NATIONAL SECURITY Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

And that is the reason why I decided to be an atheist instead. I was told growing up that "God loves everyone" and then I opened the bible and it was: except for this long list of people...  Why believe in someone who keeps contradicting himself? Or at least the interpretation of the bible is contradicting. 

 

If she doesn't want to make money off of it I guess she can say no. 

 

But no, you can't always refuse to do something because your religion is against it. 

 

 

 

   Growing up, my friends father (who was a pastor) was fond of saying to remember that men wrote the bible, not God. The letter of the law is not as important as the spirit of the law.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

14 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

You aren't the only one who memorized scripture and won awards for it. But that is beside the point, because memorization does not equal understanding. I was highly active in the church, have read the bible completely through multiple times (in several translations, including KJV), and studied the bible in university before I rejected these beliefs. I also went to a Christian high school where we were required to learn the KJV, and had weekly tests of memorized verses. You assumed I would not have knowledge of scripture equal to yours without knowing a single thing about me. 

 

And I use the NIV when quoting scripture simply for its readability. KJV has inaccuracies - that is just a fact. The translators in 1611 (and the later revisions) did not have adequate knowledge of Koine Greek. Now, the NIV and any other translation will have inaccuracies too because translations of ancient and unused languages cannot be perfect, but we certainly have a better understanding today of the ancient manuscripts than in the 1600s & 1700s. And, when conversing about scripture, I think it's silly in the modern day to say "Judge not, that ye be not judged" instead of "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Using KJV as the default makes it harder for modern readers to comprehend, as 99% of people aren't particularly familiar with the unique not-quite-Elizabethan English that the KJV is written in. 

Proverbs 25:24 (ASV) It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, Than with a contentious woman in a wide house.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the bible suggests that you can't bake a cake for a same sex marriage. We seem to always end up with a lot of interpolation based on personal beliefs when it comes to scripture. 

I dont think it is so much important what it says, as much as what the couple felt violated their core beliefs. Like I said I would hate to be the judge that had to decide that case. Strong arguments on both sides 

[beloved_dingo 1,982]

22 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Proverbs 25:24 (ASV) It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, Than with a contentious woman in a wide house.

I don't mind having the house to myself. 

[yuna628 9,700]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

   Growing up, my friends father (who was a pastor) was fond of saying to remember that men wrote the bible, not God. The letter of the law is not as important as the spirit of the law.

That... well kinda all depends. I'm giggling a little bit here observing a debate about who can memorize bible passages more... when that has nothing to do with, well anything really. Law is law, and it's multiple aspects are very critical to some believers. I say some, not all believers, because we live in a days where churches conveniently omit certain concepts to keep an ever decreasing flock coming in. Warm and fuzzy Christianity is no better than a radical anti-everything one.

 

When it comes to Yeshua, everyone likes to quote Him and then put their own spin on how He would treat people in our current day. The truth is, we need to look at the proper context. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law (to make it whole). As a Jewish man of His era, He followed all the laws (to the letter) but also highlighted that one should not lose (the spirit). Now back in those times the Law was important to every Jewish person's life - it was the foundation of everything. That included passages regarding homosexuality which the word itself did not show up in modern translations of the Bible until the late 1940s. The passages regarding the homosexuality are very few in number and some do not imply really what some might say they do as you have to look at the historical context and not strictly at face value, then you need to look extremely closely at the translation. This is often the problem with taking a verse at literal face value - and our churches today do not provide historical context to those wishing to know more on a deeper level. It does matter that the Bible was put together by men over a very varied timeframe, but it matters more that people get the context right. That hasn't happened for centuries, and it won't be happening any time soon. It would be wrong to imply that Yeshua did not follow the Law as any other Jewish man of his time would regarding traditional views of love, sex, and marriage. It would also be wrong to say that He did not show compassion to those who sinned or challenged the Rabbis in areas He knew they were incorrectly applying the both the letter and the spirit of the Law.

[TBoneTX 45,961]

4 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

tax collectors and sinners

Some people wouldn't perceive much distinction.  

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

If it was part of her job, the Hospital was correct in not hiring her. Generally speaking your rights end where mine start.  Forcing a church to marry Gays is very clearly wrong.

 

The wedding cake for the gay couple has a whole lot more gray area and I would hate to decide 

So then how come some churches are completely fine with it considering God supposedly loves everyone and some don't because the bible says so?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, beloved_dingo said:

You aren't the only one who memorized scripture and won awards for it. But that is beside the point, because memorization does not equal understanding. I was highly active in the church, have read the bible completely through multiple times (in several translations, including KJV), and studied the bible in university before I rejected these beliefs. I also went to a Christian high school where we were required to learn the KJV, and had weekly tests of memorized verses. You assumed I would not have knowledge of scripture equal to yours without knowing a single thing about me. 

 

And I use the NIV when quoting scripture simply for its readability. KJV has inaccuracies - that is just a fact. The translators in 1611 (and the later revisions) did not have adequate knowledge of Koine Greek. Now, the NIV and any other translation will have inaccuracies too because translations of ancient and unused languages cannot be perfect, but we certainly have a better understanding today of the ancient manuscripts than in the 1600s & 1700s. And, when conversing about scripture, I think it's silly in the modern day to say "Judge not, that ye be not judged" instead of "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Using KJV as the default makes it harder for modern readers to comprehend, as 99% of people aren't particularly familiar with the unique not-quite-Elizabethan English that the KJV is written in. 

I assumed NOTHING about you, because I know ye not.  I simply responded to your snarky post. 

 

If you prefer the NIV, more power to ya.  As long as the same meaning is there, the words shouldn't matter so much. I was simply pointing out that your quotes were not what I learned.  If the NIV was like that 30 years ago, then that's where the disparity comes from.

 

As to understanding the KJV, I think your statement is inaccurate.  I had no issues understanding it as a child, I'm sure anyone with more than an 8th grade education can figure it out.   

 

As to the inaccuracies, I am certain NO modern interpretation of the original bible is quite spot on.  

 

But hey, let's get back on topic, shall we?

[yuna628 9,700]

3 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

So then how come some churches are completely fine with it considering God supposedly loves everyone and some don't because the bible says so?

What do you mean exactly by ''some churches are fine with it'' though? There are many churches (a few mega churches) that claim to be inclusive of LGBT under the guise of ''loving everyone''. Under it all is 'code language' where the main principles against homosexuality are still at work. I had that debate actually with a dear friend of mine that's an Anglican priest and youth outreach minister. His church is, as he says ''inclusive'' but once you get down to the bottom of things, his (and his church) thinking in the matter is - ''it's okay to be gay, as long as you aren't 'practicing''. Because the 'practicing' part is the sin. All male-male and female-female relationships apparently need to be in the construct of ''look but don't touch". It was an absurdity to me, but that's a similar view I found in a lot of ''warm and fuzzy' churches these days. With the exception of the Episcopal church and a few others I don't know of too many here that don't offer support on one side that isn't patronizing. Why would one church be totally fine with it compared to another? It all depends on their interpretation of Christianity and inner politics.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

2 hours ago, Unidentified said:

So then how come some churches are completely fine with it considering God supposedly loves everyone and some don't because the bible says so?

Because different Churches have different beliefs. If a church wants to it , fine by me. If they dont want to it is their right. 

 

Its really that simple 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 2/22/2019 at 9:51 AM, beloved_dingo said:

How lucky we are to have you here as an expert to let us know which Bible verses should be ignored and which ones we should gladly cling to for justification of bigotry! 

 

Also I don't know where you get this "changed a lot in the last 30 years" from, NIV translation has existed since the 70's and is a lot less garbage than the King James version that so many churches still hold on to despite its woeful inaccuracies. 

 

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the Bible isn't infallible though.

Here's a couple of examples for you.  

 

 

Like most all religions, one has choices about what to hold true to their faith and model their lives by.

[beloved_dingo 1,982]

4 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Here's a couple of examples for you.  

 

 

Like most all religions, one has choices about what to hold true to their faith and model their lives by.

Don't know why you are bringing this up again but here you go:

 

Regarding Luke 9:56 - The phrase is omitted in versions where the committee of experts behind the translation determined that those words were most likely not in the original text of Luke. In this particular case, the evidence that these words were not original is very strong, though not completely overwhelming. The shorter version is found in both extant Papyrus texts (P45 and P75, dated circa 250 and 200 CE) and the four oldest bibles (Vaticanus, Sanaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, 4th and 5th century). Although later documents are more split (with some containing the extraneous phrases and some not), such complete agreement among all our early texts is very strong evidence that the original text would not have had the additional words. Codex Bezae (around 400) has a unique reading with half of the longer version. Codex Bezae has a lot of unusual readings, and is usually considered somewhat unreliable. There are some early Latin and Syriac documents with the longer reading. In fact, the vast majority of Latin manuscripts (rather than the earlier Greek) have the longer reading, which explains how the additional phrases are included in the KJV. Further info can be found here: http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay07luk.htm

 

Why Is Matthew 18:11 Missing?

The verse is missing from some translations of the Bible because the passage does not actually appear in the best early Greek manuscripts which contain Matthew. It is important to remember that the New Testament was written in Greek. These original documents called “autographs” were copied and passed from one person to another. In the process of making copies, errors would occur sometimes. Sometimes words were misspelled, words were left out, and on rare occasions, some copyists would insert some words. Today there are more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in our possession. In addition there are other manuscripts of the New Testament making the total 24,633 manuscripts. By using a process called textual criticism scholars have been able to determine very accurately how the original “autographs” should read.

 

However, this verse IS still present in the NIV translation in Luke 19:10 - "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

 

tl;dr just because you like the words better doesn't make it more accurate.

 

You are free to have your opinion but it's not going to sway mine. *shrugs*

[beloved_dingo 1,982]

Additional note: The KJV mentions unicorns in 9 different bible verses. Now, this translation isn't wrong, but it loses context because what we think of a unicorn today is not what it would have meant in the context of ancient Greek/Latin. Obviously, today a unicorn is a mythical creature that does not exist, but in latin (unicornium, unicornis) the term would actually be referring to a real horned animal - like a rhinoceros or an ox. Modern translations have corrected this to reflect the intended meaning, rather than a literal translation that misses the mark.

 

The verses in question are as follows:

 

Numbers 23:22  - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”

Numbers 24:8  -  “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”

Job 39:9  - “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”

Job 39:10  - “Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”

Psalms 29:6  -  “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”

Psalms 92:10  -  “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Deuteronomy 33:17  -  “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

Psalms 22:21 -  “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”

Isaiah 34:7  -  “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

30 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

Don't know why you are bringing this up again but here you go:

 

Regarding Luke 9:56 - The phrase is omitted in versions where the committee of experts behind the translation determined that those words were most likely not in the original text of Luke. In this particular case, the evidence that these words were not original is very strong, though not completely overwhelming. The shorter version is found in both extant Papyrus texts (P45 and P75, dated circa 250 and 200 CE) and the four oldest bibles (Vaticanus, Sanaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, 4th and 5th century). Although later documents are more split (with some containing the extraneous phrases and some not), such complete agreement among all our early texts is very strong evidence that the original text would not have had the additional words. Codex Bezae (around 400) has a unique reading with half of the longer version. Codex Bezae has a lot of unusual readings, and is usually considered somewhat unreliable. There are some early Latin and Syriac documents with the longer reading. In fact, the vast majority of Latin manuscripts (rather than the earlier Greek) have the longer reading, which explains how the additional phrases are included in the KJV. Further info can be found here: http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay07luk.htm

 

Why Is Matthew 18:11 Missing?

The verse is missing from some translations of the Bible because the passage does not actually appear in the best early Greek manuscripts which contain Matthew. It is important to remember that the New Testament was written in Greek. These original documents called “autographs” were copied and passed from one person to another. In the process of making copies, errors would occur sometimes. Sometimes words were misspelled, words were left out, and on rare occasions, some copyists would insert some words. Today there are more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in our possession. In addition there are other manuscripts of the New Testament making the total 24,633 manuscripts. By using a process called textual criticism scholars have been able to determine very accurately how the original “autographs” should read.

 

However, this verse IS still present in the NIV translation in Luke 19:10 - "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

 

tl;dr just because you like the words better doesn't make it more accurate.

 

You are free to have your opinion but it's not going to sway mine. *shrugs*

I totally disagree respectfully 

[yuna628 9,700]

32 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I totally disagree respectfully 

In what way do you disagree though? The original text? Who put it together? Or just the translation? The average person is not going to do a deep dive into their bibles and understand how it came to be or know the actual language and many different meanings in the translation.. so they just accept whatever they are taught (which in general is just face value stuff...and omitted of the real meaty stuff). The poster is not incorrect about what they have typed, though I would differ over what offers the 'best' translation.