Reply to Why do some care about rules about gay people but ignore rule about shrimp, rape, and stoning women?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why do some care about rules about gay people but ignore rule about shrimp, rape, and stoning women?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
I'm sorry, [b]the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics." [/b] Paul calls out homosexual acts loud and clear.  If you want to disregard the Bible after the Gospels, that's fine, but it is by no means the "correct" way to read the Bible.  I mean, I, personally, do not really believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible seems really clear on it and it is a difficult thing to reconcile.[/quote]

Wait -- you knew that the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English, right?[/quote]

If the original language is ambivalent, how so?  Let’s have that explanation, I’m interested.  I’d rather read an actual point than witless snark.[/quote]

Sure, we can discuss it. How have you been interpreting the Greek word "malakoi," for the purposes of this thread?[/quote]

I don’t know Ancient Greek and I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

If you are knowledgeable about this topic- go ahead and lay it out.  Where is the ambivalence in the language and why is your interpretation more correct?[/quote]

Oh! So you aren't the poster who wrote above, "I'm sorry, [b]the New Testament language is not ambivalent on this, it takes no "semantic acrobatics" [/b]? Or are you?

[b]I think I'll wait for them to come back.[/b] I've never read a non-ambivalent translation that was supported by the text, and I'd really like to hear that first.

Part of my oral defense for a philosophy degree was translating Epictetus. I'm definitely no expert, but I do find the issues of translation fascinating.[/quote]

I’m right here!  And excited to learn from you about why the text is ambiguous.  I don’t know Greek, but if you do, you can explain the issue.[/quote]
NP. PP never said it was ambiguous, just that it’s in Ancient Greek so you can’t say one way or the other.  YOU’RE the one who made the definitive statement that “the language is not ambivalent.” Please explain yourself. [/quote]

What is the basis of saying that the original language is ambivalent if you don't know if the original language is ambivalent?

The resistance to laying out the viewpoint as to why the language is ambivalent is pretty telling in itself.  Whoever the pp is who made that statement would rather run in circles than just say anything meaningful.  The English is clear; if there's an argument otherwise you can make it.  It seems like whoever is more interested in ridicule or having a "gotcha" moment.  The truth is- no one cares- this is an anonymous discussion website and the only value is the quality of the discussion.  If you are only interested in ridicule, well, that's the quality of the discussion that will take place.[/quote]

Hello people. It's not that hard to google the word.

Here is the wikipedia entry for the Greek word malakia, with lots of interesting discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakia

[quote]In the gospels, the only instance of the word (in the adjectival form) is in Matthew and Luke, who use malakos to refer to luxurious clothing, in contrast to the attire of John the Baptist: "What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft (malakos) clothing?" In this context, the word is translated as "soft", "fine", "delicate", "expensive", "fancy".

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians uses malakos in the plural to refer to persons. This is commonly translated as "effeminate", as in the King James Version, which has: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."[35] Another common translation is "male prostitutes". Other versions have: "passive homosexual partners", "men who are prostitutes", "effeminate call boys", "men who let other men use them for sex", "those who make women of themselves".[/quote]

I translate documents quite often and always find it fascinating that people take the Bible literally when they haven't actually read the original scrolls. Translation ALWAYS involves quite a bit of interpretation on the part of the person translating. You don't just translate "word for word." (If you don't believe me, read 10 different Bibles from the past 400 years cover to cover to compare the different sentences for the same books.)

Lots of words have layers of meanings that do not follow that word into another language.  You can take a thing and find a word in each of 2 different languages to refer to that thing, but in one language the word *only* means that thing, nothing else, while in another language the word for that thing can also refer to something else entirely (just look in the English dictionary to see the many meanings behind individual words). Or a language may have only one single word that means a particular object. But in a different language, there might be 2 or more words that can mean that same object.

Translation is nuance. But it's also never, ever perfect.  See the Wikipedia entry for malakai above, for example.

Moreover, the oldest scrolls we have for biblical texts are almost assuredly not the original texts that whoever originally composed them sat down to write, pen to papyrus. And you know, when it comes to scribes copying texts to send out in the world, scribes make mistakes. Or they make their own corrections and revisions.  How do we know this? Because of ancient texts that have different versions, that's how.

So. You may feel that the Bible is an unalterable word of God, to be read "literally." But any scholar of ancient texts knows that there are multiple versions of those texts out there and it is debatable which are the closest to the original source.  When you go back to all the ancient sources out there, you'll find a paragraph or phrase here, a sentence or words there, in some scrolls but not others. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed translations of the Bible just in the past century, adding in new passages. Who decides which versions are the true word of God?

Never mind the ongoing debate between Protestants vs. Catholics over which books should be accepted into the Bible in the first place...[/quote]

So... you're saying that the verses are prohibiting... soft clothing?  Being effeminate?  Is that the controversy?  That makes no sense, in context.  You're not offering a real alternate explanation for what the Bible was saying or a convincing argument.

People aren't going to take a deep dive into the translations because there are only so many hours of the day, and not something that interests everyone. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics