@black-hole-sun said a lot of what I was going to. Remember the Bible was written thousands of years ago, The translation from it's original Text into Latin was bound to be different then the original text. Translating it out of Latin and into any of the common languages was strictly forbidden so when it was done there was a high stress to translate and move on, it wasn't a precise process. People were burned at the stake for translating the Bible into other languages, It's not something a person would want to spend extra time on. There are more than one translation and you could use a different version of the bible depending on the denomination, but there are bound to be mistakes and misinterpretations done by translators. It wasn't an exact careful process but it got the job done, so there are going to be errors in the Bible. When It did become legal to translate there are still going to be errors, the King James version, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible, were authorized translation but it's still a translation, from a translation. It's not going to be perfect.
I'm not Christian but as a bisexual I've researched lmao and the original translation is thought to be "man should not sleep with boy" as in talking about pedophilia
I've heard that, but I've never heard it confirmed.
Yeah, it’s hard to confirm, but I’ve heard that too. I might see if I can find my old religion notes, see what my professor and I talked about.
But whatever the case, there are far more valid places to quote if one wishes to condemn homosexuality from the Bible.
@Relsey Well there is the undeniable fact that a perfect translation is impossible when translating any piece longer than a few words.
That being said, translation that was not approved by the Catholic church (not the original church) was not allowed (though the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, was approved by the Catholic church). I believe you are incorrect in saying that translation was a hasty business as it was taken most seriously.
It is true that Bibles were not available to the laymen. But that has to do with the fact that the Catholic church thinking that the laypeople would either stumble into heresy or not be able to defend their beliefs against heresy because of the lack of education.
Pardon me I did not word that very well. I do believe that it was very serious for the people doing it, How every I also believe that under such pressure mistakes would have been more common and frequent.
oh hey, when it comes to translation I know a few things! I grew up around Bible translators (though not people who translated into English).
- It's not true that modern Bible translations are from the Latin Vulgate. New translations, starting with Luther's in the early sixteenth century, are done from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, which were preserved in thousands of manuscripts that survive from the early church time period.
- Biblical scholars today all learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and study the original texts. Quite a few of my friends study theology, and they all take Greek and Hebrew lessons from the first semester onwards.
- I can guarantee translation is not a fast or hasty business! I've seen projects take 20-30 years, I think that's pretty average for the whole Bible. and you've got entire teams of people checking it over for mistakes or unclarity. And in English, you've got a whole bunch of translations - all of which start with the original text and then take each other into account as well.
- The pedophilia thing you're referring to is one of Paul's, I think, and it can be a bit controversial. Usually, to find out the nuance of meaning in words at the time, you look at how a term is used by other writers from the time period, at the direct context, and in other parts of the Bible. But Paul coined the term he uses in Corinthians and in Timothy - "arsenokoites" - so the argument is that it's historically been translated wrong as "man who lies with man" rather than "man who lies with boy". (as a reference to pederastry which is a Greek cultural practice, a "socially accepted relationship between an adult man and a boy, usually in his teens".) But it's very shaky to say that that passage refers only to pederastry, especially when you consider that Paul explicitly links the word as derived from Mosaic law in the Timothy passage (which is a reference to Leviticus which, again, is very explicit about homosexuality).
and even if arsenokoites refers to pederastry, which I'm personally not convinced it is, he doesn't use that word in the Romans passage. That one has a pretty clear explanation of what he means.
so tl;dr translation is controversial and people argue about shades of meaning, but the traditional interpretation is traditional for a reason and reading it otherwise brings up a whole host of issues with textual consistency
i need to stop dropping these gigantic walls of text sorry
Honestly though I loved it.
(as a reference to pederastry which is a Greek cultural practice, a "socially accepted relationship between an adult man and a boy, usually in his teens".)
I did not need this information. I will go die in a hole now-
aaaaay have some fun socially acceptable ancient Greek pedophilia in case your day was going too well
Can a church ban someone from their congregation? Isn't that, like, against Christianity?
They can prevent someone from being an official member, but idk about ban from the congregation entirely unless they pose danger for some reason.
On a professional group gathering program basis, yes I think a church can ban someone from their congregation, but I think it would be unlikely unless under the grounds of something like vandalism, or a stalker, or something creepy or dangerous to someone else.
I know my church has a door guard at least on youth nights so people who aren't there for the program don't come in and vandalize the church, because that is a thing that can happen. (Never seen it happen but I've heard of it from multiple sources.)
As far as the against the religeon thing… I guess that depends on what branch of christianity, (There are different kinds of churches that practice different versions/interpretations of the same faith,) A couple examples are Mennonite, and Catholic, (I haven't done catholic, but I've been in a few mennonite churches, I've also been in pentacostal ones and at least from a kid's POV, they are run pretty differently.
I know my church has a door guard at least on youth nights so people who aren't there for the program don't come in and vandalize the church, because that is a thing that can happen. (Never seen it happen but I've heard of it from multiple sources.)
Yup, mine has at least one guard who may or may not be armed (I don't remember honestly) from what I've heard
I know my church has a door guard at least on youth nights so people who aren't there for the program don't come in and vandalize the church, because that is a thing that can happen. (Never seen it happen but I've heard of it from multiple sources.)
Yup, mine has at least one guard who may or may not be armed (I don't remember honestly) from what I've heard
Ours is usually a youth leader or the friendly janitor. No one is ever armed…
Though I do know the building has security cameras..
(we don’t have guards at our church even though it’s a pretty important historical place and it’s been vandalized at least four times since i’ve been there)
A lot of people at my church have military training of some kind and I personally have enough rage to throw myself at any threat although I'm really just a coward at heart but my life is very boring so I like to think I have the bravery of a YA dystopian protagonist
(There are different kinds of churches that practice different versions/interpretations of the same faith,) A couple examples are Mennonite, and Catholic
Mennonites and Catholics are the same faith? Are you sure about that?
I'm not sure,
My stepfather comes from an Amish Mennonite family and he used to be the main decider of what church my family went to for a long time,
My mom comes from a pentacostal family, and we went to Pentacostal churches and Mennonite churches a lot, I don't think they're separate faiths exactly, since the gist of the teachings was always the same. but there are subtle differences between them.
Do Mennonites believe in The Eucharist as the Body of Christ?
Can you explain what that term means? I'm honestly not sure of it's meaning…. or how to answer your question…. (I've never heard the term Eucharist before, and if I have I wasn't paying attention.)
I'd like to touch on the whole homosexuality thing from a few days back. Not religious, so this is mainly based on what I've heard about history as a whole.
In my opinion S & G most likely does refer to r**e rather than the 'sins' of being gay. Seeing as the bible goes way back, it was likely that angels (as most other things with any power back then) were viewed as male (thanks to ancient misogyny). The passage itself probably did have nothing to do with homosexuality originally, but the series of men translating the book probably made it so because r^^e wasn't exactly frowned upon way back then and men viewed themselves as superior to women (usually in the way that women were weak-minded and should bend to their will).
But whatever the case, the Old Testament isn't the strongest place to make an argument against the gays.
.jpg)
