I personally do not support the gay way of life but that is my opinion. However I do not think a public display such as this one does any good. Besides as long as no one who lives that way tries to push it on me then fine. You live your way and I will live mine.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I thought the origional bible, or most of it was written in sanskrit or some other ancient arabic language. A greek version of the bible would be just as innacurate as an english copy. The truth of the matter is even in todays modern languages there is no clear cut 100% way to translate one language to another.
My position on any ancient text or foreign language is… hey I have a spirit which can be used to communicate directly with higher ups. Why would I read some book that has been morphed by 100 or more people over countless years on what the higher ups may have intended as a message for them only. Why don’t I just see what the “higher ups” think about my life and my path. then again, most people like to complicate things.
V
vegita:
Actually, the New Testament was first written in ancient Hebrew. This language while having only 30,000 characters got the message across quite well.
The reason that we can trust most of the interpretations of this ancient language is because there are a multitude of people who have dedicated their lives to bringing us the very best interpretations of these ancient words as possible. They are standouts in their field, just as the names "Staley, Poliquin, Waterbury, Berardi Thibadeau and many other great Coaches are standouts in their field.
In the Biblical world, people like:
James Barr Distinguished Professor of Hebrew BIble Emeritus, Vanderbilt University.
John Barton Oriel and Laing Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P. Professor Of New testament Ecole Biblque, Jerusalem.
There are far to many to name for the purposes of this post. Rest assured that there have been thousands of men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to ferret out the truth from the various ancient writings of antiquity.
They are indeed reliable. We look to these people just as we look to other profesionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and yes Strength Coach’s) to assist us with the things in life which we have neither the inclination nor time to unravel on our own.
The many thousands of high quality Biblical interpreters do indeed trump the all of the overnight web sites that have popped up over the past few years claiming superior knowledge. In short, they are a joke compared to the “real deal.”
You can have the highest degree of confidence when you pick up an NIV, or any of the credible (long standing) Bible interpretations that you are getting the real thing!
By all means read the Bible and draw your own conclusions. Do a search and delve into it. You will be surprised how that book has stood the test of time.
[/quote]
ZEB, you are truly coming out of left field. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, not Hebrew. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek for Diaspora Jews in the 3rd century BC. That version is called the Septuagint, referring to the 70 or so Jewish elders that did the translating. Be careful, ZEB, your lies and biases are showing through.
And most responsible Biblical scholars will tell you that no translation is “spot on”. There is always variation and misunderstanding. Christians think Jesus was born in December for that very reason. (It is more likely that he was born in April). You need to understand that most written material was being preserved in monasteries by monks with wildly varying language skills copying the texts over long hours by candlelight.
And not to put too fine a point on it, these monks had shall we say, a bit of a bias, depending on where they were from and what version of Christianity they followed.
You might want to read some of John Dominic Crossan’s work or that of L. M. White if you want some real information. Because you don’t know what you are talking about.
[quote]guerriere wrote:
ZEB, you are truly coming out of left field. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, not Hebrew. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek for Diaspora Jews in the 3rd century BC. That version is called the Septuagint, referring to the 70 or so Jewish elders that did the translating. Be careful, ZEB, your lies and biases are showing through.[/quote]
Lies? I don’t think there is any need for that sort of accusation. If we were having a face to face conversation would you call me a liar? I hope that would not be the case. No one is perfect and I am the least perfect person I know.
Actually, Jesus spoke Aramanic.
You are assuming that “most Christians think Jesus was born in December” because of Christmas. However, most understand that Jesus was probably not born in December, more likely it was October, but no one knows for sure.
And that is supposed to mean that they made a lot of errors? Most highly educated Senior Linguistic Interpreters speak several different languages. I don’t think they work by candlelight, but if they did I don’t see how that would make a difference.
All humans have “a bit of bias.” That does not mean that someone cannot do a good and accurate job of interpretation. What man whoever walked the earth is completly non-bias?
[quote]You might want to read some of John Dominic Crossan’s work or that of L. M. White if you want some real information. Because you don’t know what you are talking about.
[/quote]
I don’t much care for your style. And I have to disagree with you there. While I am far from a Bible scholar (and I think I have stated that 10 or 12 times) I do have a decent working knowledge of the Bible. At least enough to not attempt to twist word definition to fit a political agenda.
Take care,
Zeb
I have no idea who you were communicating with, but you have my attention now so I think I’ll respond (it might be fun:)
[quote]guerriere wrote:
Yes, we do know for sure if there are stable gay couples, the ones trying to get their relationships legally recognized, idiot. The people I know that have been in relationships for 10+ years, some for over twenty years. People who own homes, businesses, who have happy, well adjusted children and who have lived in their communites for years. How’s that for stable?[/quote]
Really, tell me how many stable gay couples are there? Tell us what percentage of the population are they? If 1% of the population is gay (I know you think it’s more so prove it and don’t use Kinsey that has been proven false) how many of that 1% is “stable” in your opinion? 1%? higher, lower? Should we rush to change the definition of marriage for this select group? I don’t think so. How do I say this? Don’t hold your breath!
Yes, I can tell you are a very “responsible professional.” Most responsible professionals come off as insulting punks on the Internet. Oh wait…I guess they don’t.
Could be he is concerned about the direction of his country. It has nothing to do with him caring about such things. By the way, more professional talk from a “responsible professional.” LOL
[quote]Why is it anybody’s business who anybody else sleeps with if nobody is being harmed? And if one is not Christian, Moslem, Jewish or any other religion, how the hell do the laws of that religion apply to them? Do you Christians feel compelled to pray to Mecca five times a day or go on the Hajj because someone from another religion does so? If you believe some behavior is wrong then don’t do it. And if thinking about the “homosexual act” makes you sick, why do you keep thinking about it, moron?
[/quote]
Honestly most “responsible professionals” I know usually call people “morons” on message boards. No wait that’s not the case…sorry 
Well, that’s simply wrong. would you like to take the anti-homosexual verses one by one and find out how wrong you are? Words had meaning 2000 years ago just as they have today! As a “responsible professional” you should know this.
“We’ll be done.” Okay, I know where you are coming from at least.
Fair treatment is already guaranteed under the law. (you are aware of this right?)
“oppression” LOL…Not hardly!
Black people were oppressed. Women at one time in history were oppressed. Bone up on your history …instead of other things…
What many Gays want is for the boundry’s of marriage to be expanded to include them. This won’t happen for several reasons.
All kidding aside, I hope you lose some of that anger that you are carrying around. Wow…
What many Gays want is for the boundry’s of marriage to be expanded to include them. This won’t happen for several reasons.
This is a problem in that Marriage is supposed to be a holy joining of a MAN AND A WOMAN as clearified in the Bible. If the gay community wants to have legally recognized UNIONS that is fine but please do not cheapen the meaning of marriage. I hope they never recognize a gay union as a marriage.
[quote]rich44 wrote:
What many Gays want is for the boundry’s of marriage to be expanded to include them. This won’t happen for several reasons.
This is a problem in that Marriage is supposed to be a holy joining of a MAN AND A WOMAN as clearified in the Bible. If the gay community wants to have legally recognized UNIONS that is fine but please do not cheapen the meaning of marriage. I hope they never recognize a gay union as a marriage.
[/quote]
How bout us goddless heathens…can we get married? or do we need to call it a Civil union?
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
rich44 wrote:
What many Gays want is for the boundry’s of marriage to be expanded to include them. This won’t happen for several reasons.
This is a problem in that Marriage is supposed to be a holy joining of a MAN AND A WOMAN as clearified in the Bible. If the gay community wants to have legally recognized UNIONS that is fine but please do not cheapen the meaning of marriage. I hope they never recognize a gay union as a marriage.
How bout us goddless heathens…can we get married? or do we need to call it a Civil union?
[/quote]
As long as it is a man and woman getting married and not a man and a man then fine. You do not have to believe in God to get married. So have at it.
[quote]rich44 wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
rich44 wrote:
What many Gays want is for the boundry’s of marriage to be expanded to include them. This won’t happen for several reasons.
This is a problem in that Marriage is supposed to be a holy joining of a MAN AND A WOMAN as clearified in the Bible. If the gay community wants to have legally recognized UNIONS that is fine but please do not cheapen the meaning of marriage. I hope they never recognize a gay union as a marriage.
How bout us goddless heathens…can we get married? or do we need to call it a Civil union?
As long as it is a man and woman getting married and not a man and a man then fine. You do not have to believe in God to get married. So have at it.
[/quote]
Rich, you do know that A) not everone in this country feels bound by any particular holy book and B) we still aren’t a theocracy?
We are guaranteed freedom of religion, right? So if my religion says it’s okay for men to marry men and women to marry women, why do I care what your particular religious view is on the subject? How exactly does your belief become my problem? It’s not like the queers are trying to make you divorce your wife and marry a man.
It’s not hurting your or your wallet, so what is your beef, really? And please, whould somebody explain how exactly gay marriage cheapens hetero marriage? People keep saying that but no one has anything approaching an intelligent explanation.
I’m all a-twitter with anticipation…
[quote]guerriere wrote:
do know that A) not everone in this country feels bound by any particular holy book and B) we still aren’t a theocracy?[/quote]
True, thanks to our founding fathers (very wise men).
The problem is not one of religion as much as it has been debated as such. The problem is of a “societal” nature. Either the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman or it’s not. If it’s not then the boundaries can literally be driven to extremes using the same argument as the powerful Gay lobby uses: “We must be accepting of different lifestyles.”
Then Polygamy, (We all love each other and demand the same rights that a “couple” has); bestiality (hey it’s my dog and I want to marry him), incest (my sister and I really love each other what right does society have to prevent us from getting married).
What would be the rational for stretching the boundaries of marriage for one group, yet denying that same right for other groups?
[quote]It’s not hurting your or your wallet, so what is your beef, really? And please, whould somebody explain how exactly gay marriage cheapens hetero marriage? People keep saying that but no one has anything approaching an intelligent explanation.
I’m all a-twitter with anticipation…[/quote]
It may very well hurt “my wallet.” A married Gay couple would be entitled to the same financial benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Where does that money come from, the tooth fairy? However, that is not my primary concern.
Above and beyond this, as I have stated on prior occasions; it is a societal problem. See the above potential descriptions of marriage. How can you deny the rights of these people? Are they not entitled to happiness too? Tell me, where does it end? And please don’t tell me that it would not lead to other things. We do not live in a vacuum, “things” always lead to other “things.”
If the definition of marriage can be changed once after 5000 years of history why then can’t it be changed again and again and again?
[quote]guerriere wrote:
JeffR wrote:
marmadogg wrote:
“They ALL vote Republican.”
Most people do.
JeffR
No only half the people do. 51% is really only half. Republicans can’t count.[/quote]
51% is more than half. 51% is a majority. 51% is most.
It looks like you are the one that can’t count.