Homosexuality What the Bible Really Says... (page 2)

z

Oh shit Hebrew word did not come up s****** I'll try agian

Hebrew languish content mescaline and feminine if you say where are the people right away we know for sure there are man and woman the question asked was where are the people not where are the man ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? anashim people

Now ????? ??? venedda outam is to know them not to have intercourse with them but on the other hand in Hebrew to know one is also to go all the way (old Hebrew not modern today ) Genesis 4:1Adam know his wife Eve Adam yada eve

Now the word shachab (not shakab) is more to have intercourse but is also to lay down or pass away from the world like shachab eim abvotave lay down with his father (death)

EF

Great work

z

ok I give up S*************************

Double Edge

I know the common belief about Sodom was that its' destruction was due to sexually 'debased' characters, but people often overlook the real reason listed in Ezekiel 16:

48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

... in other words, they were TOTALLY with love or concern for other human beings.

the_classicist

Romans 1:26-27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." It's pretty clear to me, that it means homosexual acts. "Obviously, it refers..." No, its not so obvious.

While no mention is made of actual sexual activity between these two same-sex couples, it must be pointed out that these couples had made covenants with each other. To the ancient Israelites, a covenant was viewed as a holy bond, a powerful uniting of two people. (Thanks to: A Common Bond)

Do you think it is logical to believe that back in theocratic Israel, 2 people had a "loving same-sex relationship" in the manner in which you are thinking/implying?

I've seen modern interpretations such as yours EF, but they simply don't hold scholarly water, which is probably why your not Christian. Just don't try to twist things in the Bible as the JWs do, please.

EvilForce

**Do you think it is logical to believe that back in theocratic Israel, 2 people had a "loving same-sex relationship" in the manner in which you are thinking/implying?

I'm not twisting scripture at all. These are various quotes and interpretations from biblical scholars. One is a Catholic priest...the other a hebrew scholar with a PhD. What I post is an alternative, no less valid the the "off the shelf" version that has been presented to the public.

In Greece and Rome there were many same sex relationships. There is an entire book on how Jonathan loved David that I have studied. So yes I think it quite likely frankly. The books I have listed are very specific and in-depth. I can only quote what they say and what makes sense to me. If you truly disbelieve that's ok...or maybe you want to read their works to refute. I'm not here to force you one way or the other.

the_classicist

I'm not here to force you one way or the other.

Geez, what are you being so serious for, lighten up! Although, some Christians are being forced. In the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, the bishop instituted same-sex blessings. Those who didn't go along and felt their bishop was on the wrong course, formed an alliance (although still with the bishop), but the bishop censured them. Other parishes broke off with the bishop, they had their churches confiscated. It's being persued very militantly here.

I'm not twisting scripture at all. These are various quotes and interpretations from biblical scholars. One is a Catholic priest...the other a hebrew scholar with a PhD. What I post is an alternative, no less valid the the "off the shelf" version that has been presented to the public.

Are they experts in 1) exegesis or 2) history?

Of couse, an exegetical argument is only valid to prove something one way or another if one believes in sola scriptura, sola scriptura within the context of tradition, or Sacred Tradition (which includes scriptures).

In Greece and Rome there were many same sex relationships.

Of course, such as the Sacred Band of Thebes, but the account of Jonathan and David is a bit different when you look at the context: 1) All that we know, is that they were very good friends, 2) they lived in a sexually-repressed theocracy 3) if David had a homosexual relationship, why wouldn't the religious zealots overthrow the monarch? (someone did try to overthrow David, does anyone know where that is?).

Don't construe this a personal attack EF, if I were gay, I would jump all over you.

Kenneson

Classicist,

When I read this passage in Romans, I see a condemnation of heterosexual men and women engaging in homosexual activity. So, I guess homosexual activity is not exclusive to homosexuals. There are some homosexuals who have always been attracted to members of their own sex and who have never engaged in "natural intercourse," so how could they give it up for the "unnatural?" What do you think?

EvilForce

Class...I'm not being serious...I just get tired of the bible being used as a blunt weapon, when most folks have no idea as to how disputed various texts really are. If the bible was supposed to be a clear rule book, it is anything but. As far as Christians being forced just makes me know that Christianity really isn't the answer for me. But I will answer your questions more in-depth tomorrow...it's off to bed for me. Later skater :)

the_classicist

If the bible was supposed to be a clear rule book, it is anything but.

That's something we can agree on.

When I read this passage in Romans, I ;see a condemnation of ;heterosexual men and women engaging in homosexual activity. ; So, I guess homosexual activity is not exclusive to homosexuals. ; There are some homosexuals who have always been attracted to members of their own sex and who have ;never engaged in "natural intercourse," so how could they give it up for the "unnatural?" ; What do you think?

It's an interesting argument, but as a Catholic, you'd know that there's the whole line about natural law. But if you argued strictly sola scriptura, its a very valid argument.

Homosexuality What the Bible Really Says...

Share this