Stormy Waters wrote:Why? Are we throwing the Old Testament out of the window? Please, let's do.
Hebrew Canon comments on Homosexuality are softball stuff, I think Smith just wanted to pass by it. The actual word used for abomination is To' yvah, which is a term that is deeply wedded to proper worship practices.
The Ancient Near East where the Holiness code ( the section of Leviticus dealing with this) came from a context that couldn't even conceive of the idea of sexuality as we see it today. It was used as an alleged form of temple worship (temple prostitution) of Israel's enemies, or an act used to humiliate someone.
Aristotle Smith wrote: Nope, simply dealing with the request logically in two parts. Christians are not obligated to follow every single law in the Old Testament, that's why I was trying to cut to the chase and ask for the passage from the New Testament, as that is usually considered more binding for Christian faith and morals.
The real question is whether or not executing homosexuals is moral. It doesn't matter if the commandment has expired.
Aristotle Smith wrote: And you failed. Please point to a modern Jew was the request. Here's why. Modern Jews are both 1) faithful to the Torah and 2) have reasons for modulating and reinterpreting some of the rules. When you can figure out how both can be true, you will have learned something. If you are content to read scripture as containing nothing but behavioral edicts on the same intellectual and moral level as telling a pre-schooler to not eat the paste, then you aren't going to get very far in understanding religion or religious people. But something tells me that's not your real intent anyway, so I should probably stop bothering.
The question is simple. Is the translation wrong or not? If it is, then it should be corrected.
I'm looking for alternative translations on this verse and I found this:
ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them." ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. " Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves." 1 NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense." RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."
I've already read a few articles where people try to explain the translation word for word, but they seem to vary in their conclusions. I think this raises another interesting issue. Why did God confound our languages? Why not allow me to read the scriptures in their original language? Especially if he intends to judge me on this basis.
I'm also searching for Jewish experts take on this scripture to see if ASs' claims have merit. If you know a good one let me know. The question is why they interpret it differently. I'm not satisfied to merely being told that they do. Not sure why he couldn't provide evidence for his own claim. Feel free to include remarks comparing me to a stupid child if you must.
Last edited by _Stormy Waters on Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Here are just a few of Christ's teachings from Matthew. Are these the words of a loving, compassionate God?
Yes. Especially when you also understand God's perspective which he gives in Matthew 10:28 which you seemed to have overlooked in all your quoting from that chapter.
But I would certainly agree that there is no change in God between the Old Testament and New Testament. There is no such thing as a dichotomy between a loving God and a vengeful God in the Bible. He is both.
I get it. If you accept a priori that God exists and there really is a hell awaiting sinners, it all makes perfect sense. I reject both.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Panopticon wrote:The New Testament is founded on guilt. It must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be "saved from." It has nothing to offer the happy man (see, e.g., James' Varieties of Religious Experience - Christianity is a religion of the "sick soul" rather than the "healthy mind"). Just as it must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, it must also destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation. I remember doing this on my mission, and I am not proud of it. I had to convince happy people that they weren't saved, that they wouldn't see their family members again, so that I could sell the smut I was peddling.
The New Testament is very effective in inculcating guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one’s dependence on God. It is not accidental that the Bible regards pride as a major sin. A man with self-esteem is an unlikely candidate for the master-slave relationship that Christ offers him.
according to Jesus, man must shackle his reason. Less criticism leads to more faith. Indeed, "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Children, after all, will believe almost anything.
The whole moral foundation of Christ's teachings can be summed up as follows: obey and be rewarded, disobey and burn in hell.
Howling nonsense is this. These are amazingly twisted and perverted readings of the New Testament. Absolutely none of this makes any sense to me. I do not think it would make any sense to argue. If you actually hear these monstrosities then you should get far far away from the Bible. Try to understand the world with most anything else.
I don't understand any of the quoted passages from Matthew. Unless you accept that it is true a priori, Christ sounds like a raving maniac.
I was reading the Gospel of Luke and stopped reading because it seemed that Jesus was really angry and mean when dealing with people.
I tried to find a book that would help explain what was going on and what some of the parables meant. I found Joel Green's commentary on Luke and had it sent to my kindle. It is a great book. It basically shows how Jesus was sent to the spiritually poor, the lost, the left out, the outcast, the sick and the afflicted of the villages. He healed them, forgave them, restored their status. He loved those who were unclean. He dealt with situations where a society declared certain people as unclean. Women who were menstruating, corpses, those who did not have children because they died, he raised them from the dead, he cast out their demons. His thoughts and actions were good news to those outcasts. He was a savior to them.
karl61 wrote:I was reading the Gospel of Luke and stopped reading because it seemed that Jesus was really angry and mean when dealing with people.
I tried to find a book that would help explain what was going on and what some of the parables meant. I found Joel Green's commentary on Luke and had it sent to my kindle. It is a great book. It basically shows how Jesus was sent to the spiritually poor, the lost, the left out, the outcast, the sick and the afflicted of the villages. He healed them, forgave them, restored their status. He loved those who were unclean. He dealt with situations where a society declared certain people as unclean. Women who were menstruating, corpses, those who did not have children because they died, he raised them from the dead, he cast out their demons. His thoughts and actions were good news to those outcasts. He was a savior to them.
Dammit karl61, you are doing it wrong. There is never any need to try and understand an ancient book in its historical context. If you can't figure out a book based on Primary stories and the accumulated wisdom one received in an American elementary school, then the book is complete crap.
In a more serious vein, it looks like you chose a good commentary. The New International Commentary usually publishes good stuff.
karl61 wrote:I was reading the Gospel of Luke and stopped reading because it seemed that Jesus was really angry and mean when dealing with people.
I tried to find a book that would help explain what was going on and what some of the parables meant. I found Joel Green's commentary on Luke and had it sent to my kindle. It is a great book. It basically shows how Jesus was sent to the spiritually poor, the lost, the left out, the outcast, the sick and the afflicted of the villages. He healed them, forgave them, restored their status. He loved those who were unclean. He dealt with situations where a society declared certain people as unclean. Women who were menstruating, corpses, those who did not have children because they died, he raised them from the dead, he cast out their demons. His thoughts and actions were good news to those outcasts. He was a savior to them.
I'm curious Karl, what did Jesus say that you thought was mean, and how did said book change your perspective?
Hi Stormy - Jesus, as portrayed in the gospel of Luke just seemed angry to me when he called certain people vipers; I just wasn't mentally in a good place to read about someone criticizing others. But then I started to read Joel Green's book and found out that it's really the total opposite of how I was reading look. The book portrays Jesus as a spiritual physician sent to the poor, those stigmatized, the lost and left out and shows how he healed them and restored them back to their community. Here are a few chapters in Google books; chapter 4 is a good one to look at.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Straight up, the Hebrew Canon is much cooler than the tiny Greek Testament. The history is more expansive, the text has multiple layers with all kinds of authors and theological agendas, it has temple cults, rival priesthoods, and above all, the Hebrew language is soooooooooooooooooo much better than lame koine Greek.
The Old Testament is merely a story of Israelites and their obedience and disobedience to God and his laws. All rather underwhelming. New Testament brings everything together, opens up the revised Mosaic Laws to the world and delivers a powerful story of redemption. Not that I agree with it, but I simply don't understand how one could favor the Old Testament.
Personally, I think the most blasphemous and insane thing in modern Christianity is distorting the New Testament and making it solely about love and peace, ignoring Jesus' true behavior and commandments. For example, modern Christians recite "Turn the other cheek" but seldom place it in the proper context. Many repeatedly say, "do not judge" without realizing Jesus never even came close to saying that. (In fact that adulterous woman story was likely added in later) By doing this Christians give the impression there's a completely different God in the New Testament than the Old Testament.