poet
Banned
I'm sure he meant those men that were married to one. LOL
Five Mistakes in your Bible Translation
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
I'm sure he meant those men that were married to one. LOL
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if so, you still wouldn't be cause for alarm......
poet
Banned
David didn't play a harp....he played a lyre. Such a scholar.
And quite possibly a homosexual.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav
David and Jonathan
Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.
Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)
David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)
Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)
The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.
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."
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
oh, Bathsheba is gonna be so pissed when she finds out....
Damo.....THIS one's from the unscholarly scholar.....
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
David lusted after Bathsheba to such an extent that he arranged to have her husband, Uriah, killed in battle. Read 2 Samuel 11. To say that David was gay seems like a stretch to me.
As a straight male who's had deep friendships with a few males over the years (beyond just drinking beer and bragging about sexual conquests), it seems obvious to me the sort of relationship David and Jonathan shared.
As a straight male who's had deep friendships with a few males over the years (beyond just drinking beer and bragging about sexual conquests), it seems obvious to me the sort of relationship David and Jonathan shared.
poet
Banned
As with the Greeks, and the Romans, men in antiquity, seemingly, didn't make such a big deal over such triviality. Posturing and posing seem all too important today. Someone might get someone else's worm. Ooops. Did I "pun"?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The Supreme Court agrees with the Catholic Version, as it ruled that a man's wife is not his property back in the 1980s.
He is PMP, it is the reason I insult him.
K
During the Bronze Age, man love was considered a higher form of love than love of a woman. I knew of two men growing up in Kansas, both were Catholic, both were bi-sexuals, married with large families, both their wives looked the other way.
During the Bronze Age, man love was considered a higher form of love than love of a woman. I knew of two men growing up in Kansas, both were Catholic, both were bi-sexuals, married with large families, both their wives looked the other way.
poet
Banned
Baby, no better reason that that! Salute.
poet
Banned
Why does he warrant an insult? He posted a post of mine at another forum and used my alias here, violating the TOS, resulting in a week's banning. Then he casually tosses out the fact that he is a theology student/graduate with some authority on Christian theology, and worse, Biblical scripture. I studied religion for 3 years, went to catechism classes for a year, sang mass 6 days out of 7 for 3 years, and he, supposedly knows more than I do about theology??????????? Name dropping, baby...that's all that was.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
poet
Banned
So annoying...your obsession with me. And it would all be a moot point, save for attempts at trying to undermine and dismiss me. I'm better than most here. You, above all others should know and understand that.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Ironic post by Poet, will always be ironic post by poet.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
dudette!.......get over your delusions.....I got banned because you raised a stink on a liberal board with liberal moderators over something that meant absolutely nothing to you.....it was a pretext to get yourself some points back after losing argument after argument to me.........and the fact I know far more about theology than you requires no supposing.....all it requires is reading our posts......I didn't "name drop" or "casually mention" anything, I answered YOUR question about my qualifications.....
and don't forget, the only reason I posted your comment at the other site was that in the course of the argument you denied having said that black people cannot be racists.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol.....
poet
Banned
Again, you are the one who is delusional. You were banned for violating the TOS. Period. You posted my posts from here, and revealed my alias. So desperate and determined in your quest to be right....you didn't care that you were violating the rules of the board. White privilege gone amok. You got your chain "yanked", and couldn't deal with the reality....so you whined and bitched and moaned, like a little girl, after your week's punishment. But you're supposed to be so much of a man. Laughable.
You seem to forget that I amended my statement to include that, in the grand scheme of things, anyone could be racist. I know black folks that wouldn't have anything to do with y'all and talk about you like swine. They, of course, would be "racist" against whites. The difference is that, occasionally, if not justified, the racism of "blacks against whites" is understandable....given the treatment that they have received at the hands of whites, "unjustified".
I grew up amongst whites, and learned, "quickly", that there are "good and bad" in all. Rejection and vehemence is on a "case by case" basis. At least for me.
You dismissed my caveat, in order to paint me as "unreasonable". Whatever my position, you are not exonerated as a race for your history of oppression and cruelty against my people. Absorb that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So when we say 'when Watermark was a kid'... we are being extremely redundant? Given that 'Watermark' and 'kid' are both synonymous with virgin?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The above is from our ever eloquent 'poet'... whose ID alone provides credibility...