Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[robvalue]

I could choose to suck some guy's dick. (Assuming he wanted my to.) After doing so, I'm not homosexual or bisexual, unless I already was before.

The fact that some people can't understand this, in today's enlightened world, is astonishing. Most likely, people who think that sexuality is determined by sexual acts are actually bisexual and assume everyone is like them.

[Drich]

" Because Again, before Jesus died that is how it was done. when Jesus was ask, He had not died and returned. The "New Covenant" does not start with the New Testament. It starts with Acts 2. It starts with the out pouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of pentacost. "

which jesus never predicted or said would happen upon his death so we rely on the testimony of luke for that right but jesus himself never spoke of this .

Even if you want to ignore what Luke wrote, and Paul, and Peter, you still have what John said Jesus said in John 14:15-31
John 7: 37-39

Jesus not only acknoweledged the Holy Spirit all accounts of the Gospel record He was also empowered by Him on the day of His Baptism.

[Anomalocaris]

Don't bother. He's also one who presented homosexuality as a choice. The evidence being that someone wanted to rent him at a truck stop and he said no. So for him it obviously was a choice, since he could work in the rent boy business any time he wants.

So, don't take that diatribe too seriously.

how idiotic!

He needs to understand ......

If "he" is drich the fossilized monkey turd, then no matter what follows those words, that sentence would be calling for an impossibility.

[Drich]

how could i possibly butcher the bible more than it already has been over the centuries through different translations and rewording adding and subtracting its not reliable at all now

you didn't write the following?

jesus:
Among the sheep and goats who both call Jesus Lord, the group who serves Jesus by feeding the brethren in need, clothing them, and giving them water, goes to heaven. The other group who calls Jesus Lord but who fails to provide such charity are, as a consequence, sent to "eternal fire." (Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Matt. 25:32 et seq.). A faith that ignores the poor brethren is "dead" and "cannot save." (James 2:14-17.) "Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matt. 7:19.)

paul:
Anyone who "shall call" on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13.) This is permanent, and no condition subsequent can be put on this that you must be charitable or have fruit thereafter. Otherwise, it is salvation by works. (Romans 4:4, 14; Eph. 2:8-9.) Hence, it cannot be true that if the goats, in fact, ever once called on the name of the Lord that they should be sent to hell. James' statement that paraphrases the principle of Matthew 25:32 et seq. contradicts Paul, and we are not to believe even an angel from heaven if he should contradict Paul. (Gal. 1:8.)

You used a full verse quotation and only cut and pasted 1/2 of it, and quote another one, and take 1/2 of that and so on until you establish a point from broken 1/2 verses you piece meal all together, and then represented all these 1/2 verses as a 'doctrine of Paul' or a Doctrine of Christ... That is the ONLY way you were able to make your points and the ONLY way you could make Paul's Teachings conflict with the teaching of Christ.

In what world or area of study is what you did considered a valid practice?

.... you yourself said that the original had been mistranslated what christians have now is not the same as the original text so what christianity has now is corrupted word of God dont you agree then that christians need to give up the modern translations and go back to the original text in greek ?

again no... I Never said the bible was mis translated EVER. I SAID YOUR USE OF MODERN ENGLISH IS INCOMPLETE WHEN READING ANYTHING TRANSLATED!

Have you NEVER taken a foreign language course ever? In any translation you loose 10 to 30% of what is being communicated. Because certain elements will not translate. Hence the term lost in translation. Things like grammar, verbage, syntax, cultural, social sayings and idioms. You ever speak to someone who is just learning English and they may have the words right but they are in the wrong 'tense'(Past/Present) Show masculine properties when they are speaking of a female, or the words are in the wrong order?

You are going and what time she..
In Korean this is the proper sentence structure, and a absolutle literal translation meaning no changes were made to syntax, verbage or grammar so this is a word for word.
(just incase you want to google translate for yourself: 당신과 그녀 는 무슨 시간이 가고있다
)
So to read a word for word translation an English speaking person could grasp the basic concept, but so much is lost to translation here because this same word phase could mean any one of the following, what time are you and your sister going? What time is your date with your girlfriend? and on and on.. So how can we possible know what is being communicated? Context Context Context... The very thing you are cutting out when you quote 1/2 verses and paste them together.

You feel you are doing something semi legit because people do this when giving 'sound bites' (which in of itself is a deplorable acts as it rarly communicates truth) but again the thing is, when say the news does this or this is done in a book report the source material is always based in the English. So when a word like 'believe' is used your modern take of the word believe is what is meant most of the time. When you take the word 'believe' out of context in translated material, the word could mean believe as you understand it or it can mean that the word 'believe' is the closest English approximation we have...

Again I point back to the 4 koine greek words that we translate into the word 'love' The Greeks word for Love are very sharply defined and it takes a mountain of context to fish out exactly what aspect of our understanding of the word is meant.

So does this mean the bible or anything is mistranslated because their is not a 100% translation match? No! Why? because seldom if ever can we take one language and translate into exact meaning and have everything that is meant to be communicated go with a word for word translation.

That is why we have "literal" (as close to a literal as we can get only making correction for grammar and syntax) and we have a substantive translation (A translation that communicates the jist of what is being said.) Most bibles are considered to be literal. a Substantive translation are often tainted with a specific religion's doctrine. and their are varying degrees of translations that mix literal with substantive which is why their are so many different translations.

The point to all of this? The bible is not translated 'wrong'. Your understanding of it is wrong because you do not frame what is said in the one thing needed to determine what is being communicated in the passages you quoted. That is context.

[Edwardo Piet]

I could choose to suck some guy's dick. (Assuming he wanted my to.) After doing so, I'm not homosexual or bisexual, unless I already was before.

Same here I'd rather not do it but I'd rather not suck the tits of a woman I wasn't attracted to either. Doesn't mean I couldn't do it and sucking a guy's dick wouldn't make me any more gay than refusing to suck a particular woman who I found highly unattractive's tits would make me not heterosexual.

[Drich]

Nope.

you want to try again?

I remember telling you that our use of the a word in English is not always the same as a word we translate from. so we have to go back to whatever the original word is to make sure we are using it correctly IF It Seems To Contradict Something Else Written!

THIS IS TRUE OF ALL TRANSLATED MATERAL! Not Just the Bible.

Example in the greek their are 5 words with 5 different meaning that we in the English translate as just the one word 'love.'

Each greek word describes a completely different aspect of our word love, yet when translated these differences are not communicated unless one knows context, region, and culture which again is not communicated in a simple literal translation (which most bibles are.)

That is why so many of you foolishly Think God loves everyone. When in truth God Agape' the world. Agape' is conditional, it's based on respect for God. but 'love' in the English is a 'feeling' that can change, but is forever, that has boundries, but at the same time is limitless.

So in short I did not question the bible. I question your reading of it. You read it and by cutting, pasting and assigning your definations to english words that are supposed to repersent koine greek make it say whatever you want. I question that.

yes like i said modern christianity at the very least is not correct because it does not follow the original greek christians do not investigate the original noone does that they just listen to their preacher who has it wrong because the book he learned from and his teachers are wrong its been a long long time since people went by the original greek translation . thats what corruption is

corruption: the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.

What are you talking about?!?! Maybe take a honest look at just this thread. I have quoted the greek many many times to establish clarity in this thread. You may have come from a church of snake handlers, but MOST Christian movements push the greek translation over any other.

[Drich]

drich do you interpret all of the bible literally or do you just pick and choose what is literal and what isnt literal?

With a prolonged study of the koine greek, Should also comes a study of OT Jewish literary styles as well as a study in historical recordings. Once one can identify which styles of recording/writting is being utilized then identifying "a story" over what is meant to be taken literal  is not difficult.

[Drich]

drich do you interpret all of the bible literally or do you just pick and choose what is literal and what isnt literal?

Don't bother. He's also one who presented homosexuality as a choice. The evidence being that someone wanted to rent him at a truck stop and he said no. So for him it obviously was a choice, since he could work in the rent boy business any time he wants.

So, don't take that diatribe too seriously.

Not Homosexuality, ALL SEX is a choice. Or do Gay people really believe they have the market cornered on sexual sin?

[Edwardo Piet]

Sex is a choice, sexuality isn't.

[jenny1972]

" Because Again, before Jesus died that is how it was done. when Jesus was ask, He had not died and returned. The "New Covenant" does not start with the New Testament. It starts with Acts 2. It starts with the out pouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of pentacost. "

which jesus never predicted or said would happen upon his death so we rely on the testimony of luke for that right but jesus himself never spoke of this .

Even if you want to ignore what Luke wrote, and Paul, and Peter, you still have what John said Jesus said in John 14:15-31
John 7: 37-39

Jesus not only acknoweledged the Holy Spirit all accounts of the Gospel record He was also empowered by Him on the day of His Baptism.

since we have both acknowledged that modern translations have been corrupted by inaccuracies its kinda silly to quote these modern corrupted translations and base arguments on what these confused translations say . i would be interested in knowing what these verses actually said in the original greek but the problem with that is learning the greek language and finding original text in greek