Church asks boys scouts to leave.

[Capbyrd]

So there is either insult or compliment?  No middle ground for you?  I'm being dead serious right now.  I wasn't trying to insult you.  I was using your post to explain my position.  No worries though.  If you are offended, thats on you.  

[RobertNashville]

The amount of care over something that does not affect anyone here is astounding.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

???

 

I'm not so sure it doesn't affect anyone but even if that was true, I'd bet that fully half of what we talk about here doesn't affect anyone here.

Edited June 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Jonnin]

Robert I honestly can't find any scripture in the KJV that flat out says homosexuality is a sin (I didn't look extremely hard though since I'm at work). I think the problem lies in the definition of homosexuality in the bible. Some of these translations are far different than others when it comes to that. I myself read the NIV. I am not saying one way or the other what I think on the matter but I will definitely read a little more into it once I get home.  If I could read hebrew then maybe we could get a good idea as to what the original text says haha.

 

I agree that the mere temptation of sexual immorality is not a sin. It is the actual act that is the sin.

 

It's just whether or not homosexuality means thinking or doing in scripture context. I am guessing that most would consider that identifying oneself openly and proudly as homosexual would imply that they would commit the sin when the opportunity arose. That is being judgmental of course but hey everybody sins.  ;)

 

I can fill that one in 10 seconds (skipped around, dunno if someone already did it) , though why in the world you want something written in incomprehensible english is beyond me. 

here:

Leviticus 18:22 King James Version (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Naturally you have to have a degree in euphemisms and archaism to unravel it.  I am surprised it does not say something like "Men shalt not come to know men" or something even more confusing. 

 

My favorite of the translations (of about 50 variations) was the "good news" version...
No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Jonnin

[maroonandwhite]

I can fill that one in 10 seconds (skipped around, dunno if someone already did it) , though why in the world you want something written in incomprehensible english is beyond me. 

here:

Leviticus 18:22 King James Version (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Naturally you have to have a degree in euphemisms and archaism to unravel it.  I am surprised it does not say something like "Men shalt not come to know men" or something even more confusing. 

 

My favorite of the translations (of about 50 variations) was the "good news" version...
No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that.

Yeah I don't disagree with you. I fully believe the bible means that that's a no no. I am just going off of the general belief that the KJV is as close to the original text translation wise. Maybe it's not though?? It says something a little different in all of them but I have no doubt what the intention was.

 

Also I'm gonna have to look up the "good news" version. Sounds like it's in really plain English.

Edited June 6, 2013 by maroonandwhite

[Jonnin]

Yeah I don't disagree with you. I fully believe the bible means that that's a no no. I am just going off of the general belief that the KJV is as close to the original text translation wise. Maybe it's not though?? It says something a little different in all of them but I have no doubt what the intention was.

 

Also I'm gonna have to look up the "good news" version. Sounds like it's in really plain English.

No, KJV is not the best.  It was influenced by the church policy and beliefs,  and the team working on it did not have a fraction of the modern resources.  The king told the translators how to do it, on top of the barriers they had for not knowing the ancient languages as well as modern specialists do.  They did the best they could and its not "bad" but between modern knowledge (and more ancient scroll caches) and their version of english (lets face it, half of it does not even make sense to most of us) its by far not the best.  

 

Sorry for the edits my memory is so hazy I gave up and looked it up.

 

 

Good news is a casual translation to make a more book-like read.   NIV is the one to go with for scholarly questions, though even better is to have a parallel version with 4 or 5  options for each verse in question. 

Edited June 6, 2013 by Jonnin

[maroonandwhite]

No, KJV is a translation of a translation.  Most of the old scrolls we have were translated (some, dubiously) to latin, and then Shakespeare converted the latin to "english" for the KJ version.   Modern translations, esp the NIV, have gone back to as much of the original greek and hebrew and so on and really applied hard core translation to produce the best results they can using teamwork and context and tons of other resources.   The older translations are just one guy who knows both languages taking a stab at it, which can miss little things.   

 

Good news is a casual translation to make a more book-like read.   NIV is the one to go with for scholarly questions, though even better is to have a parallel version with 4 or 5  options for each verse in question. 

Cool. Learn something new everyday! Just another good example of why we shouldn't take everything we hear from others as the "gospel truth". I am guilty of that sometimes as you can see.

[Jonnin]

Cool. Learn something new everyday! Just another good example of why we shouldn't take everything we hear from others as the "gospel truth". I am guilty of that sometimes as you can see.

 

That was not 100% accurate, I fixed my post.   It appears the KJV guys had SOME access to original text, I thought they did not.  It also seems the shakespere involvement was a myth.  Shows how much I know!  Still, re-read it, its cobbled from the web but probably a lot closer than what I said off the top of my head which was all wrong!

Edited June 6, 2013 by Jonnin

[RobertNashville]

That was not 100% accurate, I fixed my post.   It appears the KJV guys had SOME access to original text, I thought they did not.  It also seems the shakespere involvement was a myth.  Shows how much I know!  Still, re-read it, its cobbled from the web but probably a lot closer than what I said off the top of my head which was all wrong!

I've always enjoyed and still use the KJV but I do believe the NIV is a more accurate translation.

 

if memory serves me, the NIV was translated from the most "original/oldest" documents we now have available (although the actual "discrepencies" between the oldest documents compared to the more recent ones; such as was used in the time of the KJV, is minor)...anyway, I had the privilege of actually knowing and spending a good amount of time with one of the team of scholars who produced the NIV (this was some 309+ years ago)...if he is any indication of the integrity, honesty and intelligence of the rest of the team I'm pretty confident that the NIV is an excellent translation.

 

All that said, there is a lot to be said to research some of the original language; English, for all its complexity, just doesn't always do justice to/encompass perfectly the same thought found in the original Hebrew/greek.

[TMF]

From what I recall the same language was used to describe beastiality (sp?) as a sin. Pretty clear the intent there with the translation, and I assume the original text.

[maroonandwhite]

Safe to say that this thread has died/evolved? :rofl:

 

Did you guys hear about the guy that OC'd in a Chick-Fil-A and got the place posted?

[RobertNashville]

From what I recall the same language was used to describe beastiality (sp?) as a sin. Pretty clear the intent there with the translation, and I assume the original text.

Did anyone say it wasn't?

[TMF]

[
Did anyone say it wasn't?

No, I was simply referring to the general comments on how reliable the translation was or whether the intent of the text meant man on man action is a sin. Since the same language is used to describe having sex with an animal, it would prove the theory that they were referring to gay sex. Nothing in there about lesbians though, so I guess that's okay?

[RobertNashville]

No, I was simply referring to the general comments on how reliable the translation was or whether the intent of the text meant man on man action is a sin. Since the same language is used to describe having sex with an animal, it would prove the theory that they were referring to gay sex. Nothing in there about lesbians though, so I guess that's okay?

That might be...most men seem to complain less when two women are having fun together. ;)

 

 

 

 

Edit: fixed it!

Edited June 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

Tow women? Are those women who drive tow trucks?

[RichardR]

Tow women? Are those women who drive tow trucks?

Maybe he meant "toe women" as in chicks that really, really dig feet? *shrug*

[1pointofview]

That might be...most men seem to complain less when two women are having fun together. ;)




Edit: fixed it!

What would you do with a millions dollars? Two women at the same time

[Jonnin]

No, I was simply referring to the general comments on how reliable the translation was or whether the intent of the text meant man on man action is a sin. Since the same language is used to describe having sex with an animal, it would prove the theory that they were referring to gay sex. Nothing in there about lesbians though, so I guess that's okay?

 

I really do not know.  Many languages, including non PC (that is, standard) english, refer to the generic as masculine.  That is, when unsure of the gender or referring to both genders, the pronouns are male but both are intended.   I could not say if this is the case for whatever that book was written in originally or not.  

[TMF]

I really do not know. Many languages, including non PC (that is, standard) english, refer to the generic as masculine. That is, when unsure of the gender or referring to both genders, the pronouns are male but both are intended. I could not say if this is the case for whatever that book was written in originally or not.

I was just crackin jokes.