zealot writes:
No bag of tricks Holmes. Sorry you feel that way.
Yes you do have a bag of tricks. You cannot refute a point with logic or evidence and so blame something on who I am as a person... presto changeo you don't have to address what I am saying.
If you want to say my being nonXtian or non100%hetero leads to my conclusions about Biblical texts being biased you better start connecting some dots.
Otherwise all I have to say is "you are a homophobic evangelical, so are biased" and can then dismiss everything you say.
zealot writes:
But I can claim your bias based on your sexuality and the fact that you believe/believed homosexuality to be sinfull. Someone tell me that the girl I was in love with in University was an 'aboration' and sin and I probably would have had difficulty in accepting that faith too.
This is a great example. I have told you at least once before that I could care less what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. I am not a Xtian and so do not fall under its proscriptions.
My interest is only understanding what it says. And along those lines in English translations (which I was limited to) I agree with you.
When I started reading scholarship on Hebrew and Greek versions, by AUTHORS WHO WERE NOT GAY AND WERE NOT ESPOUSING A PRO-GAY LIFESTYLE, I was surprised to learn that THEY SAID THE TRANSLATIONS WERE INACCURATE.
It was only when they showed pretty convincing evidence (some of which Rei and Rrhain have provided and you continue to ignore) that I came to agree English translations were not accurate on that matter.
If you were able to show some convincing material that such scholars were wrong, I would be just as ready to switch back. I have no emotional investment one way or the other over what a giant fairy tale has to say on the subject of homosexuality.
Heck I am 100% prochoice and 100% proporn, yet my two favorite noirs state quite clearly that abortion and porn are crimes (in reality as well as against nature). I'm a big boy zealot and can handle someone not liking me or what I do.
One of the few things I cannot stand is intellectual dishonesty... and that includes for myself.
So far I have not used logical fallacies to make my point, you have.
zealot writes:
1. Ancient Hebrew is not the same as Hebrew.
2. Problem with 'original text' Holmes is that its in Ancient Hebrew. Indeed I would probably be better off learning Greek so that I can understand the first written translation of Hebrew to Greek (+- 300 BC) called the Septuagint, which was good enough for Paul to use in the Bible.
3. Assuming I did learn Hebrew, would the problem not still lie is who teaches me the translations of the words ?
1) Other than a blank assertion, please provide evidence for this. Particularly evidence along the lines of the subject we are addressing. Rei's specific example of Qadesh and Qadesha are rather damning against this position. It is known where that comes from and what is meant in each case.
2) This is completely self-serving assertion. I can't know ancient Hebrew so I might as well learn Greek so I can read the later version I already know has few or no discrepencies with the position I want to take? That is really what you seem to be saying.
3) This is your only real point. The answer is yes and no. While your Hebrew will only potentially be as good as your teacher's knowledge, it is a stretch to believe that you cannot figure out logically whether you are getting intentionally duped. After all, the letters must spell something. You can tell whether they are saying "sodomite" or not. You can tell if they are saying "Qadesh" and "Qadesha". If you see something that spelled "sodom" in Hebrew at one point and then when you see it later the guy tells you "oh ignore that here, the letters turn into something else" then you have good reason to be suspicious.
That said, fear of being mistaken does not mean that you WILL be mistaken. I simply do not understand how you believe NOT knowing a language makes you less able to be mistaken about a document in that language.
zealot writes:
Aah, but you are indeed calling on me to doubdt my faith (whether you are aware of it or not) , because my faith is based on 'bad translations'.
Is your faith that Jesus died for your sins or that God specifically defines homosexual sex acts as abominations?
There are many moral proscriptions which have slid away from enforcement, and understanding of what they mean (especially via the rise of Xtianity).
If it were discovered that in Hebrew proscriptions against witches did not really include what we would call tarot or palm readers, would you consider your faith to have collapsed?
All that is being said is that the proscriptions against homosexual sex acts were actually specified to ritual sex acts. Why would this shake your faith one inch?
zealot writes:
I see someone that suffered on the cross for the sins of his followers. Perhaps other religious leaders, not God , has influenced your belief ?
Uhhhh, your own statement was the exact garbage said by everyone else (including God) which is why I could not bring myself to love such an entity.
Some God needed some other entity to suffer on a cross in order to cleanse the sins I have for simply existing in the world he forced me to exist in?
What an...
Personally I find this guilt and pain mongering religious belief so harmful to the human psyche that it is odious. I realize you (and many others) get some benefit from this. That is good for you. I understand what the teachings are, they are not good for me.
In addition, I doubt its reality. But this is clearly the fault of God and clergy. Not only did God create a universe which does not match up to the book he wrote describing it, but his followers persecute anyone trying to understand the world around them if it might make their book look bad.
To my mind, if there is a God (or Gods), and they wrote a book it wouldn't need anyone to protect it from people that look at the world around them.
I would appreciate some intellectual honesty from you. I was not corrupted so as to not understand the tenets of your faith. And my current belief does not cloud my vision of what I learned growing up, or even now.
zealot writes:
I recall you saying you did indeed believe Sodom was about homosexuality.
What I said is that I did believe the town turned out to rape the angels. Recently I have come to wonder if that is necessarily true (based on evidence by Rrhain), but find it less than totally conclusive either way.
This DOES NOT affect the weight of evidence that the punishment of Sodom was for their cruelty and ill treatment of strangers, and not their homosexuality (well bisexuality anyway).
zealot writes:
Essentially you are saying that you either 1.learned those languages or 2.listened to 'translations' of Hebrew or Greek based on other people's translations.
Yes, I am saying that. In this case... 2.
zealot writes:
If you go to a religious homosexual based web site, they will have 'experts' translations, which will differ from other translations.
Mmmmmhmmm. And if you don't go to religious homosexual based websites, they will have real experts which may also offer translations that differ.
I generally disregard homosexual-based websites. You can see this if you've ever seen exchanges between me and Rrhain. I believe potential bias is something you do have to keep in mind. The more an author sticks to presenting direct evidence, followed by rigorous logic and/or compelling direct comparisons to other evidence, the less one can ascribe bias to that scholar.
Some homosexual-based sites have some good scholarship. But you don't even have to go there. It doesn't take as long as you've been arguing with me to simply yahoo and find actual religious, nonorientation specific based sites that address this question.
zealot writes:
Point is that there have been numerous translations of the Bible, all from different people based on pretty original text, all coming up with very similar translations.
This point falls apart when you realize 1) most come from the same flawed source and not the Hebrew, and 2) those few that do go back to the Hebrew state that they did not revise longstanding concepts and definitions when they found differences.
This is where I feel you are in deep denial, or overt intellectual dishonesty.
The link YOU gave clearly stated that when discrepencies were discovered with the original Hebrew, they stuck with the longstanding English tradition. You have never admitted this rather painful point and what implications this has for your entire argument.
However, you have restated your original argument. Want to post that source again?
{qs=zealotSee where I am going with this ? [/qs]
Yes, nowhere. There is a point that oral traditions may have also affected original meanings over time. This does not affect one iota, whether written English versions are inaccurate to the written Hebrew version.
That's the beauty of writing. It allows for comparison and study and so better coherence (if it is studied).
The implications of your argument do however have implications against your religion itself. But that is another topic.
zealot writes:
Point however is that every translation still comes out telling us homosexuality is a sin. Really no argument there amoungst translators (greek/hebrew)
Really? Where are there arguments for the correct translation of Qadesh and Qadesha into prostitute and homosexual, rather than female and male prostitute?
What I have seen, in the link YOU gave me, is that there cannot possibly be an argument in translation when they agree beforehand that any discrepancy with the Hebrew is treated to favor longstanding English traditions.
This is less than intellectual honesty, especially on debate regarding original meaning.
zealot writes:
Can you find anything like that in the Bible, no, but that doesn't stop people. But then are you shaping your beliefs around your faith, or your faith around your beliefs ?
That is the question being posed to you, and you refuse to give evidence to defend yourself in the face of evidence presented against your position.
With the exception of some early Xtian rites which may very well have been homosexual marriage rites (I am not certain about this) there are no common samesex marriages rites, nor mention of samesex marriages in the Bible. (Rrhain may dispute this, but please not with me).
This is why I do believe homosexual sex acts may be considered a sin along the lines of fornication. It is simply not the ABOMINATION which is limited to ritual sex acts with male temple prostitutes.
I am uncertain whether introducing samesex marriages into the church is valid, but wonder why it wouldn't be given the number of other proscriptions which have gone by the wayside over the centuries.
Protestant Xtians, of all people, would be odd ones to point fingers at changing church practice in a progressive way.
Back to Sodom...
zealot writes:
At what point did you want them to do it otherwise ? When the men had taken off their clothes ? A door is usually a bastion of safety.
Your argument was that the angels came to destroy. That is it.
Why would they wait for anything? This makes no sense.
And if they came to judge (and then destroy) based on homosexuality, why did they not start as soon as the town "came out" en masse?
Do you see what I am getting at? There was no reason for them to wait until the time they did to destroy the town, unless they were sent to look first, and look in particular for evidence that the town treated visitors terribly.
zealot writes:
Holmes, again, angels do not judge who is right/wrong. God does not leave that up to angels. Thus I cant buy this. God doesn't need angels to investigate for Him
Uhhhhh. This makes me want to laugh. What do you know about angels? Where is this said anywhere in the Bible?
The Bible is filled with Angels being sent on various missions by God. You are right that it would be God's "judgement" which they would inflict on Sodom, but that is not the same thing as their being able to weigh evidence for God on whether there were 10 good people in Sodom. I think we are equivocating on the word "judge".
zealot writes:
Weird logic. God knew there were not 10 people that were righteous in Sodom, that is true, his point of having Abraham go from 50 to 10 was because he knew there were not 10 worthy to be saved...
Gen 18: 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
If he knew, why did he tell Abraham he would have to go and check it out, and why did he go and check it out? This is some pretty weird logic.
Please answer the actual logic I posed in my post, why did the angels wait to destroy Sodom at all if that was their only mission?
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-22-2003]
™ Version 4.2
