Biblical Errors?

[TexUs]

I am not trying to be offensive, but I do not think that the two similar words are too hard to get right. Nor do I think that saying rope instead of camel changes the overall meaning of what Jesus was teaching.

Of course it doesn't change the message, but it makes more sense. I was simply saying an early scribal error could very well be the case here. THE MESSAGE (From God) is the same. The ink on paper, can be fallible over time. What Paul penned was perfect, however, we do not have the exact letter he wrote.

And just look at the text I posted, it's easy if you're translating to mis-read that. In fact most of the errors between copies ARE scribal errors such as repeated words, grammar, etc (have you ever copied a letter or test? what happens? You repeat words, miss grammar, all the same things present here).

As you said, the message is the same. But are there errors in the TEXT of the Bible? Probably. Are there errors in the WORD of the Bible? No.

 

[Foreigner]

Am curious, De.
Do you think that the homosexual act is acceptable in God's eyes under any circumstances?

 

[deprofundis]

I'm curious as to what that has to do with my post, whatsoever. This is a thread about the possibility of errors in the bible, and I'm noting that two different translations can be produced, meaning that one must be in error. The point isn't the word being translated, just that its various translations are not even functionally equivalent.

 

[Anastacia]

I'm curious as to what that has to do with my post, whatsoever. This is a thread about the possibility of errors in the bible, and I'm noting that two different translations can be produced, meaning that one must be in error. The point isn't the word being translated, just that its various translations are not even functionally equivalent.

It's what you said in the post in this thread and, what you said in the post about gay bashing. You said homosexuality isn't even in some translations, and you used that to defend homosexuality. So why are you acting here like we misunderstand you?

You are the one who used the word "homosexual" in your argument here.

 

[deprofundis]

Actually, what I said here was that homosexuality wasn't even in some translations, but was in others, which means that some of the translations must be wrong. So I'm acting like you misunderstand me because, in this thread, you misunderstand me. I repeatedly refused to make any claims as to which one was, since that is not the purpose of this thread. The one I believe to be correct is irrelevant to the point that for one to be correct, the opposing translations must be at least somewhat wrong. Moreover, it is not the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss it, please use one of the appropriate threads which is concerned with homosexuality. I simply chose it as an example here only because it is a word with it is easy to display the variances in translations. Again, as I've said about five times, I'm not making any claim as to which translation is right. I used the example to demonstrate a specific instance in the Bible where translations are different, as I was asked to do earlier in this thread.

 

[TexUs]

To help De out...
"Homosexuality is always a sin"
"Homosexuality is always not a sin"
or
"The sky is always blue"
"The sky is always not blue"

One (or both, I suppose) of these statements must be wrong, and that's all he's trying to say.

 

[deprofundis]

Or even "not always," rather than "always not," but yeah, essentially. Basically that translating the same word two different ways with functionally different meanings means that at least one translation can't really be correct.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

If there are mistakes in the Bible, there's an easy explaination for it.

First explaination is, Semantics. Many people have tried to update the word of God to relate to newer generations. As an example, the KJV,,, The "Kings English" to me is insufferable, I can't tolerate it, much less understand a single solitary meaning. You might as well be screaming Shakespere at me with death metal playing in the back ground.

So, If today, I say,,, "Don't thou cast thine locks into thine wine press lest thy scalp become marred" would be the same as if I say, "Hey, put your hair up so it doesn't get tangled in that machine.".

Another explaination, and if anyone ever bothered to read the other stuff in the Bible that was put there to explain some of the translations and notes,,, you'd understand. Many scolars have developed their own translations with a language and meanings that they feel are apt and easier to understand according to their research and what they feel inspired them.

The entire message is the same, the entire moral is the same.

Besides, the fact,,,,,, We're so concerned with different versions of the Bible? Some claim that there's something wrong if "God can't keep his own word the same" or what ever? Well,,,,,,,,,, How many bastard preachers have been torturing God's word for centuries? Anyone ever seen false prophets or watched anyone on TBN?

God has kept his word alive and true. Some men just distort, and we don't need different translations for that.

 

[Anastacia]

Actually, what I said here was that homosexuality wasn't even in some translations, but was in others, which means that some of the translations must be wrong. So I'm acting like you misunderstand me because, in this thread, you misunderstand me. I repeatedly refused to make any claims as to which one was, since that is not the purpose of this thread. The one I believe to be correct is irrelevant to the point that for one to be correct, the opposing translations must be at least somewhat wrong. Moreover, it is not the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss it, please use one of the appropriate threads which is concerned with homosexuality. I simply chose it as an example here only because it is a word with it is easy to display the variances in translations. Again, as I've said about five times, I'm not making any claim as to which translation is right. I used the example to demonstrate a specific instance in the Bible where translations are different, as I was asked to do earlier in this thread.

You misunderstand what I posted. I commented on your comments about the translations. I know what you said and meant. My comments were to show that even when a different word is used (because exact translation of the word might not be exact) that we still know the meaning of what is being taught, and that where the word 'homosexual' is used, or not used---we still know that homosexuality is sin. Understand now?

 

[deprofundis]

Um, no. I don't think we necessarily do know that, which is my entire point. You feel you know that, because you believe the "homosexual" interpretation is correct. Perhaps others believe that the "child abuser" interpretation is correct, and thus that it is not homosexuality, but child abuse that is the sin. Both of your understandings are solidly grounded in the scripture, but other than a small amount of overlap in the form of homosexual child abusers, they do not agree with one another.

 

[Anastacia]

Um, no. I don't think we necessarily do know that, which is my entire point. You feel you know that, because you believe the "homosexual" interpretation is correct. Perhaps others believe that the "child abuser" interpretation is correct, and thus that it is not homosexuality, but child abuse that is the sin. Both of your understandings are solidly grounded in the scripture, but other than a small amount of overlap in the form of homosexual child abusers, they do not agree with one another.

Um, yes. If God has revealed to you the Way, then one knows that homosexuality is wrong. Also, one would know child abuse is wrong. There is more than one scripture telling us that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[deprofundis]

Yes, as I said, in your belief, you know that to be true. Others may not agree and do not have to agree. Who is right is irrelevant, the fact that the scripture can be used to support the mutually exclusive interpretations is, however, the issue at hand.

Depending on the translation one reads, there are anywhere from three references to homosexuality to none at all in the New Testament.

 

[Anastacia]

Yes, as I said, in your belief, you know that to be true. Others may not agree and do not have to agree. Who is right is irrelevant, the fact that the scripture can be used to support the mutually exclusive interpretations is, however, the issue at hand.

Depending on the translation one reads, there are anywhere from three references to homosexuality to none at all in the New Testament.

You have to agree with the Word of God. That's who you have to agree with. Homosexuality is a sin.

I'm going to stop reading the shame that you write.

Here, read this in many translations:


Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version, ©2010)

[sup]26[/sup] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [sup]27[/sup] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

[sup]26[/sup]For this reason [sup](A)[/sup]God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, [sup]27[/sup]and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, [sup]©[/sup]men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

[sup]26[/sup]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [sup]27[/sup]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27 (English Standard Version)

[sup]26[/sup]For this reason[sup](A)[/sup] God gave them up to[sup] [/sup]dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [sup]27[/sup]and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,[sup]©[/sup] men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (New King James Version)
[sup]26[/sup] For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. [sup]27[/sup] 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.



Romans 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[deprofundis]

What about those who see the Word of God differently than you? Of course, you believe yourself to be right, but my point is others could take the Word to mean different things than you do. From their perspective, just as you are from yours, they are agreeing with the Word of God, and, in fact, you are not.

If you would like to discuss the passage from Romans which you cite in another thread actually intended for the discussion of homosexuality, I would be glad to discuss those verses there.

 

[Anastacia]

What about those who see the Word of God differently than you? Of course, you believe yourself to be right, but my point is others could take the Word to mean different things than you do. From their perspective, just as you are from yours, they are agreeing with the Word of God, and, in fact, you are not.

If you would like to discuss the passage from Romans which you cite in another thread actually intended for the discussion of homosexuality, I would be glad to discuss those verses there.

Stop telling me what and when and where I can post.

I'm going to try and ignore you in all the threads from now on. Even young children can understand the scriptures. But with you, it is as though your conscience has been seared with a hot iron.

 

[deprofundis]

I'm not telling you anything about where you can post, I'm just clarifying that I'm going to limit my responses in this thread to the topic of this thread. If you'd like to talk about other issues, I'd be glad to do so in the thread designated for that topic.

I'm sorry you feel that way about me.

 

[Duckybill]

Homosexuals and lesbians are clearly condemned in Romans 1.

Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
[sup]26 [/sup]For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. [sup]27 [/sup]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.