Skip to comments.
Teen girls' Bible talks of oral sex, lesbianism: smears 'filthy graffiti across the Word of God'
http://worldnetdaily.com/ ^
| March 18, 2005
| Ron Strom
Posted on 03/17/2005 10:52:18 PM PST by deepFR
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-146 next last
To: EdReform
Wasn't there an article not long ago on FR about Zondervan wanting to place ads in Rolling Stone that were - well, didn't seem very reverential, and then Rolling Stone nixed them anyway?
Can't remember details, but it also said something about their translation as well.
81
posted on
03/18/2005 10:25:30 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it)
To: CJ Wolf
Apparently you have missed the "Todays NIV" controversy, the crux of which is that the bible has been misinterpreted and given incorrect meaning - and mass-marketed to the unknowing public.
But of course, you are certain that there is no danger that the bible can be easily misinterpreted.
To: ARA
People have used the "bible alone" to sanction the KKK, the holocaust, "gay marriage", sodomy, snake-handling, absolute pacifism, child abuse, and wife battery, to name but a few evils.
If the "bible alone" were enough, then preaching to the baptised is a waste of time. But we both know it is not.
We have pastors and preachers because the "bible alone" has, since the beginning of time, been recognized as "not enough".
Scripture backs this up by mandating that we have an organized church made up of humans with authority to interpret and bind the faithful.
You have your man-made traditions (and extra-biblical spin of what the bible means) but deny it. Whereas Catholics have always claimed that Christ actually gave the Church authority and used that authority to safeguard and spread the good news.
To: Notwithstanding
to name but a few evils. how the heck is snake handling "evil" - misguided maybe - but hardly evil
To: Notwithstanding
Evils have shown up from time to time in the Catholic numbers as well. Evils which often have more a lack of bible than a surfeit of bible to blame. Protestants and evangelicals have no monopoly on evils.
To: SuziQ
"
How are kids supposed to figure out how the teachings of the Bible relate to what they're facing in the world today?"
It would help a lot if parents had a strong enough relationship with God they knew how to teach the Bible to their children.
Even though "abortion" isn't mentioned per se, the act of causing death to the unborn is clearly sanctioned for severe penalty in Leviticus.
86
posted on
03/19/2005 4:02:32 AM PST
by
azhenfud
("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
To: SuziQ
I'm sorry. I was wrong re: Leviticus, that's mentioned in Exodus 21:22
87
posted on
03/19/2005 4:17:31 AM PST
by
azhenfud
("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
To: tnGOPgirl
"Sorry Smartaleck, Jesus clearly meant judging another individual, which I did not do at all."
Right, and the Democrats support the individual troops but not the military. Sorry, but the sum of the parts equal the whole.
false doctrines? Like what?
Comment #89 Removed by Moderator
To: tnGOPgirl
"See post #69, for a small sampling"
Yes I've seen that BS before. I've also come to understand that many people confuse rites, rituals, symbols, icons, engraven images.
By these standards in #69 we shouldn't have a Congressional Medal of Honor as it is an icon used to worship a false God.
To: Notwithstanding
Where in the bible does it state to have an organized church...
The organized church and the current papal situation was derived from Rome was eatablished as a nation state with a spiritual head...
Can't find that in the good boook
91
posted on
03/19/2005 7:53:17 AM PST
by
ARA
To: unlearner; Corin Stormhands
It is enough to use Biblical words like fornication, adultery, inordinate affection, lasciviousness, concupiscence, reprobation, defrauding, covetousness and such. Those aren't Biblical terms, but rather Elizabethan attempts to translate Biblical terms. Anything we can do to remove the antiquated language barriers is a good thing.
Find me a teenager who can use concupiscence in a sentence. Very few can.
92
posted on
03/19/2005 8:06:09 AM PST
by
jude24
(The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.)
To: Frumious Bandersnatch
If more people would read the bible rather than reading about the bible, we'd be a whole better off.Agree, but they might ought to skip Genesis 38.
93
posted on
03/19/2005 8:12:06 AM PST
by
JusPasenThru
(http://giinthesky.blogspot.com/)
To: tnGOPgirl
Thanks for the thoughtful and stimulating reply. You are welcome.
94
posted on
03/19/2005 9:34:26 AM PST
by
DBeers
To: ARA
Where in the bible does it state to have an organized church... The organized church and the current papal situation was derived from Rome was eatablished as a nation state with a spiritual head...
Can't find that in the good boook
You bring up some interesting points -how could the first Christians found one Church that still exists today if all the details were not included in the "good boook" they collected and compiled?
95
posted on
03/19/2005 9:42:52 AM PST
by
DBeers
To: EdReform
96
posted on
03/19/2005 2:37:50 PM PST
by
ConservativeStLouisGuy
(11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
To: jude24
These terms are very specific in the Bible. Short of learning the original languages, they best convey Biblical concepts and help communicate Biblical principles.
Using what you call "antiquated" terminology is beneficial to those who have, by trusting in Christ, escaped from bondage to perversions. They do not need to have vile memories brought back by the use of modern euphemisms that placate what God calls sins, iniquities and abominations.
Watered down human opinions and commentary masquerading as a "translation" or "version" serve to undermine the faith of immature and untrained believers. They also tend to promote the Satanic deception of Christians having the right to do whatever is right in their own eyes. That is why I pointed you to the passage in Jude earlier.
I have various commentaries which I have found useful to help learn the meaning of numerous passages. Yet, I would never consider substituting reading these and studying these in place of God's Word.
But while these "translators" attempt to make reading the Bible smooth and easy, they compromise the essential truths and clear message contained in scripture.
If these terms are antiquated, what words are more appropriate for instructing believers how God wants them to live?
adultery (moicheia) - sexual relations with spouse of another
Example (application): an "affair"
This can, in some cases, apply to remarriage of a divorced person.
fornication (porneia) - impermissible sexual relations
This term sometimes broadly refers to sexual intercourse between participants who are not married to each other. It is more specifically used (especially when contrasted with adultery in the same passage) to describe sexual relations that are intrinsically improper. That is, there are some types of sexual relations that cannot be sanctified by marriage (Lev. 18). Using the term "sexual immorality" does not convey this sense.
Example (application): homosexuality
uncleanness (akatharsia) - (primary use is) sexual activity that is not clean
Example (application): sexual relations with a woman who is menstruating
Using the term "impurity" does not convey the physical aspect of this term and hinders the most relevant application.
lasciviousness (aselgeia) - pursuit of sensual pleasure
As used in scripture - activities that sink to new moral lows; practicing greedy, unsatisfiable lusts; exploring out of the bounds of sexual norms (nature) due to desensitization.
Example (application): pornography
Using the term "debauchery" fails to communicate the meaning in a way that serves to make it applicable. Debauchery conveys extreme behavior, while the scriptural term applies to lesser offenses.
reveling (komos) - riotous or uproarious festivity
This is associated with drinking alcoholic beverages. The term "orgies" is far too strong. The reader might get the false impression that as long as they do not engage in sexual relations with a group of people, they are not guilty of revelry. This is false.
Example (application): night club activity
"Find me a teenager who can use concupiscence in a sentence. Very few can."
They need to learn. Give them enough credit to be able to learn new vocabulary. What would you advise if teenagers are completely illiterate?
The Bible was not given merely for light reading or entertainment value. It is meant to be studied, memorized, meditated upon, and applied.
To: ARA
"The organized church and the current papal situation was derived from Rome was established as a nation state with a spiritual head...
Can't find that in the good book"
Try Israel.
98
posted on
03/19/2005 6:18:40 PM PST
by
azhenfud
("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
Comment #99 Removed by Moderator
To: unlearner
Short of learning the original languages, they best convey Biblical concepts and help communicate Biblical principles. I have a working knowledge of Greek. Many of those words are antiquated in that they are no longer used in English, and they are attempts to translate broader Greek words.
For instance, "fornication" is a word I have yet to hear a teenager who hasn't been brought up reading a King James Version (a very tiny minority of teenagers, believe me) use that word. Say "sexual immorality," and they will be able to understand it. In the Greek, pornea encompasses that broader concept, anyway.
Similarly, "lasciviousness" is a word I have never encountered outside of the King James Version; "hedonism" would be a fair approximation.
They need to learn. Give them enough credit to be able to learn new vocabulary. What would you advise if teenagers are completely illiterate?
My point is that we should not be too attached to the antiquated King James renderings when there are equally, or more, valid renderings that are more easily understood. Frankly, I could care less if they don't know the King James' terms. Firstly, illiteracy isn't a religious issue, but rather a educational, economic, and societal one. Christianity endured 1400 years before the invention of the printing press; it does not require universal literacy. Secondly, I would argue that someone who doesn't recongize a word that passed out of usage 400 years ago is not illiterate.
The Bible was not given merely for light reading or entertainment value. It is meant to be studied, memorized, meditated upon, and applied.
True enough; however, antiquated renderings are not the Word of God. Rather, it is the meanings of the words (i.e., the thoughts they were meant to convey). Strictly speaking, the King James Version is not the Word of God; it is, rather, a fairly good approximation of what the Word of God is in Greek and Hebrew. There are other fairly good approximations out there too; we should not be overly attached to any.
My basic point is this this: words and language chage; God's laws and his teachings do not. We should not be so slavishly devoted to mere English words that we actually obscure the clear teachings of God. Anything that conveys the truth of God in language people actually use and understand is okay in my book.
100
posted on
03/19/2005 7:32:48 PM PST
by
jude24
(The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-146 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson