TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Let's sue the Bible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Let's sue the Bible - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
there are specific verses that prohibit same-sex relationships... but they're in every translation i have, so i don't see where he's headed w/this...

i read the article - it doesn't mention which version he's unhappy with.
From how I read it, it's the term "homosexual" he's unhappy with. The concept of a person being "homosexual" or "a homosexual" simply didn't exist, culturally, when the Bible was written. It was viewed as a behavior, not an identity. Maybe I'm looking too far into it or coming at it from the wrong angle, but that's how I interpreted his complaint. If I'm right, then, at worst, really, we're just talking about sloppy translation. If I'm wrong, then I honestly don't know what leg this guy is trying to stand on.
post #32 of 57
I have to relook it up, but I believe the only book section that is NOT to be added to or taken away is what is in Revelation.

But this kind of stuff is what the Christians will be dealing with as it gets worse - the idea is to do away with God, Jesus, and the truth - no matter what it takes.


Its in Rev 22:18 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds to these things God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
But this kind of stuff is what the Christians will be dealing with as it gets worse - the idea is to do away with God, Jesus, and the truth - no matter what it takes.
Well, that might be a "bit" of an exaggeration.
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaete View Post
From how I read it, it's the term "homosexual" he's unhappy with. The concept of a person being "homosexual" or "a homosexual" simply didn't exist, culturally, when the Bible was written. It was viewed as a behavior, not an identity. Maybe I'm looking too far into it or coming at it from the wrong angle, but that's how I interpreted his complaint. If I'm right, then, at worst, really, we're just talking about sloppy translation. If I'm wrong, then I honestly don't know what leg this guy is trying to stand on.
well, if that's the case, then he's in for a shock. NONE of the versions i looked at had that term - only the behavior was described. & i looked at all 3 KJV, a contemporary English version, plus a paraphrased version - The Message.
post #35 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Well, that might be a "bit" of an exaggeration.
Oh, I think there are plenty of people that would like to erase Jesus' name from the face of the Earth. To bad for them, they will never do it.
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Oh, I think there are plenty of people that would like to erase Jesus' name from the face of the Earth. To bad for them, they will never do it.
no but at the rate its going now,
will it will become illegal to say it. you will be hiding in your basement. hoping the police dont know you holding a christen service.
post #37 of 57
I suspect that's just how the Muslims feel, Bruce. Shame, isn't it?
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Well, that might be a "bit" of an exaggeration.
Unfortunately, I don't think it is that much of an exaggeration. I believe that eventually that is exactly what is going to happen. Well, maybe I read too much into Revelation...
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kluchetta View Post
Unfortunately, I don't think it is that much of an exaggeration. I believe that eventually that is exactly what is going to happen. Well, maybe I read too much into Revelation...
i see the same thing, tho.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
i see the same thing, tho.
I'm rather curious as to how those that have this opinion come to that conclusion. Today, the Pope will be speaking to hundreds of thousands of people without interference. The Lambeth Conference is about to begin, held every 10 years it's the largest gathering of Anglican church leaders in the world, and their only detractors are themselves, as a lot of their own bishops are boycotting them. There is an evangelical in the Whitehouse, and two christian candidates running to replace him. I just don't see any signs of Jesus being outlawed in any secular countries.
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm rather curious as to how those that have this opinion come to that conclusion. Today, the Pope will be speaking to hundreds of thousands of people without interference. The Lambeth Conference is about to begin, held every 10 years it's the largest gathering of Anglican church leaders in the world, and their only detractors are themselves, as a lot of their own bishops are boycotting them. There is an evangelical in the Whitehouse, and two christian candidates running to replace him. I just don't see any signs of Jesus being outlawed in any secular countries.
Fine, but are Catholics and Anglicans really Christian? Our daughter (Roman Catholic) is dating a young man (Baptist) and his mother refuses to even meet our daughter - her reason - "She's a Catholic so she's not a very good Christian". So some folks may take this remark from a very devout Baptist person that Catholics are not considered Christian in their eyes. But then I am one of those people that also think that one person's opinion doesn't necessarily make something the truth and tend to think his mother may be a minority with that line of thinking.

I was going to say the same thing as you Skippy - the Pope and Catholics alone would not allow Christianity to become extinct so I don't think we Christians have to worry. I can't speak for other religions but I think the biggest thing the Pope has to worry about is bringing Catholicism into this century to get some young people back to the church.
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
well, if that's the case, then he's in for a shock. NONE of the versions i looked at had that term - only the behavior was described. & i looked at all 3 KJV, a contemporary English version, plus a paraphrased version - The Message.
One of the articles I read pertaining to this (http://www.247gay.com/article.cfm?section=124&id=19559) had this information:


In the text from a 1982 version by Thomas Nelson, Fowler claims the passage has been changed to:

“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 sodimites.â€


Of course, that's a really old version... at least, old to be suing over now.
post #43 of 57
So being that I am not going to crutch my way across the room, I looked up the verse (1 Cor. 6:9) here: http://ebible.org/kjv/

It did not specifically say homosexual in that verse.

If the guy has a problem with that verse, would he not also have a problem with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Fine, but are Catholics and Anglicans really Christian?
I wasn't sure how to field that question I was under the impression that the Catholic Church and the Church of England are some of the oldest Christian institutions outside the holy land.
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I wasn't sure how to field that question I was under the impression that the Catholic Church and the Church of England are some of the oldest Christian institutions outside the holy land.
Just some of my tongue-in-cheek humour due to Jennifer's situation with her boyfriend's mother.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ah, now I see. So the translation they were talking about isn't re-translating the ancient texts, but instead is merely translating old english into something more "modern". Ok, that makes sense.
Just have to chime in here...not only about the absolute ridiculous nature of this lawsuit, but on the whole issue of Bible translations. I have the equivalent of a minor in Bible from Moody Bible Institute, so I have a little background here... Anyway, yes, there have been NEW translations made of the Bible since the King James Version. I'm not talking about updated versions such as the New King James Version, but actual translations from the ancient manuscripts.

Since the 1600's alot of OLDER manuscripts have been discovered in archeological finds. Older manuscripts are generally trusted more because they would be closest to the original...every manuscript in ancient times had to be copied by hand, so there are very few in the first place, but we don't have the original manuscript of anything anymore. The newer translations, such as the New International Version or the New American Standard Bible, are based on what scholars believe to be the very best manuscripts of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures that are available today. They may sound very different as you read them, as the scholars who translated them had slightly different goals and because several different words in English can be used to convey the meaning of one Hebrew or Greek word. The NIV, for example, was translated "phrase by phrase" to give a better flow in English while also conveying the ideas and sense the original author intended. The NASB, on the other hand, was translated more "word by word" to convey the most concise meaning for each word without as much attention to "read-ability." An increasing number of people are using these modern translations, not simply because they are closer to modern day English, but because they believe they are more accurate than the King James.

As to this guy's lawsuit, he may as well sue God. If he was convicted by reading the Bible, or even simply by his family quoting Scripture or telling him what God has to say about homosexuality, that's good. That's what the Bible is for...to point out who God is and who we are in comparison to Him--no good sinners! But it's sad that he has not also seen the good news in the Bible, the fact that Christ can erase his sin and give him a new life! I hope his lawsuit doesn't go anywhere because the courts have already taken away too many of our rights as Americans and Christians.
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Just some of my tongue-in-cheek humour due to Jennifer's situation with her boyfriend's mother.
Aha, I see Tongue in cheekin' so noted.
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Cream View Post
Just have to chime in here........
great post, cocoa I concur 100%
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaete View Post
One of the articles I read pertaining to this (http://www.247gay.com/article.cfm?section=124&id=19559) had this information:


In the text from a 1982 version by Thomas Nelson, Fowler claims the passage has been changed to:

“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 sodimites.”


Of course, that's a really old version... at least, old to be suing over now.
i agree - the original KJV of 1 Cor 1:9 uses the terms 'effeminate' & 'abusers of themselves with mankind', not 'homosexual'. looking at the other two KJVs, one says the same thing - the other says 'sodomites'.
btw, Tim - i was referring to kluchetta's remark about 'reading too much into Revelation' - i also get the same impression from my readings in that book.
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
i agree - the original KJV of 1 Cor 1:9 uses the terms 'effeminate' & 'abusers of themselves with mankind', not 'homosexual'. looking at the other two KJVs, one says the same thing - the other says 'sodomites'.
btw, Tim - i was referring to kluchetta's remark about 'reading too much into Revelation' - i also get the same impression from my readings in that book.
Yes...it may not seem to be happening now, but if Revelations is prophetic in any way, at some point, people are going to be required to deny God in order to buy, sell, trade, etc...
post #51 of 57
That is true, and I'm wondering if the "microchip" is what is being referred to in the buy/sell without it - makes sense!
post #52 of 57
Thread Starter 
No microchip for ME or mine.
post #53 of 57
Well, as much as I might argue with Christians about a variety of things, I'm still not going to support this idiot suing over some text in the Bible. My own mom is gay, and she certainly thinks this is absurd. I don't think this man has any right suing anyone over a book. I believe in freedom of speech very much, regardless of whether it's secular or not. I think it's honestly sad that anyone is even giving this man the time of day over such a ridiculous lawsuit.

He should be ashamed of himself. Who does he think he is?
post #54 of 57
i think its kinda funny
If I had enough time on my hands I would do something like that just to prove a point.
post #55 of 57
Thread Starter 
What point would you be trying to prove?
post #56 of 57
Well its probably not a good Idea for me to get to much into it since it will probably offend or hit a nerve with to many people and I don't feel like having a huge argument about the bible and what may or may not be wrong with it. Its not that I don't believe in God or the Bible I just think that the Bible has been translated to many times to say that everything it says is what it was intended to say.
post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaete View Post
He's not "suing the Bible." He's suing the publisher for what he considers faulty translation. He's claiming the publishers inserted politically-charged terminology into the text that did not exist when the Bible was written, and that it caused him emotional distress.

Doubt he'll get far with it. Neither the terminology nor the formed concept existed in Biblical times, but what it amounts to is irresponsible translation. I doubt they'll hold anyone legally responsible.
Actually the concept DID exist in the oldest of old testement times, and was condemnedable by death! For reference Leviticus 18 is full of the lovely 'sex laws'...

Also the fact that right from the beginning God created man and woman for each other (Genesis); because there was no other suitable partner available for the other...kind of further confirms it for me that we were NOT intended to be gay. If men would have been good enough for one another, God could have stopped at Adam...but he didn't...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Let's sue the Bible