Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

[christundivided]

Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?

You really should study the etymology of "sodomy". "Sodomy" has its roots in  the Latin "Sodoma". "Sodoma" has a long history that dates back hundreds of years and has always meant the same. While it is correct that the KJV made a mistake. You can not say that "sodimite" is a "misnomer". Have you ever read Jude 7?

While your appeal to the "true" sin of Sodom is clearly telling concerning your "end game". It is clear from Jude 7 that the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" engaged in "fornication" and going after "strange flesh". Or as the ISV puts it. "Homosexual acts." The writer of Jude clearly says this is why they suffered "vengeance of eternal fire" (KJV).

Maybe you should a little more thought to the issue. I know you're looking to excuse "sodomy".... But you really shouldn't.

 

[Izdaari]

Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?

You really should study the etymology of "sodomy". "Sodomy" has its roots in  the Latin "Sodoma". "Sodoma" has a long history that dates back hundreds of years and has always meant the same. While it is correct that the KJV made a mistake. You can not say that "sodimite" is a "misnomer". Have you ever read Jude 7?

While your appeal to the "true" sin of Sodom is clearly telling concerning your "end game". It is clear from Jude 7 that the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" engaged in "fornication" and going after "strange flesh". Or as the ISV puts it. "Homosexual acts." The writer of Jude clearly says this is why they suffered "vengeance of eternal fire" (KJV).

Maybe you should a little more thought to the issue. I know you're looking to excuse "sodomy".... But you really shouldn't.

I'm not too interested in the Latin etymology, because it will all be traditions of men and maybe the Catholic Church... though admittedly it may have found its way into the KJV from those sources. I'm more interested in its Hebrew origins, since that's the language the OT is in.

Yes, I've read Jude, and I know that passage. Have you read the relevant portions of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel? Because it's interesting how many people here ignore or minimize the three great prophets of the OT and their opinions on the matter. I'm just saying we need to take their testimony into account and not brush these three witnesses under the rug in favor of the one witness you prefer.

You think you know where I'm going, but I think you don't know me very well at all. My agenda is just wanting honest, complete understanding of the Scriptures... wherever it may lead. I don't always like where Scripture takes me, but I want to know the Author's intent.

 

[christundivided]

Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?

You really should study the etymology of "sodomy". "Sodomy" has its roots in  the Latin "Sodoma". "Sodoma" has a long history that dates back hundreds of years and has always meant the same. While it is correct that the KJV made a mistake. You can not say that "sodimite" is a "misnomer". Have you ever read Jude 7?

While your appeal to the "true" sin of Sodom is clearly telling concerning your "end game". It is clear from Jude 7 that the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" engaged in "fornication" and going after "strange flesh". Or as the ISV puts it. "Homosexual acts." The writer of Jude clearly says this is why they suffered "vengeance of eternal fire" (KJV).

Maybe you should a little more thought to the issue. I know you're looking to excuse "sodomy".... But you really shouldn't.

I'm not too interested in the Latin etymology, because it will all be traditions of men and maybe the Catholic Church... though admittedly it may have found its way into the KJV from those sources. I'm more interested in its Hebrew origins, since that's the language the OT is in.

Yes, I've read Jude, and I know that passage. Have you read the relevant portions of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel? Because it's interesting how many people here ignore or minimize the three great prophets of the OT and their opinions on the matter. I'm just saying we need to take their testimony into account and not brush these three witnesses under the rug in favor of the one witness you prefer.

You think you know where I'm going, but I think you don't know me very well at all. My agenda is just wanting honest, complete understanding of the Scriptures... wherever it may lead. I don't always like where Scripture takes me, but I want to know the Author's intent.

Do you or do you not support gay marriage? Simple question. Simple answer. I do know the Episcopal church recently approved "same sex blessings".

Many of the nuances of the Hebrew language have been lost to history. For example, John Gill mentions Solomon Ben Isaac Jarchi in his commentary concerning Deut 23:17. Jarchi was a master of the Talmud and Gemara.  Jarchi clearly translated the verse to mean " one that is prepared to lie with a male, that prostitutes his body in this unnatural way". Personally, I don't know either way. I don't think anyone does. What I do know is early Greek and Latin. The Greek and Latin languages have done much to fill in those things lost to Hebrew history.

I'm not trying to exclude the 3 prophets. I am trying to include all of the witnesses. One of those witnesses is Jude 7. Its is a clear witness. Its easily understood. No questions to ask. That witness includes the sin of "sodomy".

Why do you seek to exclude Jude 7? Its is plausible and acceptable to include its witness. Taken together with all the other witnesses. (Which include the long historical meaning of "sodoma".).... I think you get the picture.....

 

[Izdaari]

Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?

You really should study the etymology of "sodomy". "Sodomy" has its roots in  the Latin "Sodoma". "Sodoma" has a long history that dates back hundreds of years and has always meant the same. While it is correct that the KJV made a mistake. You can not say that "sodimite" is a "misnomer". Have you ever read Jude 7?

While your appeal to the "true" sin of Sodom is clearly telling concerning your "end game". It is clear from Jude 7 that the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" engaged in "fornication" and going after "strange flesh". Or as the ISV puts it. "Homosexual acts." The writer of Jude clearly says this is why they suffered "vengeance of eternal fire" (KJV).

Maybe you should a little more thought to the issue. I know you're looking to excuse "sodomy".... But you really shouldn't.

I'm not too interested in the Latin etymology, because it will all be traditions of men and maybe the Catholic Church... though admittedly it may have found its way into the KJV from those sources. I'm more interested in its Hebrew origins, since that's the language the OT is in.

Yes, I've read Jude, and I know that passage. Have you read the relevant portions of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel? Because it's interesting how many people here ignore or minimize the three great prophets of the OT and their opinions on the matter. I'm just saying we need to take their testimony into account and not brush these three witnesses under the rug in favor of the one witness you prefer.

You think you know where I'm going, but I think you don't know me very well at all. My agenda is just wanting honest, complete understanding of the Scriptures... wherever it may lead. I don't always like where Scripture takes me, but I want to know the Author's intent.

Do you or do you not support gay marriage? Simple question. Simple answer. I do know the Episcopal church recently approved "same sex blessings".

I support it as a political question, a matter of equal protection under the law. I will vote to affirm WA's same sex marriage law in November. I'm a libertarian, and I believe in separation of church and state. Accordingly, I don't support making anyone's (including my own) religious laws the law of the land.

But theologically? I really don't know. I'd say I'm neutral on the subject and open to all the evidence, and I'm not excluding Jude. But the three great prophets do carry more weight with me. We know who they are and they have huge reputations. We don't really know who wrote Jude.

Yes, the Episcopal denomination recently approved a same sex blessing ceremony. But they don't require that any church use it, they just made it available. I don't have a strong objection, else I wouldn't have joined knowing that was probably coming.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

"We don't really know who wrote Jude."

Really?  We do have a good idea that he is the half-brother of Jesus.  He says he is the brother of James.  Granted, he could be the apostle, but he doesn't claim that for himself.  Granted, we don't know of a certainty.  What we do know is that it is in the accepted canon, by your church as well.  Furthermore, there are a lot of books of which we don't know the author for sure.  Hebrews comes to mind.  Do you give greater weight to scripture that is from books of which we are almost certain of whom the author is?  I hate to break it to you, but a great number of modern theologians don't think Isaiah wrote the entire book.

Finally, Jude and the 3 prophets all tell us different reasons why Sodom was destroyed.  You can't deny what Jude says about it.  Do you disregard the birth of Jesus since Mark doesn't address it at all in his gospel, which is said to be the oldest gospel by many?  The bible is a great book that has to be compared with all the scriptures that mention Sodom, not just the ones you want to hear, no offense.  I believe the people of Sodom were guilty of all the sins mentioned in all the books.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

thethinkingrebel wrote: "What I dislike about the KJV is that its unintelligible, and that's not because of archaic language, but because most of it was so badly translated."

Really?  So you don't have any problem with the mss used, just their translations of the mss?

And what leads you to think they totally blew the translation?  Are you proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as well as Latin?

Let me define unintelligible: not capable of being understood.  Your statement that the KJV is not capable of being understood is ridiculous, begging your pardon.  Good thing all you critics weren't around when I got saved or you might have talked me out of it since it is such a bad book.  NOT  I didn't have a problem understanding it at all when I got saved.  Imagine that.  The fact is that no one would understand any version of God's word were it not for the Holy Spirit giving us the faith to do so. 

 

[Izdaari]

I believe the people of Sodom were guilty of all the sins mentioned in all the books.

Probably they were, given that ten righteous people could not be found in the city to save it. There probably wasn't much of anything they weren't guilty of.

 

[christundivided]

Aside from what redgreen explained about the Hebrew roots, "sodomite" is still a misnomer. It's popularly thought to refer to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah for which they were destroyed, right? Well, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel all talk about the reasons those cities were destroyed... and surprise, they hardly even mention any kind of sexual sin! Instead they focus on social injustice and corruption, lack of hospitality to strangers, lack of charity to the poor, etc. Well, I guess those things are the real sins of Sodom! Because if you can't believe the three greatest prophets of the OT, who can you believe?

You really should study the etymology of "sodomy". "Sodomy" has its roots in  the Latin "Sodoma". "Sodoma" has a long history that dates back hundreds of years and has always meant the same. While it is correct that the KJV made a mistake. You can not say that "sodimite" is a "misnomer". Have you ever read Jude 7?

While your appeal to the "true" sin of Sodom is clearly telling concerning your "end game". It is clear from Jude 7 that the people of "Sodom and Gomorrah" engaged in "fornication" and going after "strange flesh". Or as the ISV puts it. "Homosexual acts." The writer of Jude clearly says this is why they suffered "vengeance of eternal fire" (KJV).

Maybe you should a little more thought to the issue. I know you're looking to excuse "sodomy".... But you really shouldn't.

I'm not too interested in the Latin etymology, because it will all be traditions of men and maybe the Catholic Church... though admittedly it may have found its way into the KJV from those sources. I'm more interested in its Hebrew origins, since that's the language the OT is in.

Yes, I've read Jude, and I know that passage. Have you read the relevant portions of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel? Because it's interesting how many people here ignore or minimize the three great prophets of the OT and their opinions on the matter. I'm just saying we need to take their testimony into account and not brush these three witnesses under the rug in favor of the one witness you prefer.

You think you know where I'm going, but I think you don't know me very well at all. My agenda is just wanting honest, complete understanding of the Scriptures... wherever it may lead. I don't always like where Scripture takes me, but I want to know the Author's intent.

Do you or do you not support gay marriage? Simple question. Simple answer. I do know the Episcopal church recently approved "same sex blessings".

I support it as a political question, a matter of equal protection under the law. I will vote to affirm WA's same sex marriage law in November. I'm a libertarian, and I believe in separation of church and state. Accordingly, I don't support making anyone's (including my own) religious laws the law of the land.

But theologically? I really don't know. I'd say I'm neutral on the subject and open to all the evidence, and I'm not excluding Jude. But the three great prophets do carry more weight with me. We know who they are and they have huge reputations. We don't really know who wrote Jude.

Yes, the Episcopal denomination recently approved a same sex blessing ceremony. But they don't require that any church use it, they just made it available. I don't have a strong objection, else I wouldn't have joined knowing that was probably coming.

The very fact you say "theologically? I really don't know" is proof your politics has affected your theology. It kinda ironic that you are libertarian that doesn't want your theology to affect your view of government but you certain will let you governmental views affect your theology. I'd say its rather telling.

Its also ironic that you would question the canonical status of Jude. Did you know that the book of Enoch clearly relates the sin of Sodom as being homosexuality? As well several other external sources?

Theologically, we take ALL THE EVIDENCE and draw a conclusion. Its is rather clear from the evidence.... that part of Sodom's sin was the practice of homosexuality. Personally, I have never known a homosexual that wasn't deviant. In other words.... he just didn't have a problem with wanting to have sex with another man. You show me a person that is actively practicing a homosexual lifestyle and you'll also see a person that cares little about ethics and morality. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind. (I'm not talking about bisexuals. Which I believe most are).

UNLESS and that is a BIG UNLESS..... it has something to do with their own agenda. THEN they will pretend they care about "charity" or the good of their fellow man. I even read today that Elton John now likes George Bush because he has done a lot to help AIDS victims. Talk about self serving.....

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]The very fact you say "theologically? I really don't know" is proof your politics has affected your theology. It kinda ironic that you are libertarian that doesn't want your theology to affect your view of government but you certain will let you governmental views affect your theology. I'd say its rather telling. [/quote]

Yes...it is tell. Izzy strives to be honest with herself and recognizes that we don't have all the answers. Instead of accepting the status quo, she fights and wrestles with certain issues until she can come to a piece of mind about what she believes and why. And for that transparency, she gets slammed...a real sense of Christian community I see active with that approach.

(And this from someone (i.e. me) who believes that the only definition of marriage that makes sense theologically is 1 man/1 woman who also thinks that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful.)

[quote author=christundivided]Its also ironic that you would question the canonical status of Jude. Did you know that the book of Enoch clearly relates the sin of Sodom as being homosexuality? As well several other external sources? [/quote]

I don't recall her questioning the canonicity of Jude. Care to show me where?

[quote author=christundivided]Theologically, we take ALL THE EVIDENCE and draw a conclusion. Its is rather clear from the evidence.... that part of Sodom's sin was the practice of homosexuality. Personally, I have never known a homosexual that wasn't deviant. In other words.... he just didn't have a problem with wanting to have sex with another man. You show me a person that is actively practicing a homosexual lifestyle and you'll also see a person that cares little about ethics and morality. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind. (I'm not talking about bisexuals. Which I believe most are).

UNLESS and that is a BIG UNLESS..... it has something to do with their own agenda. THEN they will pretend they care about "charity" or the good of their fellow man. I even read today that Elton John now likes George Bush because he has done a lot to help AIDS victims. Talk about self serving..... [/quote]

Would you like a wider brush?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The very fact you say "theologically? I really don't know" is proof your politics has affected your theology. It kinda ironic that you are libertarian that doesn't want your theology to affect your view of government but you certain will let you governmental views affect your theology. I'd say its rather telling.

Yes...it is tell. Izzy strives to be honest with herself and recognizes that we don't have all the answers. Instead of accepting the status quo, she fights and wrestles with certain issues until she can come to a piece of mind about what she believes and why. And for that transparency, she gets slammed...a real sense of Christian community I see active with that approach.

(And this from someone (i.e. me) who believes that the only definition of marriage that makes sense theologically is 1 man/1 woman who also thinks that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful.)

[quote author=christundivided]Its also ironic that you would question the canonical status of Jude. Did you know that the book of Enoch clearly relates the sin of Sodom as being homosexuality? As well several other external sources? [/quote]

I don't recall her questioning the canonicity of Jude. Care to show me where?

[quote author=christundivided]Theologically, we take ALL THE EVIDENCE and draw a conclusion. Its is rather clear from the evidence.... that part of Sodom's sin was the practice of homosexuality. Personally, I have never known a homosexual that wasn't deviant. In other words.... he just didn't have a problem with wanting to have sex with another man. You show me a person that is actively practicing a homosexual lifestyle and you'll also see a person that cares little about ethics and morality. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind. (I'm not talking about bisexuals. Which I believe most are).

UNLESS and that is a BIG UNLESS..... it has something to do with their own agenda. THEN they will pretend they care about "charity" or the good of their fellow man. I even read today that Elton John now likes George Bush because he has done a lot to help AIDS victims. Talk about self serving..... [/quote]

Would you like a wider brush?
[/quote]

I see you can't deal with what I wrote outside of attacking me for it.

She shouldn't be wrestling with the issue. It have referenced the Scriptures. The entirety of Scriptures. I haven't chosen one Scripture over another Scripture. I'm sorry you have taken that path. You shouldn't.

She clearly said that we don't know who wrote Jude. THUS, she takes the witness of the 3 prophets mentioned to carry greater weight. Now.... I know you're not very sound theologically, but, this indicates that she questions the canonical status of the book of Jude. All Scripture is all Scripture. Get it?

Yes. I believe the only theologically sound relationship is between 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. Yes, sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. I'm not sorry if that offends you.

Why don't you join Izzy in debunking what I wrote instead of simply regurgitating what we all ready know about me.

By the way, I am one of the most liberal person in this forum when it comes to canonical studies. I have questioned more than one book inclusion in the protestant canon. However, I do not do so because of my desire to promote homosexuality.

I know it must make you feel better and release your heterosexual guilt to openly support homosexual unions. I feel no such desire. I don't base my beliefs on a personal agenda. I base them on the Scriptures and the truths that are self evident.

 

[Izdaari]

The very fact you say "theologically? I really don't know" is proof your politics has affected your theology. It kinda ironic that you are libertarian that doesn't want your theology to affect your view of government but you certain will let you governmental views affect your theology. I'd say its rather telling.

I don't think so. My political views have remained more or less the same for 35+ years, and I have consistently supported the maximum possible individual liberty consistent with a limited constitutional republic. That includes peoples' freedom to do many things I think are distasteful, immoral or sinful, so long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.

But I was a Christian even before that (though there was a period in my teens of doubt and searching when I wasn't practicing -- I rededicated my life to Christ and returned to active faith in my early 20's), and my understanding has always been that Christianity and libertarianism are fully compatible and based on some of the same philosophical roots. In my case I base my politics at least partially on Lockean Natural Law, which Jefferson appealed to in the Declaration of Independence.

So I am not a new believer or a new libertarian, but have remained pretty consistent in both my faith and political philosophy all my adult life. I have always been on the libertarian right politically, and always been an Anglican kind of moderate conservative in theology (even while attending churches of other denominations). It's impossible to deny that the two are related, but neither has changed all that much.

Its also ironic that you would question the canonical status of Jude. Did you know that the book of Enoch clearly relates the sin of Sodom as being homosexuality? As well several other external sources?

It's news to me that a copy of the Book of Enoch still exists. I'd like to buy one if possible.

Theologically, we take ALL THE EVIDENCE and draw a conclusion. Its is rather clear from the evidence.... that part of Sodom's sin was the practice of homosexuality. Personally, I have never known a homosexual that wasn't deviant. In other words.... he just didn't have a problem with wanting to have sex with another man. You show me a person that is actively practicing a homosexual lifestyle and you'll also see a person that cares little about ethics and morality. Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind. (I'm not talking about bisexuals. Which I believe most are).

UNLESS and that is a BIG UNLESS..... it has something to do with their own agenda. THEN they will pretend they care about "charity" or the good of their fellow man. I even read today that Elton John now likes George Bush because he has done a lot to help AIDS victims. Talk about self serving.....

Really? That's directly contrary to my personal experience. Living in Seattle (which is sometimes jokingly referred to as San Francisco North), I know a good many gays and on the whole they're as ethical and moral as anybody else. I know some untrustworthy, unethical and immoral people too, but oddly enough the vast majority of those are heterosexual.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I see you can't deal with what I wrote outside of attacking me for it. [/quote]

Yes. I attacked you. You're being a jerk. Not only are you being a jerk, but you are lumping millions of people into one category and saying that they have no compassion at all and nothing worth redeeming. In fact, you basically state they are closeted (not in the homosexual sense) cannibalistic serial killers. You completely ignore the fact that they too were made in the very image of God. In other words, you're being a jerk.

[quote author=christundivided]She shouldn't be wrestling with the issue. It have referenced the Scriptures. The entirety of Scriptures. I haven't chosen one Scripture over another Scripture. I'm sorry you have taken that path. You shouldn't. [/quote]

Right...because we should all have everything figured out.  :

[quote author=christundivided]She clearly said that we don't know who wrote Jude.[/quote]

So? That doesn't mean she rejects it canonicity.

[quote author=christundivided]THUS, she takes the witness of the 3 prophets mentioned to carry greater weight.[/quote]

So do I. Certain parts of Scripture do have more worth than other parts. That doesn't mean the ones with less worth have no worth. Do you want to argue with the authors of the NT about this because I can certainly show you that they considered some parts of OT Scripture to have more value than others.

[quote author=christundivided]Now.... I know you're not very sound theologically...[/quote]

That's right...because I don't agree with you and your understanding of Scripture is obviously the only correct one. You need a bigger Pope hat; yours isn't big enough. :

[quote author=christundivided]...but, this indicates that she questions the canonical status of the book of Jude.[/quote]

No, it doesn't.

[quote author=christundivided]All Scripture is all Scripture. Get it?[/quote]

Yes...you should start reading certain parts of it more.

[quote author=christundivided]Yes. I believe the only theologically sound relationship is between 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. Yes, sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. I'm not sorry if that offends you. [/quote]

If you actually read my post, you'll see that you are now just talking nonsense.

[quote author=christundivided]By the way, I am one of the most liberal person in this forum when it comes to canonical studies. I have questioned more than one book inclusion in the protestant canon. However, I do not do so because of my desire to promote homosexuality. [/quote]

Care to name them?

[quote author=christundivided]I know it must make you feel better and release your heterosexual guilt to openly support homosexual unions. I feel no such desire. I don't base my beliefs on a personal agenda.[/quote]

Would it help if I paid for your reading comprehension classes?

[quote author=christundivided]I base them on the Scriptures and the truths that are self evident.[/quote]

"self-evident"

...you do realize that when you read Scripture, you are always interpreting, right?

 

[christundivided]

Really? That's directly contrary to my personal experience. Living in Seattle (which is sometime jokingly referred to as San Francisco North), I know a good many gays and on the whole they're as ethical and moral as anybody else. I know some untrustworthy, unethical and immoral people too, but oddly enough the vast majority of those are heterosexual.

I doubt it. You probably know some bisexuals that enjoy both male and female. I have meet very few true homosexuals in my life. Very few. Most are not exclusively homosexual. To them... its about nothing more than getting their "kicks".

The ones I do know, are not moral/ethical people. I would also bet that you know more heterosexual people than who you "think" are homosexual. That might "skew" your average.

By the way... how are your "gay friends" enjoying life without the joy of having their own children? Are they fulfilled? Are they "happy" that their legacy can only be found in a septic system somewhere?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic about the book of Enoch or not. But, if you don't know anything about it.... then you know very little about theology. Maybe you should choose something else to concentrate on. Its obvious that you're rejecting valid witnesses to the sin of homosexuality. Maybe you can find comfort in providing gay acceptance services in your local area. Lord knows... the world is some much better off when we promote sin.

 

[Izdaari]

She clearly said that we don't know who wrote Jude. THUS, she takes the witness of the 3 prophets mentioned to carry greater weight. Now.... I know you're not very sound theologically, but, this indicates that she questions the canonical status of the book of Jude. All Scripture is all Scripture. Get it?

Not quite. Suggesting that Jude perhaps doesn't belong in the Bible would be questioning its canonical status, and I'm not doing that. But there are still questions about it, including the identity of its human author. The same is true of many of the epistles. I'm just pointing out that in this case the three witnesses tell a different story than the one witness, and pondering that fact as a juror.

I know it must make you feel better and release your heterosexual guilt to openly support homosexual unions. I feel no such desire. I don't base my beliefs on a personal agenda. I base them on the Scriptures and the truths that are self evident.

You are not Sigmund Freud, and I don't think you are qualified to psychoanalyze people on the basis of a few internet posts. For that matter, I don't think Freud could do it either.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]I see you can't deal with what I wrote outside of attacking me for it.

Yes. I attacked you. You're being a jerk. Not only are you being a jerk, but you are lumping millions of people into one category and saying that they have no compassion at all and nothing worth redeeming. In fact, you basically state they are closeted (not in the homosexual sense) cannibalistic serial killers. You completely ignore the fact that they too were made in the very image of God. In other words, you're being a jerk.
[/quote]

I doubt there are literally millions of exclusively homosexual partners in the world. I might be wrong... but I doubt it. Homosexuality is common among serial killers. Ever thought about it? Obviously not.

We are made in the image of Adam. Only the children of God are made in the image of God. Maybe you should read your bible every once in a while

1Co 15:47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I'm a "jerk". Okay. I've been called worse. It really doesn't matter what you think of me. God will speak one day and every man will stand silent. It will matter what He says then. Not what you say. Not what I say.

So do I. Certain parts of Scripture do have more worth than other parts. That doesn't mean the ones with less worth have no worth. Do you want to argue with the authors of the NT about this because I can certainly show you that they considered some parts of OT Scripture to have more value than others.

Then take that witness for what it says. Don't expand it to include your own ideal of what NT writing is more important than a OT writing. I'll give you a hint. ITS ALREADY WRITTEN FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND. You don't have to rewrite it. Get it?

You can't show me that Jude is any less accurate than any other Scripture referenced. You can't. Its impossible. Go ahead and try. I'll listen/read.

...you do realize that when you read Scripture, you are always interpreting, right?

You are? How do you take Jude 7 differently that what is written? Go ahead. Teach me a thing or two.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I doubt it. You probably know some bisexuals that enjoy both male and female. I have meet very few true homosexuals in my life. Very few. Most are not exclusively homosexual. To them... its about nothing more than getting their "kicks".

The ones I do know, are not moral/ethical people...[/quote]

Fred Phelps? How is your church doing!?!?

[quote author=christundivided]By the way... how are your "gay friends" enjoying life without the joy of having their own children? Are they fulfilled? Are they "happy" that their legacy can only be found in a septic system somewhere?[/quote]

This comment is just disgusting. You do realize that "joy" and "fulfillment" and "happy" can come from places other than children right? I guess I should tell the couples I know who cannot have kids that life is just going to suck for them.

[quote author=christundivided]I don't know if you're being sarcastic about the book of Enoch or not. But, if you don't know anything about it.... then you know very little about theology. Maybe you should choose something else to concentrate on. Its obvious that you're rejecting valid witnesses to the sin of homosexuality. Maybe you can find comfort in providing gay acceptance services in your local area. Lord knows... the world is some much better off when we promote sin.[/quote]

"The Lord may love the whole wide world / We have a higher standard." - SFL

 

[Izdaari]

Really? That's directly contrary to my personal experience. Living in Seattle (which is sometime jokingly referred to as San Francisco North), I know a good many gays and on the whole they're as ethical and moral as anybody else. I know some untrustworthy, unethical and immoral people too, but oddly enough the vast majority of those are heterosexual.

I doubt it. You probably know some bisexuals that enjoy both male and female. I have meet very few true homosexuals in my life. Very few. Most are not exclusively homosexual. To them... its about nothing more than getting their "kicks".

The ones I do know, are not moral/ethical people. I would also bet that you know more heterosexual people than who you "think" are homosexual. That might "skew" your average.

By the way... how are your "gay friends" enjoying life without the joy of having their own children? Are they fulfilled? Are they "happy" that their legacy can only be found in a septic system somewhere?

I know bisexuals too, and I know the difference.

But as Bugs Bunny would say, "He don't know me very well, do he?" 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic about the book of Enoch or not. But, if you don't know anything about it.... then you know very little about theology. Maybe you should choose something else to concentrate on. Its obvious that you're rejecting valid witnesses to the sin of homosexuality. Maybe you can find comfort in providing gay acceptance services in your local area. Lord knows... the world is some much better off when we promote sin.

I didn't know it was possible for me to buy a copy of Enoch in English, but checking Amazon, I see that it is. Good, it'll be interesting reading. And I know it is definitely NOT canonical.

But, whether you consider me too ignorant or not, I will continue to study theology, and may even go to seminary. Possibly I will become an Episcopal priest or Lutheran (ELCA) pastor.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I doubt there are literally millions of exclusively homosexual partners in the world. I might be wrong... but I doubt it. Homosexuality is common among serial killers. Ever thought about it? Obviously not. [/quote]

Have I ever thought about a statistic that you're making up? Nope...can't say that I have.

[quote author=christundivided]We are made in the image of Adam. Only the children of God are made in the image of God. Maybe you should read your bible every once in a while

1Co 15:47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48  As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49  And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [/quote]

Then God said,

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Izy wrote: "It's news to me that a copy of the Book of Enoch still exists. I'd like to buy one if possible."

Here is a link to see it online.  You can go to amazon and find books.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/1enoch01-60.htm

 

[Izdaari]

Thanks for the link, Jim!  8)