Dealing With Gay Divorce (or not)

[prophet]

You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:

Your desperation is obvious. While you may feel that you are uneducated and ignorant, I did not say so.

I also do not hate the KJVO.

I concisely challenged your wrong, private interpretation. You rely on anachronisms. The Holy Spirit does not teach people to rely on anachronisms.

You used the phrase 'You don't understand' 3 times.  You used the phrase 'anachronistic twisting', and told me to 'google it'. 
  Like I said, you hate the 'KJO' so much (you misquoted me), that you are blind to your own condescencion.  You assume that your private interpretation of whatever scripture you hold to is correct, and that the plain English wording in the Authorized Version can't really mean what it says.  You are adding  a sexual theme to the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' which is a stretch at best, straining at a gnat.  You swallow a camel in Romans 1, which clearly damns homosexual reprobates.
  I'm insisting, show how that Romans 1 teaches anything other than God's rejection of homosexuality, without dancing between languages in rederence to 1 Cor. 6. 
  Thank You.

Anishinabe

I am rather curious why you would believe no one today knows what a Greek manuscript of Romans actually says, and yet you believe the kjV translators KNEW PERFECTLY what it said? Do you really think 400 years makes that much difference?

By the way, if you're going to claim that the KJV is perfect and better than any other translation.... in an attempt to prove your point about homosexuals..... then you should realize that you've "hinged" your belief on the kjV.... thus, you shouldn't complain when someone tries to hang the "door straight" by removing your crooked "hing".

Don't touch my 'hing' 

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:

Your desperation is obvious. While you may feel that you are uneducated and ignorant, I did not say so.

I also do not hate the KJVO.

I concisely challenged your wrong, private interpretation. You rely on anachronisms. The Holy Spirit does not teach people to rely on anachronisms.

You used the phrase 'You don't understand' 3 times.  You used the phrase 'anachronistic twisting', and told me to 'google it'. 
  Like I said, you hate the 'KJO' so much (you misquoted me), that you are blind to your own condescencion.  You assume that your private interpretation of whatever scripture you hold to is correct, and that the plain English wording in the Authorized Version can't really mean what it says.  You are adding  a sexual theme to the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' which is a stretch at best, straining at a gnat.  You swallow a camel in Romans 1, which clearly damns homosexual reprobates.
  I'm insisting, show how that Romans 1 teaches anything other than God's rejection of homosexuality, without dancing between languages in rederence to 1 Cor. 6. 
  Thank You.

Anishinabe

I am rather curious why you would believe no one today knows what a Greek manuscript of Romans actually says, and yet you believe the kjV translators KNEW PERFECTLY what it said? Do you really think 400 years makes that much difference?

By the way, if you're going to claim that the KJV is perfect and better than any other translation.... in an attempt to prove your point about homosexuals..... then you should realize that you've "hinged" your belief on the kjV.... thus, you shouldn't complain when someone tries to hang the "door straight" by removing your crooked "hing".

But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.

Anishinabe

 

[christundivided]

When did that "tongue" die? Did it die before "1611"?

Just trying to make you be consistent. Demand the same thing of the KJV you demand for other translations.

 

[prophet]

When did that "tongue" die? Did it die before "1611"?

Just trying to make you be consistent. Demand the same thing of the KJV you demand for other translations.

3rd Century. 

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.

Anishinabe[/quote]

Yay for completely random verses that have nothing to do with the topic!

 

[prophet]

Exactly. He cannot have his opinions challenged on any level.



The prophet shows he does not understand elementary logic nor 1611 KJV English.

Once again, you are belittling me, in the same manner which you have all thread.  Still waiting for your take on the OP.  This is not to be confused with your take on my take.  I dont care what you think of me, put up your thoughts on the looming gay marriage/divorce issue, and how the NT church should deal with it.
 
Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.
Anishinabe

I disagree with your use of Scripture... but since this is your logic, why use a KJV? It is a dead tongue, filled with archaisms and sentence structures that challenge even you.

You reject 1 Corinthians 6 on the basis that it does not use a modern English word for "homosexual" and YET, as Ransom pointed out, your Romans 1 does not use the word either.

Your absurdity has show that you do not understand the language of the version you so adamantly defend. Why defend the KJV when you don't even understand it and are willing to misuse it as you did by quoting "tongues shall cease."?

 

[FSSL]

Once again, you are belittling me, in the same manner which you have all thread.

I belittle your false logic, not you.

Still waiting for your take on the OP.

I have clearly given my take and you rejected it and initially, here. You have created a rabbit trail to obfuscate the thread.

 

[prophet]

Never mind.  I forgot that you have 2 ID's.  I just reread your first post, where you did, in fact , give your take. 
  I would like to discuss further, in a civil manner, the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind'.
  I have stated that, based on they way homosexuality is addressed elsewhere in the scriptures, I Cor 6:9 doesn't fit the mold.  It is missing the plain language that implies transgression of a sexual nature. 
  Can you address this?  Why would you assume this was a reference to Sodomy?  And why the current culture of self abuse, very present in this generation as well as 1st century Empirical Rome, wouldn't qualify.  Thank you.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Ok ,now we are getting somewhere.

The plain language in Romans 1 is not the idiomatic 'men with men',  but rather the axiomatic phrase prior to it: 'leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another'. 
  I simply don't see this kind of plain obvious sexual reference, in 1 Cor.6:9
Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Because you want to isolate any linguistic evidence to the contrary.

You don't know or like Greek. We get it. However, when you also refuse to see the sexual implications in the 1611 usage of the English word "abuse," you reveal a bias that leads to absurd notions.

The 2013 word 'abuse' is the same as the 1611 word 'abuse', it means to use wrongly.  Drug abuse is using drugs for entertainment, rather than medicine  for example.  Abuse is not a moral term, it is amoral, until paired with its subject.  Abusers of themselves is a generic reference to a much broader spectrum of activities than simply 'wrong use of sex'. The action is directed inward first...abusing 'themselves'.  It is then shared, as in a group participation : 'with mankind'  ie with others who also abuse themselves.  Such would have covered the popular Culture of 1st Century Rome very well.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

 

[prophet]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 
  You claim that 'they' understood the phrase to mean homosexuality...but 'they' used unmistakeably plain descriptive terms in the other passages describing homosexual behaviour.  1Cor. 6:9 is a reference to a much broader range then just Sodomy.
  I listed some specifics in my last post.  Try addressing them, without throwing one of your hissy fits.  And quit projecting some commentators gay agenda into the wording in the passage.  I mean some 'teachers' like a Catholic Priest, who happens to be a Sodomite, may really want to find some way to insert some defense of themselves into this passage...because it specifically lists sins people have been washed from.  But no one can be washed fron reprobacy, it is a final state, by defenition.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

What is really odd in the whole conversation is that someone living in the first century would have been completely baffled by our modern concept of sexual orientation. 

 

[christundivided]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 

Yet, you have no proof that God divinely intervened. All you have is your own opinion that you've presenting as God's own action. Don't you believe that saying God did such and such.... when God didn't.... is just as bad as saying God didn't do such and such... when He did? In fact, sometimes, its worse.

I see that you ignored my posting detailing why you're wrong about Romans 1 in the KJV. Care to respond?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really.  [/quote]

Then what do you do about the obvious errors in the KJV?

 

[FSSL]

KJVOs make a big deal out of modern versions like the NIV exchanging the term "Sodomite" with "male temple prostitutes." See this and here. They want us to believe that the modern versions soften the sin.

Here we have a KJVO refusing to see the sin of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6 in the KJV.

Hence the start of my new thread...

 

[prophet]

But no one can be washed fron reprobacy, it is a final state, by defenition.

Anishinabe

A person who has these obvious difficulties with the 2013 English language is hard pressed to convince the rest of us what 1611 English meant.

Your opinions lack logical integrity, lexical support and historical fact.

What obvious difficulties, that I typoed on that post?  So does everyone, once in a while.  I know I spelled from, and definition wrong, I didn't do it out of ignorance.  You really are petty.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 

Then what do you do about the obvious errors in the KJV?
[/quote]I ignore them.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.

Anishinabe

Yay for completely random verses that have nothing to do with the topic!
[/quote]Tongues shall cease, refering to one that ceased, is somehow off topic?

Anishinabe