Has EvCForum ever changed anyone's mind?

I have not had anyone change my mind about evolution/creation, but I have had my mind changed about Biblical messages.Rrhain just this week has convinced me that all references to homosexuality in the Bible, are specified to acts with male prostitutes. I knew some were, but not that all were.The most asinine part of the evolution/creation debate is that (my experience here) that even when creationists are granted large leeway to make their argument, they suddenly cut and run.It's as if all they wanted to do is complain that evos won't listen, and start with a half ass argument anyone with common sense can see problems with. Then you say, okay well let's say that's true, then what about this that follows from that? Whoosh they are gone.Did they not think past the first argument? Looks like it to me.If anything I have lost all respect for creationists and--- especially--- IDIOT Theorists (which stands for Intelligent Design and Inferred Organic Teleology).------------------
holmes

Look, I also read the Bible and believed that all the references to homosexuality were meant to be references to homosexuality.But English and Latin were not the original languages of the Bible. In researching how those references to homosexuality were originally written in Hebrew and Greek (where our modern E&L versions were translated from) some discrepencies began to emerge.It is without question that some of the passages actually used definite terms for male temple prostitutes. This was thought a necessary proscription because two major competitor religions at the time used male temple prostitutes.Some other passages were not so clear (ie the various biblical scholars were divided on this topic). Rrhain sided quite vociferously with the scholars who say all other references used this same terminology.In any case, the passages which might not have used specific terms for male prostitutes do seem to stem from that original proscription. That is even if you doubt the scholars whom Rrhain sides with, most scholars seem to be of the mind that the wider proscriptive against male-male sex acts, was only to ensure no backsliding occured (no secretive worship of those other gods).I still don't see the Bible as pro male male sex, but clearly the English translations were biased translations with an anti-homosexual agenda that God, or the writers of the early versions of the Bible, had not meant.------------------
holmes

I expect that you are being totally honest and straightforward with me, so please don't get mad at me when I call you a total sucker. At least you seem to have fallen for their pitch hook, line, and sinker.If I walked up to you with a copy of the Bible and said hey these guys over here said they made the bestest translation ever, would you just automatically trust that?My point was that English/Latin translations are made from earlier versions based on the homophobic biases of translators at the time. Nothing you or your link provided changed any of that.First of all look who did the compiling. Oh yeah, multi-denominational, but all pretty conservative and not multi-cultural.Then read the entire link you provided. They say right in there that they DO NOT preserve actual wording from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In addition to taking cultural meanings into account (which makes me sceptical of which cultures they are referring to) they state that preservation of longstanding ideas about biblical messages was important.That means they weren't going in as biblical scholars to get at the real meaning, even if it shook up a few people's apple carts. They were going in to enhance the wording of Xtianity they currently practice, based on much earlier texts.My advice to you is to go to google, or yahoo, or whatever and start poking around for some actual biblical scholar research. I agree that most of the Bible isn't vastly different, but there are clearly portions that have been altered from original meaning.When scholars show the actual text, literal translations, and contextual meanings it is a lot more convincing than an evangelical saying "trust me."If you are a "zealot" this ought to really concern you. Remember Jesus had to throw things around when people started messing up the practice and "word" of his religion. That example right there shows that people can even twist God's word to their own ends. Check out the originals and understand them, before accepting what some guy in a swanky suit and wears an impressive organizational name wants to sell you.------------------
holmes

I want to remind you that I was originally on your side. I totally believed that the references were to homosexual acts.Neither did I have a reason for caring one way or the other. I am not Xtian, and I was not about to become one even if they suddenly became champions of gay rights.All I was interested in was what the wording was. From the English and Latin versions there is simply no question. But go to the Hebrew and Greek (I don't think there were any references to this in Aramaic) and there really are discrepancies. I was just as shocked to find this out as you probably will be if you ever do check it out.I did not expect there to be such an important discrepency in translation. But there is.By the way I also never bought into the gay gene. I think genetically everyone is trysexual (as in people will try anything). Somethings people will enjoy, somethings not. Maybe hormones and development play a part in one's major inclinations? I certainly think environment does. Then again I think the sexual preferences of one's parents, or whether homosexuality is banned by law, plays little to no part in the "environment" I am talking about. I absolutely agree with this and practice it regularly. Of course I'd rephrase it as my views of what the Bible teaches, not my Biblical views. The second half of this sentence not only contradicts the first, it also goes back on your advice to me above.Do you understand Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Have you read the versions of the Bible in these languages so that you understand what they said? If not, then you do not understand the early versions and you should question later translations.That's all I did, and like you will be, I was quite surprised. If anything I was secretly hoping it was correct (so I wouldn't look like an idiot going back to people I had said what you were just saying to me, and admitting I was wrong).The idea that God would allow us to be mislead by translators is in the Bible itself. Jesus instructed that we could be mislead if we allowed ourselves to listen to church leaders instead of seeking out the truth. And always remember the admonishment to beware false prophets. It is not up to God to make sure the REAL word is conveniently placed on store shelves for you to purchase, it is up to you to do the research for yourself.So don't be lazy and start poking around. Why not learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic so you can see the word of God in its most natural state and not be reliant on people who may be false prophets (or descendants of those that were mislead by one)?I'm not going to argue with you about it, just encourage you to get back to the basics, even if it takes a little hard work. Isn't that what being a zealot entails.If you do this and find that all the biblical scholars I have read are incorrect, please let me know. I am totally flexible on whatever the Bible has to say... it doesn't affect me personally at all. Just bring evidence to counter their's.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2003]