|
Post by Robbie on Jul 25, 2007 19:02:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Gene, for your post.
I understand where your coming from. My uncle would not accept God in his life because of what he read in the old testament and all the 'blood' and etc. that is written there.
On another note, my sister is gay, and I have talked with her and even men who are the same. It appears that it is genetic in nature. This is a question that I have about all this. That since it is genetic in nature, and it appears at such an early age in most, and since there is MANY who are gay in this world, why would God create such people? Especially if it is something that these people did not choose to be and most likely would never had picked that 'nature' if they had had a chose in this matter of being gay. I still am not understanding all this yet myself. Maybe someone might have an answer to these questions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 19:39:20 GMT -5
quote - "If Gene and his same-sex partner choose to get married - what does that take away from my own marriage?... So I guess I don't understand the driving need to have the government regulate Gene's morality for him, or deny him rights based on MY morality. THAT is tolerance."
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you decide to allow a marriage between two men, or two women then you have broken the definition of marriage. Who then decides what is marriage?
Is a man with three wives then acceptable? Is a man with a 11 year old girl a marriage? Can there be a weekend marriage? Can a woman marry her doberman or the Red Sox football team? Can a man marry a Ferrari?
Exaggeration? Think again. Only a few years ago some were saying that a homosexual or lesbian marriage would be as shocking to them as polygamy - now even polygamy doesn't look so shocking.
So when anything is a marriage, nothing is a marriage. So yes, these social changes will take away from marriage.
Tolerance? Increasingly we don't tolerate what marriage once stood for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2007 20:00:43 GMT -5
Hi Gene, re this homosexual business. Prue would fit the mold of the archetypal 2x2 response to this.
I have pointed out homosexuals to her, ie, "See him? he's the Butch and the other is the Queen! Can't you tell!" and Prue just draws a blank. She simply can't absorb it. And as for lesbians, Prue doesn't believe there are such people! Reminds of me Queen Victoria.
But we have a few gay associates, and they are people we like and respect... clean, respectable, honest, caring and ever so funny!
Would I condemn a homosexual? No, as long as they are not being hypocritical about it. But I would draw a line if someone in my church was one because the New Testament is unequivocal about this. The argument about accepting what we are born with raises all sorts of red flags that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Looking back on many years in the church, I don't recall ever hearing the word "homosexual" ever mentioned!
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Jul 26, 2007 1:07:37 GMT -5
Bert wrote: Is a man with three wives then acceptable? Is a man with a 11 year old girl a marriage? Can there be a weekend marriage? Can a woman marry her doberman or the Red Sox football team? Can a man marry a Ferrari? Well, I don't know about New Zealand. But I lived close to Utah for a number of years - and you'd be surprised about the whole Polygamy thing. There are whole towns where polygamy is practiced (more than 3 wives, too!) and the authorities are at a loss to do anything about it (they know about it, but don't prosecute). So in some places - yep, 3 wives are fine (just be careful not to talk to the news about it - then the authorities MAY feel compelled to act.) Polygamy was common in the Old Testament, too. A man with an 11 year old girl. Well - I was in Montana doing some research for a paper. I found in the statistics kept by the Department of Health a girl who had been married, had two children, and divorced by age 16. So since it was between a man and a "woman" (albeit, a woman who couldn't drive, vote, smoke, or drink) - that, too, was OK (well - according to the state of Montana, anyway.) A weekend marriage. Oh yeah - wasn't that Brittney Spears? Happens a fair bit, I suspect. There's a whole slogan "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas . . . " Now as to why it's OK for a guy to marry more than one wife in certain areas, but not OK for a gal to marry 9 guys (There's more Red Sox players, I'm sure - but we'll exclude the bench), I'm not sure. Maybe more of that whole - "Keep the woman in line" thing. Personally - I don't know many women that would want that many husbands. One is PLENTY. It's nag, nag, nag ALL the time. The dog and the Ferrari were just ridiculous - unless you think the Ferrari is a Transformer and can march on Washington to demand equal rights. And I don't recall the constitution stating "All mammals are created equal" - so yeah - the dogs marching on Washington for their marital protections are a real possibility - not. But, yeah, sure. An adult consenting male (or female) marrying another adult consenting male (or female) pushes tolerance so far that it breaks my marriage into meaningless mush. Just for Michelle -SHEESH.
|
|
|
Post by very funny on Jul 26, 2007 3:27:53 GMT -5
Very funny! Thanks all!
|
|
|
Post by Great Post on Jul 26, 2007 9:25:39 GMT -5
sms,
I really appreciated your post! You sum up very nicely my own thoughts on the matter.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 26, 2007 14:28:17 GMT -5
Why the SHEESH? ---Sheesh----
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 29, 2007 7:26:27 GMT -5
Gene, as much as I appreciate (and in fact, sometimes downright admire) your friendliness demonstrated on this board, and your promotion of unity between people, I cannot in good conscience condone your lifestyle, your beliefs, or your statements regarding the Holy Scriptures of God any more than I can stand idly by without making at least passing comment. [Gene Wrote] I do not believe the bible is perfect. I think some of it is great and reflects strong standards of morality and ethics. But there is much that we would do well to either ignore or counter in the interest of improving our world.The problem with all such statements is that of final authority. If the Bible is not divinely inspired and inerrant (hypothetically speaking), and if there is error taught in the scripture, who is to determine which parts we should recieve and follow, and which parts we ought to reject? Who is to become our arbiter of morality and ethics, and what individual among us will define the content of our moral and ethical code? Good question, Glory. What if.... really, what if.... there is no final authority in terms of a document for us to follow? Then, as you ask, who (or what) is our arbiter of morality and ethics; what indiiviidual (or group) will define the content of our moral and ethical code? Isn't that the role that we have given to governments? In the U.S., it is the Supreme Court. Is it perfect? By no means. But all in all, I have much more confidence in our representative system of government and the balance of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches than I do in ANY person or group that claims to solely use the bible as their guide for morality and ethics. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.... And by the way, thanks for the kind words -- and the rest of them too! No, just kidding about that last part - I take no offense at what you write, just as I know none is intended. While you and I are worlds apart on some issues, I see you as a thoughtful, considerate person actually, and I appreciate that. It is refreshing to be able to disagree and not feel totally estranged because of it. Gene
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Jul 31, 2007 10:10:38 GMT -5
This is such an awesome, thought provoking thread. Thanks to everyone who has posted in it, thus far.
Robbie writes, "It appears that it (homosexuality - my word) is genetic in nature. This is a question that I have about all this. That since it is genetic in nature, and it appears at such an early age in most, and since there is MANY who are gay in this world, why would God create such people? Especially if it is something that these people did not choose to be and most likely would never had picked that 'nature' if they had had a chose in this matter of being gay. I still am not understanding all this yet myself. Maybe someone might have an answer to these questions?" I will counter your question with a question. Many children are born missing a gene or born with a mutant gene of some kind which cause extreme deformities, horrific health challenges & even slow & agonizing death. These children did not choose this. Why did God create such people?
If one begins to even skim the surface of genes, DNA, etc. one discovers that 99.9% of the time our DNA replicates as it should. All it takes, however, is one tiny bleep on the radar & our DNA replication is altered (the acronym for this process is SNIP). Often, there are no measurable results because of a SNIP. Othertimes, a SNIP may make one more susceptible to a disease. And, over time, modifications (however slight) from a SNIP can/will accumulate and manifest itself in the population. Perhaps a SNIP makes one predisposed to homosexuality...
Does God plan for one person to have one SNIP and another person to have another SNIP, thus affecting genetics on down the line?
Or do SNIPS just happen, as other events in life just happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 10:51:47 GMT -5
Gene, I appreciate your input here too. Don't go away anytime soon.
What our society is working through these days regarding homosexuality reminds me of the machinations it went through regarding slavery, and to a lesser extent, creation.
Slavery was clearly an acceptable practice in both OT and NT times. No wonder so many Christians had a hard time giving it up in the South US, after all, it was OK in the bible!
Today of course, we all recognize that the bible was probably right for its time regarding slavery, but fundamentally it was wrong given much more important principles of God.
Of course, there will always be some holdouts who still think slavery is a good thing..... some religious leaders seem to think so for their followers.
The issues of homosexuality is much the same as I see it. Bible teachings were right for their time. No one understood homosexuality and judged it only by their heterosexual disgust of imagining a homosexual relationship. So, it made sense imo for the order of society at that time to teach against it. Today, society is beginning to understand it better and I suspect science will give us more definitive answers on the subject in a very short time now. Perhaps that will be what us Christians need to encouage us apply the overarching Christians principles to this subject and leave behind what was relevant 2000 years ago, perhaps even 100 years ago.
There will always be holdouts though who claim that following the bible without understanding it is a good thing.....
|
|
|
Post by Never proven on Jul 31, 2007 23:39:49 GMT -5
It was never proven that homos suffer from the snip
It has been proven that bad husbands who abuse their boys cause boys to tend towards being gay.
Bottom line, it's an influence of bad dad and choice of boy.
Read all about it, appearances are deceiving. If you think it your jeans, buy a new pair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2007 23:50:09 GMT -5
It was never proven that homos suffer from the snip It has been proven that bad husbands who abuse their boys cause boys to tend towards being gay. Bottom line, it's an influence of bad dad and choice of boy. Read all about it, appearances are deceiving. If you think it your jeans, buy a new pair. I didn't think they made 'em like you anymore! I suppose I get to be wrong every once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 1, 2007 16:23:54 GMT -5
Gene, I appreciate your input here too. Don't go away anytime soon. What our society is working through these days regarding homosexuality reminds me of the machinations it went through regarding slavery, and to a lesser extent, creation. Slavery was clearly an acceptable practice in both OT and NT times. No wonder so many Christians had a hard time giving it up in the South US, after all, it was OK in the bible! Today of course, we all recognize that the bible was probably right for its time regarding slavery, but fundamentally it was wrong given much more important principles of God. Of course, there will always be some holdouts who still think slavery is a good thing..... some religious leaders seem to think so for their followers. The issues of homosexuality is much the same as I see it. Bible teachings were right for their time. No one understood homosexuality and judged it only by their heterosexual disgust of imagining a homosexual relationship. So, it made sense imo for the order of society at that time to teach against it. Today, society is beginning to understand it better and I suspect science will give us more definitive answers on the subject in a very short time now. Perhaps that will be what us Christians need to encouage us apply the overarching Christians principles to this subject and leave behind what was relevant 2000 years ago, perhaps even 100 years ago. There will always be holdouts though who claim that following the bible without understanding it is a good thing..... Clearday, You and I agree on many things, and the vast majority of your previous comments have resonated well with me. Such is not the case with your position here. I challenge you to present scripture that supports an "overarching Christian principle" that sodomy and homosexuality are acceptable to God.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 2, 2007 12:02:36 GMT -5
As a continuation to my previous post, perhaps while you are at it, you can share your sentiments on the following: www.herchurch.org/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2007 21:53:48 GMT -5
Thanks for questioning my post Brother Schrock. It urges me to dig a little deeper on these questions. I will get back to you on this asap. I'm renovating my computer room right now and everything is topsy turvey with sporatic internet. I do have an outline in my mind for a response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2007 7:29:36 GMT -5
Gene, I appreciate your input here too. Don't go away anytime soon. What our society is working through these days regarding homosexuality reminds me of the machinations it went through regarding slavery, and to a lesser extent, creation. Slavery was clearly an acceptable practice in both OT and NT times. No wonder so many Christians had a hard time giving it up in the South US, after all, it was OK in the bible! Today of course, we all recognize that the bible was probably right for its time regarding slavery, but fundamentally it was wrong given much more important principles of God. Of course, there will always be some holdouts who still think slavery is a good thing..... some religious leaders seem to think so for their followers. The issues of homosexuality is much the same as I see it. Bible teachings were right for their time. No one understood homosexuality and judged it only by their heterosexual disgust of imagining a homosexual relationship. So, it made sense imo for the order of society at that time to teach against it. Today, society is beginning to understand it better and I suspect science will give us more definitive answers on the subject in a very short time now. Perhaps that will be what us Christians need to encouage us apply the overarching Christians principles to this subject and leave behind what was relevant 2000 years ago, perhaps even 100 years ago. There will always be holdouts though who claim that following the bible without understanding it is a good thing..... Clearday, You and I agree on many things, and the vast majority of your previous comments have resonated well with me. Such is not the case with your position here. I challenge you to present scripture that supports an "overarching Christian principle" that sodomy and homosexuality are acceptable to God. Brother Schrock, before we get going on this, could you give me your understanding of the biblical definition of sodomy and homosexuality? This way we can be talking about the same thing. Biblical references if possible, or just your personal view if biblical references are not available is ok. The other thing I need to know is if you believe that sexual orientation is congential or a learned behaviour. In other words, is homosexual orientation always a learned behaviour, sometimes a learned behaviour, or mostly a congenital condition? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Agreed on Aug 3, 2007 9:32:54 GMT -5
HFA
Thank you for making the distinction between tolerance and compassion. Terms so often erroneously used as interchangeable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2007 10:02:23 GMT -5
HFA Thank you for making the distinction between tolerance and compassion. Terms so often erroneously used as interchangeable While I'm all for HFA's call for compassion, I disagree with his/her assertion that the bible does not teach tolerance. It does indeed. Here's a couple of examples: "Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13)" "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..... longsuffering......." (Gal5) "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph4) Unfortunately, in the modern lexicon, "tolerance" practically means "no morality", and anyone promoting moral behaviour is considered "intolerant" and worthy of (intolerant) persecution. It's complicated and confusing, I suppose a favourite tool of Satan's.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 3, 2007 15:12:08 GMT -5
Clarification is a good thing. Sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex Homosexuality: the quality or state of being homosexual Do I need to give a definition for homosexual too? These are current definitions, although I don't believe they differ from biblical references. To me the question of learned or congenital is irrelevant because the condition is not the sin, it's the acting on it. Brother Schrock
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 3, 2007 15:17:45 GMT -5
HFA Thank you for making the distinction between tolerance and compassion. Terms so often erroneously used as interchangeable While I'm all for HFA's call for compassion, I disagree with his/her assertion that the bible does not teach tolerance. It does indeed. Here's a couple of examples: "Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13)" "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..... longsuffering......." (Gal5) "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph4) Unfortunately, in the modern lexicon, "tolerance" practically means "no morality", and anyone promoting moral behaviour is considered "intolerant" and worthy of (intolerant) persecution. It's complicated and confusing, I suppose a favourite tool of Satan's. But does the bible also warn against tolerance too then? Revelation 2 v. 20: But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2007 17:14:16 GMT -5
While I'm all for HFA's call for compassion, I disagree with his/her assertion that the bible does not teach tolerance. It does indeed. Here's a couple of examples: "Love is patient, kind, not easily provoked, endures all things" (I Corinthians 13)" "But the fruit of the Spirit is ..... longsuffering......." (Gal5) "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Eph4) Unfortunately, in the modern lexicon, "tolerance" practically means "no morality", and anyone promoting moral behaviour is considered "intolerant" and worthy of (intolerant) persecution. It's complicated and confusing, I suppose a favourite tool of Satan's. But does the bible also warn against tolerance too then? Revelation 2 v. 20: But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Exactly, like many attributes, tolerance can be good or bad. Other examples are fear, love, unity, hate, faith, obedience, there is a long list which are not always godly. On the other hand, some attributes are always godly: truth, compassion, charity, mercy, righteousness, repentance. The practice either tolerance or intolerance should not be taken lightly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2007 8:44:40 GMT -5
Brother Schrock wrote:
"Clearday,
You and I agree on many things, and the vast majority of your previous comments have resonated well with me. Such is not the case with your position here. I challenge you to present scripture that supports an "overarching Christian principle" that sodomy and homosexuality are acceptable to God. "
I haven't forgotten Brother Schrock! This is not an easy topic, nor is it particularly pleasant. Thanks for the definitions, it's an important part of seeking to understand the bible and the mind of God on this, and I don't claim to have any special knowledge or revelation on it. One thing that we can all be sure of is that this issue is not going away, and will become even more challenging for those who hold extremely conservative and anti-homosexual views.
Fortunately we have come along way from many understandings that have been promoted or understood as true in the bible, and we know the truth now. For a simple example, all bible writers believed the world was flat, the bible says it was flat in at least two instances(both OT and NT), yet we know differently today. The flat earth concept was perfectly fine for its day, in fact folks of that day probably could not handle the truth of a round earth, it was beyond their capability at the time. I suppose there are still some "flat earth" believers around today, particularly in uneducated countries, and children.
Another, more controversial example of this is the 6+1 day creation. While there are still some 7day/24 hour days creationists still around, the evidence is overwhelming that creation occurred over a much longer period of time, perhaps 7 "days" as in "7 epochs". The simplistic 7 day explanation was perfectly fine and understandable by bible writers and readers for many centuries, as they did not have the tools to know any better and if they did, it would result in mass confusion. Today, we are working through much of the evidence and minimizing the confusion as we come to the truth of creation. We are ready today for fuller understanding.
This is where I see the issue of homosexuality. We are getting ready to understand this issue more fully. During bible times and for many centuries after, society was ordered in such a way as to minimize the confusion and disorder that could come about by sexual behaviour that seemed so completely different to what the vast majority of society experienced. That made sense then, just as the law of Moses and the Levitical rule system made sense for the COIsrael at the time. Sadly, the exclusivity of heterosexuals controlling sexual behaviour degenerated over the centuries into hatred, to a point where homosexual behaviour was punishable by death in the Middle Ages until recent centuries.
Getting back to the bible. Let's start with your assumption of a prohibition on sodomy. Your definition does line up with some modern definitions of sodomy. However, it does not line up with the bible definition of it. The word "sodomy" is not in the bible, but if we assume that it indicates the "sin of Sodom", then the modern definition still does not line up the bible definition.
The sin of Sodom is clearly defined in Eze16:49 as:
"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."
No where does the modern definition of sodomy show up in the bible. What's worse is how that many bible followers hijacked the story of Sodom and Gomorra and turned it into anti-homosexual rhetoric. There were definitely sexual sins in Sodom (as there are anywhere) but no where is it indicated that those sins were specifically homosexually oriented ones, nor does the story itself indicate that the sin was "sodomy" ie anal sex. In the story of the angels in Sodom, the real sin was rape (or attempted rape) regardless of how they intended to carry out the rape (to "know" them), it's still rape and a horrific crime.
So Brother Schrock, you ask me to cite biblical approval of sodomy/anal sex, yet I can't see where the bible defines it, let alone prohibits it in its entirety. As much as the idea of sodomy repels me, I don't want to overlay that prejudice to blindly claim that something is in the bible which is not.
On the homosexual issue, I am inclined to believe that the bible is teaching with regard to behaviour of homosexual sexual activity between heterosexual people. In that light, the bible teachings on this subject make sense, and it makes sense that the relationship between David and Johnathan, which has evidence of a homosexual nature, was not considered evil, except by King Saul. (It is an interesting study to look carefully at BTW.) Yet, homosexual activity between heterosexuals is clearly an affront to nature (a sin) and affirms the validity of all bible teachings on this subject.
I like Jesus' kindly attitude toward eunuchs, including those who were born eunuchs. Bible scholarship cannot confirm that these eunuchs are simply asexual people, or if they were people who were either asexual or homosexual and could not easily have a natural relationship with the opposite sex. However, Jesus attitude was kindly, even entreating.
This is getting long, and I haven't even gotten to the "overarching Godly principles" which could turn us from our bigoted, anti-homosexual persecutorial hatred. Will try later.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 6, 2007 11:50:07 GMT -5
Hi Clearday, Not to enter into nor disrupt the discussion (which I am enjoying, BTW), but just to clarify one point you raised: Homosexual behaviour remains yet today punishable by death in some countries: From Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmmmm on Aug 6, 2007 22:31:08 GMT -5
In that light, the bible teachings on this subject make sense, and it makes sense that the relationship between David and Johnathan, which has evidence of a homosexual nature, was not considered evil, except by King Saul. Where can I read the vs. that justify this? I've never read homosexuality into this relationship.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 6, 2007 22:41:19 GMT -5
A love "surpassing the love of women"....the soul of Jonathan was "knit with the soul of David"...you do the math.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2007 22:51:11 GMT -5
A love "surpassing the love of women"....the soul of Jonathan was "knit with the soul of David"...you do the math. There's much more. From www.religioustolerance.orgPassages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul. Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual. Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1 "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV) "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV) Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 1 Samuel 18:2 "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV) David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." 1 Samuel 18:3-4 "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV) Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical. 1 Samuel 18:20-21 "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV) In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV) Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive. 1 Samuel 20:41 "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV) Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV) "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible) "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible) "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language) "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible) "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version) "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible) "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version) The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. 2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Parish on Aug 7, 2007 2:02:11 GMT -5
Interesting all the homosexual-biased exegesis of Hebrew. Which shows a great dishonesty and arrogance...asserting that it is simply an ancient homophobia which has prevented the real Hebrew definitions from being known! An erection...baloney!
And the baloney continues on with the assertions that a deep spiritual bond and respect between men HAS to include sexual overtones or homosexual activity.
And continues with the assertion that men and women didn't talk with each other in public in those days.
And continues on with the assertions that the tendency toward defiling ones self with mankind is genetic since so-and-so said so. Interesting the trust that is put in the pseudo-scientific studies or the votes of the psychologists.
And...the baloney continues with trust in the just so stories about evolution and billions-and-billions of years of earth history, ignoring hard evidence to the contrary, much less the clear assertions of the Word.
And then claiming that the KJV translators made up words....
Ez. 16:49 has been misquoted and pulled out of its context...the verses surrounding twice mention the real matter of abomination...and these verses, including the one quoted, spoken via prophecy by a man borne along by the Spirit of God.
And men lying with men is clearly an abomination...to God, the God you all seem to call upon and trust in and speak for. Leviticus 18 could not be clearer in laying that out, each declaration of immorality ending with the statement - I am the LORD - the chapter ending with the authoritative statement - Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.'
And the Jesus that some seem to claim supports their lawless activity said that he had not come to destroy that Law...no, he had not come to destroy, but to fulfill - to make full, to fill up, to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim, to make complete in every particular, to render perfect, to carry through to the end, to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, or...to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.
The Holy Spirit declared the root cause of sin, including the sin of defiling ones self with mankind in this way:
"...who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man...Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Many here seem to walk the fence, wanting to have some of the Word but not all of the Word. How can it be possible for sodomy to be a sin yesterday but not today? If you follow that line of thought, that means that tomorrow it can be a sin again, with just as much validity...all it takes is a pseudo-scientific study or two.
Why not be honest and just declare God's Law Word to be trash and get rid of it all? Follow Gene in his worship of man and man's false goodness (and his trust in the written words of men). Or, repent toward God and put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, confessing your sins.
He can save and deliver from every sin, including the sin of defiling yourself with mankind - I Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
That is the power of the NT gospel in the lives of sinners who had no way of repenting or changing the sinful urges of their flesh. Thank God that NT gospel is still freeing sinners today and giving them abundant life in Jesus Christ...lived in holiness and righteousness and sexual purity.
|
|
|
Post by robb klaty on Aug 7, 2007 8:28:23 GMT -5
Scott,
Well put!
It seems to all come down to one basic question...
What is our ultimate standard and foundational presuppositions?
The Bible itself claims to be God's revealed word and christians have historically accepted that. If we accept that too, we need to be as consistent as possible with our hermeneutic as you point out.
And for those who reject the truth claims of the Bible, fine... just be honest about it and admit your alternate or lack of a standard of truth. Admit and deal with your presuppositions... whether they be materialism, humanism, or whatever.
At the end of the day can we really expect to persuade others who don't share our presuppositions and standard of truth? I don't see how. I do think we can work to more clearly understand and identify our presuppositions tho.
Scott, thanks especially for your final paragraph. It is so important to bring this all back to the solution to all of our problems regarding sin and the wages of it. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what sins we struggle with does it? I can't really see so much difference between the sin of adultery and sodomy. The point is that God defines sin and makes us very aware of our own guilt before Him. The solution of course is in Christ, not trying to justify, redefine, hide or excuse what God clearly calls sin.
robb klaty
|
|