heres an interesting truth!?

Question

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:

9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.



New International Version

9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals ,10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts , 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

Cant u see men are playing with the bible and changing iit to their convenience!! Its not fair

Well why do they keep changing it??4 better understanding or 4 better convenience????HUH?!

People im not againts you!!! and im not a precheer i just want to prove a point here

Answer 1

so wait, your saying that MAN, not God, is against homosexuals, therefore homosexuals still have hope to be loved by God.

Answer 2

The Bible has always been more about politics and power than spirituality. Christ was dead a few hundred years before the first edition was printed. It's been edited and revised ever since. Each time, the "renewed" version was influenced by the culture and to varying degrees, revised to influence the culture. All of which goes to support the foolishness in reading it literally. Men commissioned it, men wrote it, men edited, and they've done this repeatedly since the first book was printed. Some stuff in there is good life stuff, other stuff is hateful garbage.

Answer 3

Its like the famous Sodom and Gomorrah thing. At first it said the evil men said "bring them out unto us, that we may know them." it could mean, rob them, rape them, or kill them. It was common in those times that foreigners had no rights in a city. And lets face it, straight guys rape too! Any gender can is the sad and sick truth. Further along in the translations, it became "Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them" How did it become that? hmmmm.
When I was in church, I liked to read the oldest translation I could so I wouldn't get some one's "take" on what was written originally. But no matter which one you read, it was still written by men, and some times not even the men that were credited with it! Some times it was their students, and even if their intentions were good, their own feelings were put down. Ever think about why women were mostly evil in the bible? At the time they had no rights and were thought to be bad. This is why I have read many writings on and about the bible. I need to know why and how certain things were written the way they are, I don't take things at face value.
Thanks for posting this!

Answer 4

The only point you are proving is that you are ignorant.

The Bible is not the Word of God. While you can assert anything you wish, you can't make "truth" with lies.

The Bible truly is fiction. The fact that you have not bothered to ascertain that, and are not actually willing to dialog rather than assert and declaim and use what you think are "cute" averments like "you are fiction too" (isn't it cute everyone, doesn't he show how intelligent and thoughtful he is by clearly demonstrating that he wouldn't bother with serious conversation with -- say -- someone trained in theology -- EVER.) indicates that you are some form of biblio-idolator. While a very present religion at the moment in America -- Biblio-idolatry, masquerading as a form of Christianity, has no place in the historic Church.

The canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius. Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327 and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.

There are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century. There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests). Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier. These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences. Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth of our Lord and his divinity -- among others.

One does not need to be an expert to see that the Bible is fiction, and not the Word of God however. Even the American Bible Society explains scriptural accreation as starting with Hebrew tribesmen telling stories around a campfire. That is exactly where the earliest parts of the Bible started -- then it was expanded through midrash and so forth.

Looking at the received texts, the idea of Sola Scriptura becomes evidently ludicrous. The Bible says that the world has corners (Isaiah 11:12) and that it sets on pillars (I Samuel 2:8). It says that God accepted a human sacrifice -- he may have prevented Isaac's, but he allowed a general to sacrifice his own daughter without even a murmur, the text giving tacit support to the idea that having given his word, the man had to kill his child. (Judges 11:30-39). It clearly maintains that genocide is often commanded by God (Joshua 10:40-42 and I Samuel 15: 2, 3 and 8) and that, after killing all the adults in a race, taking the female children as sex slaves is permissible (Numbers 31: 17-18).

The God revealed by the Bible is not only both a liar who doesn't know the natural laws of his own world, and a monster, as shown above -- but he has no real regard, even for his own people, whom he forces into cannibalism (Leviticus 26: 27-29) when he is mad at them; or his priests, whose faces he wipes with dung (Malachi 2:1-3).

It is not only gays and lesbians that are hated by bible-god. This monstrosity also suggests killing kids who eat or drink too much (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21), and says that if he is angry with parents he will kill their children (Leviticus 26:22) and he blames things upon children whose great-great-great grandfathers committed the things being blamed on the kids (Exodus 20: 5).

Putting it in a word, bible-god is a monstrosity, a horrific demiurge of evil. Something that even he admits ( Isaiah 45:7 ) [Furthermore, the word used in Hebrew for evil, the word ra' is widely conceded to mean a number of different things: It can mean "wickedness," "mischief," "bad," "trouble," "hurt," "sore," "affliction," "ill," "adversity," "harm," "grievous," and "sad." So no matter what particular interpretation is given of this word -- it has profoundly negative implications. The idea that god is sovereign over the affairs of man makes this even worse, because no matter what interpretation it has, it indicates that bible-god deliberately does harm.]; evil about which he sometimes changes his mind (Exodus 32:14). What a font of unchanging morality -- that almighty God can decide to kill an entire people, and then be talked out of it by a human servant... Furthermore, it is obvious, if God can change his mind, then even if the Bible were not full of errors and horrors, you could not trust that God had not changed his mind on any other issue in it.

So, yes, I suppose if one wants to take as truth a book that says that beetles have four legs instead of six (Leviticus 11: 21-23) and that rabbits chew their cud [which they do NOT] (Deuteronomy 14:7) and if you are willing to, having accepted it as truth, overlook the fact that bible-god routinely changed his mind (I can show you other instances if you wish) then yeah, I suppose its words would matter and gays are therefore going to hell.

I on the other hand, while a Christian (as in Christ follower) am NOT a literalist, and do not think that a book of bronze age myths owing heavily to the Sumerian and Egyptian myths in the Old Testament and to a collection of pagan faiths, particularly Mithraism in the New Testament matters at all.

Christianity is centered around love, faith in Christ, and Eucharist. At best the Bible is sacred because of its place in the life of the early church and should be regarded as holy myth -- stress on the myth. And what is a myth? It is fiction.

So Mr. Preacher, might as well speak from any other book -- Tolkien is a lot more interesting. Have fun.

Regards,

Reynolds
Schenectady, NY
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 5

There are many different versions of the bible and it is constantly being updated so that the language is understandable to the people who are reading it now. Check out the language in "The Message" a new contemporary version of the bible.

Answer 6

I might have misinterpreted your question or intentions earlier, so I have revised my answer. Sorry, if I caused offense before.

I do not care to inherit the kingdom of God. I would like to see humanity become a more caring and DOWN TO EARTH species in my lifetime. People who conceal their viciousness behind the Bible can go to their own personal hell of ignorance and discontent. That would be perfectly fair.

Answer 7

yes i agree i don't even know what to believe these days the original bible came from other cultures then as time went by people put in what they wanted and took out what they did not like. i just live my life and do good. :) i have felt the same way as you. it seems that one version of the bibles contradicts the other. i am not sure if it was a question or statement but i understand your point. and i agree. :)

Answer 8

That's why I view religion as completely arbitrary. If you find something that works for YOU, fine. Live by it if that's what it takes to make you a good person. But it's a special kind of arrogance to think that with all of the myriad of religious sects WITHIN each major world religion that all have the exact same amount of "proof" that YOUR is better than someone else's. I tend to favor secular morality, but that's just me and where I'm at with my spirituality.

Answer 9

sure, your desk is of historic reality. although anybody must be conscious of there are various components to the economic gadget. congress, war, different worldwide activities, technologies, taxes, congress and president predecessor. you will possibly additionally might desire to look on the political events via historical past. What we presently outline in 2009 as Republican or Democrat extremely did no longer being to maintain on with their modern-day ideals till the 1960's, JFK days. formerly then, the democrat occasion of right this moment is greater like the republicans from 1860-1950 and vice verse. for this reason, MLK and Lincoln have been Republicans of their day yet right this moment might probable be democrats. exchange out each and each president formerly 1960 with the different occasion.

Answer 10

No its not fair, but I was once told that you need to have a bible that is easy to understand if you are a new believer. They all pretty much sound the same. It just depends on what version you have. My pastor has a few different versions. Just goes along with what his sermon is going to be for that particular sunday.

Answer 11

The only way to make sure your Bible has not been tainted by translations is to get a copy of the original writings that make up the Bible.