Christianity and Homosexuality

No, I am not asserting that “young boys” has the same meaning as MEN.

No, I don't think it HAS been "substantially changed." But it's not as if it's the only verse which condemns men 'lying' with other men. If it remained as 'young boy' it would have been slightly confusing and seemingly contradictory to all of the other verses which condemns men 'lying' with other men. However, I don't think that it was a NECESSARY change. Could they have left it alone? Sure. Would it have made ANY difference whatsoever to Christian belief? NOPE!

Yes, because they run out of arguments. What's your point?

 

It isn’t that they run out of arguments. It is that you pepper all them with irrelevant questions and refuse to provide direct concise answers. Even here, after pages of me asking the exact same questions you you cannot admit that the verse in question that originally condemned pedophilia being changed to condemn homosexuality isn’t a substantive change (which is absolutely absurd). The reason why it is difficult to talk to anyone with an extreme view of their faith is because they apply inconsistent thoughts and defense mechanisms.

— To the point

You have correctly asserted that “young boys” is not the same as “men” which means the church has made an edit to the very meaning of the passages. (I don’t care if you disagree) No new language has been identified, the change was not based on new understanding of the words but rather the church either sought to target gay people or was trying to rectify “inconsistencies” within the Bible.

Thus, it is without question — per your own admission — the church is selectively editing the word of God which should not change, ever. That calls into question the entire foundation of every passage within the book because if they are doing it out in the open like this, then what have they done in the past before records were kept likely pales into comparison.

 

You've already admitted that back then children were seen as sexually mature.

By that standard, the Bible should never have been translated into English.

 

Children are sexually mature now. The average age of first sexual experience is 15.6 years old with a quarter reporting sexual activity between 10 and 13. We can still differentiate between young and adult. Your desperate need to obfuscate this is telling.

Sexually mature or not, it specifically targeted pedophila not adults. The verse was substantially altered to push an agenda by the church. Not God.

I 100% agree, the word of God once altered to fit “modern language” it is no longer the word of God.

What is interesting is that Religious zealots have no issues demanding others respect their religion or pushing their chosen beliefs into law while claiming they are morally superior because they are quoting words written by man.

It wouldn’t be so pathetic if they were not so lazy to actually seek the true word of God in the original texts but that would require them to gain culture and learn a new language with the history of all that is within.

I would be a little more cautious before I so easily corrupted the word of God for my own personal bigotry if I believed my eternal soul rested on that commandment.

 

So then why is the age of consent 16-18?

And as for every other homosexual related verse in the Bible?

You don't think that Bible translators know the original languages of the Bible?

 

Age of consent laws apply to adults.
How do you not know this?

There are six to seven passages that have been used to target gay people in the Bible. We have discussed three in this thread that actually mentioned molestation or children and not homosexuals. As for the rest:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097?journalCode=btba
https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2015/08/the_7_bible_verses_on_homosexu.html

You don’t think men (adult men, not children since the two don’t differ to you) have biases and will use their own interpretation to invent words that there are no direct translation to?

Should people that believe in God not follow his actual words instead of verses that are effectively made up?

 

Spooky! Did you get kicked out of the other forum too? Can't even remember the name of that website now. Cougarbear-grasshopper

 

THAT'S how you define sexual maturity? A TEN year old who has engaged in sexual activity is sexually mature just because they've engaged in sexual activity? What an INSANE definition of sexual maturity! Are you sure that you don't want to rethink that?

Yes, and the reason that we have age of consent laws is because people aren't considered sexually mature until a certain age.

The problem is, that your source is not using the Greek or Hebrew, but rather the GERMAN translation! And earlier you said that you "100 agree" that the Bible should never have been translated into other languages. So you're okay with the German translation because it suits your narrative?

That wouldn't be proper translating, so no.

People who believe in God DO follow his actual words. What makes you think they don't?

 

Sexual maturity is the capability of an organism to reproduce, no, I so not need to rethink it.
I use definitions in my arguments, you should try it

False, we do it because we deem people below a certain age lack the ability to make informed decisions

It was also in the English translation, as well as the other five listed in my source — until the church changed it anyway.
Homosexuality or anything similar also didn’t appear in any Greek or Hebrew version — how do you not know this?

So people no longer lie? No longer have biases?
That is probably the most foolish position I have ever seen on these forums, and that is impressive.
I am starting to see how you arrive at all of your positions

They don’t, his actual words have been edited by kings and translated into languages where words don’t exist to carry the same meaning. And then edited by the church in those same languages to slightly alter passages.

I’m done, this is an exercise in futility lacking in all common sense.

 

Of course, this is not true. Others who say this sort of thing also try to reason that Romans Chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 refer to what was going on in the Temple in Jerusalem. Well, here is something I found reading on this subject. Pay close attention Mr. Greek and Hebrew:

"evseba,sqhsan (Rom 1:25 translated as worship in your KJV) and evla,treusan (Rom 1:25 translated as served in the KJV) both appear only here in NT. However, you would then (before you finished your favorite beverage) immediately note that evla,treusan in some form is use 16 times with in the OT/LXX (A list of those is as follows: Deuteronomy 12:2, Deuteronomy. 29:25, Joshua. 24:2, 14, Judges. 2:13, Judges. 3:6, Judges. 10:6, 16, Judges. 2:11, 13, Judges. 3:6f, 2 Kings. 17:12, 16, and Daniel. 3:12) After scanning those you would suddenly be drawn to the conclusion that out of all those cases evla,treusan is never used for the proper worship of YHVH in the temple, rather it is usually used for the forbidden worship of idols/foreign gods regardless of their location.
When, you continue on to read Romans 1:26 to 28 you realize that the word crh/sin (Rom 1:26 and 1:27 interpreted as natural use in the KJV) was also used in context 1 Samuel 1:28 and Tobit 1:13 to mean some sort of intimacy or close relationship.Thus, may be euphemism for sexual relations and/or may be functioning here as word play contrasting with two other phrases here pa,qh avtimi,aj (Rom 1:26 vile affections in the KJV) observing Paul's word choice here:
fusikh.n crh/sin (Rom 1:26 natural use)
para. fu,sin (Rom 1:26 against nature) as well as noting the overall parallelism

It brought you to your final conclusion that ( ... ) and that You, were happy to have acquired your own Logos license

Or

Using your common sense you know that the Letter of Romans is written to ...well, Rome! and not to community in Jerusalem the only place where the Temple can legally exist! Therefore, it does not logically follow that Paul was given instructions on worship in the Temple when there couldn't be one in Rome! Nor would the Romans be permitted to participate in the Temple worship. (unless of course they were Jewish and if they were they would in theory already know what was expected of them)."

 

You should continue to read the rest of the thread that you stole that from…

You should also take note of the words “may” in the above — what isn’t up for debate however is that the church recently changed verses from condemning molestation of young boys (pedophila) to consensual male relationships.

The book is invalidated as propaganda

 

You've already admitted that back then children were seen as being able to consent.

So if a TEN year old has engaged in sexual activity, this means that they have "the capability of an organism to reproduce" just because they've engaged in sexual activity?

Which English translation? Your source only talks about the German. This is the source which you linked to: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/

Do you mean that absolutely NOTHING relating to two males engaging in sexual intercourse is in the Greek or Hebrew?

So you're saying that for the past 400 years, translators may have been engaged in a continual conspiracy to inaccurately translate the Bible? That would be quite the conspiracy theory!

None of your sources say anything about God's words being "edited by kings."

Of course you're done! You never last the distance! But I think that you've done better than previous times! So well done!

 

Again, you're assuming that the molestation of young boys back then was only ever non-consensual.

 

Girls were able to marry, their consent was not required. Boys not so much.
Now you are just making up what is said.
The words children, girls, boys, women and men are not interchangeable with one another as you and your edited book seem to think.

I don’t understand what you are not comprehending in the definition

It references numerous texts that were changed, including the English version. It isn’t a long article

For the 100th time, I am referencing individual verses that have been changed

I am saying it is a powerful tool to control desperate people longing for any semblance of meaning in their lives.

I thought that was common knowledge.
Who do you believe had to “approve” his version of the bible? Hint: the version is named after him

I get beaten down by repetitious ignorance and trolling — as do most people. But sure
I wouldn’t be cheering that others have deemed it a lost cause but you do you. Take victories where you see them

 

So someone is 'trolling' by arguing their point?

 

No, someone is trolling by acting like they cannot comprehend the difference between boy and man and the differences each imply as consequence.

The childish smilies further this point

You don’t even know what the Authorized Version of the book you are failing to regurgitate is much less be able to discuss what passages show in the context of original translations. Typical evangelical that cannot even understand what they say they stand for.

That is apparent now. We are done here

 

I didn't steal anything. I said that this was from a post that I was reading. It was an answer from another forum who has the same question about translation and homosexual sins. And, since this thread is about Christianity and homosexuality, not pedophilia, it fits in with this discussion. It also proves that Paul was speaking directly to the Roman saints about homosexual sin. Even in Greek and Hebrew.

 

The own thread you posted (which is other’s opinion and not fact) disagree with the narrative by that poster.

 

Of course someone who is homosexual will disagree. They have to in order to save face. No, it's clear what the KJV is accurate. Homosexual acts are vile and must be repented of.

 

Your opinion is your own and is wholly and completely irrelevant to the facts presented.

 

YOU must Repent ! - Reject the way God made you - Subdue your evil nature - lurid thoughts - and be celibate like Paul - cause he didn't like women either..

 

I've already acknowledged that they are different. My point has always been that boys now are different to the boys back then. Back then they were more like 18 year olds are today. Even you have acknowledged that there is a difference.

I never said that I don't know what the Authorized Version is. You're making stuff up now, which is always a sign of desperation!

 

It's very simple: 10 years olds cannot reproduce.

Oh, I thought that you were saying that some English versions mentioned "boy" instead of "man." You're just saying that some English versions did NOT mention "homosexual" and you are correct, but they did DESCRIBE it! Leviticus 18:22 in the King James Version says "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The problem is, that your source is not using the Greek or Hebrew to find "molester", but rather the GERMAN translation!

Which doesn't change it from DISAPPROVAL of homosexuality activity with "boys" to APPROVAL of homosexuality activity with "men." The change simply accounts for the fact that boys back then were very much seen as young men.

This doesn't mean that he edited it.

 

Leviticus was addressed (and is irrelevant to modern Biblical law) — the English version was altered as well. They moved the word from pedophila to homosexuality. Which is ironic seeing the church is a hotbed of the former.

You have already agreed the Bible has been altered — you simply disagree on the severity of such because it doesn’t impact you and admitting such would call into question the entire Book, something you cannot do. I have no such hangup.

Either it was mistranslated then or it was mistranslated now — either one means the book is not accurate.

You put a huge amount of trust into rulers and man it seems.

 

No facts support your opinion. None. Nada. But, the survey I showed does support that it's all about a person's environment and which side a person is going to choose. You have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. Whoever yells the loudest is what we become. Well, just flick the devil off your shoulder and you will see things my way.