Man sues Zondervan to change anti-gay reference in Bible

[GRGirl]

GRGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
So who says that being homosexual isn't a sin? If the Bible is based on God's word, or is a "reference" as you say of God's word, then I guess it would be only He that can say whether or not it's a lie, not someone who's offended by it.

And the bible teaches love not hate...hate the sin not the sinner. I sin everyday and I'm pretty sure that no one in the church HATES me for it.

[Cpetr13]

No printed bible can say that homosexuality is a sin because there was no such word--or concept--as homosexuality in any biblical language. All the terms pertinent refer to same-sex activity; nowhere does it say that loving another man or another woman was a sin. Furthermore, all the terms refer to either pagan sex rites or to temple prostitution, not two men or two women making love.

That is not to say that there weren't homosexuals then--clearly your god approved of Jonathan and DAvid--but there wasn't a name for that kind of orientation. It's like gravity; it's always been there but they didn't recognize it.

So for a bible to claim to be an accurate translation of the original texts, it cannot bring in wholly unknown terms. And since we know that the bible is used not just as a personal reference but as a means by which people judge others, then they damned well better be right about what they say.

GRGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
So who says that being homosexual isn't a sin? If the Bible is based on God's word, or is a "reference" as you say of God's word, then I guess it would be only He that can say whether or not it's a lie, not someone who's offended by it.

[Cpetr13]

Oh no, there are so many other reasons...

GRGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
And the bible teaches love not hate...hate the sin not the sinner. I sin everyday and I'm pretty sure that no one in the church HATES me for it.

[GRGirl]

Cpetr13 wrote:

No printed bible can say that homosexuality is a sin because there was no such word--or concept--as homosexuality in any biblical language. All the terms pertinent refer to same-sex activity; nowhere does it say that loving another man or another woman was a sin. Furthermore, all the terms refer to either pagan sex rites or to temple prostitution, not two men or two women making love.
That is not to say that there weren't homosexuals then--clearly your god approved of Jonathan and DAvid--but there wasn't a name for that kind of orientation. It's like gravity; it's always been there but they didn't recognize it.
So for a bible to claim to be an accurate translation of the original texts, it cannot bring in wholly unknown terms. And since we know that the bible is used not just as a personal reference but as a means by which people judge others, then they damned well better be right about what they say.
<quoted text>

You probably should try reading the Bible...it may help you understand a little more. Many things are a sin and if the sinner can't deal with their guilt for their sins then they need to talk to God about it, not a lawyer. And I'm sure that there are not plenty of reasons to hate me. I'm not trying to judge this man because he's a homosexual, I just think he's making sensationalist claims for his own gain. I couldn't care less if he's gay! And just so you understands why Bibles now a days say "homosexuality" it's call language progression. We translate the Bible into our own languages and most english speaking people recognize the word "homosexuality" as meaning laying with one of the same sex. It's a progressional term that wasn't used when the bible was first translated to English. And if it makes anyone feel better...Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" today's new living translation says, same verse "Do not practice homosexuality..." understand? It's sort of like a language barrier.

FYI, you shouldn't hate me because I believe in the progression of language. What I believe in for religion doesn't affect that.

[Cpetr13]

I have read the bible--several times, in fact, which is one of the main reasons I am an atheist.

"Translation" means taking a linguistic concept in one language and finding the closest equivalent in the target language. This requires being accurate in your identification of the original concepts.

This has nothing to do with "language progression"; that just means that you use a more modern term within the target language itself, not that you alter the original concept to further your own goals. Using the term "homosexual" in the bible makes no more sense than saying jesus turned the water into a light chablis. To do an accurate translation, you have to adhere to original concepts, not add concepts that didn't exist whent he original was written.

Your example is an excellent sampling of the dishonesty involved. Aside formt he fact that leviticus was written exclusively as guide for the jewish clergy, the original means quite clearly that men should not act outside the prescribed gender roles. In other words, if two men have sex, neither should pretend to be a woman. Even a cursory study of the jewish society from early times until the present shows the importance of the narrow gender roles acceptable in their culture. That is why "effeminacy" shows up so often in the tome. It also does not specify homosexuality because they describe only acts, not relationships. The term "homosexuality" refers to both physical and emotional attraction to one's own gender; nothing in the texts describes any emotional attraction--except one instance. That is the story of jonathan and david, in which there is no sign that your god disapproved of it; in fact, it is the ONLY true love story in the entire book.

Using "homosexual" in translation is irresponsible, inaccurate, and lazy. It is one thing for some idiot preacher to tell you to hate gays; it is quite another to deliberately mistranslate a term and publish it, claiming that the translation is accurate.

BTW--your own book denounces those who would add or detract from the texts of the bible. That is precisely what this translation does--it ADDS a concept that didn't exist at the time.

GRGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
You probably should try reading the Bible...it may help you understand a little more. Many things are a sin and if the sinner can't deal with their guilt for their sins then they need to talk to God about it, not a lawyer. And I'm sure that there are not plenty of reasons to hate me. I'm not trying to judge this man because he's a homosexual, I just think he's making sensationalist claims for his own gain. I couldn't care less if he's gay! And just so you understands why Bibles now a days say "homosexuality" it's call language progression. We translate the Bible into our own languages and most english speaking people recognize the word "homosexuality" as meaning laying with one of the same sex. It's a progressional term that wasn't used when the bible was first translated to English. And if it makes anyone feel better...Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" today's new living translation says, same verse "Do not practice homosexuality..." understand? It's sort of like a language barrier.
FYI, you shouldn't hate me because I believe in the progression of language. What I believe in for religion doesn't affect that.

[GRGirl]

Cpetr13 wrote:

I have read the bible--several times, in fact, which is one of the main reasons I am an atheist.
"Translation" means taking a linguistic concept in one language and finding the closest equivalent in the target language. This requires being accurate in your identification of the original concepts.
This has nothing to do with "language progression"; that just means that you use a more modern term within the target language itself, not that you alter the original concept to further your own goals. Using the term "homosexual" in the bible makes no more sense than saying jesus turned the water into a light chablis. To do an accurate translation, you have to adhere to original concepts, not add concepts that didn't exist whent he original was written.
Your example is an excellent sampling of the dishonesty involved. Aside formt he fact that leviticus was written exclusively as guide for the jewish clergy, the original means quite clearly that men should not act outside the prescribed gender roles. In other words, if two men have sex, neither should pretend to be a woman. Even a cursory study of the jewish society from early times until the present shows the importance of the narrow gender roles acceptable in their culture. That is why "effeminacy" shows up so often in the tome. It also does not specify homosexuality because they describe only acts, not relationships. The term "homosexuality" refers to both physical and emotional attraction to one's own gender; nothing in the texts describes any emotional attraction--except one instance. That is the story of jonathan and david, in which there is no sign that your god disapproved of it; in fact, it is the ONLY true love story in the entire book.
Using "homosexual" in translation is irresponsible, inaccurate, and lazy. It is one thing for some idiot preacher to tell you to hate gays; it is quite another to deliberately mistranslate a term and publish it, claiming that the translation is accurate.
BTW--your own book denounces those who would add or detract from the texts of the bible. That is precisely what this translation does--it ADDS a concept that didn't exist at the time.
<quoted text>

I find your post enlightening. Truly. you've obviously made it a point to be eduacated about your opinions. However, I must also say, that there is always room for interpretation. If I say something in spanish and you translate it to english you may translate it differently than say a straight baptist preacher from the south who uses colloquialisms. That was my point about the language barrier. NO ONE can appropriately translate any text from one language or another unless they have literally lived with (around) the persons writing it. I interpret the verse differently than you as well, not to lay with man kind as woman kind is saying to me, don't have a physical relationship with a man that you would have with a woman (or are physically intended to). There are too many concepts that didn't exist at the time that do now, or don't exist now that did then. The Bible is meant to be a tool.

I'm sorry that you've chosen to be an Atheist. I think that as people in general we need something higher to look to. I don't believe that it was the Bible that has turned you from God, but quite certain too many Christians who are too quick to dismiss the fact that we aren't to judge anyone, but love everyone. I think the Bible is full of love stories as well, the greatest one being the gift that we as people are given to freely love whoever we choose to love. It's all a choice. And I, as a Christian, choose to remember that God loves me everytime I sin (daily) so who I am to choose not to love someone else because of his sin.

[Just Me]

"In other words, if two men have sex, neither should pretend to be a woman."

WOW! no really...WWWOOOOOOWWWWW!

[Just Me]

"It is one thing for some idiot preacher to tell you to hate gays"

Been to church all my life, from sea to shining sea, never once been told by a preacher to HATE anyone.

[Bobbytarsus]

Too bad for him. All the lawsuits in the world won't change the word of God. It's written in stone, and God is not subject to mans law.

[Cpetr13]

I can't think of a fictional character who IS subject to man's laws.

Bobbytarsus wrote:

Too bad for him. All the lawsuits in the world won't change the word of God. It's written in stone, and God is not subject to mans law.

[asim saddique]

 
Dear Friend in Christ,
Greaetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!
I have been going through the studies at your web site, and I am deeply inspired with all of the teachings and studies thereon like Bible studies and other teaching materials on our Web site. This is such a wonderful studies you have arranged for all the nations, in the long run of your service for the nations of the all the world.
I am from Islamic Republic of Pakistan where it is difficult to have Radio and TV channel for preaching purposes. They would not allow us to do that here; the Satan has real strong hold over everything. I often say that we are living in the land of the enemy.
Friend, I humbly request you to expand your outreach your program in Urdu and Punjabi language. Urdu is the language spoken and understood by more than one sixth of the total population of the world. Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, India, Nepal, Afghanistan and also in Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and others.
I would ask you to pray and share it among the brethren. I would offer my services for being translator, recorder and distribution/sales. I pray that your consideration will have His mark over your decision.

May God bless you abundantly! May His perfect will be done!

Grace and Peace be with you, all brethrens.

Yours brother in Christ,
Asim
Pakistan

[staramas]

"That is not to say that there weren't homosexuals then--clearly your god approved of Jonathan and DAvid--but there wasn't a name for that kind of orientation. It's like gravity; it's always been there but they didn't recognize it."
where in this text do you see a gay relationship??
that they were of kindered spirit?? that he gave him his robes ect? they were friends like brothers and jonathan was impressed with what david had done.. no where did it say they had a gay relationship ... now who is twisting words for there use........
26. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.
1 Samuel 17:56-58 (in Context) 1 Samuel 17 (Whole Chapter)
27. 1 Samuel 17:58
And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.
1 Samuel 17:57-58 (in Context) 1 Samuel 17 (Whole Chapter)
28. 1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1-3 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
29. 1 Samuel 18:3
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:2-4 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
30. 1 Samuel 18:4
And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 18:3-5 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
31. 1 Samuel 18:5
And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.
1 Samuel 18:4-6
where is there anything about a gay realationship? again I have friends I love dearly and would die for if need be but that dose not make me gay we are of kindered spirit.
now you are twisting words for your use....

[staramas]

You only use the same argument over and over and you are proven to be inaccurate many times over. And yes you do hate Christians you hate and despise anyone who will not jump on your band wagon to help strip others of their rights
Oh and by the way I will be here always to defend my rights my sons rights to be know by his God given name and not his sexuality.
I would love for you to show hard facts to prove your point .. and if david and Jonathan was your proof then that myth is busted.

[Cpetr13]

This is not just friendship; you conveniently leave out a few things:
" 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house"

This was not a custom of friendship but it is the claiming of a mate. Spouses were not to return to their father's houses. Because of david's lower social standing, he would have been the "female" of the pairing, which is to say he would have been the one who followed the orders.

" 1Samuel 20:41 When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and (AD)bowed three times And they kissed each other and wept together, but (AE)David wept the more.

42Jonathan said to David, "(AF)Go in safety, inasmuch as we have sworn to each other in the name of the LORD, saying,'(AG)The LORD will be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants forever.'" Then he rose and departed, while Jonathan went into the city. "

Odd behavior for "just friends".

"2 Samuel 1:26:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

No straight boy is going to say this to another straight boy, then or now. If there was no sexual dimension to this relationship, why even bring women up, and why would david's marriage interfere with their friendship?

BTW--where he takes his armor off; tht would have meant he was standing nude in front of the guy. Casual nudity was a big n-no to the hebrew people. it would also, again, be an extremely odd thing to do if they wre just friends.

staramas wrote:

"That is not to say that there weren't homosexuals then--clearly your god approved of Jonathan and DAvid--but there wasn't a name for that kind of orientation. It's like gravity; it's always been there but they didn't recognize it."
where in this text do you see a gay relationship??
that they were of kindered spirit?? that he gave him his robes ect? they were friends like brothers and jonathan was impressed with what david had done.. no where did it say they had a gay relationship ... now who is twisting words for there use........
26. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.
1 Samuel 17:56-58 (in Context) 1 Samuel 17 (Whole Chapter)
27. 1 Samuel 17:58
And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.
1 Samuel 17:57-58 (in Context) 1 Samuel 17 (Whole Chapter)
28. 1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1-3 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
29. 1 Samuel 18:3
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:2-4 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
30. 1 Samuel 18:4
And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 18:3-5 (in Context) 1 Samuel 18 (Whole Chapter)
31. 1 Samuel 18:5
And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.
1 Samuel 18:4-6
where is there anything about a gay realationship? again I have friends I love dearly and would die for if need be but that dose not make me gay we are of kindered spirit.
now you are twisting words for your use....

[Cpetr13]

Gays getting their rights acknowledged does not "strip away" anyone else's rights.
I've been openly gay for 30 years now and people know my name whether they do or don't know my orientation.

staramas wrote:

You only use the same argument over and over and you are proven to be inaccurate many times over. And yes you do hate Christians you hate and despise anyone who will not jump on your band wagon to help strip others of their rights
Oh and by the way I will be here always to defend my rights my sons rights to be know by his God given name and not his sexuality.
I would love for you to show hard facts to prove your point .. and if david and Jonathan was your proof then that myth is busted.

[staramas]

Yes it is about rights! why did he not sue to change the Torah or the Qur'an as well why only the bible. each of these also condem homosexuality ,and the answer is he wants the right to make others to have to acknowledge his sexuality.and to recive special rights for those acknowledgements.

[staramas]

And As far as david and johnathan again a totally platonic relationship. the bible also says to love thy neighbor as thy self is that homosexual in nature as well? now for your information it is wrong .about the jewish laws and customs. ask any rabbi. where did you get your information ? what source are you are quoting from?? your own personal book? I have yet to see any documentation to support your facts I have given you 3 ( bible , Torah, Qur'an ) all of wich state that God condems homosexuality! so once again my question is why do you hate christians so much? why not the jews and the muslims as well?

[Cpetr13]

Because the Torah doesn't use the term "homosexual"; the judaic interpreters tend to have more scruples about how they translate their holy books thn christiqns obviously have. The jewish translators don't make things up to further their agendas.

staramas wrote:

Yes it is about rights! why did he not sue to change the Torah or the Qur'an as well why only the bible. each of these also condem homosexuality ,and the answer is he wants the right to make others to have to acknowledge his sexuality.and to recive special rights for those acknowledgements.

[Cpetr13]

David and jonathan were totally platonic? Possibly, but that doesn't mean they ween't gay and in love. Do you know what platonic means? It mens that there was no sexual activity. And when Jonathan took off his armor and gave it to david, he ws NUDE--they didn't wear undergarments. There would be no reason at all to strip in front fo another male; he could have given him the suit of armor after he had changed. Nudity wasn't casual among the jewish people, and there was no lower-room experience. if you removed your clothing, there was something else involved.

You clearly have NO understanding of jewish culture of the time.

Why dont' I rail against the jews and muslims? Because in this country, they aren't working against gay rights and they aren't publishing false translations of their holy books to advance their agendas.

staramas wrote:

And As far as david and johnathan again a totally platonic relationship. the bible also says to love thy neighbor as thy self is that homosexual in nature as well? now for your information it is wrong .about the jewish laws and customs. ask any rabbi. where did you get your information ? what source are you are quoting from?? your own personal book? I have yet to see any documentation to support your facts I have given you 3 ( bible , Torah, Qur'an ) all of wich state that God condems homosexuality! so once again my question is why do you hate christians so much? why not the jews and the muslims as well?

[staramas]

Once again please state your source of information. I might not have a perfect understanding of Jewish culture but my rabbi friends do. And according to them you are simply seeking self-gratification and are ignorant of what David and Jonathans relationship is about. You are basically telling a lie to meet your needs. Twisting the words....*isn’t that the complaint you have with the bible* Funny how its ok for you to interpret the text as you see fit but not for us. Let me ask you this if same sex couples were offered all the legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples. And that is what you have stated the problem is. Then would their still be a need to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage?