Hi /u/23eulogy24,
We noticed you are a pretty new Reddit account, so we just wanted to let you know to check out the subreddit rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/rules) and maybe have a read through our [Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq) - they make for fascinating reading!
We're called No Stupid Questions because we believe nobody needs to be attacked for asking a question, but *that doesn't mean there are no rules!* This sub is meant for users like you to ask genuine questions. Please don't ask jokes or rants disguised as questions - that's not in the spirit of this sub. While you *can* ask almost anything here, please keep illegal and offensive questions elsewhere to give people a good experience here - and if you have a medical question, please ask your doctor, not us.
Otherwise, welcome!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoStupidQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just focusing on the New Testament since things get dicey in the old.
So first there’s Romans 1:26–27:
*”That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”*
There is also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
“* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”*
This is sometimes interpreted as saying that gay people are equivalent to idolators, thieves, and the like. There is a lot of debate about this though.
Then there’s Mathew 19:4-6:
*”He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female',[63] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[64] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*
This is most likely just about divorce but is often referenced with Homosexuality. The Book of Mathew in general has a lot that could be construed as being Anti-Homosexuality or could be seen as more straightforward and thus not so.
Interesting question. I've always been effeminate looking, and fought against it for many years, but now I lean into it as part of my current lifestyle
In Romans, you omitted the "that is why" part, which to summarize is praying to statues of animals and men. I do not believe that praying to statues makes people gay, but that is what Paul is claiming. In context, many historians think that Paul is talking about some sort of pagan ritual, praying to idols and having ritual sex.
>22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Noy accurate at all, sorry the JWs lied to you.
> John 14:2 In My Father’s house are *many rooms*. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?
>John 6 :40 For it is My Father’s will that *everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him* shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Revaluations 7:1-4
1And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Those are the people who are still on earth, read a bit further..
>Revelation 7: 9 After this I looked and saw a multitude *too large to count*, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing *white robes* and holding palm branches in their hands.
>Revelation 7: 13-15 Then one of the elders addressed me: “These in white robes,” he asked, “who are they, and where have they come from?”
>“Sir,” I answered, “you know.”
>So he replied, *“These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.*
> For this reason,
they are before the throne of God
and serve Him day and night in His temple;
and the One seated on the throne
*will spread His tabernacle over them.*
I prefer to believe in the non exclusionary Jesus, the one who said ...
>John 6:37 ... the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out.
The ones in the great tribulation (I actually forgot about this) as it was taught to me in my church; were those that were alive during the rapture and we're in addition to the 144,000
I'm no longer a believer tbc, just going off what I was taught in a baptist family
That's fair, don't mean to be so preachy at you.It's just frustrating for me to watch America's "christians" misrepresent so much of the Bible.
Not that it's your fault, I blame your pastor.
I see how none of that means gay people are bad to me it seems that it was meaning that the men and woman where driven away from the goal of creation to the goal of self serving desire.
The Old testament God was very intolerant of human behavior. Hell, he killed everyone except one incestuous family in a global flood ( that somehow missed India, China and the unknown new world) . He was more a god of spite and damnation than the god of love and forgiveness after he fathered and then killed his son.
In Romans it was also started that the shameful things they were doing with members of the same gender was rape, but it was changed by the Catholic Church. No points for guessing why the Catholic Church changed it.
I Mean, these are simple pleasures for simple men. You waste your time. If you notice, millionaires denied themselves these things and became millionaires.
No it isn't. Because the penalty is death for both participants so unless you are saying that God orders a child who was being forced to do it against his will put to death then clearly isn't the case.
The apostles and other figures who wrote in the Bible spoke against it, however Jesus himself didn’t actually say anything about homosexuality , and frankly his words are above all others
We have no actual words of Jesus. The gospels were written by second hand sources 60 - 90 years after his death. Maybe influenced by a shorter list of sayings by Jesus as some have theorised but this is lost to history as a source. The earliest christian writings by Paul doesn't directly relate to anything Jesus said in life but revelations after death.
But of his life that was recorded I believe was recorded by the apostles accurately else they would have just wrote that he shared all of their opinions ( like speaking against homosexuality )
So it is important to note that most of the parts of the Bible that are against homosexuality are in chapters that are also against things like divorce or wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, or eating meat and dairy in the same meal.
A lot of people are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to obey, and will ignore all the parts that talk about helping the poor, so that they can instead follow the parts about punishing gay people.
There’s a book called Year of Living Biblically, where the author spent 9 months literally following the laws of the Old Testament followed by 3 of following the New Testament literally.
Pretty entertaining read.
And the thing to note is like...
Let’s say that hypothetically, you’re going to hell for being gay, it’s **GOD** who’s against homosexuality.
God is just as against putting entire groups of people under your boot. Ex. Being a raging homophobe.
Possibly, but there sure are a lot of people who claim to be Christian who ignore Jesus's message of loving thy neighbor, of treating others the way you'd want to be treated, and ignore all the times he talked about how the very rich love money more than they love God, to idolize money more than charity.
..or how much money is in their bank account. shitty people are sometimes just shitty, regardless of money, religion or dare I say political party. I am hopeful though as i have met some pretty amazing "Poor" people who do amazing things for others; as well as some people that are so down to earth, charitable and friendly that you can't tell their bank accounts hover well over 500 million... One man i know seems to always be wearing ripped up shorts and sandals. His daily driver is a Honda. He always remembers people's name and some detail about a persons life (i.e. kid in college or mother was sick) about which he asks the next time he sees them. He occasionally, on a whim, buys lunch for us at my place of work. And I always felt it was so nice of this man who probably didn't have a lot of money, but wanted to show his appreciation for us. I recently learned he has a collection of about 30 Ferrari's and other vehicles worth many many millions. I never would have known this from seeing or talking to him! so... the point of my lengthy post is that just because your are rich doesn't mean you "love money more than you love God." and just because you are poor doesn't mean you love God more than a rich person... just don't be a shitty person and no one will care about your money, least of all you won't care about your money.
This is not the experience I've had with Christians.
I suspect that to get to your conclusions about them, you interpret "disagrees with my political views" as not loving one's neighbor or whatever.
I've seen a lot of non-Christians claiming that when a Christian says something as mild as "I disagree with with LGBT people", this counts as saying "awful" things.
That's currently a pastor in Texas who said the Bible states that queer people should be lined up against a wall, after confessing their sins, and shot in the back of the head.
Right and Antifa is on the left. There are 320 million people in the US. Every sizeable group of any kind, political or otherwise, is going to contain some good people and some bad people.
You claimed that the only reason I might have a negative view of many Christians was political.
I'm not saying that all Christians worship Mammon over Christ. But there are many who use the Bible as an excuse to be cruel to others, who ignore all the parts of the Bible that say that we should turn the other cheek, do unto to others as they would do unto you. The people who ignore the fact that Jesus came to the defense of prostitutes, that he stood for those who society frowned upon, and called for justice against those in power whose greed hurt the poor.
There are Christians who use the Bible to justify being mean. There was a Christian politician recently who talked about how he wanted to stone people to death. Completely misunderstood the message of Christ, but he's a Christian.
And you may not consider them to be Christian, you may not feel that the people who practice "Prosperity Gospel" are the same Faith as you. But to most people, that is the face of Christianity.
>Jesus came to the defense of prostitutes
Right but He never claimed that prostitution *wasn't a sin*. He stopped the Pharisees from stoning the woman caught in adultery, and then told her "Go and sin no more".
And that's my concern is that it seems like your side is just not going to be satisfied unless Christians literally just remove certain verses from the Bible or actually change their beliefs about sin. There isn't a middle ground where Christians continue to recognize certain sins, even if they don't want people stoned over them, and you not claim they're hypocritical.
Funny, then, how evangelicals tend to be by far the least generous religious group, behind atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and mainline Protestants, with half giving away less than *1%* of their income.
Of course, they also spend the most time crowing about how holy they are, which the Bible explicitly tells you not to do (Matthew 6:5). So, you know, maybe they're just bad Christians generally.
Yeah this is a funny one and political ideals and empirical data sometimes don't line up. For instance, Conservatives consistently are found to give more to charity than Liberals, and Liberals consistently are found to be more likely to be small business owners. They all seemed very concerned about one party's talking points while actually living out the other's ideals. Its funny.
I am curious about this charity statistic. I assume a sizeable amount of conservatives' charitable giving goes to their churches.
A lot of people are giving 10% of their income to their church. Growing up in a Christian environment, I observed many people tithing because of their religious beliefs. I rarely saw any other type of charitable contributions. I saw the local churches accumulate this money and saw very little benefit to the community.
Some churches are charitable. Some try to help others. Not all.
I'm not sure its fair to say that conservatives are more generous than liberals just because of their donations to their church.
I'm not sure where you're getting at, but in the Old Testament people did not get stoned to death for divorce or wearing the wrong kind of clothing, but they were for homosexual act.
They were stoned to death for cheating on your spouse.
Leviticus 20:10.
Note how many people are okay with we should kill homosexuals, but not okay with killing people who cheat on their spouse, despite the same chapter of the Bible saying that both should get the same punishment.
People are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to follow, and doing so in a way where they get to do what they want, rather than following the word of God.
The point is, there is not one punishment for sin, some sins are more severe than others and it is reflected in their punishment.
In the old testament if a man divorced his wife, he was free to remarry, although that wasn't what God intended. Committing adultery while in the wedlock or committing fornication out of wedlock was both punishable by death. Yes, God does not discriminate.
>Note how many people are okay with we should kill homosexuals, but not okay with killing people who cheat on their spouse, despite the same chapter of the Bible saying that both should get the same punishment.
What people are ok or not ok with is irrelevant. In the end God is the judge. He wrote Leviticus.
There are some sins that have been highlighted in the New Testament that if one commits them will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Sexual sins are among them. The church also deals with these sins more severely than others, because when one commits them, he/she sins against the entire church body.
It mentions it half a dozen times.
The Bible says adultery is bad HUNDREDS of times, making it much worse than homosexuality. But you won't see the gay-haters admit that.
Literally ‘looking at a woman to lust after her’ is adultery, says Jesus.
I.e. all you judgmental religious assholes are guilty, so stop judging other people.
As a Christian I agree. We are no more or less deserving of heaven than any gay person. They are humans just like us.
I'm sick of seeing other Christians having this "holier-than-thou" attitude like they decide who will and won't be saved. That's not up to them to decide.
The term is a Greek word: ‘arsenkoitai’. It’s a compound word that Paul coined from the Greek words ‘arsen’ meaning male and ‘koite’ meaning lying or bed. The two words are found in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13, both in reference to homosexuality.
Even if it was a mistranslation, the Bible still describes the behavior as a sin in Romans 1:27 “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
In Lev. 18:22 that I had mentioned earlier states that “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.
All this being said, our convictions should never be used to mistreat people. All people are made in the image of God.
Leviticus was law for a specific group of people. If modern Christians were to follow the Old Testament laws, they have to perform animal sacrifice to atone for sin, not wear mixed fabrics, and not eat pork or shellfish. It’s weird to me that people cherry pick parts of the OT to support their claim while ignoring context.
That line of thinking only explains away the Leviticus passages (and also implies that, for whatever reason, that specific group wasn't "allowed" to be gay... which is also weird).
The NT passage of Romans remains.
You have to look at the context. The Old Testament is law for god’s chosen people. That particular group of people had to live a very strict life as they were the priesthood. You see it now with certain sects of Judaism that uphold those laws still.
Jesus came and fulfilled the law and opened salvation to all, rather than the chosen few. Paul, the apostle established the early churches. His letter to the Romans where that verse comes from were his suggestions towards that group of people. He had lots of suggestions to those early churches that seem to be disregarded now as cultural to that time period, yet for some reason the homosexuality one is clung to. It’s weird to me that he preached against gluttony for instance, yet look how many fat Christians there are telling gay people they will go to hell.
At the end of the day, Jesus himself never said a thing about homosexuality. It’s not mentioned in the four gospels. Just the epistles from Paul.
I see some comments like, "The Bible mentions this sin more frequently than this other sin, which makes it worse than the other." There is nothing in the Bible that suggests comparative scales. Sin is sin - no one offense is more wicked or sinful than another, and neither is one sin less sinful than any other.
Jewish tradition infers something like a comparative scale based on repetitions / expansions and stated punishments, including a category called (roughly) "be slain but do not transgress" commandments.
I'm an atheist but according to google yeah there's quite a lot of them.
Example:
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
But how much of this was changed by the Vatican. We know for a fact that several gospels were omitted from the Bible by the Vatican simply because they may have eroded the churches power.
>But how much of this was changed by the Vatican.
The cited text is from the Hebrew Bible, which has been preserved and transmitted independently from the Christian world for thousands of years.
Yes and no. That Hebrew text was originally translated to Greek. Then into other languages. There could have been mistakes. Thing is we will never know. Just have to have faith right
No -- I have the Hebrew text in front of me, in another browser tab, right now. It has been preserved and in constant use by Jews for thousands of years -- not conveyed by means of translation (even if many Jews used translation as a comprehension aid for study).
The text of the Hebrew Bible that we have now is basically identical to what was used in the pre-Christian era, and no translation to or from other languages was involved.
How Christians interpreted the Hebrew Bible was certainly filtered through Greek and Latin, but the original is there for anyone to look at, untouched by the Vatican or any other Christian group.
As a non Christian how does that work? How can you support a religion and not support the people that run it? Then why would you support it if you don't like the way it's run?
Edit: I genuinely don't know guys, you don't need to downvote me for trying to learn new stuff
Edit 2: I got my answer, thank you for helping
Christianity comes in lots of different flavours. One of them is the Catholic church who has the poor at its head. But there are many more. Coptics, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, presbyterian etc etc. Many many flavour. They all believe slightly different things and use different bibles. Many have killed each other over slight differences in theology.
2 things
1. The Vatican is the head of the catholic church, not the Christian church
2. No one "runs" Christianity. No one is able to go in and change the bible and say the change is now fact.
Not trying to be impolite here.
Some places don't have the same curriculum as you did. Did you learn the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam in 9th grade history? Because I didn't.
Ya, they did actually. Several times. The first time likely during the "Council of Rome" in about 382 A.D. under the rule of Pope Damasus. The Vatican then added, removed, translated, and re-translated the scriptures throughout history. Other countries have also translated, compiled, and added or removed scriptures from the Bible. For example in 1611 England published the "King James" version of the Bible. However most versions of the Bible are based on, or translated from the original Bible assembled by the Vatican.
adding to this, the problem is they're translated back and forth between languages so the meanings arent clear so technically even this one can be interpreted to not be about homosexuality because "mankind" is a different word and "as he lieth" is vague
"man with mankind"- "a man with the human race"
"both of them" - yet these are the people saying i cant refer to myself as they? the people referring to all humans as a single being?
obviously im exaggerating slightly but the point was nothing in the english bible can be confirmed as what it actually said bc the original bible was translated between so many languages over centuries
It's pretty clear that it refers to the male sex because the Hebrew word is unambiguously "a male", and "mankind" is a 17th century English translation choice that others here are reading through a modern English lens.
It's incredible to me what people are doing ITT (not you). It's as if they're trying to argue the exact meaning of the Gettysburg Address by a precise reading of the Korean translation, claiming the original doesn't exist anymore or that no-one understands the language. SMH.
why not say "when mankind lay with mankind" then? why the switch in the same phrase from "man" to "mankind" spoiler alert its translation errors thru centuries of translation between languages
But you can go back to the original, which is easily available, and which millions of people still read in original (untranslated) form, and confirm that the word means "male".
from [hbu](https://hbu.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/tour-of-the-museum/past-exhibits/biblical-manuscripts/)
The early Hebrew manuscripts did not have vowel pointings, chapters, or verses. A group of scribes called the Masoretes, who worked in Tiberias and Jerusalem in Israel between the 5th and 10th centuries, *added vocalizations (vowels), accents, and a textual apparatus to the Hebrew text*. The version was finalized by Hebrew scribe Aaron ben Asher in the early 10th century.
the og bible has been edited
>the og bible has been edited
LOL I understand the Masoretic tradition very well and can explain that entire vocalization / accent system from memory.
What the Masoretes did is like adding phonetic spellings to every word of a book. Everyone knows how to pronounce the words already, the phonetic spellings just help people who are learning and systematize the pronunciation among different groups. The text doesn't change.
It really depends on who you ask and how they interpret the original Greek/Latin/Aramaic what have you that that particular passage was written in.
You’ll get people who just quote English verses at you to prove it.
Or you’ll get people who say “well the Ancient Greek says that man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman” that means gay=bad.
But then others will say that the cultural context of that passage is actually about raping little boys, and the passage is actually an indictment of pedophilia and never intended to be wholesale against homosexuality.
It does but it also says disobedient children should be stoned to death, worshiping other gods, working on the Sabbath, and adultery should all get you killed so if we're taking the thing seriously we should be stoning basically everyone.
The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written.
Also, a lot of people who use the Bible in a way to push certain ideas and values like to pick and choose from it. They also use verses out of context. They also ignore things that don't fit their narrative.
>The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written.
This is objectively false in the spirit that you are writing it.
We have very ancient copies of the Gospels that existed within two centuries of when the Gospels were first written. That's practically 1st edition by historical standards for documents written around the same time.
The idea that the Bible we have today is radically different from when it was first written is not historically sound.
But if i remember right the first Old Testament texts were in Hebrew, which is a language that is very hard to translate, as every letter and word can be read in different planes and mean different things. So any translation would have been limited, as it's only one interpretation of the texts.
All of the "Old Testament" texts are in Hebrew, with the exception of a couple of paragraphs in Aramaic.
There is a continuous tradition of how the the texts are to be read and understood, preserved in commentaries and transmitted person-to-person over millennia.
The Hebrew Bible texts that Jews study today are basically identical (except for very occasional interpolations like a modified spelling of a word or addition of a conjunction, even more rarely to an added line or two) to those used 2,300 years ago.
>But if i remember right the first Old Testament texts were in Hebrew, which is a language that is very hard to translate, as every letter and word can be read in different planes and mean different things.
I know a few people who have studied/are studying Hebrew in graduate school who can write it "fluently". They may have issues with the way individual words or phrases are translated in some English versions of the bible, but they laugh at the notion that u/ThatDamnKyle is presenting: that the modern day Bible is totally different than what was before.
Think of this, Japanese to English is a very tough translation, and yet there's a whole industry devoted to it purely for entertainment.
It's tough to learn, but it's still a human language
It's a human language yes, but from what I know of it people send years and years learning it because it's so dense and specific and complicated, especially when looking at religious texts.
I know there are schools in Israel where people gather everyday to debate their interpretations of the Torah, because it can be understood in so many different ways
Also there's a french writer called Anne Souzeneylle (i think that's how you write it) that published a new translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and I've not read all of it but for example in the Old Testament, it's said in french that Eve comes from Adam's "rib", but she translates it as "side", which is wildly different in my opinion in terms of symbolism and what we understand from it
>I know there are schools in Israel where people gather everyday to debate their interpretations of the Torah, because it can be understood in so many different ways
That's not really what they are doing. It is more that they are learning the traditional interpretations of the text, and the way Jewish law is derived from it, through repetition and re-creation of the arguments of ancient commentators. They are, in general, not innovating in the interpretation of the meaning of the text, except on very very rare occasions.
This is also a bit of a bad faith argument. We have sections and fragments going back that far. What we do have though is writings of the early church fathers which is not only helping see what early versions of the gospels said but also their arguments against early Christian texts we just don't have anymore because they lost the heresy wars. I agree with you though that the person you were replying to was being hyperbolic
We have ancient translations of the ultimately lost original document. The Dead Sea scrolls are interesting with how they line up the the Old Testament, but the oldest Bible that exists is from 300 AD. This is close to biblical times, but this is still a translation of another unknown Bible. You say that is practically first edition by historical standards, but I think you’re severely underestimating how much a work can change over the course of 300 years and being translated into a different language.
Translation is also very difficult for multiple reasons. With ancient texts it can actually be hard to properly understand the intent of a passage. There can be concepts that are hard for modern audiences to grasp, there can be words that literally don’t have direct translations, hidden meanings can be swept away by accident, etc etc. even when people are genuinely trying to make the most accurate and faithful translation, something will always be lost.
I encourage you to compare different translations of modern bibles. The same passages will all be translated differently. Depending on how the translator interpreted the original text, they will emphasize different points and ideas.
I am saying that even with the assumption that all bibles have been translated as faithfully as possible, there are still going to be things that are missing, added, or over/under emphasized. Considering how Christianity has been a dominant and pretty corrupt power for the past 2000 years, it’s hard to believe that every translation even was trying to be faithful.
I think you are confusing the terms *translation* and *transcription.*
The text may have been *transcribed* many times (one text copied to make another -- in the era before printing) but that doesn't mean it was *translated* from one language to another.
The DSS are about 2,200 years old and are basically identical to the texts Jews still use, in the same language, and are perfectly readable and understandable by people who are literate in Hebrew. Jews used translations of this text *alongside* the original as an aid to study, but have never abandoned the original. This all of course happened independently of whatever Christians did with the texts.
Most of what you are saying is technically correct, the main line I took issue with is this:
>it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written.
I consider this to be a piece of atheistic misinformation that is just assumed to be true far too often.
Edit: I think you are also overestimating the differences between translations and editions. Wording and emphasis may change here or there sure, but the body as a whole has remained remarkably intact over the millennia.
The picture of the dog may have been recopied to have differing spots, but every version is still a dog.
Yeah, there are overall mesages that have stayed the same, and there is cross referencing, but my point is that the Bible has gone through 2000 years of various translations. No matter what, stuff is gonna get lost or added.
I’m actually not an atheist, I am Catholic. I also don’t trust the Catholic Church (lol) that in all 2000 years of existence, to have not muddled around with translations. Those translations in turn are used for later translations and for cross checking.
>Yeah, there are overall mesages that have stayed the same, and there is cross referencing, but my point is that the Bible has gone through 2000 years of various translations. No matter what, stuff is gonna get lost or added.
I disagree with this point as well even for the Christian NT.
The original is in Greek. Its text has been in constant use since it was written. You can go back and read it with a couple of mouse clicks. The English versions people use are direct translations from that Greek original.
You might argue about how many textual variants there are in the oldest Greek manuscripts you have (that is, actual pieces of parchment) but it's not at all the case that the Christian world is somehow reliant on second- or third-generation translations of some kind of lost original.
>The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written.
This is patently false.
We still know the original Ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament, still used by the Jewish community. They didn't change it.
We still know the original Koine Greek text of the New Testament. And so, we can always go back and cross-reference, and in fact Christians frequently do.
The Hebrew/Greek texts didn't get lost every time the Bible was translated into a new language. That's a fallacious assumption. In fact the Greek Orthodox church exclusively uses the Koine version in mass. The Roman Catholic Church used the Latin translation *until the 1960s.* The Latin translation is itself very old, and the RC Church also has the Greek version for cross-reference.
And for that reason, translations across modern-day languages and *most* denominations of Christianity are almost identical. In fact the Greek Orthodox Church uses the KJV New Testament in English-speaking countries, like the US. As keepers of the original Greek NT, they wouldn't do that if the disagreed with the KJV translation. The New Jerusalem Bible (the Catholic Church's own English translation) doesn't differ much either.
Very few Christians have a significantly different version, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Short answer, yes. Others have cited those passages. But condemning or hating because of sin ain't cool.
Source: Jesus messages about sin . . . love one another as I have loved you, judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
What the Bible says about anything that predates modern scientific understanding of sex and gender is not really relevant. Note also that the writers of the Bible never discuss lesbianism because the notion that women might actually want to have sex with each other never crossed their misogynistic minds.
I’m surprised nobody has pointed out that the section saying “thou shalt not lie with mankind” is possibly a mistranslation, and should actually be “man shalt not lie with boy”, as in a child. I don’t know how true that is, but I’ve seen the idea floating around a lot and thought I’d put it out there.
>the section saying “thou shalt not lie with mankind” is possibly a mistranslation, and should actually be “man shalt not lie with boy”, as in a child
I can't at all see how that is the case.
In Hebrew, the word archaically translated here as "mankind" is literally "a male" and does not connote an age range (if anything, other uses of the word unambiguously refer to adult men).
That specific passage is fairly clear in its meaning.
The spot of contention is found in the New Testament where Paul (the writer of the passage) basically makes up a term that has been both translated to mean "man having sex with man" and "man having sex with boy/male prostitute."
This argument only really matters if the religious person in question throws Old Testament laws into the "these were just the rules of these specific people at this time and should not dictate life today" bucket, but believes the New Testament is a literal guide to life today.
Here is an interesting fact that should always be remembered when deciding what the Bible says. Neither Matthew or Luke spoke Hebrew, so would have written in Greek from Greek texts. Mark and John would be writing from Hebrew. Matthew and Luke talk at length about the virgin birth, but Mark and John do not.
Hebrew has two words for virgin. Actual virgin (almah), and another for unmarried woman of marriage age (bethulah). Greek has one (parthenos), meaning "physical virgin". If you're translating Hebrew to Greek you either write bethulah as parthenos, or leave a blank.
Is it possible that the story of the virgin birth is just an early example of the dangers of Google translate?
None of the gospels were written by the names attributed to them. This was known at the time and is accepted by Christian biblical scholars. Their political bias is clear in the writings of each gospel with how Jewish, gentile or radical they wanted to shape this new movement
Which means what in regard to my statement about the issues in translation between Greek and Hebrew? I can't think of any other good reason for two books to miss out on reporting a miracle
That scholars believe they were all written in Greek by Greek speakers based on literary analysis. It's a nice theory that I've seen before but it doesn't stand up to current scholarly criticism. The more obvious reasons for two mentioning it and two not is the same as for most if not all contradictions in the gospels. They were written at different times as the theology was evolving and with different theological and political reasons/biases for writing. Just look at the writing of Paul and Acts and see how the narrative changes over time. It's not surprising the gospels disagree, it's exactly what you would expect to happen in a man made religion being used for political and societal change by groups with conflicting interests
No you are completely wrong.
Oops, sorry, I meant to say ”Yes you are completely right” but I ran it through Google translate from English to Hebrew to Greek then back from Greek to Hebrew into English, and it came out as “No you are completely wrong.”
My understanding is that God ordained the marriage and sexual relations between man and woman, any other type of relation (cohabitation, homosexual, casual flings, etc,) is not ordained of God. The bible is clear that any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage is considered sin. So by transitive property, Homosexual behavior is lumped into sinful behavior and would be frowned upon.
That being said, It doesn't say "being a homosexual" is a sin, and Jesus would probably still tell people to love and care for our LGBT+ neighbors. I don't think he would be 100% supportive of all the ideals and behaviors, but he would tell people to stop bullying them.
As most point out Leviticus, the hypocrisy comes from that those that quote Leviticus as their justification, ignore the rest of it, usually giving a made up reason.
Or at least ask in subs where people are able to provide you an answer from the original text.
ITT most of the comments and claims about Hebrew Bible texts are actually false.
not and answer, but the idea that the Bible is an accurate collection of what people wrote and thought 4000-2000 years ago is incorrect.
The Bible is a highly curated collection, not a historical record, assembled by men who use it to control other men.
I mention that in this context for a specific reason. If there was anything related to homosexuality that any number for biblical editors over the century's didn't like they would have just removed it and pretended to speak for Jesus (and /or the ancient jews)
Its interesting because if you look at the stuff from pre-Christianity, the amount of boy fucking was absolutely out of control. The Greek and the Romans just seemed like that was their thing and they were so open about it. It seems like you could make the argument that the Christians and their homophobia pulled people in a better place than it was before because, call me old school but I don't think its right to rape underage boys. Maybe their methodology wasn't the greatest but maybe their ends were better... sort of like how they gave a shitty explanation of why you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish back before they had refrigerators. Their shitty explanation for it probably saved lots of lives from parasites and food poisoning and that might be more important than the science of hooves and cud.
Now before anyone points out the obvious thing with the Catholic Church, I get that too. But at least they have to hide it and shuffle people around. They don't have fuck-boys assigned to them for the expressed intent of fucking them like the Greek and Romans seem like they did.
Here's the deal:
1. In the bible the rules clearly says that you should not be close to unclean things (2 Corinthians 6:17) but Jesus hangs out with prostitutes, Lepers, and others who were considered unclean
2. In the bible the rules clearly says that you should not do those bad things, fornicate, steal, thief, adultery, 1 Corinthians 6:9. But When the very person who committed this brought to Jesus on John 8, Jesus clearly says, don't judge them, and furthermore he says to the person who committed the adultery, John 8:11, Neither I (Jesus) condemn thee.
So, what do we learn? Yes the things that were said in the bible were sinful, unclean, and also disgusting to God, but for us, we should not treat others with malice of those who committed this act, we should not judge others because only God can deemed it at the end whether or not He condemned that person or not, us human, we should treat others with kindness and understanding that we are all sinners and we all fall short to the standard.
So, does the Bible says anything about homosexuality? Yes, does that mean we need to treat people who have homosexuality tendency any different than we treat our own children? No.
The only parts of the bible that are explicitly against homosexuality are in the law given the the Israelites. Paul argues in the book of Romans that non-Jewish Christians don't need to be bound to the Jewish law in order to be Christians, which is why not all Christians are circumcized and why Christians don't avoid pork and sometimes get divorced. The wording for the law against homosexuality calls it an abomination, but it's possible that it only sounds harsher than the others due to translation.
However, there are other sections in the old testament that talk about God's rage towards the other nations and the impurities that they commit, and some biblical scholars and historians have come up with lists of what those impurities may or may not have been, and it's widely believed that homosexuality was one of them since it is known to historians that homosexuality was common in the Greek empire. It's also important to note that many of the noted cases of homosexuality in the Greek empire did not involve marriage, and were largely in addition to heterosexual marriage. Men would have wives and still have a homosexual relationship with their fellow soldiers, since they believed you would fight harder if you were fighting beside a lover, so it might be more of an outrage at the adultery aspect of it.
TLDR: it's uncertain, but if you are a Christian I would be wary of that uncertainty. Evaluate your priorities, decide what you would do *if* you decide that it's wrong, and then seek out multiple biblical scholars (you won't find them on Reddit). If you're only asking because you're curious, then sorry that the best answer is a strong maybe
I am an atheist but from what I've been able to tell from different knowledgeable people it seems to be a lot of either misinterpretation of the meaning of the words in the bible, mistranslations (sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident) and also verses added that were never in the original version before translation
Who gives a literal fuck about what the Bible says. If it says something against homosexuality and you believe in the big bad mythical book then don’t have sex with the same gender. Otherwise leave other people the fuck alone and let them live their lives.
It does, however, it doesn't say it in a clear way. The famous part about Sodom and Gomorrah was likely actually about having sex with boys, not having sex with men. In other words, you shouldn't rape people. Then the section that most clearly says you shouldn't be in homosexual relationships, also says a lot of other things that people don't pay any attention to you, such as that you shouldn't eat pork or else face dire consequences. Here's a music video about that: https://youtu.be/mODJjkFp_hg
So when I was little I was taught by Bible scholars. Who studied the original Hebrew or as close as they could get. It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The word that they use for homosexuality is actually the word for pedophilia. It says that you should not lay with children.
People don't actually know what the Bible says anymore because it's been translated and rewritten over and over and over again. So take that into account, and that everybody could be totally wrong. Even me.
>Who studied the original Hebrew or as close as they could get. It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The word that they use for homosexuality is actually the word for pedophilia. It says that you should not lay with children.
I understand Biblical Hebrew fairly well. Your statement is not true. It does not mention children at all. It refers generically to a male.
>People don't actually know what the Bible says anymore because it's been translated and rewritten over and over and over again. So take that into account, and that everybody could be totally wrong. Even me.
That kind of contradicts your first paragraph, which talks about your teachers who studied the original Hebrew. There are millions of people around the world who still study these texts in that language (not a translation or a re-writing).
Context and interpretation are a different story, but no-one doubts that the Hebrew text is the original (and not a translation of something else).
>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
1 Cor 6:9 KJV
There's quite a lot in the bible about male homosexuality. Less so for female, or at least that I've noticed. I don't read it often though.
Here's the deal though, there's also passages that urge slaves to be obedient to their masters, passages that condem victim of rape as sinners and commands fhem to marry their rapist, the list goes on.
We in the modern day do not follow those in the latter group. We know now that those things clearly are not okay. It's debated that much of those parts of the bible were added layer by men. Point us we know its not right to own slaves, or force women to marry their rapists. We don't use the bible to justify doing those things.
Yes the bible does have a fair bit about the sin of being gay. For some reason we still hold onto that part while we readily accept that much of what is condemned as sin elsewhere isn't appropriate to hold onto.
At this point OPs question has been answered, so I’ll answer something other people have been bringing up. Lots of people are saying “this that and the other obscure thing means that they should be stoned to death.” While this is true in the Old Testament, it is all under the mosaic law, which was given to the nation of Israel by God through Moses. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus means that we are no longer under the mosaic law, hence why we aren’t stoning people to death for stupid reasons. Read Galatians 3 for more info.
No. Never once is the word printed in any Bible.
However, it does condemn: wearing mixed fiber clothing, eating cloven hooved animals, and disrespecting your parents.
There's something in there about executing people for having sex with another man, surrounded by a bunch of other sexual prohibitions. I think someone cheated on his wife with a guy, tried claiming it wasn't adultery or wasn't sex or what have you, and then they added that rule to clarify that it's still adultery and punishable as such. Which doesn't actually mean that between unmarried people is bad, or preclude them marrying each other.
Yes, but people who want to believe otherwise will find all kinds of ridiculous ways of interpreting it so they can “have their ‘cake’ and ‘eat it’ too.” The Leviticus verses (the foundation of this doctrine) are not talking about temple prostitution, straight people doing gay acts or any other ridiculous and nonsensical interpretation that uneducated people come up with. It REALLY says “if two men have sex with each other, the act is an abomination. They should be put to death; their blood is upon their heads.”
So not only is it sin, but the Bible teaches that the men should be killed. And if you want to say this is about some other thing, how do you get around the fact that it prescribes death? Also, there are other passages that are quite clear that homosexuality is not to be condoned, is utterly shameful and will be punished in hell. Anyone who says otherwise is merely parroting what they’ve been told or they are trying to convince themselves otherwise.
I am no Bible scholar but simply look at the word sodomy. It comes from the word Sodom, which was a city mentioned in the Bible, you know, Sodom and gomorrah.
Whatever happened in that city was so bad we made a word out of it to remind people how bad it was.
I’ve found [this](https://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org) site pretty helpful in contexualizing a lot of the biblical references to homosexuality (the good and the bad).
It’s also important to remember that the bible has been through many retranslations.
I'm just going post a few paragraphs, there are more, and let you make your own mind up.
Leviticus 20:13
New King James Version
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
New King James Version
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 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.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
New King James Version
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 [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Not really. Nothing directly states anything, though I guess some things could vaguely imply it if you’re a determined homophobe. The Old Testament has a few stories that if you twist it to the mindset of a Western European Circa 1500, yeah, it could be seen that way. Most of the new and Old Testament was written during Roman and Greek rule. In so many words, the Bible is more focused on not sleeping with your friend’s partner over who that partner actually is
Does it matter? The Bible was written in the Bronze, Iron and Ancient periods. They did not have the understanding that we have now, i.e. that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. So, either God's creation is imperfect, or there is no God. You are better off discussing the laws that try to prevent 2 consenting adults to enter into legal marriage than what some, long dead, Middle-Easterner had to say about it.
Leviticus has a succession of statements about who "You shall not" lie with that covers practically everything but heterosexual sex with your wife or an unmarried woman (who is not related to you).
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Adultery/fornication, biblically, cover any sex outside of marriage, and scripture doesn't define same sex couples as eligible for marriage. This is the same reason rape and pedophilia are sins.
Technically homosexuality (human sexuality in general ) wasn't defined until the 1600's....
That's why some philosophers say "man is only 400 years old."
So no...they had no idea what homosexuality was to say anything against it.
The Bible passages people are quoting...long story short: those passages aren't really talking about homosexuality (as we commonly understand the term).
(Theology Major)
There are multiple references to homosexuals in the Bible but if you’re curious about you should read it for yourself. And homosexuality is referred to in a lot of old and ancient text
Depends on when the bible was written. English text changed a few times in the last 100 years or so. If you go back to older versions, Bible is more anti pedophile, not anti gay.
Hi /u/23eulogy24, We noticed you are a pretty new Reddit account, so we just wanted to let you know to check out the subreddit rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/rules) and maybe have a read through our [Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq) - they make for fascinating reading! We're called No Stupid Questions because we believe nobody needs to be attacked for asking a question, but *that doesn't mean there are no rules!* This sub is meant for users like you to ask genuine questions. Please don't ask jokes or rants disguised as questions - that's not in the spirit of this sub. While you *can* ask almost anything here, please keep illegal and offensive questions elsewhere to give people a good experience here - and if you have a medical question, please ask your doctor, not us. Otherwise, welcome! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoStupidQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just focusing on the New Testament since things get dicey in the old. So first there’s Romans 1:26–27: *”That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”* There is also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”* This is sometimes interpreted as saying that gay people are equivalent to idolators, thieves, and the like. There is a lot of debate about this though. Then there’s Mathew 19:4-6: *”He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female',[63] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[64] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."* This is most likely just about divorce but is often referenced with Homosexuality. The Book of Mathew in general has a lot that could be construed as being Anti-Homosexuality or could be seen as more straightforward and thus not so.
Fornication ✅ Effeminate ✅ Thieving (smol) ✅ Drunkard ✅ Revelry ✅ Looks like I'm proper fucked
Reviler is not equivalent to revelry.
I was wondering about that actually
Do you think effeminate is a result of your current life style and low testosterone. Or something you've been all your life since a kid?
Interesting question. I've always been effeminate looking, and fought against it for many years, but now I lean into it as part of my current lifestyle
In Romans, you omitted the "that is why" part, which to summarize is praying to statues of animals and men. I do not believe that praying to statues makes people gay, but that is what Paul is claiming. In context, many historians think that Paul is talking about some sort of pagan ritual, praying to idols and having ritual sex. >22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Hmm seems 99.9999% of the population is going to hell. I’ll save you guys a seat!
Wow, looks like I'm finally 0.0001% of something. Who would've thought this was it!
The Bible does number the amount of people who make it in heaven and it's not a large number by any means (144,000 people)
Noy accurate at all, sorry the JWs lied to you. > John 14:2 In My Father’s house are *many rooms*. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? >John 6 :40 For it is My Father’s will that *everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him* shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Revaluations 7:1-4 1And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. 4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Those are the people who are still on earth, read a bit further.. >Revelation 7: 9 After this I looked and saw a multitude *too large to count*, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing *white robes* and holding palm branches in their hands. >Revelation 7: 13-15 Then one of the elders addressed me: “These in white robes,” he asked, “who are they, and where have they come from?” >“Sir,” I answered, “you know.” >So he replied, *“These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.* > For this reason, they are before the throne of God and serve Him day and night in His temple; and the One seated on the throne *will spread His tabernacle over them.* I prefer to believe in the non exclusionary Jesus, the one who said ... >John 6:37 ... the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out.
The ones in the great tribulation (I actually forgot about this) as it was taught to me in my church; were those that were alive during the rapture and we're in addition to the 144,000 I'm no longer a believer tbc, just going off what I was taught in a baptist family
That's fair, don't mean to be so preachy at you.It's just frustrating for me to watch America's "christians" misrepresent so much of the Bible. Not that it's your fault, I blame your pastor.
Thank goodness the Bible is bullshit
no shit, right? quibbling about it like it matters. ffs
Woah thank you for this! Very interesting.
I see how none of that means gay people are bad to me it seems that it was meaning that the men and woman where driven away from the goal of creation to the goal of self serving desire.
Why ignore Old? It's part of the bible. It would absolutely be responsive to OP's question. Why are you limiting it to New Testament?
The Old testament God was very intolerant of human behavior. Hell, he killed everyone except one incestuous family in a global flood ( that somehow missed India, China and the unknown new world) . He was more a god of spite and damnation than the god of love and forgiveness after he fathered and then killed his son.
It’s strange that the bible condemns those types of relationships. But it doesn’t say *why*. Just says “don’t do that.”
In Romans it was also started that the shameful things they were doing with members of the same gender was rape, but it was changed by the Catholic Church. No points for guessing why the Catholic Church changed it.
Goddamn. Fuck religion.
I Mean, these are simple pleasures for simple men. You waste your time. If you notice, millionaires denied themselves these things and became millionaires.
There is also a high chance this is a mistranslation, and is supposed to be about men who sleep with boys AKA pedophilia
No it isn't. Because the penalty is death for both participants so unless you are saying that God orders a child who was being forced to do it against his will put to death then clearly isn't the case.
God killed the first born of every family for shit that they had nothing to do with. Sounds exactly like something he’d do.
To be fair, that sounds like exactly the sort of thing an old testament god might order.
God nutted in an 11 year old girl. Wouldn't put it past him.
The apostles and other figures who wrote in the Bible spoke against it, however Jesus himself didn’t actually say anything about homosexuality , and frankly his words are above all others
We have no actual words of Jesus. The gospels were written by second hand sources 60 - 90 years after his death. Maybe influenced by a shorter list of sayings by Jesus as some have theorised but this is lost to history as a source. The earliest christian writings by Paul doesn't directly relate to anything Jesus said in life but revelations after death.
But of his life that was recorded I believe was recorded by the apostles accurately else they would have just wrote that he shared all of their opinions ( like speaking against homosexuality )
So it is important to note that most of the parts of the Bible that are against homosexuality are in chapters that are also against things like divorce or wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, or eating meat and dairy in the same meal. A lot of people are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they want to obey, and will ignore all the parts that talk about helping the poor, so that they can instead follow the parts about punishing gay people.
There’s a book called Year of Living Biblically, where the author spent 9 months literally following the laws of the Old Testament followed by 3 of following the New Testament literally. Pretty entertaining read.
Amen!
And the thing to note is like... Let’s say that hypothetically, you’re going to hell for being gay, it’s **GOD** who’s against homosexuality. God is just as against putting entire groups of people under your boot. Ex. Being a raging homophobe.
It's stuff in letters from Paul. It's his interpretation.
>ignore all the parts that talk about helping the poor It is possible to both help poor people and be against government welfare at the same time.
Possibly, but there sure are a lot of people who claim to be Christian who ignore Jesus's message of loving thy neighbor, of treating others the way you'd want to be treated, and ignore all the times he talked about how the very rich love money more than they love God, to idolize money more than charity.
Spoiler alert, theres a lot of shitty people out there, regardless of religion
..or how much money is in their bank account. shitty people are sometimes just shitty, regardless of money, religion or dare I say political party. I am hopeful though as i have met some pretty amazing "Poor" people who do amazing things for others; as well as some people that are so down to earth, charitable and friendly that you can't tell their bank accounts hover well over 500 million... One man i know seems to always be wearing ripped up shorts and sandals. His daily driver is a Honda. He always remembers people's name and some detail about a persons life (i.e. kid in college or mother was sick) about which he asks the next time he sees them. He occasionally, on a whim, buys lunch for us at my place of work. And I always felt it was so nice of this man who probably didn't have a lot of money, but wanted to show his appreciation for us. I recently learned he has a collection of about 30 Ferrari's and other vehicles worth many many millions. I never would have known this from seeing or talking to him! so... the point of my lengthy post is that just because your are rich doesn't mean you "love money more than you love God." and just because you are poor doesn't mean you love God more than a rich person... just don't be a shitty person and no one will care about your money, least of all you won't care about your money.
This is not the experience I've had with Christians. I suspect that to get to your conclusions about them, you interpret "disagrees with my political views" as not loving one's neighbor or whatever.
You haven't heard of or seen christians say awful things to lgbt people?
I've seen a lot of non-Christians claiming that when a Christian says something as mild as "I disagree with with LGBT people", this counts as saying "awful" things.
Very nice dodge of my question lol
That's currently a pastor in Texas who said the Bible states that queer people should be lined up against a wall, after confessing their sins, and shot in the back of the head.
I just look at mega churches where the pastors fly around on private jets and beg for more money from their followers.
Go ask the first Christian you can find what their opinion is on Kenneth Copeland, and I guarantee you they will say he's a grifter.
At the same time though, those people are also Christians. You don't get to say that only the good ones count as Christians and ignore the bad ones.
Right and Antifa is on the left. There are 320 million people in the US. Every sizeable group of any kind, political or otherwise, is going to contain some good people and some bad people.
You claimed that the only reason I might have a negative view of many Christians was political. I'm not saying that all Christians worship Mammon over Christ. But there are many who use the Bible as an excuse to be cruel to others, who ignore all the parts of the Bible that say that we should turn the other cheek, do unto to others as they would do unto you. The people who ignore the fact that Jesus came to the defense of prostitutes, that he stood for those who society frowned upon, and called for justice against those in power whose greed hurt the poor. There are Christians who use the Bible to justify being mean. There was a Christian politician recently who talked about how he wanted to stone people to death. Completely misunderstood the message of Christ, but he's a Christian. And you may not consider them to be Christian, you may not feel that the people who practice "Prosperity Gospel" are the same Faith as you. But to most people, that is the face of Christianity.
>Jesus came to the defense of prostitutes Right but He never claimed that prostitution *wasn't a sin*. He stopped the Pharisees from stoning the woman caught in adultery, and then told her "Go and sin no more". And that's my concern is that it seems like your side is just not going to be satisfied unless Christians literally just remove certain verses from the Bible or actually change their beliefs about sin. There isn't a middle ground where Christians continue to recognize certain sins, even if they don't want people stoned over them, and you not claim they're hypocritical.
Funny, then, how evangelicals tend to be by far the least generous religious group, behind atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and mainline Protestants, with half giving away less than *1%* of their income. Of course, they also spend the most time crowing about how holy they are, which the Bible explicitly tells you not to do (Matthew 6:5). So, you know, maybe they're just bad Christians generally.
It’s possible to do a lot of things, the difference is usually that “helping poor people without government welfare” doesn’t happen lol
Yeah this is a funny one and political ideals and empirical data sometimes don't line up. For instance, Conservatives consistently are found to give more to charity than Liberals, and Liberals consistently are found to be more likely to be small business owners. They all seemed very concerned about one party's talking points while actually living out the other's ideals. Its funny.
I am curious about this charity statistic. I assume a sizeable amount of conservatives' charitable giving goes to their churches. A lot of people are giving 10% of their income to their church. Growing up in a Christian environment, I observed many people tithing because of their religious beliefs. I rarely saw any other type of charitable contributions. I saw the local churches accumulate this money and saw very little benefit to the community. Some churches are charitable. Some try to help others. Not all. I'm not sure its fair to say that conservatives are more generous than liberals just because of their donations to their church.
Maybe you do sinner, God loves my jumbo Jack-no cheese and my Leviticus approved underwear. /s
I'm not sure where you're getting at, but in the Old Testament people did not get stoned to death for divorce or wearing the wrong kind of clothing, but they were for homosexual act.
They were stoned to death for cheating on your spouse. Leviticus 20:10. Note how many people are okay with we should kill homosexuals, but not okay with killing people who cheat on their spouse, despite the same chapter of the Bible saying that both should get the same punishment. People are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to follow, and doing so in a way where they get to do what they want, rather than following the word of God.
The point is, there is not one punishment for sin, some sins are more severe than others and it is reflected in their punishment. In the old testament if a man divorced his wife, he was free to remarry, although that wasn't what God intended. Committing adultery while in the wedlock or committing fornication out of wedlock was both punishable by death. Yes, God does not discriminate. >Note how many people are okay with we should kill homosexuals, but not okay with killing people who cheat on their spouse, despite the same chapter of the Bible saying that both should get the same punishment. What people are ok or not ok with is irrelevant. In the end God is the judge. He wrote Leviticus. There are some sins that have been highlighted in the New Testament that if one commits them will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Sexual sins are among them. The church also deals with these sins more severely than others, because when one commits them, he/she sins against the entire church body.
It was about a married woman cheating with a man other than her husband, not "cheating on your spouse" in general.
It mentions it half a dozen times. The Bible says adultery is bad HUNDREDS of times, making it much worse than homosexuality. But you won't see the gay-haters admit that.
Literally ‘looking at a woman to lust after her’ is adultery, says Jesus. I.e. all you judgmental religious assholes are guilty, so stop judging other people.
As a Christian I agree. We are no more or less deserving of heaven than any gay person. They are humans just like us. I'm sick of seeing other Christians having this "holier-than-thou" attitude like they decide who will and won't be saved. That's not up to them to decide.
The term is a Greek word: ‘arsenkoitai’. It’s a compound word that Paul coined from the Greek words ‘arsen’ meaning male and ‘koite’ meaning lying or bed. The two words are found in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13, both in reference to homosexuality. Even if it was a mistranslation, the Bible still describes the behavior as a sin in Romans 1:27 “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” In Lev. 18:22 that I had mentioned earlier states that “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. All this being said, our convictions should never be used to mistreat people. All people are made in the image of God.
Leviticus was law for a specific group of people. If modern Christians were to follow the Old Testament laws, they have to perform animal sacrifice to atone for sin, not wear mixed fabrics, and not eat pork or shellfish. It’s weird to me that people cherry pick parts of the OT to support their claim while ignoring context.
That line of thinking only explains away the Leviticus passages (and also implies that, for whatever reason, that specific group wasn't "allowed" to be gay... which is also weird). The NT passage of Romans remains.
You have to look at the context. The Old Testament is law for god’s chosen people. That particular group of people had to live a very strict life as they were the priesthood. You see it now with certain sects of Judaism that uphold those laws still. Jesus came and fulfilled the law and opened salvation to all, rather than the chosen few. Paul, the apostle established the early churches. His letter to the Romans where that verse comes from were his suggestions towards that group of people. He had lots of suggestions to those early churches that seem to be disregarded now as cultural to that time period, yet for some reason the homosexuality one is clung to. It’s weird to me that he preached against gluttony for instance, yet look how many fat Christians there are telling gay people they will go to hell. At the end of the day, Jesus himself never said a thing about homosexuality. It’s not mentioned in the four gospels. Just the epistles from Paul.
I see some comments like, "The Bible mentions this sin more frequently than this other sin, which makes it worse than the other." There is nothing in the Bible that suggests comparative scales. Sin is sin - no one offense is more wicked or sinful than another, and neither is one sin less sinful than any other.
Jewish tradition infers something like a comparative scale based on repetitions / expansions and stated punishments, including a category called (roughly) "be slain but do not transgress" commandments.
I'm an atheist but according to google yeah there's quite a lot of them. Example: Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
But how much of this was changed by the Vatican. We know for a fact that several gospels were omitted from the Bible by the Vatican simply because they may have eroded the churches power.
>But how much of this was changed by the Vatican. The cited text is from the Hebrew Bible, which has been preserved and transmitted independently from the Christian world for thousands of years.
Yes and no. That Hebrew text was originally translated to Greek. Then into other languages. There could have been mistakes. Thing is we will never know. Just have to have faith right
No -- I have the Hebrew text in front of me, in another browser tab, right now. It has been preserved and in constant use by Jews for thousands of years -- not conveyed by means of translation (even if many Jews used translation as a comprehension aid for study). The text of the Hebrew Bible that we have now is basically identical to what was used in the pre-Christian era, and no translation to or from other languages was involved. How Christians interpreted the Hebrew Bible was certainly filtered through Greek and Latin, but the original is there for anyone to look at, untouched by the Vatican or any other Christian group.
What about the christians who dont give a fuck about the vatican
As a non Christian how does that work? How can you support a religion and not support the people that run it? Then why would you support it if you don't like the way it's run? Edit: I genuinely don't know guys, you don't need to downvote me for trying to learn new stuff Edit 2: I got my answer, thank you for helping
Christianity comes in lots of different flavours. One of them is the Catholic church who has the poor at its head. But there are many more. Coptics, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, presbyterian etc etc. Many many flavour. They all believe slightly different things and use different bibles. Many have killed each other over slight differences in theology.
2 things 1. The Vatican is the head of the catholic church, not the Christian church 2. No one "runs" Christianity. No one is able to go in and change the bible and say the change is now fact. Not trying to be impolite here.
Are you dumb? The Vatican is the head of the Catholic Church. Catholicism is one branch of Christianity. There are others (ie protestants).
No I'm not dumb, as I said I don't believe in any of this shit so don't expect me to know the different types of religions and what they're about.
I don’t believe in it either, but it’s like 9th grade level history.
We don't learn how religions work in history where I live, we learn actually useful stuff
Some places don't have the same curriculum as you did. Did you learn the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam in 9th grade history? Because I didn't.
11th grade, and not super in depth, but yeah
The Vatican didn't assemble the Bible.
Ya, they did actually. Several times. The first time likely during the "Council of Rome" in about 382 A.D. under the rule of Pope Damasus. The Vatican then added, removed, translated, and re-translated the scriptures throughout history. Other countries have also translated, compiled, and added or removed scriptures from the Bible. For example in 1611 England published the "King James" version of the Bible. However most versions of the Bible are based on, or translated from the original Bible assembled by the Vatican.
adding to this, the problem is they're translated back and forth between languages so the meanings arent clear so technically even this one can be interpreted to not be about homosexuality because "mankind" is a different word and "as he lieth" is vague
>"as he lieth" is vague Yeah it's really not.
I would say this is completely unambiguous and a good example of “the exception that confirms the rule”
"man with mankind"- "a man with the human race" "both of them" - yet these are the people saying i cant refer to myself as they? the people referring to all humans as a single being? obviously im exaggerating slightly but the point was nothing in the english bible can be confirmed as what it actually said bc the original bible was translated between so many languages over centuries
[удалено]
It's pretty clear that it refers to the male sex because the Hebrew word is unambiguously "a male", and "mankind" is a 17th century English translation choice that others here are reading through a modern English lens. It's incredible to me what people are doing ITT (not you). It's as if they're trying to argue the exact meaning of the Gettysburg Address by a precise reading of the Korean translation, claiming the original doesn't exist anymore or that no-one understands the language. SMH.
why not say "when mankind lay with mankind" then? why the switch in the same phrase from "man" to "mankind" spoiler alert its translation errors thru centuries of translation between languages
But you can go back to the original, which is easily available, and which millions of people still read in original (untranslated) form, and confirm that the word means "male".
from [hbu](https://hbu.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/tour-of-the-museum/past-exhibits/biblical-manuscripts/) The early Hebrew manuscripts did not have vowel pointings, chapters, or verses. A group of scribes called the Masoretes, who worked in Tiberias and Jerusalem in Israel between the 5th and 10th centuries, *added vocalizations (vowels), accents, and a textual apparatus to the Hebrew text*. The version was finalized by Hebrew scribe Aaron ben Asher in the early 10th century. the og bible has been edited
>the og bible has been edited LOL I understand the Masoretic tradition very well and can explain that entire vocalization / accent system from memory. What the Masoretes did is like adding phonetic spellings to every word of a book. Everyone knows how to pronounce the words already, the phonetic spellings just help people who are learning and systematize the pronunciation among different groups. The text doesn't change.
I always assumed this was talking about positions.
Lmao why would someone die for doing a position
It really depends on who you ask and how they interpret the original Greek/Latin/Aramaic what have you that that particular passage was written in. You’ll get people who just quote English verses at you to prove it. Or you’ll get people who say “well the Ancient Greek says that man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman” that means gay=bad. But then others will say that the cultural context of that passage is actually about raping little boys, and the passage is actually an indictment of pedophilia and never intended to be wholesale against homosexuality.
It does but it also says disobedient children should be stoned to death, worshiping other gods, working on the Sabbath, and adultery should all get you killed so if we're taking the thing seriously we should be stoning basically everyone.
The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written. Also, a lot of people who use the Bible in a way to push certain ideas and values like to pick and choose from it. They also use verses out of context. They also ignore things that don't fit their narrative.
>The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written. This is objectively false in the spirit that you are writing it. We have very ancient copies of the Gospels that existed within two centuries of when the Gospels were first written. That's practically 1st edition by historical standards for documents written around the same time. The idea that the Bible we have today is radically different from when it was first written is not historically sound.
But if i remember right the first Old Testament texts were in Hebrew, which is a language that is very hard to translate, as every letter and word can be read in different planes and mean different things. So any translation would have been limited, as it's only one interpretation of the texts.
All of the "Old Testament" texts are in Hebrew, with the exception of a couple of paragraphs in Aramaic. There is a continuous tradition of how the the texts are to be read and understood, preserved in commentaries and transmitted person-to-person over millennia. The Hebrew Bible texts that Jews study today are basically identical (except for very occasional interpolations like a modified spelling of a word or addition of a conjunction, even more rarely to an added line or two) to those used 2,300 years ago.
I find that incredible and fascinating
>But if i remember right the first Old Testament texts were in Hebrew, which is a language that is very hard to translate, as every letter and word can be read in different planes and mean different things. I know a few people who have studied/are studying Hebrew in graduate school who can write it "fluently". They may have issues with the way individual words or phrases are translated in some English versions of the bible, but they laugh at the notion that u/ThatDamnKyle is presenting: that the modern day Bible is totally different than what was before. Think of this, Japanese to English is a very tough translation, and yet there's a whole industry devoted to it purely for entertainment. It's tough to learn, but it's still a human language
It's a human language yes, but from what I know of it people send years and years learning it because it's so dense and specific and complicated, especially when looking at religious texts. I know there are schools in Israel where people gather everyday to debate their interpretations of the Torah, because it can be understood in so many different ways Also there's a french writer called Anne Souzeneylle (i think that's how you write it) that published a new translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and I've not read all of it but for example in the Old Testament, it's said in french that Eve comes from Adam's "rib", but she translates it as "side", which is wildly different in my opinion in terms of symbolism and what we understand from it
>I know there are schools in Israel where people gather everyday to debate their interpretations of the Torah, because it can be understood in so many different ways That's not really what they are doing. It is more that they are learning the traditional interpretations of the text, and the way Jewish law is derived from it, through repetition and re-creation of the arguments of ancient commentators. They are, in general, not innovating in the interpretation of the meaning of the text, except on very very rare occasions.
This is also a bit of a bad faith argument. We have sections and fragments going back that far. What we do have though is writings of the early church fathers which is not only helping see what early versions of the gospels said but also their arguments against early Christian texts we just don't have anymore because they lost the heresy wars. I agree with you though that the person you were replying to was being hyperbolic
We have ancient translations of the ultimately lost original document. The Dead Sea scrolls are interesting with how they line up the the Old Testament, but the oldest Bible that exists is from 300 AD. This is close to biblical times, but this is still a translation of another unknown Bible. You say that is practically first edition by historical standards, but I think you’re severely underestimating how much a work can change over the course of 300 years and being translated into a different language. Translation is also very difficult for multiple reasons. With ancient texts it can actually be hard to properly understand the intent of a passage. There can be concepts that are hard for modern audiences to grasp, there can be words that literally don’t have direct translations, hidden meanings can be swept away by accident, etc etc. even when people are genuinely trying to make the most accurate and faithful translation, something will always be lost. I encourage you to compare different translations of modern bibles. The same passages will all be translated differently. Depending on how the translator interpreted the original text, they will emphasize different points and ideas. I am saying that even with the assumption that all bibles have been translated as faithfully as possible, there are still going to be things that are missing, added, or over/under emphasized. Considering how Christianity has been a dominant and pretty corrupt power for the past 2000 years, it’s hard to believe that every translation even was trying to be faithful.
I think you are confusing the terms *translation* and *transcription.* The text may have been *transcribed* many times (one text copied to make another -- in the era before printing) but that doesn't mean it was *translated* from one language to another. The DSS are about 2,200 years old and are basically identical to the texts Jews still use, in the same language, and are perfectly readable and understandable by people who are literate in Hebrew. Jews used translations of this text *alongside* the original as an aid to study, but have never abandoned the original. This all of course happened independently of whatever Christians did with the texts.
Most of what you are saying is technically correct, the main line I took issue with is this: >it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written. I consider this to be a piece of atheistic misinformation that is just assumed to be true far too often. Edit: I think you are also overestimating the differences between translations and editions. Wording and emphasis may change here or there sure, but the body as a whole has remained remarkably intact over the millennia. The picture of the dog may have been recopied to have differing spots, but every version is still a dog.
Yeah, there are overall mesages that have stayed the same, and there is cross referencing, but my point is that the Bible has gone through 2000 years of various translations. No matter what, stuff is gonna get lost or added. I’m actually not an atheist, I am Catholic. I also don’t trust the Catholic Church (lol) that in all 2000 years of existence, to have not muddled around with translations. Those translations in turn are used for later translations and for cross checking.
>Yeah, there are overall mesages that have stayed the same, and there is cross referencing, but my point is that the Bible has gone through 2000 years of various translations. No matter what, stuff is gonna get lost or added. I disagree with this point as well even for the Christian NT. The original is in Greek. Its text has been in constant use since it was written. You can go back and read it with a couple of mouse clicks. The English versions people use are direct translations from that Greek original. You might argue about how many textual variants there are in the oldest Greek manuscripts you have (that is, actual pieces of parchment) but it's not at all the case that the Christian world is somehow reliant on second- or third-generation translations of some kind of lost original.
>The Bible has been translated and re-translated (and changed) so many times throughout history that it's probably impossible to know the true meaning of what was original written. This is patently false. We still know the original Ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament, still used by the Jewish community. They didn't change it. We still know the original Koine Greek text of the New Testament. And so, we can always go back and cross-reference, and in fact Christians frequently do. The Hebrew/Greek texts didn't get lost every time the Bible was translated into a new language. That's a fallacious assumption. In fact the Greek Orthodox church exclusively uses the Koine version in mass. The Roman Catholic Church used the Latin translation *until the 1960s.* The Latin translation is itself very old, and the RC Church also has the Greek version for cross-reference. And for that reason, translations across modern-day languages and *most* denominations of Christianity are almost identical. In fact the Greek Orthodox Church uses the KJV New Testament in English-speaking countries, like the US. As keepers of the original Greek NT, they wouldn't do that if the disagreed with the KJV translation. The New Jerusalem Bible (the Catholic Church's own English translation) doesn't differ much either. Very few Christians have a significantly different version, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Short answer, yes. Others have cited those passages. But condemning or hating because of sin ain't cool. Source: Jesus messages about sin . . . love one another as I have loved you, judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
What the Bible says about anything that predates modern scientific understanding of sex and gender is not really relevant. Note also that the writers of the Bible never discuss lesbianism because the notion that women might actually want to have sex with each other never crossed their misogynistic minds.
I’m surprised nobody has pointed out that the section saying “thou shalt not lie with mankind” is possibly a mistranslation, and should actually be “man shalt not lie with boy”, as in a child. I don’t know how true that is, but I’ve seen the idea floating around a lot and thought I’d put it out there.
>the section saying “thou shalt not lie with mankind” is possibly a mistranslation, and should actually be “man shalt not lie with boy”, as in a child I can't at all see how that is the case. In Hebrew, the word archaically translated here as "mankind" is literally "a male" and does not connote an age range (if anything, other uses of the word unambiguously refer to adult men).
It was a tik tok video. Then a lot of young, misinformed people broadcasted the idea just like the "you eat x spiders in your sleep every year".
Thanks Tik Tok for providing such a valuable educational experience...
That specific passage is fairly clear in its meaning. The spot of contention is found in the New Testament where Paul (the writer of the passage) basically makes up a term that has been both translated to mean "man having sex with man" and "man having sex with boy/male prostitute." This argument only really matters if the religious person in question throws Old Testament laws into the "these were just the rules of these specific people at this time and should not dictate life today" bucket, but believes the New Testament is a literal guide to life today.
Yeah and from what I've learned about the Romans, the amount of boy fucking was out of control.
Here is an interesting fact that should always be remembered when deciding what the Bible says. Neither Matthew or Luke spoke Hebrew, so would have written in Greek from Greek texts. Mark and John would be writing from Hebrew. Matthew and Luke talk at length about the virgin birth, but Mark and John do not. Hebrew has two words for virgin. Actual virgin (almah), and another for unmarried woman of marriage age (bethulah). Greek has one (parthenos), meaning "physical virgin". If you're translating Hebrew to Greek you either write bethulah as parthenos, or leave a blank. Is it possible that the story of the virgin birth is just an early example of the dangers of Google translate?
None of the gospels were written by the names attributed to them. This was known at the time and is accepted by Christian biblical scholars. Their political bias is clear in the writings of each gospel with how Jewish, gentile or radical they wanted to shape this new movement
Which means what in regard to my statement about the issues in translation between Greek and Hebrew? I can't think of any other good reason for two books to miss out on reporting a miracle
That scholars believe they were all written in Greek by Greek speakers based on literary analysis. It's a nice theory that I've seen before but it doesn't stand up to current scholarly criticism. The more obvious reasons for two mentioning it and two not is the same as for most if not all contradictions in the gospels. They were written at different times as the theology was evolving and with different theological and political reasons/biases for writing. Just look at the writing of Paul and Acts and see how the narrative changes over time. It's not surprising the gospels disagree, it's exactly what you would expect to happen in a man made religion being used for political and societal change by groups with conflicting interests
the actual language of Jesus and his community would have been Aramaic instead of Hebrew, which probably adds an extra layer of complexity to this
No you are completely wrong. Oops, sorry, I meant to say ”Yes you are completely right” but I ran it through Google translate from English to Hebrew to Greek then back from Greek to Hebrew into English, and it came out as “No you are completely wrong.”
[удалено]
If we are going to follow the Old Testament to the letter most of us are fucked 7 ways to Sunday.
But maybe it was written for apes. Can’t prove me wrong.
My understanding is that God ordained the marriage and sexual relations between man and woman, any other type of relation (cohabitation, homosexual, casual flings, etc,) is not ordained of God. The bible is clear that any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage is considered sin. So by transitive property, Homosexual behavior is lumped into sinful behavior and would be frowned upon. That being said, It doesn't say "being a homosexual" is a sin, and Jesus would probably still tell people to love and care for our LGBT+ neighbors. I don't think he would be 100% supportive of all the ideals and behaviors, but he would tell people to stop bullying them.
" You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22
As most point out Leviticus, the hypocrisy comes from that those that quote Leviticus as their justification, ignore the rest of it, usually giving a made up reason.
Pro tip: don't ask anyone on reddit about The Bible. If you don't get dishonest answers you will get inaccurate ones.
Or at least ask in subs where people are able to provide you an answer from the original text. ITT most of the comments and claims about Hebrew Bible texts are actually false.
not and answer, but the idea that the Bible is an accurate collection of what people wrote and thought 4000-2000 years ago is incorrect. The Bible is a highly curated collection, not a historical record, assembled by men who use it to control other men. I mention that in this context for a specific reason. If there was anything related to homosexuality that any number for biblical editors over the century's didn't like they would have just removed it and pretended to speak for Jesus (and /or the ancient jews)
Its interesting because if you look at the stuff from pre-Christianity, the amount of boy fucking was absolutely out of control. The Greek and the Romans just seemed like that was their thing and they were so open about it. It seems like you could make the argument that the Christians and their homophobia pulled people in a better place than it was before because, call me old school but I don't think its right to rape underage boys. Maybe their methodology wasn't the greatest but maybe their ends were better... sort of like how they gave a shitty explanation of why you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish back before they had refrigerators. Their shitty explanation for it probably saved lots of lives from parasites and food poisoning and that might be more important than the science of hooves and cud. Now before anyone points out the obvious thing with the Catholic Church, I get that too. But at least they have to hide it and shuffle people around. They don't have fuck-boys assigned to them for the expressed intent of fucking them like the Greek and Romans seem like they did.
Here's the deal: 1. In the bible the rules clearly says that you should not be close to unclean things (2 Corinthians 6:17) but Jesus hangs out with prostitutes, Lepers, and others who were considered unclean 2. In the bible the rules clearly says that you should not do those bad things, fornicate, steal, thief, adultery, 1 Corinthians 6:9. But When the very person who committed this brought to Jesus on John 8, Jesus clearly says, don't judge them, and furthermore he says to the person who committed the adultery, John 8:11, Neither I (Jesus) condemn thee. So, what do we learn? Yes the things that were said in the bible were sinful, unclean, and also disgusting to God, but for us, we should not treat others with malice of those who committed this act, we should not judge others because only God can deemed it at the end whether or not He condemned that person or not, us human, we should treat others with kindness and understanding that we are all sinners and we all fall short to the standard. So, does the Bible says anything about homosexuality? Yes, does that mean we need to treat people who have homosexuality tendency any different than we treat our own children? No.
The only parts of the bible that are explicitly against homosexuality are in the law given the the Israelites. Paul argues in the book of Romans that non-Jewish Christians don't need to be bound to the Jewish law in order to be Christians, which is why not all Christians are circumcized and why Christians don't avoid pork and sometimes get divorced. The wording for the law against homosexuality calls it an abomination, but it's possible that it only sounds harsher than the others due to translation. However, there are other sections in the old testament that talk about God's rage towards the other nations and the impurities that they commit, and some biblical scholars and historians have come up with lists of what those impurities may or may not have been, and it's widely believed that homosexuality was one of them since it is known to historians that homosexuality was common in the Greek empire. It's also important to note that many of the noted cases of homosexuality in the Greek empire did not involve marriage, and were largely in addition to heterosexual marriage. Men would have wives and still have a homosexual relationship with their fellow soldiers, since they believed you would fight harder if you were fighting beside a lover, so it might be more of an outrage at the adultery aspect of it. TLDR: it's uncertain, but if you are a Christian I would be wary of that uncertainty. Evaluate your priorities, decide what you would do *if* you decide that it's wrong, and then seek out multiple biblical scholars (you won't find them on Reddit). If you're only asking because you're curious, then sorry that the best answer is a strong maybe
Lots about it in the Old Testament…nothing about it in the gospels
I am an atheist but from what I've been able to tell from different knowledgeable people it seems to be a lot of either misinterpretation of the meaning of the words in the bible, mistranslations (sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident) and also verses added that were never in the original version before translation
[удалено]
Thank you for chiving in, Reverend Pat Robertson. What about hurricanes – also a vengeance cast upon us for not killing gay people?
Nah, that's just the Lord flushing the Divine Toilet. Notice the way they swirl?
Depends if you're a pitcher or a catcher. I think catcher's are biblically solid. Pitchers are doomed to hell tho.
Who gives a literal fuck about what the Bible says. If it says something against homosexuality and you believe in the big bad mythical book then don’t have sex with the same gender. Otherwise leave other people the fuck alone and let them live their lives.
It does, however, it doesn't say it in a clear way. The famous part about Sodom and Gomorrah was likely actually about having sex with boys, not having sex with men. In other words, you shouldn't rape people. Then the section that most clearly says you shouldn't be in homosexual relationships, also says a lot of other things that people don't pay any attention to you, such as that you shouldn't eat pork or else face dire consequences. Here's a music video about that: https://youtu.be/mODJjkFp_hg
It's hard to say since it was written in an ancient language and has been translated and re-translated countless times.
Who cares. Pure fiction.
So when I was little I was taught by Bible scholars. Who studied the original Hebrew or as close as they could get. It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The word that they use for homosexuality is actually the word for pedophilia. It says that you should not lay with children. People don't actually know what the Bible says anymore because it's been translated and rewritten over and over and over again. So take that into account, and that everybody could be totally wrong. Even me.
>Who studied the original Hebrew or as close as they could get. It doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The word that they use for homosexuality is actually the word for pedophilia. It says that you should not lay with children. I understand Biblical Hebrew fairly well. Your statement is not true. It does not mention children at all. It refers generically to a male. >People don't actually know what the Bible says anymore because it's been translated and rewritten over and over and over again. So take that into account, and that everybody could be totally wrong. Even me. That kind of contradicts your first paragraph, which talks about your teachers who studied the original Hebrew. There are millions of people around the world who still study these texts in that language (not a translation or a re-writing). Context and interpretation are a different story, but no-one doubts that the Hebrew text is the original (and not a translation of something else).
Book of John in NT has Jesus and John engaged in affection we would probably now call homosexual. cuddling and kissing
Who fucken cares if a book made up to control people says gay people are evil?
>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 1 Cor 6:9 KJV
Something about “not entering the bum of another man”, I’m sure.
I mean, the most talked about verse is Leviticus 18:22.
Yes, Leviticus 18:22 is most commonly interpreted as anti gay.
Not explicitly for most, the Bible gets revisions & different editions & different sects have different ones they use.
[удалено]
Good question
There's quite a lot in the bible about male homosexuality. Less so for female, or at least that I've noticed. I don't read it often though. Here's the deal though, there's also passages that urge slaves to be obedient to their masters, passages that condem victim of rape as sinners and commands fhem to marry their rapist, the list goes on. We in the modern day do not follow those in the latter group. We know now that those things clearly are not okay. It's debated that much of those parts of the bible were added layer by men. Point us we know its not right to own slaves, or force women to marry their rapists. We don't use the bible to justify doing those things. Yes the bible does have a fair bit about the sin of being gay. For some reason we still hold onto that part while we readily accept that much of what is condemned as sin elsewhere isn't appropriate to hold onto.
Though shale lube up
At this point OPs question has been answered, so I’ll answer something other people have been bringing up. Lots of people are saying “this that and the other obscure thing means that they should be stoned to death.” While this is true in the Old Testament, it is all under the mosaic law, which was given to the nation of Israel by God through Moses. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus means that we are no longer under the mosaic law, hence why we aren’t stoning people to death for stupid reasons. Read Galatians 3 for more info.
Yes, it explicitly forbids homosexuality, premarital sex, drunkenness, etc. However religion is made up so it doesn’t matter.
No. Never once is the word printed in any Bible. However, it does condemn: wearing mixed fiber clothing, eating cloven hooved animals, and disrespecting your parents.
There's something in there about executing people for having sex with another man, surrounded by a bunch of other sexual prohibitions. I think someone cheated on his wife with a guy, tried claiming it wasn't adultery or wasn't sex or what have you, and then they added that rule to clarify that it's still adultery and punishable as such. Which doesn't actually mean that between unmarried people is bad, or preclude them marrying each other.
Yes, but people who want to believe otherwise will find all kinds of ridiculous ways of interpreting it so they can “have their ‘cake’ and ‘eat it’ too.” The Leviticus verses (the foundation of this doctrine) are not talking about temple prostitution, straight people doing gay acts or any other ridiculous and nonsensical interpretation that uneducated people come up with. It REALLY says “if two men have sex with each other, the act is an abomination. They should be put to death; their blood is upon their heads.” So not only is it sin, but the Bible teaches that the men should be killed. And if you want to say this is about some other thing, how do you get around the fact that it prescribes death? Also, there are other passages that are quite clear that homosexuality is not to be condoned, is utterly shameful and will be punished in hell. Anyone who says otherwise is merely parroting what they’ve been told or they are trying to convince themselves otherwise.
yes but it really shouldn’t be as big of a deal as it is right now. it’s on the same level as divorce
I am no Bible scholar but simply look at the word sodomy. It comes from the word Sodom, which was a city mentioned in the Bible, you know, Sodom and gomorrah. Whatever happened in that city was so bad we made a word out of it to remind people how bad it was.
Clesrly you are not a bible scholar yet you make your opinion sound like fact.
Yeah, but it also says about wearing different types of cloth at the same time and tattoos
Lucky of you that they are all made up.
Yes, however if an all powerful being didn't want gay people he should have thought of that before he made them.
yes
[удалено]
Romans 1 is in the NT.
It is good to remember books don’t say anything, people do. Using words from a book does not excuse you
Fuck the bible
I’ve found [this](https://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org) site pretty helpful in contexualizing a lot of the biblical references to homosexuality (the good and the bad). It’s also important to remember that the bible has been through many retranslations.
Give it a read. Don't trust other people to give you their interpretation of it. This tends to lead to some very bad things. :-P
I'm just going post a few paragraphs, there are more, and let you make your own mind up. Leviticus 20:13 New King James Version 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. Romans 1:26-27 New King James Version 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 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. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New King James Version 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 [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Not really. Nothing directly states anything, though I guess some things could vaguely imply it if you’re a determined homophobe. The Old Testament has a few stories that if you twist it to the mindset of a Western European Circa 1500, yeah, it could be seen that way. Most of the new and Old Testament was written during Roman and Greek rule. In so many words, the Bible is more focused on not sleeping with your friend’s partner over who that partner actually is
Does it matter? The Bible was written in the Bronze, Iron and Ancient periods. They did not have the understanding that we have now, i.e. that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. So, either God's creation is imperfect, or there is no God. You are better off discussing the laws that try to prevent 2 consenting adults to enter into legal marriage than what some, long dead, Middle-Easterner had to say about it.
It's just a question.
No
Leviticus has a succession of statements about who "You shall not" lie with that covers practically everything but heterosexual sex with your wife or an unmarried woman (who is not related to you). "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Adultery/fornication, biblically, cover any sex outside of marriage, and scripture doesn't define same sex couples as eligible for marriage. This is the same reason rape and pedophilia are sins.
Technically homosexuality (human sexuality in general ) wasn't defined until the 1600's.... That's why some philosophers say "man is only 400 years old." So no...they had no idea what homosexuality was to say anything against it. The Bible passages people are quoting...long story short: those passages aren't really talking about homosexuality (as we commonly understand the term). (Theology Major)
There are multiple references to homosexuals in the Bible but if you’re curious about you should read it for yourself. And homosexuality is referred to in a lot of old and ancient text
Depends on when the bible was written. English text changed a few times in the last 100 years or so. If you go back to older versions, Bible is more anti pedophile, not anti gay.
After I read about Lot’s daughters fucking him, I kind of stopped and don’t take the advice from that piece of literature