SonOfFred

Let's remember that, when he should have been living up to his commitments with respect to the debate here, he was playing video games, watching movies, and requested at least one extension, while allowing the other to go by, resulting in a forfeit.

Dean Anderson

Since this is no longer a formal debate, I am going to use a far more relaxed style in my response here...

(As an aside - if anyone knows where that quote originated, I'd love to know...)

No. I assume no such thing. I know for a fact that many Christians (whether "born again" or Catholic or any other denomination) hate homosexuals. I have never (deliberately) expanded this claim to Christians in general. I know enough non-homosexual-hating Christians to know that such a generalisation would be inaccurate and unfair.

I have read the Bible cover to cover repeatedly, and I have been studying it (both as a Christian and as an atheist) for about 20 years now.

So? Just because those commandments are in the Bible doesn't mean that all Christians follow them.

Sorry. Apart from the fact that your theology is utterly wrong here (passages such as Genesis 6:6-7 directly show God changing his mind), you have also completely and utterly misunderstood my point.

My point was not that God hates people. My point was that some people hate other people (and use such language to describe them as you did in your round 2 post) and then defend this hate by claiming that it is what God wants.

Quote:

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

As I pointed out - that is one possible (but not necessarily the most likely) translation. What evidence do you have that it is the only reasonable (or even most reasonable) translation?

What makes you think that the NASB version is "nearly an exact copy" from the original? What makes you think that the Hebrew says "as one lies with" rather than "and lie with" or "or lie with"?

Simply listing the Strong's numbers means nothing, since they only give the base "(7901)not with (3808)a man (2145)lay, (3068)lyings (430)with a woman" and do nothing to support which conjunction should inserted in there. You do realise that the Strong's numbers by themselves merely give the root forms of the main words involved, and say nothing of tense or case or implied (but not present in the Hebrew) conjunctions, aren't you?

I argued that the style and context of the verse indicated that "as with" was not likely to be the correct conjunction. You have done nothing to address this argument other than to ignore it in favour of simply asserting that your favoured conjunction is the correct one - and citing as evidence the Strong's numbers for the words, even though those Strong's numbers do nothing to support your case.

In other words, you have done nothing whatsoever of substance to address my arguments from style and context

So you say, but you have provided no evidence that this is true, nor have you addressed any of my evidence to the contrary - it is merely an empty assertion. Had I known that you consider such empty assertions to be valid arguments, then I needn't have bothered with my earlier posts. I could simply have said "The Bible simply doesn't condemn homosexuality" and that would have settled the matter.

What is your argument supporting your assertion that the Hebrew words "simply mean" what the English words say?

Maybe it's because the grown man does not approach the translation issue as a naive child would...


No. I am referring to the word in question - not the basic grammatical root of the word (which is what Strong's gives). Your apparent failure to grasp the way that Strong's numbers work severely reduces the credibility of your usage of them to support your argument.

I already have. I spent 1000 words doing so in Round 2 of the debate.

Because the same Hebrew word is used elsewhere to refer to people of both sexes (e.g. Jonah 3:5). As I said, it's meaning is "man" or "mankind" or "people" in the general sense. Since the Bible is very male-centred, and most of its protagonists and antagonists are male, it is most often used to describe people who are male - but it is equally valid to use it to describe groups of mixed sex.


Huh? Apart from the fact that the whole section is set in Sodom, verse 4 specifically says that the people were "of Sodom" - unless you want to argue that somewhere between verses 4 and 10 the first mob of locals left and a second mob of foreigners arrived and carried on doing what the first mob had been doing, but the narrator forgot to tell us about it. Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

To make it easier for you, I've bolded the sections of your Strong's quote where it points out that the verse is not just used for men but for people or groups of mixed or indeterminate sex as well. Thanks for destroying your own argument like this. It saves me the trouble.

The passage quite simply does not say what you want it to say. It does not say that the people chose to be homosexuals and that God gave them up to their choice. It says that the people chose to worship in forbidden ways - and that then God "gave them up in the lusts of their hearts" to abandon their normal behaviour and become homosexual. The becoming homosexual happens after God interferes - God does not interfere because they are homosexual. I notice that you added the word "own" to the phrase "in their hearts" to twist it to further mean what you want it to mean, even though that word is not even in the English translations that you quote. If you are going to simply add to the text of the Bible in order to make it say what you want it to say then it is not worth arguing with you about what the text says.

I know that you seem to think that Strong's Concordance is divinely inspired and gives the True(tm) meaning of every word - but this is not the case.

The concordance was written for (and based on) the KJV text. As such, the translations given are those that match the KJV text. I pointed out that there is no context within the Bible for the word, and that the extra-biblical uses of the word disagree with the KJV translation. Since Strong's merely repeats the KJV translation, it can not be used to support said translation. If you want to demonstrate that the word means "homosexuals" then you need to demonstrate it being used somewhere unambiguously in that manner, and address the fact that it is also used in strictly heterosexual contexts in other Greek texts.

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.

Are you actually reading what you are typing - not one paragraph ago you just quoted Strong's as saying the word is translated as "Sodomite"!

So you admit that the Strong's translation of it (that you base your argument on) is wrong? That's good to know.

You know, you really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot every time you try to make an argument - it must be very painful. It's certainly embarrassing to watch.

No - but I do see "Sodomites", which you explicitly state to be incorrect, so Strong's is obviously incorrect in its translation.

I love it when you not only destroy your own argument, but you even repeat the destruction for emphasis.

So which is it, John? Is Strong's the authority on Greek (an opinion not shared by Greek Scholars), or is it simply wrong and showing the existing bias of the KJV? For your argument to work, it must be both.

And in doing so, you have fatally undermined your own position.

You have quoted Strong's numbers as "Evidence" that the Hebrew says what you want it to say, when the numbers are evidence of no such thing, since the crucial parts of the text are those not covered by the numbers - which only cover the roots of the Hebrew words, not the tenses and cases and contexts of individual uses of the words.

You have quoted definitions from Strong's to support your assertions that words must have a particular meaning - when the very definitions you quote specifically say that the words have multiple meanings including the ones that I say the context supports.

You have quoted Strong's definitions as being the authority on the meaning of a word, whilst at the same time claiming that the meaning given by Strong's for the same word is wrong, thus directly contradicting yourself.

And you have not addressed a single argument from context that I have made - instead simply asserting that the original Hebrew and Greek means what you want it to mean, whilst at the same time demonstrating (via Strong's definitions) the very variety of meaning that you deny exists.

Your rebuttal fails on every count.

Dean Anderson

And now I'm going to bed, before I fall asleep at the keyboard!

Good night, all...

Evilicious

Anne Lamott*: "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."





*Search for "image" when you get to the page to find the actual quote. -Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Bible John

Glad to see you back Pervy.

Bible John

Dave Horn right?

I had fun over my thanksgiving Holiday. I am sorry that you have no family, friends, and socialization outside of your computer. No wonder why you pick on Jason so much. Its entertainment for you. Dave you should watch a movie or play a video game once and a while. Everyone is tired of your harassing of Jason.

Bible John

And in doing so, you have fatally undermined your own position.

You have quoted Strong's numbers as "Evidence" that the Hebrew says what you want it to say, when the numbers are evidence of no such thing, since the crucial parts of the text are those not covered by the numbers - which only cover the roots of the Hebrew words, not the tenses and cases and contexts of individual uses of the words.

I never took hebrew or Greek. As a Church Education major it was not in my base cirriculum. I have been studying them on my own time.

And you have not addressed a single argument from context that I have made - instead simply asserting that the original Hebrew and Greek means what you want it to mean, whilst at the same time demonstrating (via Strong's definitions) the very variety of meaning that you deny exists.

Why do you think you are more educated than the hundreds of scholars who translated the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and NIV? It raises a red flag because you alone claim that the original does not condemn homosexuality when many with PHD's in bible and languages claim you to be incorrect. True since my major was in ministry I may not be a language scholar, but I truth the scholars that translated my bibles. I trust because I believe the bible is the Word of God and divinly inspired (2 Tim 3:16).

Your rebuttal fails on every count.

To one that is not saved yes.

I congradulate you on your scholarship or the original languages though which seem to be a step ahead of mine. But.. My point stands that no matter your knowledge you will spend eternity in hell if you do not repent from your ways and turn to the truth. You cannot be both atheist and christian Pervy.

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom. 1:21 ¶ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools


God bless Pervey and if the Lord allows I will post again in this debate.


John

user name

This thread has certainly digressed a bit from discussing the Pervy/Bible John debate but in MHO had Bible John done even a moderate amount of research he would have won the debate.

Take for example Pervy’s argument on Genesis 19. If one analyses this, it is found to be speculative and invalid.

Pervy has this to say in regards to the term translated as “men� in Gen 19 vs 4 & 10.
Quote: “Whilst the word does have a masculine gender grammatically, it refers to people of both genders.�

This is true; however two points must be raised, 1) that while proper word definitions are terrific one must allow for the context to drive the definition, 2) the ancient Hebrews were a patriarchal society. So, with this in mind, the social-historical context of this passage seems to demand that the reference is to men.

Also in Vs 5 Pervy goes from defining yada (the Hebrew term translated “to know�) to mean “to recognise� or “to get a good look at� (which I do not disagree with) to extrapolating it to mean a lynch mob. (which I do not agree with)

Quote: “It is not a gang-rape that they need to be afraid of – it is a lynching.� And “…if the mob is a lynch-mob that is all riled up…� (Emphasis mine)

But where is “lynching� or “lynch mob� in the text or context? I could be wrong but I just don’t see it anywhere. It seems to have been inserted just because Pervy’s interpretation needs it.

Furthermore in vs 5 - If Pervey’s definition/translation of “to know� is correct (i.e. to recognize or get a good look at) why does Lot try to shut his door and say “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly�. How is it wicked to try and recognize someone as a spy?�

Pervy is saying Lot’s extreme reaction (shutting the door and saying the men’s desire was wicked) is due to the fact they are a lynch mob. But if there is no reason to believe the crowd was a “lynch mob�, why does Lot react in that manner? What sets him off? Certainly not merely the request for a “look� at the strangers. Pervy’s interpretation doesn’t seem to fit here.

Concerning the daughters in vs 8 Pervy says “If the mob outside his door was a bunch of homosexual gang-rapists looking for men to rape, why on earth would Lot be stupid enough to offer his daughters to them as a substitute. Of course they would not be interested in them. By this reading of the story, the mob are all homosexual men. Why would they be interested in young women?� (Emphasis mine)

First point here is that the majority of homosexual men are not exclusively homosexual. The famous Kinsey study states that:

“10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55.�
“8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. (p. 651, Male)�
“4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews, (p. 651, Male).�
Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/resea...#homosexuality

So, yes, these men would indeed be interested in young women. Therefore Pervy’s argument that the men were not homosexual because 1) they are a lynch mob and 2) they would not have been interested in women is invalid.

Now, if these men were not a lynch mob but homosexual why did Lot offer his daughters to the men? Most assuredly not so the men could see that they were not spies. It seems reasonable for Lot’s offer of his daughters to these men was sexual in nature. It is not unwarranted to translate yada (to know) in a sexual way in Gen 19:8, in fact the context demands it be translated in that manner.

Also, Pervy is almost silent when it comes to Judges 19 where a similar incident occurs. A man and his concubine are traveling and decide to rest overnight at a strange town. One man extends them hospitality, takes them into his home, and provides for them. We take up the story at verse 19:22.

JDG 19:22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

JDG 19:23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

JDG 19:25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

This incident is so similar to Genesis 19 they one feels compelled to ask a number of questions:

Were these people recently at war as in Genesis 19? If not why did the men of the city confront the man?

Did they merely want to get acquainted with the man to ensure he is not a spy? If not what was the meaning of “to know� (yada)?

If they did want to get acquainted with the man, why did the host say to them “don't do this disgraceful thing?�

Why the offer and acceptance of the woman by the men of the city?


Finally in vs 5 there is this Quote: “Of all the various forms of ותדעה spread throughout the Hebrew Bible, only a small proportion of these (only 7 instances out of over 80 uses of the verb in total) are actually euphemisms for sex.�

In my concordance the Hebrew term for “know� (yada) occurs 445 times in the OT. I’ll buy for now Pervy’s assertion that only 7 times is it used as a euphemism for sex. Amazingly one of those is in Genesis 19:8 where Lot offers his daughters to the men. So use the “rare occurrence� argument if you’d like but it seems to work against you in the end.

While Pervy does mention Ezekiel curiously absent is Jude 7 which reads “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.� (Emphasis mine)

So, we see that part of Sodom and Gomorrah sins were sexual in nature.

I’d also like to address this statement by Pervy; “The Sodomites are breaking the rules of hospitality by wanting to lynch Lot's guests.�

To break the rules of hospitality is one thing, to lynch some one is something entirely different. The rules of hospitality dealt with subscribing to a communities norms (i.e. foot washing, inviting a stranger into one’s home, honoring your host, protecting your guests, etc) But the men of Sodom want to (according to Pervy) lynch them. That’s not breaking the rules of hospitality. There’s another word for those actions and that word is murder. Though this is not germane to the debate I just thought it was bewildering that anyone would classify a lynch mob or a possible lynching as “breaking the rules of hospitality�.

In Summary:
Now, if these men were not a lynch mob (and there is no reason to think they were) how does this play out.

The men (the social-historical context demands it be men) of Sodom have come (according to Pervy) to see if Lot’s guest’s are spies. (They are not a lynch mob since there is nothing in the text or context which would lead one to that conclusion) They call out to Lot, who meets them outside, to bring out his guests so they can determine whether they are spies. Lots reaction is to shut his door and ask them not to do this wicked thing. (Why is it wicked for the men to determine whether Lot’s guests are spies?) Lot next offers the men his daughters so they can either a) get a “to recognise� or“to get a good look at� b) to have sex with them – neither of these offers a coherent picture of this passage – Can one reasonably conclude that men looking for spies would think that eliminating Lot’s daughters as suspects would satisfy them? and if the offer was sexual then that seems to imply that the men's initial request concerning Lot's guests was sexual)

The former in more than a bit convoluted while the following makes better sense of the passage.

The men (the social-historical context demands it be men) of Sodom have come to rape Lot’s guests. They call out to Lot, who meets them outside, to bring out his guests so they can have sex with/rape them. Lots reaction is to shut his door and ask them not to do this wicked thing. (Now we understand Lot’s reaction) Lot next offers them men his daughters so they can have sex with them and satisfy their lust. (see Judges 19)

For what it worth that is my non-scholarly evaluation of Genesis 19.

David Vestal

Does that mean that, having conceded defeat in the formal debate, you are now conceding defeat in the informal debate as well?


That's preaching, not debating. Debates aren't won by merely asserting that the other guy is in trouble with your god.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise, do you?

gagster

Great Scott! Bible John spelled Pervy's name correctly! Maybe there is a god.





Then again, maybe not.


Greg