CJD

The King James Version contained the Apocrypha from its conception (1611) to about 1796.

CJD

Johnny Skeptic

Message to CJD: In the other Peanut Gallery thread on homosexuality, I asked you if you had any practical arguments against homosexuality. You said that you did, and I asked you what they are. You never answered my question. Why was that? Regarding the issue of homosexuality, do you believe that the Bible writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? If so, why?

CJD

For starters, the practical reasons have little to do with "biblical criticism & history." And besides, how could you argue against the notion that certain things don't "fit" in certain areas (in an evolutionary sense) and that certain species would cease to exist if they all practiced homosexuality? I'm not saying any more on this subject here.

Regarding the issue of the authority of those collection of writings known as the canon, this thread does not seem the appropriate place to tackle that subject. Now, I know you think all discussions can be reduced to this, but you're going to have to get over it (at times) if you want to hold any kind of conversation with others.

Best,

CJD

Bible John

I rarely used it for really detailed research papers. I had to dig through the reference libraries at the college, and through the scholarly journals from the Evangelical Theological Society.

Bible John

Round 3
Informal debate

First I would like to apologize for my tardiness in this debate. I would have done better to set a two-week time frame from the start, but as I am new to these debates so I have learned a new lesson. Second I wish to offer my appreciation for Pevry,& NightShade's professionalism at the closure of the formal debate. You have not lowered yourself to publicly attacking and insulting me like so many of the atheists have in the Peanut Galleries. Many of these "mean spirited" atheists also post on the Usenet newsgroups where I ministered until my time for me to depart had come. My ministry there was never to debate nor engage them, but rather the Spiritual Terrorists (Bible Bob, Steve Winter,etc). When I mean Spiritual Terrorist I am implying one that does not teach what the bible teaches. Therefore the cult of OneNess Pentecostalism was a belief system that both Bob and Winter taught in the newsgroups. This belief system is both anti-bible and anti-God in its core teachings! But I am aware that to the atheist a OneNess Pentecostal is just another Christian.

Since this debate is now considered informal, I do not believe that the length requirement in the formal debate will be necessary to hold to. Before we dive into what my opponent had to say, let me first address what seems to be his main premise to the entire debate. At the end of the second round of the debate my opponent ended with a quote which said the following.

You know that you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do.

If such a false presumption about the very nature of God and His Christians that stand against homosexuality is what my opponent believes to be true, then its no wonder why his logic in this debate seems to be very contrary to what the bible teaches! My opponent first assumes that born again Christians hate homosexuals. He believes this perhaps because he has not read all of the bible. The two basic and greatest commandments are to first Love the Lord with all your heart soul and mind, and then to love your neighbor as yourself. Those that are born again will love and will not hate sinners.

Matt. 22:39 And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself

Secondly God does not hate people, but only hates their sin. God can never hate a person for God is infinite and does not change.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

My opponent writes

Leviticus 18:22 (and 20:13)
These verses form part of the Levitical Code, a set of religious strictures that the Bible claims were dictated directly to Moses by God, and which tradition holds to have been written down by Moses.

These verses, when translated into English, are usually taken to indicate that any male-male sexual activity is an "abomination" ñ and as such, these verses are the first ones that will be brought forth as a demonstration of the Bible's alleged strong condemnation of homosexuality. By a surface look at common English translations, this would indeed seem to be the case.

However, a closer look at both the text and the context of these verses shows a different story.î

I cannot write In Hebrew in my Word Processor but will post the Strong’s Numbers being used in my own Interlinear Bible which is the Masoretic text.

The Hebrew for Lev 18:22 is as follows in the literal english.

And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is disgusting.

The Strong numbers being used in this passage in their exact order is as follows.

7901
3808
2145
3068
430
8034
2490

Looking at the NASB which appears to be nearly an exact copy from the original and it says.

Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)

22'(A)You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

The only difference I see is the ending word, which both mean the same thing.

Quote

This is where the ambiguity comes in. The Hebrew and Greek do not actually say "...as you would with a woman". They simply say "sex with a woman". The meaning of this is not made clear. From the previous paragraph, we can see that the usually-translated meaning ("Don't have sex with a man as you would have sex with a woman.") does not fit the context ñ so what other meaning could this clause have? There is obviously a missing (yet implied) conjunctive of some kind, but what could it be?


It simply means like it sounds. It means that it is wrong and an abomination to have sex with a man like you would with a woman. I cannot understand why such a simple sentence is so complicated for men to understand. Many 5th graders can understand this verse, it amazes me that a grown man cannot.

Quote

Also of note with the text of this verse is the use of the Hebrew word. The word used to describe what sort of action it is if you do have sex in the way that is proscribed. This word is used rarely in the Bible, and there is no direct English translation. It is a specifically religious word, used only 12 times in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Deut 7:26, Prov 21:27, Is 1:13, Is 41:24, Jer 6:15, Jer 8:12, Ezek 16:50, Ezek 18:12, Ezek 22:11 and Ezek 33:26).

What word is this? I’ve looked at all the Hebrew words in Lev 18:22 and have yet to find one that is only used only 12 times in the Hebrew bible.

The words I have are the following for Lev 18:22.

Strong’s

7901-190 times in OT
2145-80 times in OT
802-674 times in OT
8441-112 times in OT

My guess what be that you are referring to the Strong’s number 8441. Yes what you write is true in that there are no direct english translations of this word, but by looking at all the possible connotations of the word below.

Strong’s 8441

1) Abomination
2) detestable
3) Loathsome

My opponent next moves to Genesis 19

My opponent believes that Gen 19 according to the NASB is biased and does not match then older Hebrew Text.

Gen 19:4-11
NASB

4Before they lay down, (A)the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

5and they called to Lot and said to him, "(B)Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,

7and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

8"Now behold, (C)I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

9But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already (D)he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.

10But (E)the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.

11(F)They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.

Gen 19:4-11
Literal

Looking at the Literal Text I do not see much difference when compared to the NASB. I challenge my opponent to compare the NASB and his Interlinear Bible and come to his conclusions.

Quote

Firstly, in verse 4 (and in verse 10) the NASB refers to the men of Sodom. However, the Hebrew uses the word which does not specifically refer to men ñ it merely refers to people. Whilst the word does have a masculine gender grammatically, it refers to people of both genders.

I argue that my opponent is wrong in verse 4 here. The Literal text says "men of Sosom". Why does he think that the Hebrew does not refer to men?

In verse 10 in the NASB is says.

Gen 19:10
NASB

But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.

I ask my opponent where does it refer to these men as being from Sodom?

Looking at the original text the word being used which my opponent claims that this word does not refer specifically to men, does indeed refer to men.

The word is below and this is its definition according to the Strongs.

376. _y)i ish (35d); from an unused word; man:—adulteress*(1), all(1), another(2), any(6), any man(21), any man's(4), any one(3), anyone (16), anyone*(1), archers*(1), Benjamite*(3), certain(6), champion*(2), counselor*(1), counselors*(1), deserve(1), each(148), each had another(1), each his man(1), each man(1), each man(37), each man's(3), each one(37), each one by another(1), each person(1), each* (5), eloquent*(1), every(1), every man(38), every man's(7), every one(8), everyone(16), everyone*(3), expert(1), farming*(1), father* (1), fellow(3), fellows(2), friend*(1), friends* (1), high*(1), himself(1), hunter*(1), husband (65), husband's(1), husbands(4), idiot*(1), Ishi (1), keepers(2), liar*(1), male(2), man(746), man against another(1), man of each(1), man the men(1), man your husband(1), man's(21), man's are the men(1), manchild(1), mankind*(1), marry*(1), marrying*(1), men(669), men at one (1), men's(1), men*(1), no*(1), none*(10), one (89), one of men(1), one's(1), oppressor*(1), ordinary(1), own(1), people(3), person(5), persons(2), prime(1), rank(1), respective(1), sailors*(1), slanderer*(1), soldiers(1), soldiers* (3), some(8), son*(1), steward*(1), swordsmen* (1), this one(1), this one and that one(1), those (1), those who(3), tiller*(1), together*(1), traders*(2), tradition*(1), traveler*(1), troop (1), warriors(3), whoever*(3).

This word certainly refers to men when looking at the original Hebrew! Just look at your Interlinear Bible!


Quote

Romans 1:26-27

As can be seen, this is clearly and unequivocally talking about homosexuals. However, this passage does not condemn people for being homosexual.


My opponent goes on to write that he thinks that God made these people homosexual.

This is anything but the truth. In Romans 1:24 it says

Romans 1:24
Interlinear Bible (Textus Receptus and Majority Texts)

Because of this God gave them up to uncleanness (in the lusts of their hearts) their bodies to be dishonored among themselves

Romans 1:24
NASB

Ro 1:24 Therefore1352 God2316 gave3860 them over3860 in the lusts1939 of their hearts2588 to impurity167, so1519 that their bodies4983 would be dishonored818 among1722 them.

Notice that the phrase (in the lusts of their own hearts)? Did my opponent miss read this before he came to his conclusion that God makes people homosexual? The rest of what my opponent says in this passage is based off a false presumption and premise that God makes people homosexual. God doles not make people homosexual, but people choose this route and as a consequence to this sin, God gives them up to their own passions and lusts.

My opponent next moves to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.

1Co 6:9 Or2228 do you not know3609a that the unrighteous94 will not inherit2816 the kingdom932 of God2316? Do not be deceived4105; neither3777 fornicators4205, nor3777 idolaters1496, nor3777 adulterers3432, nor3777 aeffeminate3120, nor3777 homosexuals733a,
{a} I.e. effeminate by perversion

[1Ti 1:10] and immoral G4205 men G4205 and homosexuals G733 and kidnappers G405 and liars G5583 and perjurers G1965, and whatever G1487 G5100 else G2087 is contrary G480 to sound G5198 teaching G1319,

My opponent goes on to try and say that the best literal translation of the Greek word used to translate into the English word for homosexual is "sex-men." This is anything but the truth and certainly not what my Strongs Concordance says is the best translation for this Greek word.

733a. a)rsenokoi/thv arsenokoit_s; from 733b and 2845; a sodomite:—homosexuals(2).

Also looking again at the Majority Text in my Interlinear Bible the word homosexuals is used.

Quote

Many Bibles translate the word as homosexuals (or even "Sodomites"!), but in truth the meaning of the word is unknown-and the more accurate Bible translations are those that simply translate the word as "male lovers"-but that,of coarse, is as ambiguoys as the Greek.

What Bible translation translates this word to Sodomites? Were you talking about the NKJV?

[1Co 6:9] 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,

If so then please explain, because the only version I found that uses sodomites is the NKJV, and no the word in question does not translate to sodomites!

Translating the word to "Male Lovers" as my opponent suggests would not be a accurate since it would be contrary to the Greek word.

I do not see the word "male Lovers" in this Strongs def do you Pevry?

733a. a)rsenokoi/thv arsenokoit_s; from 733b and 2845; a sodomite:—homosexuals(2).

In my opponents conclusion he claims that the bible in the original texts does not condemn homosexuality, but its only the translations that condemn homosexuality and the biases of the translators. This claim could not be farther from the truth. I have throughout this round typed out the Strongs definitions for certain Greek and Hebrew words, I have typed out the bible in English according to the Majority Texts, and the OT Masoretic text. And according to its original text it all seems to condemn homosexuality. My opponent mentioned in the Romans verses that God makes people homosexual, but I mentioned that according to the original text this claims is false. God never makes one a homosexual sinner, he just gives them over to their lusts that they have harbored in their own minds.

NZSkep

well, I'm not claiming to know too much about the other arguments you present, but as for Leviticus I thought most people agree that those laws are now redundant.
e.g. don't eat shrimp Lev. 11:10
you can have slaves Lev. 25:44
no contact with a woman who is menstuating Lev. 15:19-24

etc etc Do you eat shrimp Bible John. I'm deadly serious.
If you do, then do you find that it is hypocritical to condemn homosexuals for violating leviticus when you do so yourself?
If you belive that only some of leviticus applies now, how do you know what parts?

Pisces

Bible John

Because homosexuality transcends and extends beyond the moral laws of Moses.

John

NZSkep

Why? because you say so?

Also, you did not rebut Pervys points about the Lot story where the men outside weren't condemned because they were gay, but because they wanted to rape.
1) why offer your daughter if the men are gay - they wouldn't want girls (not to mentiont he fact that Lot is being wicked himself by offering his virginal daughters without asking them in lieu of the men)
2) if the men were simply after gay sex, and not rape, they could easily have gone elsewhere and paid for it/found some other gay men.

Thsi passage clearly condemns rape and not necessarily gay sex.

also this point:
This is very clear, it means you shouldn't have sex with a man using the missionary position and in the vagina (like you would with a woman). instead you must use anal and bend him over. I cannot understand why such a simple sentence is so complicated for men to understand. This is the obvious meaning. i.e. don't have sex with a man using the same technique as you would a woman. Instead use a different technique (e.g.anal, or fisting, rimming, felching etc)

Bible John

I emailed pevry and we shall see if he shows up. He made some errors as i have explained above.

John

gagster

He might be more likely to respond if you'd spell his name correctly just once.


Greg