excess context that is not within the translation or context as it is found in the Bible is therefore 100% unnecessary and unprofitable. Bringing in assumptions and excess context is indeed unnecessary. Historical facts from the time period in which a translation was published are not unnecessary at all (of course, I as a historian would say that). An understanding of the period puts you in the right frame of mind to read the texts in the way they were intended at the time - it is no secret that, for example, the Middle Ages had very different morals and standards than contemporary society. It is wise to keep this fact in the back of your head while you're reading a translation from that period - however, if you believe all translations are inerrant, then it wouldn't matter when they were written because they're still God's words, right? However, this thread is not about your personal views as a Christian - it is about the Bible, and many people believe that historical context is important. Quote: The Bible wasn't written for a particular people or time era for all scripture is profitable for God's elect and isn't subjected to times and places. Says you. This is open to discussion, whether you like it or not. There are too many errors in translations, some which even contradict eachother. If all of these versions are inerrant, is God contradicting himself purposefully? Who decides where the word of God ends and where human fallibilities begin? You? This is a discussion that has held the churches of our world busy for centuries, and I doubt you're the final authority on the matter. In short, it is opinion, not religious truth. I'm stressing this, because it is the difference between closed-minded analysis of whatever the Bible means to you, and open-minded discussion about all the different Bibles in the world. If you truly care about such a discussion, you have to therefore be careful about what you state as absolute truth, when it can be, in fact, discussed. Quote: The verses which I had in mind were found in Romans 1:26-27 where we read: 26) For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27) Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. /me hands Kenyon a loaded shotgun and throws the verses into the air. *boom!* No, I'm glad you can smile about it. While this is heavy stuff we're discussing, I'm making these posts because I enjoy the subject, not because I'm desperate to prove you wrong or change your beliefs. Now, to get to actual passage: we're not reading the same thing. I grabbed my copy of King James, and it reads:Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." In the original Greek, the phrase "vile affections" probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." Also, it seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private. Regarding the use of the word natural in your version of King James: the Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as such. This does not seem to be an accurate translation, and it may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. The phrase "para physin" is more accurately defined as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible, actually: In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary, and in Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together. See where I'm going with this? It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted in your post: Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behavior was both widespread and acceptable by society. Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior. Because I value the context of these passages, a short summary of the passages before it: Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples. Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals. Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here. Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women. Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error. Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, you get the idea. Many religious liberals, secularists, homosexuals, and others view this passage as an attack on heterosexual persons who were formerly Christians, who reverted to Paganism, and who engaged in ritual sexual behavior as a part of their newly adopted Pagan services. During these rituals, the Pagans were whipped into such a state of sexual frenzy that they went against their heterosexual nature and started engaging in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. Paul condemns such behavior. He concludes that Pagan worship will inevitably leads to other negative behavior: "...unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, [and] unmerciful." The beliefs that persons of other religions are all morally corrupt and that followers of one's own religion behave on a much higher moral plane was common in Paul's time. The same assertions have been made throughout history. Yet, modern-day studies indicate that followers of no one religion have a monopoly on good behavior. No group of religions exhibits consistently immoral behavior among their followers. To summarize, the passage deals with immoral behavior among heterosexuals who have converted from Christianity to Paganism and engaged in behavior which is against their nature. There is no real connection between persons with a homosexual orientation who have entered into a loving, committed relationship or same-sex marriage. -Ken |
|
Muad'dib - Student 
|
No, a person isn't given morals. They're given choices, the results of which accumulate into an ever changing moral code. Yes, people are more likely to inherit some moral values based on background, but it's not something that can be helped. However that does not mean that those viewpoints are set in stone, nor does it mean that they coincide exactly with those from whom they were inherited. A person experiences many different things which all form opinions and beliefs. And only a fool never questions whether what they believe is right or wrong (yo, Plato's got my back on this one. ) But just because a person is born someplace doesn't mean they have the beliefs that are passed down there. For example just because I'm an American doesn't mean I believe that the DMCA or the Patriot Act are just.And, as for me at least, it's not that I'm saying "everyone is right and everyone is wrong." I'm just saying "you might be right or you might be wrong." I guess we'll all find out when we die. Twilight is upon us and soon night must fall. That is the way of things. The way of the force. _______________ "It's because I love you. No. It's because I love you" Oh, Anakin, you're eloquence is second to none. I AM THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! This comment was edited by Muad'dib on Apr 27 2005 07:57am. |
|
Duffman - Student 
|
If i might interject here *braces himself* If you want a serious conversation with lots of people on the subjects of religion/politics/life styles/abortion/ect, and not have emotions run rampant - then i sugest that you find yourself a new species with which to converse. We are human, we are QUITE falible. As to the whole mob issue, *sigh* yes, one human failing is taking things that they believe to the extreme, and is not a good basis for an opinion to be made of the people they represent. Human beings have throughout history gone to extremes for thier beliefs (war, riots, bigotry, love, and many other things) and when someone is hurt by it, they tend to think that the other extreme is the answer. As to letting someone else's moral code dictate your actions - im sorry to say, but unless u lived by yourself sence before you were able to understand the concept, then others have dictated how you live your life. And no matter where you live in the world, the laws that govern that area were passed down from what ever thought process or religion inhabited the area before you. So unless you have no laws at all, you have someone else dictate how you live your life, or you do as you please and break the laws and just dont get caught  Threads like this are both quite thought provoking and potentialy enlightening to others. As such they are quite dangerous, especialy if tempers flare  And so long as those that read threads like these understand that, things won't turn out bad.As far as everyone here is concerned, from your own point of views, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. In the end its all about comunication, not who is the more right. Getting mad about something won't change anyone's mind, but talking calmly can Be calm and talk, and we should be ok _______________ *Sigh* Married to Mirael D'kana, Former master to Shangri Stomwind and Crash D'Kana, Owner of Gil-Galad's 100th post, Khâ D'Kana's 700th post, and friend to just about everyone This comment was edited by Duffman on Apr 27 2005 07:18am. |
|
Muad'dib - Student
|
Firstly I'd like to quickly say that I don't believe in the bible, for me there are simply too many discrepancies and I find it hard to fathom how one religions claim to being the truth is any more plausible than the next groups. And that's not just the judeo-christian denominations. I find it as hard to believe in those as I do in the idea of the Earth riding on the back of a giant turtle; they're equally implausible. But I'm absolutely not trying to just create waves here and disrupt serious debate on the issues presented by presenting that viewpoint. And I also oppose the idea of this thread being closed in spite of those with exactly those goals. I think that without honest, straight forward discourse free of malice there can be nothing but stasis. And that won't benefit anyone. Koyi, it's clear that you care very deeply about this subject, and I think that's a good thing, I really do. And I honestly have to say that I've built up a fair amount of disdain for religion in general. Alot of that has to do with the fact that I go to school a block from the Massachussetts State House and so for the past 2 or so years I've literally been passing mobs, veritable throngs of rabid christian fundamentalists screaming about how "God hates fags" and how it's "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". And I'll admit the latter was pretty clever. But I really have no interest in laws being passed because "God doesn't like" such and such. Now I'm opening up another whole issue here, but the basic premise is the same. I don't care what you believe. I don't care how deeply you believe it. I think it's fantastic that you've come to a conclusion about how you feel your life should be lived. But I be damned if I'm about to let someone elses beliefs govern how I live my life. I doubt God's going to be mad at you for someone elses sins. And if you believe he/she/it is, then I think you should have higher priorities than homosexuality. Maybe genocide or war. I'm tired of people trying to convert me. You came to your own conclusions about the world and you have faith. Well then have faith that other people will be fine by themselves. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't live in a theocracy. (though sometimes I wonder with W.) Anyway if there was one point from the above that I would want to get across most it would be this: Don't close the thread because of dissent. Dissent is one of the best things in the world. In a roundabout sort of way. _______________ "It's because I love you. No. It's because I love you" Oh, Anakin, you're eloquence is second to none. I AM THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! This comment was edited by Muad'dib on Apr 27 2005 06:52am. |
|
Koyi Donita - Student 
|
I will agree with Antinanco that your post Kenyon definately opens one's eyes. I have always held the belief and wasn't affraid to post it here that my views and beliefs on what I post may be faulty due to translation and or personal interpretation. Also the Bible states that God opens ones eyes and reveals the scriptures to His believers so us going back and forth over text and translations, etc. would only be a waist of time probably leading to some form of argument. I also looked into that site that you got most of your material from and it appears you chose one translation to a particular verse that you felt fit best with your debate and didn't even mention the others. I'll study more into this one verse along with the context in which it is found looking into the original Hebrew text it was written in the future time permitting. I've noticed when looking into the original text languages that some words can have close to 20 or more meanings or translations and it wouldn't surprise me if this is one of those verses with one or more of those words with the site saying This is what the actual translation means! I have found it almost impossible to study the original text for two reasons. 1 - I do not speak those languages in the slightest bit. 2 - Just like english, certain words can mean a whole veriety of different things and the context of where the word is found helps to determine how it is being used. I read the old King James version of the Bible because it is one of the oldest translated text and compared to others and can be shown to be one of the most accurate however flawed itself. Other translations loose key words and add whole phrases and such which just are not part of the Bible at all but seem to add the translators personal feelings to the original text. Not saying the KJV doesn't do this either but as a study book I personally prefer it. As far as the scripture I had in mind, I'll toss it up in the air for you to blow holes into. I just want my personal feelings toward this site and your post to be noted as well. I do believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God in it's origin text. This has never changed. I do believe it was written under the insperation of God in the Holy Spirit and not by the men who were so-called pressured, coxed, influenced, etc. to write it according to their own feelings, environment, status, etc.. Verses which have already been posted shows this to be true, (in Biblical perspective and study [outside of possible translation error]) and to believe anything but this is unprofitable for this discussion unless can be shown to be faulty. Bringing in historical facts, assumptions, and a whole lot of excess context that is not within the translation or context as it is found in the Bible is therefore 100% unnecessary and unprofitable. The Bible wasn't written for a particular people or time era for all scripture is profitable for God's elect and isn't subjected to times and places. The verses which I had in mind were found in Romans 1:26-27 where we read: 26) For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27) Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. /me hands Kenyon a loaded shotgun and throws the verses into the air. On a side note, I really don't appreciate some of the comments left by certain individuals here. It is almost a safe assumption that some are just trying to create waves or are outright trying to destroy the pool of a pool party which is this thread. I wish you guys would just be honest coming forth saying that you don't like this thread/subject/views of the participants/etc.. I almost feel at this point, the thread should just be closed to avoid having anybody's feeling trampled further. If this continues I will ask for it to be done personally so certain individuals can high five and slap buttocks in whatever victory their fighting for. As always, God bless all who read His Word. May His mercy find a great many involved in reading and participating in this thread. Amen. _______________ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 I love my babyface. Smilykrazy is my baby and I love her. ...Swimming through the void we hear the Word, we lose ourselves but we find it all... System Of A Down.
|
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance 
|
Quote: Can you recommend any literature regarding the different translations and/or possible problems they raise? I'm not an expert on everything Biblical, but maybe these books will interest you: R.J. Miller, ed., "The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Revised & expanded)," Polebridge Press, (1995) "Comparative Study Bible: A parallel Bible presenting the NIV, NASB, Ampl. Bible & KJV," Zondervan, (1999) Curtis Vaughan, Ed., "The Word: The Bible from 26 translations," Baker Book House, (1998) Alfred Marshall, "Interlinear NASB - NIV Parallel New Testament, in Greek and English," Zondervan Publishing House, (1993) And, if you're only interested in the New Testament: John Kohlenberger, Ed., "The Contemporary Parallel New Testament: 8 Translations," KJV, NASB, NCV, CEV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, & The Message, Oxford University Press, (1998) John Kohlenberger, Ed., "The precise parallel New Testament: Greek & 7 translations," Greek, KJV, Rheims, Ampl. Bible, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB, Oxford University Press, (1995) Most of these books do not offer an opinion on the material, rather, you can examine the differences yourself. The annotated scholars version - in fact, any annotated version you can find - is often well worth the read. Good luck, and have fun. This comment was edited by Kenyon on Apr 26 2005 11:16pm. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote: That mixes with the argument, is god all powerful or all good. If he is all powerful then surely he cant be good, "Thow knoeth to do good, and thow doeth not, to him it is sin (KJV)" If he is all good than he cant be all powerful, because if he was really good then you know it deep in your heart and mind that anyone who lets anyone get hurt for no apparant reason isn't right. its immoral. So either he doesnt exsist or hes cruel. DM pretty much covered this topic already and I just wanted to say that I agree. In your eyes, doing good and helping people (not harming anyone), is good and many will agree with you. However, that may not be good to God for His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. We can never believe that we understand the mind of God and His Word let's us know that. The last day will be an evil day according to the scriptures, but it will be a necessary, righteous evil full of justice. The bad things that happen in this world are almost like shadows of what's to come with people being destroyed by others because of their race, religion, etc.. It's kinda like what is going to happen to sinners in a certain point of view. Praise God for allowing such powerful pictures to happen and not allowing most of us to get caught in the disasters when they happen. God is truely full of mercy and longsuffering for us. Thank you God for allowing us another day and please help us to bend before your will. Have mercy on us, heal us, and make us whole where we can truely do you will. Help us oh Lord I beg you. Amen. If God's way isnt like compassion then I dont want to be with him, I dont care who you are, you can say he has a plan and a structure set up but if someone lets someone get hurt or killed while watching and could have saved them, then I dont like them. If you dont have compassion you dont have divinity at all. _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This comment was edited by Plo Koon on Apr 27 2005 02:13am. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student 
|
Superb post regarding translations of the bible kenyon, can you recommend any literature regarding the different translations and/or possible problems they raise? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Muad'dib - Student 
|
Kenyon. I tip my proverbial hat to you. Well done. _______________ "It's because I love you. No. It's because I love you" Oh, Anakin, you're eloquence is second to none. I AM THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance
|
Quote: Kenyon, your description of "conservative Christians" is simply a pile of stereotypes. I am a conservative and know many conservatives, and very, very few of us believe in Biblical literalism. Please try to see beyond your preconceived notions and see the world in something other than stereotypes. I come from a conservative family, and also know many conservatives. I do not agree that my post is based on stereotypes. I also do not agree very few conservatives believe in Bibilical literalism, but I see that I need to be more specific. Consider the word 'conservative' replaced with 'fundamentalists or Evangelical Christians'. Fact remains, many conservative Christians trust the KJV and NIV. Thus, when they read some of the passages that clearly and unmistakably condemn homosexuality, they are inclined to trust the translators and conclude that God hates homosexuality. Unfortunately, many groups of translators have been heavily biased against certain groups, including Witches, gays and lesbians; many have tended to warp their translations accordingly. To reiterate, I am not thinking in stereotypes: I have too much experience with Christians, both in your country and outside it, to do so. If you disagree, that is your right. Also, you used the phrase 'see the world in stereotypes', which is a wider accusation than the argument called for. You have no basis for that accusation, so I hope you meant to imply my view on Christianity as opposed to the way I view the world in general. This comment was edited by Kenyon on Apr 26 2005 06:24pm. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Kenyon, your description of "conservative Christians" is simply a pile of stereotypes. I am a conservative and know many conservatives, and very, very few of us believe in Biblical literalism. Please try to see beyond your preconceived notions and see the world in something other than stereotypes. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance
|
Quote: That is not true. Any type of homosexuality is considered a sin and I will try to find the verses that will highlight that. I have done some research on this. I'm not a Christian, but I am a historian. I hope this post will not offend anyone, as I am merely trying to shed some light on the homosexual issue in the Bible. I take the matter very seriously because I know how serious the Bible is to many people, and I hope you can respect that, even though my opinion may be different than yours. Starting off, I wanted to state my opinion about the thread: it is full of good and solid information, but it is flawed. Koyi obviously has spent a great amount of time and thoughts on his quotations of the passages, and his analysis is often well placed - according to his vision. However, not only do different interpretation of the texts exist, there are many different translations of the Bible which can also change your perspective on things. Because I haven't found many mentions of these different versions of the Bible, I can only say that as a thread, it has so far been limited in that aspect. Now, it seems that the debate here is between three parties: non-Christians, conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Who do I consider a conservative Christian? Someone who regards the Bible as the actual Word of God, thus whenever the Bible and science disagree, the former must be right. Most conseratives also interpret the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis as indicating the fall of humanity into sin. They view homosexual behavior as one evidence of that sin. A conservative's approach to the homosexual issue would involve looking for proof texts -- passages that clearly and directly deal with the topic. Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation. If the analysis is not correct, feel free to reply to it. The Bible refers to specific homosexual behaviors in a few passages. All references are negative. However, before considering what the Bible might say about homosexuality in today's society, one must figure out what the authors of the Bible meant when they wrote their passages about homosexuality. In order to do this, one must make a fundamental decision -- whether to: 1. Accept the teachings of one's faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternate, normal, unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans. It is something that a person is. 2. Study passages from your favorite English version of the Bible, which is filtered by the theological beliefs and homophobia (if any) of the translators. If so, then you will find many passages in the Bible which condemn certain forms of homosexual behavior. 3. Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships. A verse which describes how an army kidnapped some female virgins for use as sex slaves does not tell us anything about the role of sex in marriage today. A verse that discusses temple prostitution during the worship of Pagan gods does not instruct us about feelings of romantic love between a man and a woman. Similarly, in order to comprehend what the Bible says about gay and lesbian relationships, we must pass over the references to homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. We would be left with only those references relating to consensual sexual activities within homosexual partnerships. Koyi's claim that homosexuality in all its forms is condemned in the Bible is false. To start off, I would assume Koyi is reading an English translation of the Bibile as opposed to the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. It therefore should be noted that the words "homosexuality" and "homosexual" date from the late 19th century. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Biblical authors had little or no understanding of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means. Some pastors cite Genesis 19, a passage that condemns homosexual rape, as proof that God hates all homosexual behavior. Yet they would never quote a verse that condemns heterosexual rape and state that it applies to all heterosexual activity. This is an obvious logical fallacy. Some people try switching between Bible translations in order to find the version that is most critical of homosexual behavior. When quoting Deuteronomy 23:17 some deviate from their usual usage of the New International Version. It accurately translates the original Hebrew condemnation of male and female prostitution in the temple (a common Pagan practice). They prefer the King James Version which incorrectly translates the passage as condemning female prostitutes and male "sodomites." Regarding translation errors: take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses shows that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result. The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as: "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean." See what I mean? But to go even further, I can even make a bolder claim about the Bible: Do you know what the Bible says about same-sex marriages? Absolutely nothing at all. The Bible does contain three stories of loving, same-sex relationships in the Bible involving David, Ruth and Daniel. But there is no indication that any of the three involved sexual activity. My argument is not yet finished: rather, I am waiting for Koyi's quotation of his passages and then submit my own perspective and information on them, often involving the original translations and not the biased English texts. People who often literally believe the Bible word for word, especially in modern Western society, tend to forget who wrote the texts and in what language. Someone may believe the the Bible is inerrant, but their translations certainly were not, and that doesn't have to be backed up by opinions - it can be backed up by facts. I hope this post doesn't come off as too stubborn, and I'm eagerly awaiting the passages. -Ken P.S: My most valuable source so far has been religioustolerance.org. |
|
Koyi Donita - Student
|
That is not true. Any type of homosexuality is considered a sin and I will try to find the verses that will highlight that. As far as the verses in the Bible telling you that God/Jesus loves you, I would like to read those. _______________ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 I love my babyface. Smilykrazy is my baby and I love her. ...Swimming through the void we hear the Word, we lose ourselves but we find it all... System Of A Down.
|
|
Muad'dib - Student
|
Actually, according to the Bible, only male homosexuality is wrong. Thou shalt not "lay with a man as you would with a woman." IE: Lesbians are totally kosher. W00t! God DOES love me, that I know! Because the Bible told me so! _______________ "It's because I love you. No. It's because I love you" Oh, Anakin, you're eloquence is second to none. I AM THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! |
|
Quesi - Student 
|
Homosexuality is a desire, much like Lust, or to commit Adultery. According to the Bible, it is wrong. I think that we all have these thoughts (not necessarily the ones listed above - I speak for 'evil' thoughts in general, and 'evil' being wrongs listed in the Bible). Of course, it is only human to have such thoughts, but what the Bible teaches us is to suppress those thoughts or desires. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic (something i do not believe) it does not get rid of the fact we are able to suppress such desires if we have the willpower and faith to act it out. As for the free will argument, I have formed some views about God, our 'fate', and why we can accept the fact God is omnipotent, all loving and omniscient... simultaneously... despite evils existing in the world. I don't have time to type it all out right now, as I can assure you it will be quite long _______________ "Your powers are weak old man" || Part of the "Fifth Element Appreciation Society" || Proud possession of Flash [Jacen_Aratan] bleh [Jacen_Aratan] last year of school :p [Jacen_Aratan] after the finals I am freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [Jacen_Aratan] until I have to go on more advanced education [Jacen_Aratan] [Acey_Spadey] like kindergarten(Bubu) my sister was quite good actually.. never expected her to be so good (Gradius) yeah, she's great |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |