Replies

This reminds me a lot of an argument I had several years ago with a man who claimed that the homosexual act was not, in fact an abomination before God's eyes... Was not even sinful. Because in the original Greek that verse said "For a man to 'go against his nature' is an abomination before God's eyes". So, in fact, for a gay man (who is that was by "nature", of course) not to have sex with other men is the actual sin. So you see, the verse means precisely the opposite of the plain English text when you understand it properly.

The fact that the "original" was not in Greek and that it is likely that "to lie down with another man" and "to go against nature" are probably synonymous in Hebrew was ignored by him. My further argument that in (I hope) all Christian circles, mankind is understood to be inherently sinful - in fact our "nature" IS sin - and therefore his translation would be meaningless (i.e. "for a man to not sin is an abomination") was also wasted. Evidence that even clear texts can be twisted by those with an agenda to mean the opposite of their obvious meaning.

Similarly, some have translated "I name you 'rock' and on this rock I will build my church" into "I name you 'pebble' (cause you're nothing special since the Catholics like you), and on that boulder over there I will build my Church" because it is inconvenient to accept a church built on Peter because it might support a Catholic argument.

Along these lines... 1stConman seems to think that if he says it loudly enough and often enough it becomes true. I'd love to hear where the year 250AD comes into all of this, but I think I'll let it slide.

1stConman seems to think that if he says it loudly enough and often enough it becomes true.

Amazing isn't it? And Catholics can't be trusted because our documentation is bogus. Gnostic knowledge is a scary thing.

Similarly, some have translated "I name you 'rock' and on this rock I will build my church" into "I name you 'pebble' (cause you're nothing special since the Catholics like you), and on that boulder over there I will build my Church" because it is inconvenient to accept a church built on Peter because it might support a Catholic argument.

Of course the big hole in your argument is that there are 2 different words in the original Greek. You can't get around it. And spare us the "Matthew was not written in Greek" baloney, unless you can produce the Aramaic manuscripts from that time.

Along these lines... 1stConman seems to think that if he says it loudly enough and often enough it becomes true. I'd love to hear where the year 250AD comes into all of this, but I think I'll let it slide.

Convincing anyone that Peter was more then a chip of rock is only a small part of your problem, you still have to connect him to the Catholic church and Rome, so you had best get busy.:-)