Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

cartune said:

Probably because most non believers actually read the book beginning to ending. And came to the conclusion this doesn't make sense.

Most devout believers have never read the book beginning to end

Click to expand...

whats funny is i often see many followers quote/cite the bible, and have to google search etc... to find a scripture. Im almost inclined to question the intellect, or lack that of these individuals. I mean its the same exact book, with the same exact words/scriptures... You would think if you read the same book, and heard the same verses over and over, throughout the duration of several yrs even decades, one could recall at least a few lines, verses, scriptures. Makes me question the sincerity and honesty of it all.

I mean i can watch a movie once or twice, and can recall a few lines/scenes.... i can only imagine if i saw the same movie once twice a week for several yrs/decades... id damn near be able to reenact the entire movie, including the scenes, background, camera angles etc...

GWAP said:

 

Click to expand...

any and all contributions any and all examples, actions that that as a whole positively affected or improved blacks nationwide. Just as I stated we can see/show how the "crack epidemic" negatively affected blacks nationwide. That can be proven and validated with stats/numbers etc... 

I mean anything ala.... show something like areas which there is a high volume of black churches, the rate of high school/college graduates is higher then areas with low volumes of black churches..

or areas that have alot of black churches etc.... have higher sat scores, lower numbers in incarcerations, less single mothers who have never been married, lower teenage pregnancies, more home ownerships, lower crime rates, higher iq's, less drug activities, fewer dropouts, lower obesity percentages among african americans (in particular black women) , are more active, achieve higher post-secondary accolades, get better grades...fiscally more responsible, something...anything any examples that show as a whole something progressive, betterment, improvement, strives advancement, advantages versus areas/blacks with lower black churches, or as oppose to black non christians. 

DutchRoyalT said:

 

GWAP said:

 

Click to expand...

any and all contributions any and all examples, actions that that as a whole positively affected or improved blacks nationwide. Just as I stated we can see/show how the "crack epidemic" negatively affected blacks nationwide. That can be proven and validated with stats/numbers etc... 

I mean anything ala.... show something like areas which there is a high volume of black churches, the rate of high school/college graduates is higher then areas with low volumes of black churches..

or areas that have alot of black churches etc.... have higher sat scores, lower numbers in incarcerations, less single mothers who have never been married, lower teenage pregnancies, more home ownerships, lower crime rates, higher iq's, less drug activities, fewer dropouts, lower obesity percentages among african americans (in particular black women) , are more active, achieve higher post-secondary accolades, get better grades...fiscally more responsible, something...anything any examples that show as a whole something progressive, betterment, improvement, strives advancement, advantages versus areas/blacks with lower black churches, or as oppose to black non christians. 

Click to expand...

huh...

i asked what criteria you are basing your argument on... then you ask me for sources of data?!?!?!

DutchRoyalT said:

 

Click to expand...

are you basing your argument on researched facts or just personal opinion?

In 2013 the latest year for which statistics are available, the U.S. pregnancy rate among girls between 15 and 19 was 26.6 births for every 1,000, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy. The rate has steadily declined since 1991, when it was 117 per 1,000 teens between the same ages.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

Pregnancy rates among adolescent females fell steadily between 1990 and 2005, and, while there was a slight rise between 2006 and 2007, subsequent data through 2010 indicate a return to the earlier trend. The U.S. rate of teen pregnancy is now at an historic low. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

In 2010, the teen pregnancy rate reached a new low in the modern era. It declined by 51 percent between 1990 and 2010, from 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 females, ages 15 to 19, to 57.4 – the lowest rate reported since estimates begin in 1972. Among females younger than 15, there was a 66-percent decline from 1990 to 2010 (from 17.6 to 5.4 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 14 years). Over the same time period, rates for teens ages 15 to 17 declined by 59 percent, from 74.2 to 30.1; and the rates for teens 18 to 19 declined by 44 percent, from 172.4 to 96.2. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy

GWAP said:

 
huh...

i asked what criteria you are basing your argument on... then you ask me for sources of data?!?!?!

are you basing your argument on researched facts or just personal opinion?

In 2013 the latest year for which statistics are available, the U.S. pregnancy rate among girls between 15 and 19 was 26.6 births for every 1,000, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy. The rate has steadily declined since 1991, when it was 117 per 1,000 teens between the same ages.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

Pregnancy rates among adolescent females fell steadily between 1990 and 2005, and, while there was a slight rise between 2006 and 2007, subsequent data through 2010 indicate a return to the earlier trend. The U.S. rate of teen pregnancy is now at an historic low. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

In 2010, the teen pregnancy rate reached a new low in the modern era. It declined by 51 percent between 1990 and 2010, from 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 females, ages 15 to 19, to 57.4 – the lowest rate reported since estimates begin in 1972. Among females younger than 15, there was a 66-percent decline from 1990 to 2010 (from 17.6 to 5.4 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 14 years). Over the same time period, rates for teens ages 15 to 17 declined by 59 percent, from 74.2 to 30.1; and the rates for teens 18 to 19 declined by 44 percent, from 172.4 to 96.2. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy

Click to expand...

um you do realize i said as oppose to 40 or so years ago then you showed stats that are what 5-10 y/o

GWAP said:

 
huh...

i asked what criteria you are basing your argument on... then you ask me for sources of data?!?!?!

are you basing your argument on researched facts or just personal opinion?

In 2013 the latest year for which statistics are available, the U.S. pregnancy rate among girls between 15 and 19 was 26.6 births for every 1,000, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy. The rate has steadily declined since 1991, when it was 117 per 1,000 teens between the same ages.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

Um and where in that statement does it have anything pertaining to areas with high volume of black churches, or black christians vs people who arent black christians

Pregnancy rates among adolescent females fell steadily between 1990 and 2005, and, while there was a slight rise between 2006 and 2007, subsequent data through 2010 indicate a return to the earlier trend. The U.S. rate of teen pregnancy is now at an historic low. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

In 2010, the teen pregnancy rate reached a new low in the modern era. It declined by 51 percent between 1990 and 2010, from 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 females, ages 15 to 19, to 57.4 – the lowest rate reported since estimates begin in 1972. Among females younger than 15, there was a 66-percent decline from 1990 to 2010 (from 17.6 to 5.4 pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 14 years). Over the same time period, rates for teens ages 15 to 17 declined by 59 percent, from 74.2 to 30.1; and the rates for teens 18 to 19 declined by 44 percent, from 172.4 to 96.2. - See more at: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy#sthash.ExFYBF81.dpuf

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-pregnancy

Also I stated out of wedlock....nothing in that chart shows out of wedlock nor states anything about black christians compared to everyone else...Hell it doesnt even compare blacks versus everyone else

Click to expand...

And again show me something just as you showed charts/stats graphs that shows blacks who attend church regularly, areas that have large black christian population...

You see how you just posted numbers stats fact for people in general... now do the same thing showing how the "black church" has affected improved etc... blacks as a whole...

You keep stating and showing stats for all races, americans as a whole, us versus other countries etc....

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THINGS.... I said show me something in reference to specifically areas where there is a high volume of black churches and black christians...

Nothing any of you guys have stated is relevant to what I asked..

I said show me how being a christian and black lowered blacks having babies as teens and out of wedlock, and you post how american teens overall are least likely to get pregnant... hello every teen in america isnt black, attend black churches or is a black christian...so why would you post that as an example?

Boris said:

But what was wrong with the verses I showed at the start? Interestingly, YOU were the one distracted by homosexuality. Let's re-visit. 



I think I see what the issue is. You didn't read what I said. 

Instead of addressing what the link said, you were more concerned with its "agenda" and the fact that it dealt with homosexuality. At least own up to your mistakes. 

Click to expand...

Yet, you still don't provide any other verses to support your claim. All your quotes from me are my
responses to your claim. You said that my Bible and others English translations are poorly translated. You provided a link to in an attempt to support your claim. My response is that I personally still get the same message on that verse from each of the translations provided. If you say they are poorly translated, then you are saying you are getting conflicting messages. So my highlighted question that you quoted is asking what conclusion you came to? You won't answer that either. Your purpose was to show me that English versions have mistranslated verses on homosexuality. So time and time again, I ask if these verses are mistranslated then what message are you getting from them?

DutchRoyalT said:

 

GWAP said:

 
huh...

i asked what criteria you are basing your argument on... then you ask me for sources of data?!?!?!

are you basing your argument on researched facts or just personal opinion?

In 2013 the latest year for which statistics are available, the U.S. pregnancy rate among girls between 15 and 19 was 26.6 births for every 1,000, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy. The rate has steadily declined since 1991, when it was 117 per 1,000 teens between the same ages.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

Click to expand...

um you do realize i said as oppose to 40 or so years ago then you showed stats that are what 5-10 y/o

Click to expand...

1. the chart starts at about 72-73.... that's 40 years ago...

2. the latest data is 2013......2 years ago

A. Did you actually read or look at the data before you responded?

B. Do you have sources that show in the last 2 years the rate has somehow climbed over 400% ?

On another note, If you are trying to "prove" that churches are not helping... use data to prove your point. 

Just because the other people arguing with you(not me) don't have data doesn't make your argument right by default..

You asked what good the church has done and i pointed out something good church has done. obviously the civil rights movement was forged through the leadership and connections the church provided back then.... but after showing you this you then move the goalposts to asking what "current day" things the church is doing.

So you ask a question....get a valid answer with a solid example... then instead of conceding the point... you rephrase the question and context.

If you want to prove your argument YOU have to present data.... you can't just rely on the lack of data from the opposing argument..

I want to make it clear that im not religious and i am not arguing for the present day value of religion... 

I'm just saying for you to push your point you should provide data t support your argument just like the christians you are debating should provide.

GWAP said:

 
1. the chart starts at about 72-73.... that's 40 years ago...

And again nothing of them stats specify blacks that are christians... if so please highlight them...

2. the latest data is 2013......2 years ago

Again nothing about black christians, the subject matter in which i am speaking on

A. Did you actually read or look at the data before you responded?

B. Do you have sources that show in the last 2 years the rate has somehow climbed over 400% ?

On another note, If you are trying to "prove" that churches are not helping... use data to prove your point. 

Just because the other people arguing with you(not me) don't have data doesn't make your argument right by default..

You asked what good the church has done and i pointed out something good church has done. obviously the civil rights movement was forged through the leadership and connections the church provided back then.... but after showing you this you then move the goalposts to asking what "current day" things the church is doing.

So you ask a question....get a valid answer with a solid example... then instead of conceding the point... you rephrase the question and context.

If you want to prove your argument YOU have to present data.... you can't just rely on the lack of data from the opposing argument..

I want to make it clear that im not religious and i am not arguing for the present day value of religion... 

I'm just saying for you to push your point you should provide data t support your argument just like the christians you are debating should provide.

What data do i need to provide if someone is trying to prove something to me or to anyone... that would be like saying the defendant doesnt have to prove there innocence... 

Click to expand...

its not my burden to prove YOU guys are saying blacks benefit from the black church and religion... So how is it my burden to prove it... Um have you ever been to court....? the defendant ala people defending christianity/black church have to DEFEND your case as to why it is a good thing. 

Why would I be the one to provide facts... 

And civil rights didnt improve the conditions of blacks.... and I showed you this... Unless you are saying less homeownership, more debt, more mothers with bastard babies, more dropouts, higher incarceration and recidivism, higher divorce rates and less social and political influence are improvements...

Hell black people even declining in terms of entertainment... Far less blacks on tv... hell far less black shows... outside of a few that got black folks ****ing and bafooning, far less movies produced by a.a.... 

And again even if so called "civil rights" movement was a positive thing... it wasnt solely because of the black church... Um hell their was a marcus garvey, a geronimo pratt, huey newton wasnt a black christian, elaine brown wasnt a black christian, neither was lew alcindor, jim brown, lionel wilson...i could go on and on... bobby seale

So are you saying these individuals and hundreds, thousands others efforts were unheard, ineffective... Or are you saying it didnt work until christians got involved? 

DutchRoyalT said:

its not my burden to prove YOU guys are saying blacks benefit from the black church and religion... So how is it my burden to prove it... Um have you ever been to court....? the defendant ala people defending christianity/black church have to DEFEND your case as to why it is a good thing. 

But the people you are arguing with have already conceded they don't have data, but are relying on personal experience to support their opinion.

If they are black.... and they personally benefit from the church... then in essence there are blacks who benefit from the church.

To prove that the church has been less than useful to the black community as a whole (which is your opinion) you should provide data.

Why would I be the one to provide facts... 

You made a counter claim to their claim.

You have to back that up.

And civil rights didnt improve the conditions of blacks.... and I showed you this... Unless you are saying less homeownership, more debt, more mothers with bastard babies, more dropouts, higher incarceration and recidivism, higher divorce rates and less social and political influence are improvements...

This is like taking your car to a car wash and getting it cleaned and then running into a dust storm afterwards....

then claiming that car washes don't actually clean cars because your car is now dirty.

Civil rights didn't precipitate these issues.

...cointel pro, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, globalization, latent racism, and the erosion of the middle class did.

in actuality all races are suffering from the same issues you listed, blacks are just hit harder because of the aforementioned causes.

(i also disagree with less social and political influence, we have much more political and social influence than in the 40's and 50's)

Hell black people even declining in terms of entertainment... Far less blacks on tv... hell far less black shows... outside of a few that got black folks ****ing and bafooning, far less movies produced by a.a.... 

less black shows on TV than before the civil rights movement?

you mean there was more black presence in entertainment and media in the 30's-40's-50's?

can you back this up with data?

And again even if so called "civil rights" movement was a positive thing... it wasnt solely because of the black church...

nobody said it was SOLELY because of the church.... strawman argument

Um hell their was a marcus garvey, a geronimo pratt, huey newton wasnt a black christian, elaine brown wasnt a black christian, neither was lew alcindor, jim brown, lionel wilson...i could go on and on... bobby seale

Nobody said these people didn't contribute...

the only thing mentioned was the significant role church played in organization and leadership.

So are you saying these individuals and hundreds, thousands others efforts were unheard, ineffective... Or are you saying it didnt work until christians got involved? 

strawman argument.

Having a significant role in the civil rights movement =/= the only entity that existed in the movement 

Click to expand...

you won't even address the false claims you made about teenage pregnancy.

you won't recognize the role church played in the civil rights movement

you won't recognize the benefits of the civil rights movement

It's as though white/asian/etc people can handle having equal civil rights,

but us blacks need to be segregated and limited for our own good?

that subtle SWS mindset has established itself in your mind and you don't even see it.

DutchRoyalT said:

Because there isnt any proof. I never compared the two, what i said is a single isolated incident or example doesnt equate that something is good/bad. Your premise is that church/religion the bible is a good thing, but then then turn around and say oh i cant speak about church/bible religion as a whole i can only speak on my church.

So if you can only speak solely on your church etc.... how can you say religion/church/bible is a good thing as a whole? You just said the only perspective and knowledge you have is just your church, and how your preacher etc presents the bible religion to you. So how can you speak positive/negative on something overall when by your only admission, you only have knowledge of a single isolated situation.

Thats no different then lets say a white person says well i have no knowledge/experience with no other blacks, but one I work with and a few around my area... and since those experiences were bad, that means all black ppl are bad/awful etc.

Your basically trying to take bites from both sides of the apple. In one instance you wanna say religion is positive/good etc... then when i say ok prove it show how is it a good thing overall, then you wanna say oh well i can only speak from my experience, my church and you cannot speak overall and in general. 

And as far as belief and discrediting the example you mentioned... i never stated that, what i said is i dont know it to be true because you didnt provide any credence or facts or any credible information to corroborate your claims. 

Stating something doesnt validate it nor prove it to be true. You have the burden of proof. And your defense and stance conflict and contradict one another.

So how can you say the bible/religion/church as a whole is a good/bad positive/negative thing, when you stated outside of your experience, your church...your are completely ignorant and oblivious to religion/church/bible outside of your church etc... experience with religion?

Click to expand...

You've put words in my mouth. You want me to speak for every black church or church in general. How can I do that? Especially if I use your logic of needing to see books, bank statements and audits of every church you want me to speak for. I gave you an example of what I am involved with, but you want to see our books. If you simply would have clicked on the Our Impact tab. There was plenty of information for you. That's the question right? What positive impact is the black church having on blacks? Most churches only make their books available to their members. I am only a member of one church, so how can I possibly provide you information that you would find sufficient for the whole black church? Once again, I am speaking for one black church and a black community. Which is why I have only focused on that. You want me to do something I simply can't do which is speak for every black church and every black community. The only claim I am making is that there is a black church that is positively effecting the black community and other communities. We aren't speratist.

Here is another program that my church and surrounding churches are involved with in efforts to help the community.

http://churchadoptaschool.org/church-school-partnerships/


Plus you say that their are more black church members than before. So church membership is up? Show me some data on that.

Once again, you have identified problems in a community. What is your solutions and what are you personally doing towards a solution since you believe the black church is not the answer?

GirlThatsBlanco said:

Yet, you still don't provide any other verses to support your claim. 

Click to expand...

I provided a link with multiple verses. You haven't shown why the information in that link is invalid, so I'm still wondering what's wrong with the verses. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

My response is that I personally still get the same message on that verse from each of the translations provided.

Click to expand...

Which is side stepping the issue I presented. The concern wasn't whether different English translations are in agreement, it's that they don't correctly convey what the original text says. The interpretations in that link state that the translations are incorrect. If the translations are incorrect, the message that you take away is incorrect. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

So my highlighted question that you quoted is asking what conclusion you came to? You won't answer that either. Your purpose was to show me that English versions have mistranslated verses on homosexuality. So time and time again, I ask if these verses are mistranslated then what message are you getting from them?

Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear, time and time again, that I can't draw a conclusion without significant background information. 

Boris said:

I provided a link with multiple verses. You haven't shown why the information in that link is invalid, so I'm still wondering what's wrong with the verses. 

Which is side stepping the issue I presented. The concern wasn't whether different English translations are in agreement, it's that they don't correctly convey what the original text says. The interpretations in that link state that the translations are incorrect. If the translations are incorrect, the message that you take away is incorrect. 

I thought I made it clear, time and time again, that I can't draw a conclusion without significant background information. 

Click to expand...

You are missing my point. I read the link you posted and other pages on the site. Even though, you are unable to draw a conclusion on the message that the original text is conveying, I am able to do so. You don't have to agree with me nor am I trying to convince you. I am just stating how I am processing all the information.

And nothing is wrong with the verse you provided. You want to discuss differences in translation to the original text. Great. We have already established the challenges in translation between different languages. But isn't the goal to see if those different translations have the same meaning as the original text or if they are in fact different? From the verse you provided I see no errors in translation in the context that the message is still the same to me. You keep saying, "I don't know what the true meaning is. I need more background information." My issue is you won't tell me what differences you see where the message could be different from the original text's message? What do you think the message could possibly be? And if you need more background information, then go seek it out and draw a conclusion.

GirlThatsBlanco said:

You are missing my point. I read the link you posted and other pages on the site. Even though, you are unable to draw a conclusion on the message that the original text is conveying, I am able to do so. You don't have to agree with me nor am I trying to convince you. I am just stating how I am processing all the information.

And nothing is wrong with the verse you provided. You want to discuss differences in translation to the original text. Great. We have already established the challenges in translation between different languages. But isn't the goal to see if those different translations have the same meaning as the original text or if they are in fact different? From the verse you provided I see no errors in translation in the context that the message is still the same to me. You keep saying, "I don't know what the true meaning is. I need more background information." My issue is you won't tell me what differences you see where the message could be different from the original text's message? What do you think the message could possibly be? And if you need more background information, then go seek it out and draw a conclusion.

Click to expand...

You read the link, but you're missing where the link discusses differences between what the original text is saying and what the English translations are saying? 

I'm just confused how you get the same message when they say two different things. 

Boris said:

You read the link, but you're missing where the link discusses differences between what the original text is saying and what the English translations are saying? 

I'm just confused how you get the same message when they say two different things. 

Click to expand...

Because I am not in agreement with the premises that your link is presenting in efforts to support their claims. I clearly see that different words are used for that verse. But what I am saying is that none of those translations are saying something that contradicts other verses in the Bible. That is how I get the same message.

GirlThatsBlanco said:

Because I am not in agreement with the premises that your link is presenting in efforts to support their claims. I clearly see that different words are used for that verse.

Click to expand...

What  do you disagree with? I pointed out earlier that you didn't address what the link said. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

But what I am saying is that none of those translations are saying something that contradicts other verses in the Bible. That is how I get the same message.

Click to expand...

I never said that the interpretations presented in the link contradict other  verses in the Bible. That's not the concern here. 

Yall in here getting it in.

Boris said:

What do you disagree with? I pointed out earlier that you didn't address what the link said. 



I never said that the interpretations presented in the link contradict other verses in the Bible. That's not the concern here. 

Click to expand...

Boris said:

What do you disagree with? I pointed out earlier that you didn't address what the link said. 



I never said that the interpretations presented in the link contradict other verses in the Bible. That's not the concern here. 

Click to expand...

I disagree that the verse could mean anything other than what I have told you what I interpret it to mean. Your source is claiming that the original text has a different meaning than the English versions. I simply disagree with your source. I've said this already. It seems you just don't accept my answer. You just want somebody to agree with what your link is saying. I told you that I don't and why I don't. Yet, you have not said why you even think your sources claims could possibly be true. Why do you find them to possibly be true?

This you ask questions I give an answer, but when I ask a question you avoid it thing is ridiculous.

GirlThatsBlanco said:

I disagree that the verse could mean anything other than what I have told you what I interpret it to mean. Your source is claiming that the original text has a different meaning than the English versions. I simply disagree with your source. I've said this already. It seems you just don't accept my answer. 

Click to expand...

The link provided specific reasons for why it interprets the Hebrew text differently, but you just disagree for no reason? It's not that I don't accept you disagreeing. Your answer has zero support to allow me to understand your point of view. 

Here's another link that discusses the same thing: http://goddidntsaythat.com/2012/06/...y-couldnt-the-egyptians-eat-with-the-hebrews/

You should be ok with it because that article doesn't mention homosexuality. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

You just want somebody to agree with what your link is saying. 

Click to expand...

I presented an article and you provided zero commentary on whether its claims were true or not. I'm just curious why  you disagree with it. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

Yet, you have not said why you even think your sources claims could possibly be true. Why do you find them to possibly be true?

Click to expand...

I think they could possibly  be true because the article discusses the original hebrew along with the historical context. To determine whether these claims are true, that requires more research. 

GirlThatsBlanco said:

This you ask questions I give an answer, but when I ask a question you avoid it thing is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I've answered or addressed all of your questions. 

boris droppin knowledge......

if you just read his link you can see how translation distorts meaning

Boris said:

The link provided specific reasons for why it interprets the Hebrew text differently, but you just disagree for no reason? It's not that I don't accept you disagreeing. Your answer has zero support to allow me to understand your point of view. 

Here's another link that discusses the same thing: http://goddidntsaythat.com/2012/06/...y-couldnt-the-egyptians-eat-with-the-hebrews/

You should be ok with it because that article doesn't mention homosexuality. 


I presented an article and you provided zero commentary on whether its claims were true or not. I'm just curious why you disagree with it. 


I think they could possibly be true because the article discusses the original hebrew along with the historical context. To determine whether these claims are true, that requires more research. 


I've answered or addressed all of your questions. 

Click to expand...

I had no problems with discussing a verse on homosexuality. I actually did discuss the verse, but you wanted me to interpret different versions of the verse without discussing the topic in each translation. By discussing the topic, I was trying to show that each translation did not contradict any other verse in the Bible. I also didn't say that you said there were contradictions. So once again, I am not disagreeing with the different words used in each translation. I am disagreeing with the claim, that the verse may be only discussing just homosexual sex under the context of pagan worship is an abomination. I am saying the Bible is clear to me in other passages that the act of homosexual sex is an abomination so that there is no misinterpretation in the verse to me. Every time I wanted, to dig into why I came to that conclusion, you said that I shouldn't focus on the topic of homosexuality. But how can I explain my position on the translation of the verse without showing you how I came to my position? When I asked your position on the topic of homosexuality you said it was not relevant. To me it was, so I asked again. You still did not answer.

But on to your recent link. I see no issue with the use of the word abomination in some versions or the word loathsome in other versions I use. Your source makes some valid points, but doesn't take into account a full context of what Moses is writing in Genesis or Exodus. You would be correct, that you will need background information to come to my understanding of the verses which is why I earlier stated that it is more than helpful to read and study the Bible with others. It is also helpful to have some knowledge of the culture and history of different people groups in the Bible if you don't already. Some info on culture is provided in the Bible, while some is not. Either way that is how I am coming to my conclusion that there is no misinterpretation for the word abomination.

I agree with your source's definition of abomination. Although, it is relative it is something detestable or strongly disliked by someone or a group of people. Which goes to my point. First, it would be an abomination for Egyptians to eat with Hebrews at the time because of cultural, social and economic issues. Both cultures have different God's they worship. Egyptians were the wealthiest and strongest nation at the time. So it would likely be undesirable for them to dine with a people group who is poor and soon to be slaves. Plus the Hebrew God is perceived as weak by the Egyptians. If He was strong then the Hebrews wouldn't be poor. Also, idols were popular in many ancient cultures. The Hebrew people also have no idol to represent their God which was unheard of at the time. It is easy to see how the Egyptians could be disgusted with the Hebrews. Classicism and prejudices go on even today.

Next, is the issue of shepherds. Yes, both cultures had shepherds, but both jobs were different from one another. The way livestock was viewed and treated were different between the Hebrews and Egyptians. Hebrews treated their herds as a provision from God. Egyptians viewed their herds as a god. Opposing views on the same topic, but each others view would be an abomination for both parties.

Last, is the the interaction between Moses and Pharoah. I think your source has greatly under played their interactions. This is a standoff between God and Pharoah who is like many Egyptian kings who believes he is a god. If you go back to the text, you will see that in Exodus 7 God is having Moses speak for him. God was not asking Pharoah to let the Hebrews worship away from Egypt, he was demanding it. God was not negotiating. If He did, then it would show that Pharoah was over the Hebrews and not God. So, it would be an abomination for the Hebrew people to concede to Pharoah's negotians because no other god is to be before their God.

Like I said before, this is how I see that the translations are appropriate. This is my view just like your source has theirs. Are you in agreement with your source or do you have a different view?

GWAP said:

 
boris droppin knowledge......

if you just read his link you can see how translation distorts meaning

Click to expand...

No, because the article didn't actually cite the original text, including language & context other than stating that the translation of the original text was wrong. If I actually get some time, I'll debunk the premise that the translation is wrong.

crcballer55 said:

 

GWAP said:

 
boris droppin knowledge......

if you just read his link you can see how translation distorts meaning

Click to expand...

No, because the article didn't actually cite the original text, including language & context other than stating that the translation of the original text was wrong. If I actually get some time, I'll debunk the premise that the translation is wrong.

Click to expand...

but the whole point is the fact that different english versions use different english words because the interpretation is still up to the discretion of the interpretor...

even without discussing the actual original language... if different english translations are worded differently with slightly different meaning, then that must prove that interpretation does affect meaning.

even without the examples from the link, if you speak 2 or more languages you would already know it is difficult to have a literal translation 100% of the time.

now if you are just trying to prove a specific text about a specific topic (homosexuality?) then theres more factors you can pull out to prove your view.

but overall as a rule.... tranaslation does affect meaning.. 

GWAP said:

 

crcballer55 said:

 

GWAP said:

 
boris droppin knowledge......

if you just read his link you can see how translation distorts meaning

Click to expand...

No, because the article didn't actually cite the original text, including language & context other than stating that the translation of the original text was wrong. If I actually get some time, I'll debunk the premise that the translation is wrong.

Click to expand...

but the whole point is the fact that different english versions use different english words because the interpretation is still up to the discretion of the interpretor...

even without discussing the actual original language... if different english translations are worded differently with slightly different meaning, then that must prove that interpretation does affect meaning.

even without the examples from the link, if you speak 2 or more languages you would already know it is difficult to have a literal translation 100% of the time.

now if you are just trying to prove a specific text about a specific topic (homosexuality?) then theres more factors you can pull out to prove your view.

but overall as a rule.... tranaslation does affect meaning.. 

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of two or more translations that are significantly different?

Fontaine said:

Dutchroyal in here serving boys like a tennis match.

Play on, playa...

Also... "Girl that's blanco" is a super cool name.




Any body ever notice that the agnostic, atheist, non religious crowd...

Tend to have a history in religion?

Where their parents made them go consistently or their dad was a pastor or that at one point was a hardcore believer..

Click to expand...

cartune said:

Probably because most non believers actually read the book beginning to ending. And came to the conclusion this doesn't make sense.

Most devout believers have never read the book beginning to end

Click to expand...

Very true.

I've met people who go to church often, yet can't find time in their own schedule to read the bible for themselves. It's the people who took on the intellectual challenge of trying to critically think about it.

People truly think the pastor is the authority of God.... It's pimping.

Not too say that the information or what the bible talks about is false, but the organized political states rose out of "religion" are a cancer. You guys have to remember at one point, religion was synonymous with nationality.

Red sea being a mistranslation of reed sea. Hence not a bloody deathly connotation, but a place prominent in papermaking plants....