Has EvCForum ever changed anyone's mind?

I'd love to hear Rrhain's argument for that. I dont think it holds any ground though.As for the question, nope, not been converted and I wont be, however in general the quality of conversation had been pretty good and informing.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-09-2003]

Feeling better ? Urm yeah. I've actually read the Bible and all references to homosexuality did not point to prostitution Would you like to hear my theory that in Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' he actually meant to say that Satan is the high lord OR have you read the book already and highly doubdt my theory

The very next 2 lines of my post ..."Simply put, I dont have the neccesary knowlege to disprove anything really as
1. I dont have a degree in Geology forinstance, or in microbiology etc.
2. I really dont have the time to get a degree just so I can have a discussion"And there I was trying to hide his lack of knowlege on the ToE! Applologies that my degree was in Computer Science, not Genetics or Geology. Your explanations (and others) re Avian Evolution IMO were not sufficient and by no means original. Considering last time I checked there were 2 theories on avian evolution (and a recent 3rd I might add), I would assume there to be scientific doubdt on the those theories. Hehe, atleast quote me correctly and fully. Can you please find where I compared Homosexuals to child molestors. I'll save you the trouble by speculating its just another 'bigot' generalisation. Please feel free to prove me wrong.Yes, it was an honest question.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-10-2003]

Hi Holmes, the NIV is a pretty decent translation of the original texts. No need to dispute that the English/Latin is vastly different from the original or indeed 'unreadable' or disputable.BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Ibs"The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English"

Thanks for atleast quoting me in full this time Hmm yeah direct comparison there... Gay sex = child molestors = beastiality. PS.. for those that choose to quote me on this, I am being sarcastic!The comparison was actually how people can show surprise at how Christians can hate the notion of God Blessing something he clearly told us was a sin. In the same light you could say that God sais 'Yes, committing adultery is ok, IF you really want to' is equally deplorable. Kinda like someone choosing to sleep with a different partner every night is his/her choice, but someone that tries to convince others that its God's will, is a completely different story. H-Man , you choose to criticise me for lack of knowledge of the ToE, but you dont know your Bible too well.Christ was pretty feverent when it came to people disgracing his Father's house, and same can be said for anyone changing God's Word, however His forgiveness knew no bounds.Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."Being gay is one thing, accepting a gay man as a friend is perfectly fine, choosing to convince others that God Blesses a gay union is another entirely.

Hehe, no offense taken Christians tend to be able to use various versions of the Bible if discrepancies occur. Niv I prefer purely because its ease of reading, but if needs be, I can always go back to King James. Aagh, so indeed the Bible said nothing about homosexuality... its just the bias of these translators.. they just added whatever they wanted. Hmm, I can see that logic floating for anything you really disagree with in it in the Bible. Indeed, we can get rid of adultery as a sin too I'm sure. LOL. Thanks for your advice Holmes. I'll take it you are sincere, but I and most Christians dont precisely just buy into everything thrown our way And as you might recall Jesus didn't question the legitimacy of Moses's works, rather the 'pick and choose' attitude some followers had. IE: 'Yes , its a sin, but do not comdemn'If you want to understand why amoungst some 'christians' there is a shift to accepting homosexuality as a perfect part of everyday life, you might want to have a look at the 'discovery' of the gay gene in 1993. How can God possible create a man to be gay, and then still condemn his 'natural' actions as sinfull ? Surely it MUST be accepted in the Bible or the translation must be wrong ?So, then there is pressure on the popularity of Christianity to change to the new mould. Only thing is Holmes that the 'gay gene' doesn't really exist, but then it will take 10 years for us to find that out. So now should Christianity's views change again ?Some advice. Dont base your Biblical views on what 'you' believe to be right and wrong and what suits you or happens to 'fit' in with the current scientific model. By all means question what you dont understand, but your belief that God allows us all to be mislead by bad translators is pretty far fetched.If you want to discuss specific text, I am more than willing to start a new topic with you on the Bible forum.cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-11-2003]

I'd be more than happy to take a look at any of those discrepancies you mentioned. The Bible however makes it pretty clear that man's partner was meant to be woman. Genesis 2:20. Either way, feel free to tell me exactly where the discrepancies occur. Well, seeing as homosexuality wouldn't really fit in with the evolutionary model, I would be inclined to agree with your trysexual analogy. Dogs will hump teddybears, even chickens. When something has a sexual urge, it needs to be filled. However I dont think it needs alot of imagination to think that we are made to find the opposite sex attractive, and if not, we probably wont produce any offspring. Hebrew is pretty difficult to understand. Its a rather ancient language, thus difficult to really learn as originally intended. You would have to take a look at events around that period of time to fully understand the translation. A good example is the 'Camel through the eye of a needle' metaphor. Infact there are words in French that are impossible to translate word for word to English.Point it that if there are 20 verses that condemn homosexuality and not a single on that advocates it, there probably is a reason for it. I dont quite know your Biblical interest, but you are aware that you are not meant to understand the Bible without the Spirit ? The Bible does not mislead, people do. And false prophets 'twist' the Word of God around, not actually rewrite the Bible. Hi, not being able to learn Hebrew has nothing to do with lazyness. And it will not make a difference in my salvation. Yes, if there are any verses anyone wishes to dispute, feel free, we can discuss the original (or close to original as possible) text.When you doubdt translations however, you might as well doubdt the validity of the actual original texts, whether they really received the Holy Spirit when they wrote the pieces or if they just made it up. Thing is holmes, that you can actually receive a revelation by reading your current Bible, irrespective of in Hebrew or not. God's Word, if not some churches, has remained constant. The NIV remains extremely similar to the King James version. If you want an example of what is WRONG today , it is when there is 'explanatory' textual changes in the Bible or changes to suit public opinion.A great example is Onan in Genesis. To some it is unclear as to whether God killed Onan because he woudln't take his brothers sister as his wife or because he spilled his semen. Now the best case scenario is to leave the original text in and have the reader make up his mind, BUT..38:9
But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.The New Revised Standard Version
38:10
What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.New Standard Revision
38:10
But the LORD considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. So the LORD took Onan's life, too.* Now this is a problem and a sin to change the Word of God based on popular opinion about birth control.However to make up my mind I can take a look at the punishment for 'not accepting' your brothers wife, which was public humiliation, thus why did God put him to death ?Point I'm making in this is that yes, new Biblical 'translations' will be sold at your bookstore, but these changes usually are pretty miniscule and can be easily tracked back to their original and rectified. Every issue and possible 'mistranslation' can be discussed, without having to have a full working knowlege of Hebrew.So if there are any you wish to talk about, feel free. Interesting that you only found Biblical scholars that agreed that homosexuality is not a sin, yet those that have done retranslations still come up with the same framework.Either way, feel free to point me to where you haev disagreements.cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-17-2003]