Luther on _arsenokoites_ and _malakos_
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
wrote:
>Glenn wrote:
>> Royce wrote:
>>
>>>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
>>>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
>>>of boys.
>
>>It is the ENGLISH translations which have it screwed up :-)
>
>Male pedophiles will truly enjoy this "translation" !
Very imagitive, but you forget what Jesus taught on love, what the
pedophiles do does not demonstrate love for their victoms.
>They are now 'boy lovers' and they have consensual sex with boys
>so they aren't "rapers of boys."
So you find them old enough to make good choices ?
>This is the END results that Butch/JohnJ would invariably come
>to. Y'all remember him?
>
><><><><><>
>
>Frank
>
>Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been
>justified through faith, we have peace
>with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
http://www.thevines.com/leaf/AE0000021623
matthew25-jesusjudgment.cityslide.com
Ben mitts
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > Royce wrote:
> >
> >>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
> >>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
> >>of boys.
>
> >It is the ENGLISH translations which have it screwed up :-)
>
> Male pedophiles will truly enjoy this "translation" !
>
> so they aren't "rapers of boys."
>
> to. Y'all remember him?
>
> <><><><><>
>
> Frank
>
> Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been
> justified through faith, we have peace
> with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Brother Frank, sometimes it
is better to leave sleeping
dogs lie!
--
Ben Mitts,
dapreacher
Bro. Frank
Ben mitts <bmi...@dundee.net> wrote:
>Brother Frank, sometimes it
>is better to leave sleeping
>dogs lie!
You got that right ! Sorry.
Frank
Royce Buehler
Glenn pointed out that the official Filipino translation of
_arsenokoites_ was the Tagalog term for "child molester".
Jim Upchurch made the rash assertion that "nobody agrees with
you" - by which he meant, all 'real' translations translate
both 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi' by some variation of
"homosexual".
(Jim Upchurch is, of course, as usual, dead wrong. Even the KJV
translates _arsenokoites_ as "abusers of themselves with
mankind" - which does not include all male homosexuals (and
certainly no female homosexuals), unless you make the circular
assumption that all homosexuality is "abuse". Similarly, the
NIV translates it as "homosexual offenders" - which does not
include all male homosexuals (and certainly no female homosexuals),
unless you make the circular assumption that all homosexuality
is an "offense".)
I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
of boys.
Unable to counter this fact in any rational fashion, Jim made
the wild assertion that it doesn't matter that Martin Luther
didn't think _arsenokoitai_ meant homosexuals. What matters,
all of a sudden, is what Martin Luther thought _malakoi_ meant.
This thrilling instalment:
Well, it was (like almost all of Jim's wild goose chases) beside
the point. But it was interesting in its own right. Today I
had a chance to visit the copy of of Luther's translation of the
Bible I sometimes drop in on. And I can now inform y'all:
Jim Upchurch's childlike faith that Luther *must* have translated
*that* one as "homosexual" is also completely off base.
Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
German word altogether.
So, Jim, you're batting a perfect 0.000 on this one. Keep up
the good work.
Bro. Frank
Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Similarly, the
>NIV translates it as "homosexual offenders" - which does not
>include all male homosexuals (and certainly no female homosexuals),
>unless you make the circular assumption that all homosexuality
>is an "offense".)
Or perhaps "homosexual" is a descriptive adjective modifying
"offenders." Delineating the different offenders of God.
** Now Royce don't beat me up. I'm not in your league concerning
sentence structure and grammar. **
Bro. Frank
Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
>of boys.
>Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
>that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
>I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
>stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
>literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
>is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
>adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually
immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,
practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the
verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of
God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NET)
Mordecai!
"Bro. Frank" wrote:
Thanks -
I was playing a "what if" with Don about Sodom in that it was a party
which included sex with the visitors rather than merely the homosexual
rape situation that most interpret it.
Interpreting the situation and seeing if the different outlook was a
better description of the story. Well it seemed to be.
This verse (above) happens to describe in exact detail the same crowd
who would be involved in the particular type of sex party.
I seriously am starting to wonder if everyone was speaking about the
good old orgy - which would explain the description of Ezekiel WRT
Sodom and Gomorra, and now Paul on the same behaviour in a world where
it was again acceptable.
I told Jim a while ago that he had utterly convinced me he was wrong
and his interpretation of Paul was up the wall - but that I did not
know what the truth was. Knowing something is wrong does not tell me
what is right -but it sure starts you looking.
Well, perhaps this theory of mine is the truth? Or a step in the path?
We will see...
Mordecai!
Jim Upchurch
> The story so far:
>
> Glenn pointed out that the official Filipino translation of
> _arsenokoites_ was the Tagalog term for "child molester".
>
> Jim Upchurch made the rash assertion that "nobody agrees with
> you" - by which he meant, all 'real' translations translate
> both 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi' by some variation of
> "homosexual".
Actually if you weren't such a pompous ass you would have
remembered that I said the english translations do and as
far as I knew, so did the others as well. I only heard of one
translation, Phillipino, that didn't but we never got to see
what it actually did say.
That being said I would like to point out that you are also a coward
as well as a slander. I generally don't read your posts unless you've
responded to me and it is presumptuous of you to think I automatically
would. Either that or you were hoping to slander behind my
back, a more likely scenario.
> (Jim Upchurch is, of course, as usual, dead wrong.
As usual you post your opinion as absolute fact, not to even
be questioned.
>Even the KJV
> translates _arsenokoites_ as "abusers of themselves with
> mankind" - which does not include all male homosexuals (and
> certainly no female homosexuals), unless you make the circular
> assumption that all homosexuality is "abuse".
More posturing and bully tactics. Of course it means all men
and all women. Women are part of mankind in my book. The
word "homosexual" didn't exist then either, so abusers of
themselves with mankind was a good way to put it. You also
have the burden of explaining how the church saw it as homosexual
from early on long before the KJV.
> Similarly, the
> NIV translates it as "homosexual offenders" - which does not
> include all male homosexuals (and certainly no female homosexuals),
> unless you make the circular assumption that all homosexuality
> is an "offense".)
There is nothing circular about sin. Paul addresses this one as...
"men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in
their own persons the due penalty of their error."
So it is indeed an offense ...
"God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things
which are not proper, "
> I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
> since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
> of boys.
As usually is the case you must try to smear somone in order
to bolster your position. If you had a strong case you wouldn't need to.
Most people would recognize that it was an expression, but you
do have trouble putting things in context.
> Unable to counter this fact in any rational fashion, Jim made
> the wild assertion that it doesn't matter that Martin Luther
> didn't think _arsenokoitai_ meant homosexuals. What matters,
> all of a sudden, is what Martin Luther thought _malakoi_ meant.
That's a very false statement and a equally bad position to take.
No one posted the passages as ML translated them and I pointed
out that we don't even know how he translated the other word
that pertains to homosexuality. I also pointed out that no one
bothered to explain what ML expertise in Greek was or what
his Greek source was. The fact that you need to try to spin
this obviously demonstrates your lack of character and your
desperation, for whatever reason. That discussion was well over
a week ago wasn't it ? Trouble sleeeping or something ?
> This thrilling instalment:
>
> Well, it was (like almost all of Jim's wild goose chases) beside
> the point. But it was interesting in its own right. Today I
> had a chance to visit the copy of of Luther's translation of the
> Bible I sometimes drop in on.
Where is it ? In Stuttgart ?
> And I can now inform y'all:
> Jim Upchurch's childlike faith that Luther *must* have translated
> *that* one as "homosexual" is also completely off base.
Except I never even made the assumption. This was
obviously a bigger question to you than me. I summed up
by saying it didn't matter to me what he had translated it as
due to the fact that the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming.
> Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
> What he meant by this, I'm not certain.
As in "the meek shall inherit the earth" ?
>I doubt that he believed
> that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
> I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
> stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
> literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
> is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
> adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
It was never in question really.
3120 - Greek
3120 malakos mal-ak-os'
of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing);
figuratively, a catamite:--effeminate, soft.
---------------------------------------------------
Like a male that holds himself out as a women. It isn't
rocket science.
> What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
> in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
> German word altogether.
> So, Jim, you're batting a perfect 0.000 on this one. Keep up
> the good work.
But the zero is between your ears. It obviously means that I am 100%
correct.
Since you bring up good ol ML I have to say I have some
problems with some of his biblical understanding.
http://www.legionofmary.org/luther.html
"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of us all.
If Christ be ours . . . all that he has must be ours,
and His Mother also must be ours."
By the way, I am not a Lutheren.
--
Jim Upchurch
Don
wrote:
>
Frank, you didn't get it...did you?
"Homosexual" is NOT in the original language.
D*
Don
Jim Upchurch limits his scholarship to using a CD-ROM with the KJV and
7 or 8 other recent translations, most still under copyright and all
written under the influence of a publisher, usually denominational.
At least, Luther was honest!!!
D*
Don
wrote:
>
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Frank, you didn't get it...did you?
>>
>>"Homosexual" is NOT in the original language.
>
>
>Oh...Stop it !
>
>A rose by any other name...
>
>Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
>"Homosexual" ?
>
>Give me a break !
>
><><><><><>
>
>Frank
>
Yep...Frank...you didn't get it. You still don't. Let me quote it
again for you...
"Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
German word altogether."
Malakoi has nothing to do with what you call "butt bumping."
Why do you attempt to make the Bible say something which it does not
say.
Give me a break, Frank.
D*
Bro. Frank
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Frank, you didn't get it...did you?
>
>"Homosexual" is NOT in the original language.
Oh...Stop it !
A rose by any other name...
Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
"Homosexual" ?
Give me a break !
<><><><><>
Frank
Bro. Frank
"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> wrote:
>I admire your guts - or your stupidity - whatever.
>But I will not be so foolish as you.
Do you take the bible as our rule of life ?
Bro. Frank
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Yep...Frank...you didn't get it. You still don't. Let me quote it
>again for you...
>
>Luther translated...
Oh...Ok...
Will you take ~everything~ M.Luther said as 'gospel' ?
BTW - you did not answer my question.
Again...
Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
"Homosexual" ?
<><><><><>
Frank
Mordecai!
"Bro. Frank" wrote:
> Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Frank, you didn't get it...did you?
> >
> >"Homosexual" is NOT in the original language.
>
> Oh...Stop it !
>
> A rose by any other name...
>
> Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
> "Homosexual" ?
>
> Give me a break !
>
Look - nobody knows what the words mean that have been
translated as homosexual - NOBODY.
And I am aware that when you have a word you cannot translate
- you look how other people translate words and unless you
disagree, you likewise follow suit. This sheep like action is
well known and thus I repeat my distrust of the translation.
But the thing I am interested in is MYSELF (selfish bastard
that I am.)
I don't know about you - but I have no desire to stand before
the Almighty and say I cast a stumbling block before another
knowing the potential for it being in error because I could
not be bothered looking for myself. Bad luck that people
committed suicide and I pushed people away that you loved but
I listened to others ... the translators.
You might have the guts to do that. Me - I am chicken!
So I am looking CAREFULLY. I am already convinced by Jim that
he is WRONG - because his attitude does not reflect the
authors of the NT.
Which does not make homosexuality either good or desirable -
but neither does it make it wrong or undesirable. I DO NOT
KNOW. My ignorance is mine. I distrust *still* my decision to
state Jim is wrong ... but that is OK - I will test and be
shown the answer. I always have been in the past and I doubt
it will be different this time.
From everything I know of my beloved, I do not think
homosexuals are utterly despised. Which so many do.
I admire your guts - or your stupidity - whatever.
But I will not be so foolish as you.
Mordecai!
Mordecai!
"Bro. Frank" wrote:
> "Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> wrote:
>
> >I admire your guts - or your stupidity - whatever.
> >But I will not be so foolish as you.
>
> Do you take the bible as our rule of life ?
I don't know what your rule of life is.
I only know I am called to my people, and have spent a
decade or two in the training for my work with them. Paul
was sent to the Gentiles, me to my own people.
I have had to leave Christianity behind as it is
incompatible with the calling of a Jew - keeping merely the
Tanach, the NT and JC ... I hope this is enough for you.
Does it really make any difference who I am?
Is your reality based on whom you perceive me to be?
Here are what the prophets call me.
A prophet, a teacher of teachers, a friend of the Almighty.
Robes of red, of blue, of purple. Dressed in a hat of old
gold standing outside of cities calling to the people within
... I have lost track of most of the prophesies.
Grandiose - aren't they?
But reality is not the words of the prophets.
You can judge me any way you like. I judge myself in my own
way. And reality is whatever the Almighty speaks, not what
anyone else states.
I prefer reality to words.
Mordecai!
Royce Buehler
>
> Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
> >since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
> >of boys.
>
> >Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
> >What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
> >that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
> >I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
> >stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
> >literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
> >is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
> >adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
Frank:
[Quotes a recent translation, which is presumably put out by
an organization which is fundamentalist, and accordingly
committed to an antigay viewpoint. That sound you hear is
axes grinding.]
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will
> not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually
> immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,
> practicing homosexuals,
So the theory of the NET translators - who were deeply committed
to opposing homosexuality before they sat down to translate anything -
is that
"malakoi" means men who exclusively take the receptive
role in anal intercourse. (A group common in Paul's day,
though hard to find among modern gays.)
"arsenokoitai" means all those people, male or female,
who are primarily attracted to the same sex, and who
are sexually active with the same sex. [The usual meaning
of 'active homosexuals']
The trouble with that is, that every other translation in existence
has some other theory. NET is making a wild guess (based primarily
not on the evidence as to the meanings of the Greek words, but
based on their determination to force the passage to be a condemnation
of homosexuals.) They *have* to make a wild guess, because no one
really knows what either word signified in this passage. Their
wild guess contradicts the wild guesses of other translators.
My point was never that Luther's translation was correct. My point
was simply that Luther's translation is one more piece of evidence
showing that there is no real scholarly consensus on what either
of these two words means in I Corinthians 6. The slightly weird
choice made by the NET translators is yet another piece
of evidence showing the same thing, since the groups it singles
out differ from the groups named in any other translation you
can name.
And don't worry, Frank. I won't beat you up. :-)
You're a peaceable guy, and I'm a peaceable guy. You're wrong
about this issue; but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate your
many contributions to the newsgroups.
Royce Buehler
Jim Upchurch wrote:
> Actually if you weren't such a pompous ass
God bless you, Jim.
> you would have
> remembered that I said the english translations do and as
> far as I knew, so did the others as well.
You said to Glenn, "Nobody agrees with you." That was the post
to which I initially responded, and it contained no
restriction on the languages involved.
> That being said I would like to point out that you are also a coward
> as well as a slander.
God bless you, Jim.
> I generally don't read your posts unless you've
> responded to me and it is presumptuous of you to think I automatically
> would. Either that or you were hoping to slander behind my
> back, a more likely scenario.
God bless you, Jim.
I posted to exactly the newsgroups of the original post - precisely
so as to maximize the likelihood that you would read the post. I
gave it a very specific subject line, which I knew would make
it clear that this was a continuation of our previous conversation,
and would therefore probably pique your interest.
And I was right, as it turns out.
I don't assume that you read all my posts, and I can't and wouldn't
want to force you to read any of them; but I did everything I
could to incline you to read that one. My "cowardly" efforts
succeeded.
I am sorry that you have such a sour view of human nature.
And I hope that you feel better soon.
> By the way, I am not a Lutheren.
Nor am I. But I was surprised to learn that you didn't share my
respect for Luther as a theologian and a bible scholar.
Jim Upchurch
> It seems apposite to respond to one or two personal remarks here.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
> Jim Upchurch wrote:
> > Actually if you weren't such a pompous ass
> God bless you, Jim.
He already has, long before you came along trying to prove
to the world that you are of superior stock..
> > you would have
> > remembered that I said the english translations do and as
> > far as I knew, so did the others as well.
>
> You said to Glenn, "Nobody agrees with you." That was the post
> to which I initially responded, and it contained no
> restriction on the languages involved.
>
> > That being said I would like to point out that you are also a coward
> > as well as a slander.
>
> God bless you, Jim.
It is cowardly to attack someone publicly by hiding it in a post
about something else. If you are going to attack someone at
least be man enough to do it up front.
> > I generally don't read your posts unless you've
> > responded to me and it is presumptuous of you to think I automatically
> > would. Either that or you were hoping to slander behind my
> > back, a more likely scenario.
> God bless you, Jim.
You seem to have a Jekyll/ Hyde syndrome.
> I posted to exactly the newsgroups of the original post - precisely
> so as to maximize the likelihood that you would read the post. I
> gave it a very specific subject line, which I knew would make
> it clear that this was a continuation of our previous conversation,
> and would therefore probably pique your interest.
> And I was right, as it turns out.
Right about what ?
Out conversation was well over a week ago and I made it quite
clear that I didn't really care what Martin Luther's translation said
on these two specific words. I don't know what Greek manuscripts
he used or even if he used Greek in totality. Nor do I know what
expertise he had in ancient Greek. None of that has been supplied, to
date.
> I don't assume that you read all my posts, and I can't and wouldn't
> want to force you to read any of them; but I did everything I
> could to incline you to read that one. My "cowardly" efforts
> succeeded.
Your post clearly was geared towards attacking me, don't play coy.
You supplied almost nothing about ML's translation. Not even a
description on what heactually meant by "weakling" only a bit of
conjecture.
> I am sorry that you have such a sour view of human nature.
> And I hope that you feel better soon.
I have a realistic one, knowing bad character when I see it.
> > By the way, I am not a Lutherin.
> Nor am I. But I was surprised to learn that you didn't share my
> respect for Luther as a theologian and a bible scholar.
I have a healthy respect for him of course, he set the reformation ball
rolling. I'm sure I would agree on many, possibly most of his his views.
But as one can see from the quote that I provided he was unable or unwilling
to completely break theological ties with his past.
The specific question here is what did he mean by the words he used
in his translation. How good was his source and how accurate was he
as a Greek scholar. None of those questions have been addressed so far
so I would not put alot of stock in it. The word "boy raper" isn't shared by
many either. Not to mention that if he understood the Scriptures to not
condemn homosexuality as you suggest, he is oddly silent on such a
departure from the norm. He wasn't exactly shy on voicing his views.
Jim Upchurch
Jim Upchurch
> >"Bro. Frank" wrote:
> Look - nobody knows what the words mean that have been
> translated as homosexual - NOBODY.
Not true. We have 2,000 years of evidence.
> But the thing I am interested in is MYSELF (selfish bastard
> that I am.)
> I don't know about you - but I have no desire to stand before
> the Almighty and say I cast a stumbling block before another
> knowing the potential for it being in error because I could
> not be bothered looking for myself. Bad luck that people
> committed suicide and I pushed people away that you loved but
> I listened to others ... the translators.
Sounds like you are running for a popularity contest.
> You might have the guts to do that. Me - I am chicken!
> So I am looking CAREFULLY. I am already convinced by Jim that
> he is WRONG - because his attitude does not reflect the
> authors of the NT.
While you are exploring attitudes you can ask yourself what
the apostle Paul meant in 1 Cor 7 when he says that believers
should remain celebate or marry a member of the opposite sex.
That doesn't leave room for alternatives. My attitude is believing
truth, yours seems to be justification of flesh.
> Which does not make homosexuality either good or desirable -
> but neither does it make it wrong or undesirable. I DO NOT
> KNOW. My ignorance is mine. I distrust *still* my decision to
> state Jim is wrong ... but that is OK - I will test and be
> shown the answer. I always have been in the past and I doubt
> it will be different this time.
>
> From everything I know of my beloved, I do not think
> homosexuals are utterly despised. Which so many do.
That's a strawman argument for emotional appeal. Try not
to be so transparent.
> I admire your guts - or your stupidity - whatever.
> But I will not be so foolish as you.
> Mordecai!
Oh, this must be that NT attitude you were talking about.
Jim Upchurch
Royce Buehler
In article <kg81btkr9q6l2hce3...@4ax.com>,
Bro. Frank <BroF...@san.rr.com> writes:
>
> Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
> "Homosexual" ?
Are you saying that the Greek words in question mean "butt-bumpers"?
If that's your theory on the words - then it conflicts with
the theories of most of the anti-gay crowd hereabouts.
Because if the words mean "butt-bumpers", then they don't mean
"homosexual".
Some clues for you: lesbians do not generally engage in anal
intercourse at all. The vast majority of male homosexual acts
leading to orgasm do not involve anal intercourse. For that
matter, millions of heterosexuals regularly bump the butts of the
opposite sex.
If you can demonstrate that the words really and truly did mean
"butt-bumpers" (and you could make a far better case for that
than anyone could ever make for "homosexual" - still IMHO
wrong, but a far better case); then I'm sure our lesbian
correspondents, and most of our gay male Christian correspondents,
would be happy to refrain from that particular form of
sexual expression with their same-gender spouses.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
Royce Buehler
In article <3AB0546A...@ace.net.au>,
"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> writes:
>
> I was playing a "what if" with Don about Sodom in that it was a party
> which included sex with the visitors rather than merely the homosexual
> rape situation that most interpret it.
>
> Interpreting the situation and seeing if the different outlook was a
> better description of the story. Well it seemed to be.
I disagree. IIRC, you felt what made the description better was that
it seemed unlikely *all* of the men in the crowd thought they'd really
get a chance to join in the rape.
The point of this stuff was the humiliation, violation, and presumably
(given the Levite's description of the Gibeonites' intentions in
Judges, "...and they would have killed me") the death of the two
strangers.
Look at photos of lynching parties in the U.S. eighty years back,
where the whole town turned out to enjoy the torture and mutilation
and killing, with kids munching on watermelon and fried chicken,
and big smiles on everyones' faces. Those crowds didn't have
any expectation that each and every one of them would be able to
tear off a body part, or pull on the rope. They simply wanted to
feel that electric connection to the pleasure of violating and
degrading a helpless human being. Just having a ringside seat
was thrill enough.
I'd submit to you that the murder by gang rape in Sodom featured a
crowd in the same sort of mood.
> This verse (above) happens to describe in exact detail the same crowd
> who would be involved in the particular type of sex party.
>
> I seriously am starting to wonder if everyone was speaking about the
> good old orgy - which would explain the description of Ezekiel WRT
> Sodom and Gomorra,
I'm not sure what features of Ezekiel's description you see relating
to orgies. "They were proud?" What makes an orgy more prideful than
a rape/murder? "They were full of bread?" What makes an orgy more
a matter of conspicuous consumption than a rape/murder? (You don't
have to lay out a penny to finance either one.) And so on.
> and now Paul on the same behaviour in a world where
> it was again acceptable.
Paul wrote three passages which touch on homosexual behavior of
some form; but he never mentioned Sodom. The only passage which
is extended enough to examine sensibly is of course Romans 1.
An orgy typically involved a wide variety of sexual behaviors,
both same gender and opposite gender; but Romans 1 speaks of
"exchanging" opposite-gender sex (or perhaps vaginal sex) for
same-gender sex (or perhaps anal sex). One could postulate that
orgies furnished an intermediate stage for these switchers from
AC to DC; but it doesn't sound like that intermediate stage was
the scene Paul had primarily in mind.
> I told Jim a while ago that he had utterly convinced me he was wrong
> and his interpretation of Paul was up the wall - but that I did not
> know what the truth was. Knowing something is wrong does not tell me
> what is right -but it sure starts you looking.
True. I know what I think is the most likely answer - and the second
most likely answer. Neither of them being condemnation of homosexuality
as such. But there's enough ambiguity in the texts before us to
drive a truck through.
Don
wrote:
>
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Yep...Frank...you didn't get it. You still don't. Let me quote it
>>again for you...
>>
>>Luther translated...
>
>
>Oh...Ok...
>
>Will you take ~everything~ M.Luther said as 'gospel' ?
Will you accept the reality that "malakoi" does not mean "effeminate"
or homosexual?
>BTW - you did not answer my question.
>
>Again...
>
>Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
>"Homosexual" ?
1. I never said that.
2. The original language says nothing about it so why bring it into
this discussion?
3. Sounds like you are trolling!
D*
Don
wrote:
>
>"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I admire your guts - or your stupidity - whatever.
>>But I will not be so foolish as you.
>
>
>Do you take the bible as our rule of life ?
Do you accept the literal translation of "malakoi" as meaning soft or
effeminate and reject the false and incorrect translation of
homosexual?
D*
Bro. Frank
Royce Buehler on the NET wrote:
> "malakoi" means men who exclusively take the receptive
> role in anal intercourse. (A group common in Paul's day,
> though hard to find among modern gays.)
"Modern" thieves don't steal the same as in Paul's day either.
Back then one needed guts to steal. Now days they hide behind
their computer monitor.
>They *have* to make a wild guess, because no one
>really knows what either word signified in this passage. Their
>wild guess contradicts the wild guesses of other translators.
So, you concede that your hunch is also a "wild guess" ?
>And don't worry, Frank. I won't beat you up. :-)
>You're a peaceable guy, and I'm a peaceable guy.
As a malakoi said, "I'm a lover not a fighter." <g>
Ok Royce, we know Paul did not mean 'soft cloth' for he was
speaking about sin (sinners) not inheriting the kingdom of God
and malakoi being just one of MANY.
1Co 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Do you think Paul meant soft, gentle, not masculine or
effeminate persons say like PBS' Mister Rogers would not inherit
the kingdom of God? If not - then what in context of 1Co 6:9,10?
Royce Buehler
In article <3ab0...@news.turbotek.net>,
"Jim Upchurch" <artw...@xturbotek.net> writes:
> "Royce Buehler"
> > > That being said I would like to point out that you are also a coward
> > > as well as a slander.
> >
> > God bless you, Jim.
>
>
> It is cowardly to attack someone publicly by hiding it in a post
> about something else. If you are going to attack someone at
> least be man enough to do it up front.
Jim, I *did* put my post up front. I designed it to draw your eye;
and it did.
Your post contained a number of personal attacks on me. ("pompous ass",
"coward", "slanderer.") Mine attacked your positions, but did not
attack you personally at any point. The closest it came was in its
statement that you were wrong "as usual" - which, again, is an
attack on the accuracy of your positions, not on your character or
on you as a person.
Consider developing a thicker skin.
> > it clear that this was a continuation of our previous conversation,
> > and would therefore probably pique your interest.
>
> > And I was right, as it turns out.
>
> Right about what ?
Right that it would attract your attention and pique your
interest. You did post a response, after all.
> Out conversation was well over a week ago and I made it quite
> clear that I didn't really care what Martin Luther's translation said
> on these two specific words.
On the contrary, you presented a specific challenge to state what
Martin Luther's translation of _malakoi_ was. In two separate
posts.
When I did the legwork, and answered your question, you launched
your personal attacks. Gee, try to do a guy a favor...
> I don't know what Greek manuscripts
> he used or even if he used Greek in totality. Nor do I know what
> expertise he had in ancient Greek. None of that has been supplied, to
> date.
He was a fully educated man of his time, and a brilliant one.
So yes, he was fully competent in Greek. Also evidenced by the fact
that his translation has been the standard German translation of
the Bible ever since he wrote it. Which Greek manuscripts he used
is irrelevant, since there are no variants among the manuscripts
within the verse of I Corinthians 6 in question.
> Your post clearly was geared towards attacking me, don't play coy.
It was geared to answering the question you had raised. Along
the way, and incidentally, it was geared to mocking your positions.
None of it was an attack on you, Jim.
> You supplied almost nothing about ML's translation.
He translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers of boys.
He translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge", weaklings. That's not
"almost nothing." That is the complete answer to the question of
how ML translated the two terms.
> Not even a
> description on what heactually meant by "weakling" only a bit of
> conjecture.
By "weakling", he meant "weakling". If you want to call Luther
up out of the grave for an authoritative answer to the question of
what else he had on his mind at the time, you're out of luck.
The Witch of Endor died some millenia back.
> The specific question here is what did he mean by the words he used
> in his translation.
"Raper of boys" means a person who rapes boys. None of our
homosexual guests on these newsgroups engage in the rape of
children or advocate it. It certainly doesn't mean "homosexual."
"Weakling" means a person who is weak. Seems to me that people like
Ninure and Don, so far from being weaklings, show considerable strength
of character in putting up with the crap that the anti-gay troops keep
trying to pile onto them. It certainly doesn't mean "homosexual."
> How good was his source and how accurate was he
> as a Greek scholar. None of those questions have been addressed so far
They didn't need to be addressed, the answer being obvious to anyone
familiar with Renaissance educational standards, and familiar with
the relative uniformity of the Greek textual witnesses. But out
of courtesy toward your ignorance, I have addressed both above.
> The word "boy raper" isn't shared by many either.
Your claim had been that "nobody" agreed with the Filipino translation
Glenn mentioned. Not that "few" agreed with it. Your claim has
been exploded. One of the greatest figures in Christian history
agreed with it.
> Not to mention that if he understood the Scriptures to not
> condemn homosexuality as you suggest, he is oddly silent on such a
> departure from the norm. He wasn't exactly shy on voicing his views.
I haven't made any suggestion at all about whether Luther thought
the Scriptures condemn homosexuality. All we can conclude from his
translation of I Corinthians 6 is that if he thought the Scriptures
condemned homosexuality, he must have thought so based on some other
text, not based on I Corinthians 6.
The issue here wasn't the broader one of whether Scripture condemns
homosexuality. It was the narrower one of whether the translation
of these two words _malakoi_ and _arsenokoitai_ is a settled issue
among scholars, or is up for grabs. And the translations are, plainly,
up for grabs. Since the translations vary all over the place.
Having answered your questions, and having learned long ago that
you find civil discourse difficult and rational discourse
impossible, I shall once again accord you the last word in this
exchange. Whale away.
Bro. Frank
Royce Buehler wrote:
>> Are you saying there wasn't butt-bumping prior to the word
>> "Homosexual" ?
>Are you saying that the Greek words in question mean "butt-bumpers"?
Of course not.
But the silly and lame argument that because a word like
homosexual or an equivalent idiom, which symbolizes an action or
is a description that has its origin/root in the 19th century,
means that the said action or description did not or could not
precede the birth of the word is mere foolishness.
Surely Royce, you don't buy into that !
Jim Upchurch
> Jim Upchurch limits his scholarship to using a CD-ROM with the KJV and
> 7 or 8 other recent translations, most still under copyright and all
> written under the influence of a publisher, usually denominational.
> At least, Luther was honest!!!
> D*
You slandered me and every member sitting on a translation committe
within the last 200 years. What do you know about honesty ?
Jim Upchurch
Jim Upchurch
> "Mordecai!" > > I told Jim a while ago that he had utterly convinced me he was wrong
> > and his interpretation of Paul was up the wall - but that I did not
> > know what the truth was. Knowing something is wrong does not tell me
> > what is right -but it sure starts you looking.
> True. I know what I think is the most likely answer - and the second
> most likely answer. Neither of them being condemnation of homosexuality
> as such. But there's enough ambiguity in the texts before us to
> drive a truck through.
> Royce Buehler
If it was so ambiguous why do we have 2,000 years of church history
condemning the practice ? Men doing indecent acts with other men has
no abiguity to it. Words like 'indecent' or 'shameless' do not describe
activities that are perfectly acceptable for some and not others.
Jim Upchurch
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
It is the ENGLISH translations which have it screwed up :-)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT, Royce Buehler
<fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The story so far:
>
>Glenn pointed out that the official Filipino translation of
>_arsenokoites_ was the Tagalog term for "child molester".
>
>Jim Upchurch made the rash assertion that "nobody agrees with
>you" - by which he meant, all 'real' translations translate
>both 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi' by some variation of
>"homosexual".
>
>(Jim Upchurch is, of course, as usual, dead wrong. Even the KJV
>translates _arsenokoites_ as "abusers of themselves with
>mankind" - which does not include all male homosexuals (and
>certainly no female homosexuals), unless you make the circular
>assumption that all homosexuality is "abuse". Similarly, the
>NIV translates it as "homosexual offenders" - which does not
>include all male homosexuals (and certainly no female homosexuals),
>unless you make the circular assumption that all homosexuality
>is an "offense".)
>
>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
>of boys.
>
>Unable to counter this fact in any rational fashion, Jim made
>the wild assertion that it doesn't matter that Martin Luther
>didn't think _arsenokoitai_ meant homosexuals. What matters,
>all of a sudden, is what Martin Luther thought _malakoi_ meant.
>
>This thrilling instalment:
>
>Well, it was (like almost all of Jim's wild goose chases) beside
>the point. But it was interesting in its own right. Today I
>had a chance to visit the copy of of Luther's translation of the
>Bible I sometimes drop in on. And I can now inform y'all:
>Jim Upchurch's childlike faith that Luther *must* have translated
>*that* one as "homosexual" is also completely off base.
>
>Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
>that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
>I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
>stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
>literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
>is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
>adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
>
>What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
>in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
>German word altogether.
>
Bro. Frank
Glenn wrote:
> Royce wrote:
>
>>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
>>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
>>of boys.
>It is the ENGLISH translations which have it screwed up :-)
Male pedophiles will truly enjoy this "translation" !
They are now 'boy lovers' and they have consensual sex with boys
so they aren't "rapers of boys."
This is the END results that Butch/JohnJ would invariably come
to. Y'all remember him?
Royce Buehler
In article <3ab1...@news.turbotek.net>,
> > True. I know what I think is the most likely answer - and the second
> > most likely answer. Neither of them being condemnation of homosexuality
> > as such. But there's enough ambiguity in the texts before us to
> > drive a truck through.
Jim U:
> If it was so ambiguous why do we have 2,000 years of church history
> condemning the practice ?
In the first place, it is not all that clear that condemnation was
all that universal. Boswell's evidence of church-sanctioned same
sex unions may not be conclusive, but it's plenty sufficient to
raise doubts.
In the second place, we have 2,000 years of church history supporting
the practice of persecuting the Jews. That didn't make it right.
And it stemmed from the same fleshly human impulse as persecution
of homosexuals over the same period - namely, the sinful desire
to hate, fear, and harm those who are strange or different.
Sin never needs any special explanation, Jim. It's a constant
in the human equation. And homophobia is sin.
> Men doing indecent acts with other men has
> no abiguity to it.
It has plenty of ambiguity to it. In my book, men who plot with
other men to lie to the public about the health hazards of
tobacco are committing "indecent acts with other men". In
your book, any kind of sex between two males is indecent.
Most of the American and European public don't find sex
between two males who love one another indecent at all.
You *define* "indecent" as "what Jim Upchurch thinks is indecent".
That's fine; but it isn't what "indecent" means in the real
world. And it doesn't control what the term means in the
Bible, either.
(Incidentally, Paul doesn't say anything about men committing
"indecent acts" with other men. Are you using sloppy paraphrases
again? Check the KJV, or the NKJV, or the NASB. Do you know
what singulars, plurals, and definite articles are?)
Royce Buehler
>
> Royce Buehler on the NET wrote:
>
> >They *have* to make a wild guess, because no one
> >really knows what either word signified in this passage. Their
> >wild guess contradicts the wild guesses of other translators.
>
> So, you concede that your hunch is also a "wild guess" ?
Smooth return, Frank! :-) Basically, yes. Although I will
say that some wild guesses are more educated than others.
The NET's wild guess is particularly uneducated. Mine is
particularly educated.
> Ok Royce, we know Paul did not mean 'soft cloth' for he was
> speaking about sin (sinners) not inheriting the kingdom of God
> and malakoi being just one of MANY.
Yep, that much we know.
> 1Co 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
> the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor
> idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor
> thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
So *this* translation's wild guess is that "malakoi" doesn't
mean male anal receptors at all, but means everyone, male or female,
who is sexually attracted to the same gender. See what I mean?
These guys are all over the map. They have made up their minds
that the passage must be used to condemn gays (except for
Martin Luther and the Filipino translators, anyway); but they
can't agree between them what the words actually *mean*. The
only thing these translations have in common is their antigay
agenda.
> Do you think Paul meant soft, gentle, not masculine or
> effeminate persons say like PBS' Mister Rogers would not inherit
> the kingdom of God? If not - then what in context of 1Co 6:9,10?
The first answer is that I don't know - since no one knows.
But there are a number of reasonable guesses. One is that it
means someone who is 'soft' in the sense of weak in the face of
temptation. Another (and I suspect this is what Luther, who lived
in a time of persecutions, likely had in mind) is someone who is
'soft' in the sense of weak in the faith in the face of persecution.
Another is that it means someone who leads a 'soft' life, overly
given to luxury. All of these have been propounded over the
centuries by one commentator or another (most of them also opposed
to homosexuality, so they had no axe to grind here.)
When the KJV translators rendered it as "effeminate", they would
have had that last meaning primarily in mind - someone who was
self-absorbed, self-pampered, foppish, fussing over his hair and
his clothes. (A lot of fashionable heterosexuals were subject to
that sort of weakness in Elizabethan times. Think Osric, or the
later Malvolio.) And that's also a reasonable educated guess.
In recent decades, there's been a growing tendency for translators
to link "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai", suggesting that the former
are "passive" male homosexuals (in some sense) and the latter are
"active" male homosexuals (in some sense). That's also a reasonable
educated guess, though it leaves a lot of leeway in deciding just
what sense of 'active' and 'passive' is involved.
One reasonable possibility is that the whole concern was with anal
intercourse. Then 'active' and 'passive' would have an obvious
interpretation, especially in the light of Roman practices, in
which one lower-status male, usually a slave or a prostitute, and
usually younger, always took the anal receptive role, while another,
usually older, always took the anal penetrative role.
Such arrangements were virtually always exploitative, and not
at all like the mutually respectful, reciprocal relationships
attendant on modern gay relationships. Also, if that's the meaning,
then, obviously, the terms don't cover non-anal homosexual
relations at all.
A related possibility, again reasonable, is the one picked by
Jerome when he translated this passage into the vulgate. He
rendered "malakoi" as "concubitores" - male concubines. These
were 'kept boys', who were valued for their prettiness, for
their similarity to girls; who were 'soft' both in the vernacular sense
of acting out a feminine role (and that *was* one sense of the
word, for sure; the web page Chuck pointed to recently spells
out clearly enough both the existence of that usage and its
ambiguity), and in the sense of leading a pampered, luxurious
life.
However, in making my own educated guess, I'd take my cue from
the fact that (1) five out of eight references to homosexual acts
in the Old Testament are explicitly references to acts of
male temple prostitution, and from the fact that (2) Paul indicated
that the "unnatural" acts he discusses in Romans 1 were the result
of idolatry, in the literal sense of worship of statues, and from
the fact that (3) the two words _malakoi_ and _arsenokoitai_ appear
in the Corinthians sin list *between* the sexual sins (fornicators,
adulterers) and the economic sins (thieves, covetous). And (4) the
fact that in I Timothy's sin list, _arsenokoitai_ also sits between
the sexual and the economic sins on the list.
So I'd say that these two words designate a sin that involved *both*
sex and economic activity, and also reflected the central concern
about male-male sexuality in the Old Testament. Hence, prostitution.
And probably temple prostitution. Thus, the _malakoi_ would be
the male prostitutes - "passive" both economically and in being
uniformly the "receptors"; and the _arsenokoitai_ would be their
johns - "active" both economically and in being the penetrators.
Is it *possible* that the words had a wider provenance? Sure.
But when standing in judgment over my fellow men, I don't see
that I am called to condemn them because it is *possible* that
the Bible forbids what they do. I would first have to at least regard
it as more likely than not that the Bible forbids what they do.
And IMHO no case can be made that it is more likely than not.
Don
<artw...@xturbotek.net> wrote:
>"Royce Buehler"
>> "Mordecai!" > > I told Jim a while ago that he had utterly convinced me he was wrong
>> > and his interpretation of Paul was up the wall - but that I did not
>> > know what the truth was. Knowing something is wrong does not tell me
>> > what is right -but it sure starts you looking.
>
>> True. I know what I think is the most likely answer - and the second
>> most likely answer. Neither of them being condemnation of homosexuality
>> as such. But there's enough ambiguity in the texts before us to
>> drive a truck through.
>
>
>> Royce Buehler
>
>
>If it was so ambiguous why do we have 2,000 years of church history
>condemning the practice ?
You don't. You haven't even studied "2,000 years of church history"
or you would discover that it was never universally condemned.
D*
'Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard"
leviticus 19:27
Don
<artw...@xturbotek.net> wrote:
>"Don"
>
>
>> Jim Upchurch limits his scholarship to using a CD-ROM with the KJV and
>> 7 or 8 other recent translations, most still under copyright and all
>> written under the influence of a publisher, usually denominational.
>
>> At least, Luther was honest!!!
>
>> D*
>
>You slandered me and every member sitting on a translation committe
>within the last 200 years.
Baloney!!!
>What do you know about honesty ?
I know that Luther did not use other translations of the Bible (none,
of which, are in agreement about many passages) when he came to his
conclusions on doctrinal issues as you do.
You seem to be satisfied limiting your Bible study to the translations
of others...others who cannot even agree how certain passages should
be translated, as I said before.
I did not slander anyone except you. If you want to be taken
seriously as a Bible scholar, then learn to be one.
Mordecai!
Jim Upchurch wrote:
Good you have added something for once. 1 cor 7.
Sorry - irrelevant to the argument. Cannot use this for either theory.
Minor pointer at best and a stretch to make it even a pointer.
Like most of your arguments.
Mordecai!
Mordecai!
Royce Buehler wrote:
That is indeed the conventional way of thinking.
Saying you believe it adequately describes your belief but has nothing to do
with truth.
Equally if you stated you disagreed, it would not impact on truth.
Beliefs are merely emotional ideas.
In fact, this rather crude idea of mine has been polished somewhat into a
better description of what happened and happens to now include the aspect of
a temple worship. Here I am at a distinct disadvantage in a search for truth
for I get a VERY distinct feeling I have the answer ... so my objectivity is
corrupted by such a feeling. (People call it the witness of the spirit - but
that is not proof to anyone else but me ... and I am a sceptical bastard)
I am not really interested in proving this to you (not objecting to
discussing it - certainly interested in anyone disproving it) because you
have to choose your beliefs for yourself. I am interested in my own beliefs
for my own sake. Selfish of me of course. I am quite happy for anyone to
believe as they desire. So please - this is me talking out loud.
In answer to your idea, I cannot - CANNOT create a sin of nation scenario
which fits these assumptions you gave me. I figure there might be one which
fits the information but even in this, the homosexual rape would be obscure.
I can see the lack of hospitality as a possible sin of nations. I can see
the violence and depravity as a minor sign.
but the rapes? Self limiting in a number of ways - and the fruit of them in
the hearts and minds of men would be what destroys nations.
The Benjamite towns - maybe. I can understand that. Different scenario.
Different judgement. Different standard of judgement also. But not Sodom.
Throw in a strange point. Sodom was to be rebuilt but not Gomorrah. Yet we
judge Sodom (No I can't fit this in - just adding to the points I am
considering)
This judgement of mine has failed for decades, it has been in my too hard
basket. Finally the new scenario happens to fit into the tool "sin of
nations." Sorry - CANNOT explain this tool to you. But then I repeat, I am
not interested in convincing you.
Merely mention that it does fit these tools I have.
But consider the revised scenario. Imagine a religious country where the
religion had feasting and sex before their G_d (whoever that was) and the
new comers were called to the feast. Just consider where the culture would
have its strengths - and weaknesses. Consider marriage in such a society
(perhaps this is why lot gave his virgin daughters) who we know were neither
shrinking violets. (PS consider the reward for the incestuous relationship -
two separate nations - how does the Almighty reward sin?)
What sort of reputation would such a (supposed) nation have? The answer is
corrupt in every way ... where it is unlawful to do good. Guess what? this
is the recorded judgement of my people ... and I repeat it also never made
sense before.
I know - I think in strange ways. I am not justifying my beliefs or seeking
to get others to believe - this is the way my mind works.
Ah well. Long way to go - again.
We will see.
>
>
> > This verse (above) happens to describe in exact detail the same crowd
> > who would be involved in the particular type of sex party.
> >
> > I seriously am starting to wonder if everyone was speaking about the
> > good old orgy - which would explain the description of Ezekiel WRT
> > Sodom and Gomorra,
>
> I'm not sure what features of Ezekiel's description you see relating
> to orgies. "They were proud?" What makes an orgy more prideful than
> a rape/murder? "They were full of bread?" What makes an orgy more
> a matter of conspicuous consumption than a rape/murder? (You don't
> have to lay out a penny to finance either one.) And so on.
>
Ezekiel judged the causes of the sins - namely the property allowed them or
drives them.
It is the difference between the fruit of the tree and the root of the tree.
Do you believe the rich are into homosexual rape? Or rich nations?
OTOH are the rich associated with debauchery? Or rich nations?
My judgement on his judgement (my opinion as to what he judges) makes it
more likely to me that he judged a rich nation and thus I prefer my
scenario.
>
> > and now Paul on the same behaviour in a world where
> > it was again acceptable.
>
> Paul wrote three passages which touch on homosexual behavior of
> some form; but he never mentioned Sodom. The only passage which
> is extended enough to examine sensibly is of course Romans 1.
> An orgy typically involved a wide variety of sexual behaviors,
> both same gender and opposite gender; but Romans 1 speaks of
> "exchanging" opposite-gender sex (or perhaps vaginal sex) for
> same-gender sex (or perhaps anal sex). One could postulate that
> orgies furnished an intermediate stage for these switchers from
> AC to DC; but it doesn't sound like that intermediate stage was
> the scene Paul had primarily in mind.
No - this is a circular argument. The words he used there are VERY
controversial. to say they imply same sex relationships is a conclusion -
which may or may not be true. To state this conclusion thus justifies his
attitude is to pre-empt what his attitude is.
The actual quote is from him throwing out the man who openly engaged in
sexual intercourse with his mother. This was such an affront that "even the
gentiles know it to be wrong."
Certainly homosexual relationships were not classed as sin by the nations at
the time.
Nor was this bad BTW - it was his refusal to repent of this which publicly
brought the name of JC into disrepute.
This is an obscure pointer but to me it is a very interesting study of the
motivations.
Excuse my digression to the extremist Jim (not knocking your belief - merely
the extremists.)
If Jim's contention is true - Paul would despise homosexuals. He would throw
them out. He would teach the churches the standard of righteousness and the
entire sin area would be founded on the Mosaic law - so he would have such
teachings set up. (He had no other standard except JC's who did not seem to
speak on this) Not only is there no record of this but the worst part is
that this statements denies (is incompatible with the idea) that the
underlying standard being taught at all. Sexual morality was not high on the
standard of his teaching.
So the extremists who demand this is a sin about number one or number two on
the scale of unforgivable sins are wrong.
Thus the question of what these words mean seems to be different to the
usual interpretation.
This was my starting point. I saw in the words of the extremist a scenario
incompatible with the proposed psychology of the author - so I threw out the
classical explanation of the words the extremist used. It was easier to do
this than to accept such contradictions.
So I threw out the classical interpretation.
Your idea starts with an assumed interpretation I have already thrown out -
and circles back to prove this idea from the assumption.
>
>
> > I told Jim a while ago that he had utterly convinced me he was wrong
> > and his interpretation of Paul was up the wall - but that I did not
> > know what the truth was. Knowing something is wrong does not tell me
> > what is right -but it sure starts you looking.
>
> True. I know what I think is the most likely answer - and the second
> most likely answer. Neither of them being condemnation of homosexuality
> as such. But there's enough ambiguity in the texts before us to
> drive a truck through.
>
Agreed to all sentiments. I am not interested in proving anything to anyone
else. I am only interested in choosing my own beliefs.
Mordecai!
Mordecai!
it is so difficult to explain.
Well - difficult or not - I had better try so here is my attempt - for better or
worse.
The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel and the definition of
the sin is so astonishing that after I got over my shock and horror - and after
I thought about it for a while, I changed my point of view.
What was the sin of Cain? Everyone will tell me it was murder and jealousy.
No ... or yes or somewhat or irrelevant ... each of these answers is true. It is
difficult .... so remember the question is the definition of sin and the answer
will to be to find a specific sin which could belong to Cain ...
I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
desires ...
Sound a bit strange? The first thing is to recognize that sin was not the
desires of sin. Further, the desires of sin are not in control of a person.
And in the above answer the desire of sin was jealousy and the fruit of sin was
murder but having jealousy does not automatically lead to murder. Neither of
these are sin the sin sitting on his heart.
PLEASE take a good half hour and read and think HARD before you go on. I know -
everyone is eager for answers which go below but you NEED time to think.
********************************************
Hey - I said take a half hour. I know - eager beavers. Go THINK - it really is
important for you. It is not something you have considered and it requires
contemplation. If this is wrong and I add something correct - you are going to
believe this with the next stage - and that is plain STUPID. You can test this -
go and think!
********************************************
Knowing people - some will have had a half hour - the wise at least. The foolish
unfortunately are still here. You will both get the answers ... I am not being
nasty. It really is for your own good I advised a break to think. Unfortunately
the wise will be able to find sins for themselves and the foolish will not be
able to - merely hearing the answers.
The above thinking states a radical change. Sin is neither actions or passions.
Control of passions is not controlling sin.
And if you have thought, you will be receptive to the next stage.
By now you ought to recognize that the desire engendered by the sin could be
jealousy or some other passion.
Cain could seek to deal with jealousy but he did not. It certainly was a passion
under his control - so you can see that is does fit the fruit of sin. But what
was the sin.
This is hard - as it is within his soul but an answer presents itself.
Go read the follow up - the judgement of the Almighty and the response of Cain.
Cain added something - not included in the judgement which tore him to shreds.
He added this "I am cast out of your presence."
This is important as this along with the fear of men was his greatest
punishment. So it ranks up there with his fear of life.
Now we have a crucial piece. He was wroth because his offering was rejected and
he was upset over being cast out from the Almighty to the same extent as his
life - so we know the area of his sin - his love of the Almighty.
But it is perverted ... why?
Here is ONE possible answer.
What would happen if Cain decided he had a RIGHT to the presence of the
Almighty. In the light of this - his brother "stole" what was inalienably HIS
... so his brother was guilty of (emotional theft of what was HIS)... and
deserved ...(emotional rejection and elimination so he would have what was
inalienably HIS.)
You notice in this analysis, neither the word jealousy or murder was mentioned.
This is because the emotions I mentioned can be described from an external
source as jealousy and murder - but internally they are the passion of
frustration and loss and the counter argument in the emotions is to rectify thus
horrendous emotional injustice.
The passions of the sin I have stated are indeed jealousy and the deeds indeed
murder but the sin MIGHT have been an expectation that the presence of the
Almighty was his inalienable right!
How would the Almighty respond? Because you desired to be with me and this
caused you to sin - you ought to die? For all his deeds, the consequences of
which Cain had to live with - the judgement was on the heart and not the deeds.
I have spent a long time studying sins - not deeds.
I really don't give a fart about the sin of deeds as so many others are seeking.
Unless there is a sin to describe homosexuality and I can see none (YET) except
WRT to someone who has suffered homosexual rape (as either a child or an adult)
I can find no sin in homosexuality. So most of the argument is useless to me. It
is merely people judging on deeds ... not on heart. They judge on desires but on
neither passions, nor on heart.
I am interested in Sodom and Gomorrah to see why Ezekiel and Joel ascribed to
them the causes that they did.
I must admit that because people are so busy judging deeds they obscure the
important reality in judgement of sins.
I cannot go near judgement of nations yet. Not that I have all the measure of
that yet either. I have some but the missing pieces are to explain why in some
cases, not even the booty of war could be touched is not something my theories
cover. A lot to learn but I have made some inroads into this.
I do hope I have explained enough so you and any other might consider the issues
above, but not enough to force you into my way of thinking.
Not that this short talk does through the weeks of contemplation to get the
answers - nor can it track the convoluted testing and deeper issue - the
intervention of the Almighty into the affairs of Cain at that particular time
and what it tells of the personality of the Almighty of the way he deals with
humans. That one is a fun study because it is always lovely to watch my beloved
at work ... you learn a lot.
It is difficult to talk about these sort of things. I hope I have thrown some
light on the way I view things.
Mordecai!
Maz
"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> wrote in message
news:3AB609CB...@ace.net.au...
And so we see why David was a man after God's own heart. You have given me
something to think about.
pomegranate
To help maybe shed light on what you have observed:
James 1:14-15
14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away
and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and
sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Here I think it aids in painting the evolution between the desire and the
action. Curious how it is portrayed as a birthing event. An evil desire is
conceived giving birth to sin, giving birth to death. I believe God was
maybe flagging Cain into realization that he was encroaching into the
conceiving stage. His action was the actual birth of the sin.
My opinion of course.
pomegranate
www.iamtwo.net
"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> wrote in message
news:3AB609CB...@ace.net.au...
Royce Buehler
Mordecai:
> The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
> I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
> IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
> desires ...
>
> Sound a bit strange?
Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
*desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
(As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
[Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
the deed of murder?
Grammatically, maybe the antecedent of "it" in "you will rule over
it" could be "desire" rather than "sin"; but the parallel with
Genesis 3 argues strongly that the antecedent is the owner of
the desire rather than the desire itself, don't you think?
> The first thing is to recognize that sin was not the
> desires of sin. Further, the desires of sin are not in control of a person.
I may not agree with all your conclusions, but I like your method:
paying close attention to the actual language. I agree that's
what the Cain text says. It's not easy to reconcile with Paul's
theology of slavery to sin. This has given me, and will continue
to give me, considerable food for thought.
> Hey - I said take a half hour.
Oh, I read straight on through. The half hour came afterward. :-)
> The above thinking states a radical change. Sin is neither actions or passions.
> Control of passions is not controlling sin.
I think I'm following you. I might even agree. Sin appears in
the response to the passion, and action results from the response.
> But what was the sin.
>
> This is hard - as it is within his soul but an answer presents itself.
> Go read the follow up - the judgement of the Almighty and the response of Cain.
> Cain added something - not included in the judgement which tore him to shreds.
> He added this "I am cast out of your presence."
True. As I look at it, I notice he added another thing,
too: the prediction that every man's hand would be against him.
He was wrong about that, since God's mark protected him from
"every man's hand." I wonder whether he was wrong as well about
being hidden from God's face ("cast out of your presence", in
your rendering.) Cain seems to have been a kind of genius at
missing the point...
> This is important as this along with the fear of men was his greatest
> punishment. So it ranks up there with his fear of life.
> Now we have a crucial piece. He was wroth because his offering was rejected and
> he was upset over being cast out from the Almighty to the same extent as his
> life - so we know the area of his sin - his love of the Almighty.
>
> But it is perverted ... why?
> Here is ONE possible answer.
[snips]
> The passions of the sin I have stated are indeed jealousy and the deeds indeed
> murder but the sin MIGHT have been an expectation that the presence of the
> Almighty was his inalienable right!
An interesting speculation. Or maybe (this is very top of the head,
I'm still thinking about this possibility was wrong about all
three of his additions to God's announcement of the curse) Cain
had an ostrich problem from the beginning here. When his offering
was not accepted, Cain's "face fell". In the NASB, God then asks
Cain, "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?"
Cain, in his resentment, stopped looking up. He could no longer
see God's face. He assumed that "your face will be hidden from me" -
when he is the one hiding his face.
> the intervention of the Almighty into the affairs of Cain at that
> particular time and what it tells of the personality of the Almighty
> of the way he deals with humans. That one is a fun study because it
> is always lovely to watch my beloved at work ... you learn a lot.
As for instance, the fact that the Almighty not only protects
Cain from the retribution of other men, but also, having told
Cain that he would be "a vagabond and a wanderer in the earth",
He relents and allows Cain to "settle" in Nod, and to build a
city? And compensates for the loss of agriculture by letting
Cain engage in or found all sorts of other trades (nomadic herding,
music, metal working)? We aren't told in so many words that Cain
repented; but all these unlooked-for blessings rather suggest that he
must have - especially since the LORD had announced beforehand that
Cain "shall rule over [sin]." He could hardly have ruled over
it in the absence of repentance.
It's as if the Almighty forgave Cain, but the earth, offended
by its blood meal, never did.
> It is difficult to talk about these sort of things. I hope I have thrown some
> light on the way I view things.
Some. As long as we're on the Cain/Abel story, do you have any
thoughts on what Abel was raising sheep for, since animals
weren't given for food until the flood? (If the question strikes
you as frivolous, never mind.)
Mordecai!
Royce Buehler wrote:
I am not going to answer most of this. Remember I am presenting my own ideas - not
demanding others follow them or demanding they are true even. They are speculations
where nobody has thought before - and I delight in people who think.
Most of your ideas I have considered - but my considerations do not make them true.
You are as capable of thinking about them as I am - and your ideas can be as true or
as false as mine. So I delight that you are willing to think about them.
(PS some I have not considered which is always a delight.)
Mind you - the boss has his own ideas. He has been telling me "boom" like a grenade
going off ... waking me up to visions of fire works exploding. Hearing gongs going off
at various times in the day ... I figure he is rather happy about my speculations -
which does not make them true. Merely he is now free to work in new areas with people.
So do a good job on thinking you all. And don't listen to me - I know very little. And
if you think and reject because I am an idiot (always a possibility) you have both
thought and chosen and judged. Right and wrong are less important than thinking and
choosing.
But you answered one thing I am interested in - the raising of flocks.
I have speculated in my study on Israel that the new covenant of Noah was also
physical - and possibly the transformation from neanderthal to modern man. There are
several pointers to support my idle speculation and one was moving from a vegetarian
to an omnivore. Also the change from long lived slow reproducing to short lived and
big reproducing.
PLEASE NOTE this is idle speculation without any proof and with other pointers which
point in other directions. So I am aware this is again idle speculations.
But raising of flocks has several fruits. One is flesh- very important in today's
world. Another is milk made into cheese today. A third is the clothing from the hides
- leather or wool.
The African tribes who herd the cattle do not eat the flesh of the cattle. They do
drink blood on occasions. They live off the cattle none the less.
I suggest watching a couple of different shows on them and get a feel for their
interactions with their herds. Not that this is going to give answers for the
situation presented but it will get you thinking.
I remember getting a shock seeing sheep in Israel. They looked like goats. You must
remember I am from Australia and familiar with the marino sheep bred for wool and
meat. These long haired beasts were NOT SHEEP (oh the arrogance of familiarity.)
To assume the "cattle" of those days is the same as the cattle of today is also
fraught with danger.
I find it HARD to speculate too much. Were these people neanderthals? If so - what was
their diet and would it include milk? What about cheese? Would we recognize their
cattle or sheep?
Why was Ninrod a hunter? And yes - hunters were not always for the flesh of the
animals to be consumed. Even today we have that.
I do NOT know. In fact there is so much I do not know.
Nor is this original minor scroll which was put together into the book of beginnings
(Genesis) sacrosanct in my sight. It is legends and the amount of truth in them is
debatable. As I have pointed out to others, the analysis of these legends is full of
wisdom to the point I declare - WHERE DID IT COME FROM? but to assume too much is
literally true is filled with danger as well.
In the end - I know only what I myself have experienced. I have speculated on the
words of others that I have read personally. I have listened to the words of experts
and find them as filled with the same sort of speculations that mine have. Be they
evolutionist variety or the religious or the physical scientist.
I have thought on this subject for myself and got a few ideas. No evidence to back
them. More importantly no fruit to the speculation. That is, this sort of knowledge
does not produce in me any change of attitude.
So I have not put any great faith or effort into them. Fruitless speculations without
resultants, without evidence, without any way of checking. And in so many ways
pointless.
Not thinking about them is more wrong.
So what can I say? I thought - and I failed and I don't care. It does not matter.
I am glad you have thought on these things also.
Mordecai!
Rafael
Royce Buehler wrote:
> Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
>
> Mordecai:
> > The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
> > I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
> > IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
> > desires ...
> >
> > Sound a bit strange?
>
> Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
> it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
> *desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
> (As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
Not what it is stating. It is stating that sin exist, and is available for any
that chose to pick it up.
> One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
> is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
> One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
> Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
> the deed of murder?
In the Hebrew it does not state that sin was crouching (ready to spring upon its
victium.) But rather thyat sin was lying at the door step like a news paper. And
hence, one can control sin any time the wish by just not picking it up.
> Grammatically, maybe the antecedent of "it" in "you will rule over
> it" could be "desire" rather than "sin"; but the parallel with
> Genesis 3 argues strongly that the antecedent is the owner of
> the desire rather than the desire itself, don't you think?
Sins desire is toward you, and will rule over you unless you repent.
Royce Buehler
In article <3AB79C3C...@mail.verizon.net>,
Rafael <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> writes:
>
> Royce Buehler wrote:
>
> > Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
> > Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
> > it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
> > *desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
> Not what it is stating. It is stating that sin exist, and is available for any
> that chose to pick it up.
"Its desire is to you, and you shall rule over it."
The text says that Cain will rule over sin. That *is* what
it's stating. What we make of that, of course, is another question.
> > One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
> > is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> > Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> > [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
> > One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
> > Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
> > the deed of murder?
>
> In the Hebrew it does not state that sin was crouching (ready to spring upon its
> victium.) But rather thyat sin was lying at the door step like a news paper.
I hadn't been thinking of "crouching" as in "ready to spring." "Lying"
will do as well for purposes of my (speculative) comment. Either
way, it's suggestive of a childbirthing position - and of the
parallel language about Eve, dealing with her childbirthing.
> > Grammatically, maybe the antecedent of "it" in "you will rule over
> > it" could be "desire" rather than "sin"; but the parallel with
> > Genesis 3 argues strongly that the antecedent is the owner of
> > the desire rather than the desire itself, don't you think?
>
> Sins desire is toward you, and will rule over you unless you repent.
I don't see anything objectionable in that statement; but
what Genesis says is "you shall rule over it", not "it shall rule
over you." The topic of discussion was what Genesis said.
Rafael
Royce Buehler wrote:
> In article <3AB79C3C...@mail.verizon.net>,
> Rafael <vze2...@mail.verizon.net> writes:
>
> > > Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
> > > it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
> > > *desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
>
> R> Not what it is stating. It is stating that sin exist, and is available for any
> > that chose to pick it up.
>
> "Its desire is to you, and you shall rule over it."
> The text says that Cain will rule over sin. That *is* what
> it's stating. What we make of that, of course, is another question.
Very true, as G-d told Cain, if he would lift his contenance.... As such Cain always
had the choice whether or not to pick up the sin and run with it. Or to put it down and
leave it be.
> > > One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
> > > is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> > > Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> > > [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
> > > One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
> > > Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
> > > the deed of murder?
> >
> > In the Hebrew it does not state that sin was crouching (ready to spring upon its
> > victium.) But rather thyat sin was lying at the door step like a news paper.
>
> I hadn't been thinking of "crouching" as in "ready to spring." "Lying"
> will do as well for purposes of my (speculative) comment. Either
> way, it's suggestive of a childbirthing position - and of the
> parallel language about Eve, dealing with her childbirthing.
Or as a news paper lies on the porch waiting to be picked up. The Hebrew for sin is
passive where childbirth is non-pasive.
> > > Grammatically, maybe the antecedent of "it" in "you will rule over
> > > it" could be "desire" rather than "sin"; but the parallel with
> > > Genesis 3 argues strongly that the antecedent is the owner of
> > > the desire rather than the desire itself, don't you think?
> >
> > Sins desire is toward you, and will rule over you unless you repent.
>
> I don't see anything objectionable in that statement; but
> what Genesis says is "you shall rule over it", not "it shall rule
> over you." The topic of discussion was what Genesis said.
Exactly. If the childbirth analogy was accurate, then the sin could rule over you.
GoldRush
> <snipped>
>
> Some. As long as we're on the Cain/Abel story, do you have any
> thoughts on what Abel was raising sheep for, since animals
> weren't given for food until the flood? (If the question strikes
> you as frivolous, never mind.)
Royce,
Abel understood his sinfulness as well as the promises
of redemption from God.
He knew only substitute blood would cover his
sins and appease the wrath of God on his behalf.
Abel raised animals for blood sacrifice.
In faith, he offered animals for sacrifice for his sins, pointing
to the eventual Messiah who would offer His blood
as the ultimate and permanent, once and for all,
sacrifice and propitiation for sin.
J&R
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Royce Buehler
In article <3AB90C4C...@mlode.com>,
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> writes:
> Royce Buehler wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
> >
> > Some. As long as we're on the Cain/Abel story, do you have any
> > thoughts on what Abel was raising sheep for, since animals
> > weren't given for food until the flood? (If the question strikes
> > you as frivolous, never mind.)
>
> Royce,
>
> Abel understood his sinfulness as well as the promises
> of redemption from God.
>
> He knew only substitute blood would cover his
> sins and appease the wrath of God on his behalf.
>
> Abel raised animals for blood sacrifice.
Reasonable enough, but it can't be the whole story,
since Abel offered only "the firstlings". He had to have
had something in mind for the secondlings and thirdlings
and so on. :-)
It's also not all that clear - though you could of course
be right - that Abel would have understood the theology
of the book of Hebrews (a theology which does mention the
necessity of blood, but says nothing, naturally, about that
16th-century invention of "substitute" blood.) A more
straightforward understanding of why Abel's sacrifice was
accepted and Cain's was not, would be that Abel offered
"the firstlings", but though Cain offered fruit, he didn't
offer "first fruits."
Or Cain's offering could have fallen short on multiple
grounds - the lack of blood, the lack of first fruits, and
something (such as Mordecai's suggestion) to do with his
motivation in offering the sacrifice.
GoldRush
> In article <3AB90C4C...@mlode.com>,
> GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> writes:
> > Royce Buehler wrote:
> >
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > Some. As long as we're on the Cain/Abel story, do you have any
> > > thoughts on what Abel was raising sheep for, since animals
> > > weren't given for food until the flood? (If the question strikes
> > > you as frivolous, never mind.)
> >
> > Royce,
> >
> > Abel understood his sinfulness as well as the promises
> > of redemption from God.
> >
> > He knew only substitute blood would cover his
> > sins and appease the wrath of God on his behalf.
> >
> > Abel raised animals for blood sacrifice.
>
> Reasonable enough, but it can't be the whole story,
> since Abel offered only "the firstlings". He had to have
> had something in mind for the secondlings and thirdlings
> and so on. :-)
Hi Royce. . . Of course there was reason for the
secondlings and thirdlings . . .The duty of man to
have dominion over all living things, as ordained
by God in Genesis 1:26, 28.
>
>
> It's also not all that clear - though you could of course
> be right - that Abel would have understood the theology
> of the book of Hebrews (a theology which does mention the
> necessity of blood, but says nothing, naturally, about that
> 16th-century invention of "substitute" blood.)
Abel most certainly understood the significance and
importance of blood being shed for sin. God had shed
substitutionary blood for his mother and father in the
garden when the animals were slain in order to cover
their sinful "nakedness". Genesis 3:21
> A more
> straightforward understanding of why Abel's sacrifice was
> accepted and Cain's was not, would be that Abel offered
> "the firstlings", but though Cain offered fruit, he didn't
> offer "first fruits."
Oh, that is part of the shadow and type of Christ's
offering, too, but the reason Abel's offering pleased
God, was because it was blood.
Blood = Life
A life is necessary for the loss of life.
>
>
> Or Cain's offering could have fallen short on multiple
> grounds - the lack of blood, the lack of first fruits, and
> something (such as Mordecai's suggestion) to do with his
> motivation in offering the sacrifice.
Cain's offering was not accepted because it was not
mixed with blood *or* faith. Cain was unrepentant,
unbelieving, disobedient, irreverent, sinful, and hypocritical.
(Much like Esau . . .unloved by God and bereft of the grace
of God.)
Cain was taught the truth of redemption (Genesis 4:7), but
not being mixed with faith, it did not profit him. (Heb. 4:2).
Rather, the truth given to him, was judgment against his soul,
as evidenced God's curses against him. (Gen. 4:11&12).
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
I don't know about you (if you were slandered, that is) but as to the
misinterpreters of the Greek into English, the TRUTH ain't slander.
>Jim Upchurch
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
wrote:
>Ben mitts <bmi...@dundee.net> wrote:
>
>>Brother Frank, sometimes it
>>is better to leave sleeping
>>dogs lie!
>
>You got that right ! Sorry.
>
>Frank
So you have now surrendered
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
address...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:34:06 -0800, "Jim Upchurch"
<artw...@xturbotek.net> wrote:
>"Royce Buehler"
<snip>
>Actually if you weren't such a pompous ass you would have
>remembered that I said the english translations do and as
>far as I knew, so did the others as well. I only heard of one
>translation, Phillipino, that didn't but we never got to see
>what it actually did say.
The leading translation, revered as we rever the KJV.
>That being said I would like to point out that you are also a coward
>as well as a slander. I generally don't read your posts unless you've
>responded to me and it is presumptuous of you to think I automatically
>would. Either that or you were hoping to slander behind my
>back, a more likely scenario.
Talk about slandering someone.
<snip>
>Except I never even made the assumption. This was
>obviously a bigger question to you than me. I summed up
>by saying it didn't matter to me what he had translated it as
>due to the fact that the evidence to the contrary was overwhelming.
>
>> Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>> What he meant by this, I'm not certain.
>
>As in "the meek shall inherit the earth" ?
As in cowardly as found in Rev 21:8.
>>I doubt that he believed
>> that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
>> I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
>> stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
>> literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
>> is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
>> adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
>
>It was never in question really.
>3120 - Greek
>3120 malakos mal-ak-os'
>of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing);
>figuratively, a catamite:--effeminate, soft.
Clearly you have not studied the Greek of the times in which Paul used
the word... the ONLY place you will find malakos being used to mean
effeminate in first century writtings is that of notations on SHEET
MUSIC.
It was used figeritively to describe the weak-willed, the wealthy in
soft-lives who would not help others personally or even lift a finger
for themselves (lazy), and actors
>---------------------------------------------------
>Like a male that holds himself out as a women. It isn't
>rocket science.
A "male" group of MUSIC NOTES ?
LOL, funny
>> What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
>> in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
>> German word altogether.
>
>> So, Jim, you're batting a perfect 0.000 on this one. Keep up
>> the good work.
>
>But the zero is between your ears. It obviously means that I am 100%
>correct.
>Since you bring up good ol ML I have to say I have some
>problems with some of his biblical understanding.
Attacking the messenger is a very poor debating techneque
>http://www.legionofmary.org/luther.html
>"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of us all.
>If Christ be ours . . . all that he has must be ours,
>and His Mother also must be ours."
And more of the same.
>By the way, I am not a Lutheren.
Is THAT supposed to mean anything ?
>--
Mordecai!
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
Bingo.
Your analysis of the words done independently confirms my ideas.
My ideas was based on seeking to understand the context.
Your words perfectly - EXACTLY describe the sin for which Sodom was
condemned within my model.
Two separate and distinct methods - checking each other - none using the
same data.
Enough for scientists to accept as proof. Not quite enough for me however.
The other piece - my heart believes it makes this as the most likely
correct answer. But that was far earlier and I did mention this in another
post.
I am STILL working on the culture of Sodom. My initial reading seems to be
on course - but I want MORE - and though I doubt I will substantially
change the ideas.
Not that this changes very much to me.
To the homosexuals, I still class them as a 2 on the scale of one to ten.
"1" being the colour of the hair or height or something insignificant, "2"
where it is something to be careful about like a gross physical abnormality
or a minority group which is picked on or something to be extra careful
about lest the person feels that I am *also* sitting on judgement over them
like so many others do.
To the group of Christians not defending the Homosexuals but refusing to
condemn them, I have moved from "I do not know if this is a sin" to "I
doubt very much that it is a sin." Not that I am alone with that opinion in
that group.
To the idiots like Jim, I have moved from an implicit enemy because I will
not become one who condemns to a direct enemy because I will state that the
evidence makes their stand wrong ... not that they are interested in truth.
Sorry for everyone who has been following this. I am afraid I have been
seeking the truth on this issue - not anything more. Homosexuality as such
was not my issue. It was understanding other things - especially sins of
nations.
Thanks to everyone, including Jim for your help.
Mordecai!
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT, <3AB04592...@earthlink.net> Royce
Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The story so far:
>
>Glenn pointed out that the official Filipino translation of
>_arsenokoites_ was the Tagalog term for "child molester".
>
>Jim Upchurch made the rash assertion that "nobody agrees with
>you" - by which he meant, all 'real' translations translate
>both 'arsenokoitai' and 'malakoi' by some variation of
>"homosexual".
>
>(Jim Upchurch is, of course, as usual, dead wrong. Even the KJV
>translates _arsenokoites_ as "abusers of themselves with
>mankind" - which does not include all male homosexuals (and
>certainly no female homosexuals), unless you make the circular
>assumption that all homosexuality is "abuse". Similarly, the
>NIV translates it as "homosexual offenders" - which does not
>include all male homosexuals (and certainly no female homosexuals),
>unless you make the circular assumption that all homosexuality
>is an "offense".)
>
>I pointed out that Martin Luther is one of those "nobodies",
>since he translated _arsenokoitai_ as "Knabeschaender", rapers
>of boys.
>
>Unable to counter this fact in any rational fashion, Jim made
>the wild assertion that it doesn't matter that Martin Luther
>didn't think _arsenokoitai_ meant homosexuals. What matters,
>all of a sudden, is what Martin Luther thought _malakoi_ meant.
>
>This thrilling instalment:
>
>Well, it was (like almost all of Jim's wild goose chases) beside
>the point. But it was interesting in its own right. Today I
>had a chance to visit the copy of of Luther's translation of the
>Bible I sometimes drop in on. And I can now inform y'all:
>Jim Upchurch's childlike faith that Luther *must* have translated
>*that* one as "homosexual" is also completely off base.
>
>Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
>that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
>I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
>stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
>literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
>is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
>adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
>
>What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
>in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
>German word altogether.
>
>So, Jim, you're batting a perfect 0.000 on this one. Keep up
>the good work.
Royce goes 100% against the Bible in defending homosexuals. Everyone examine the
following:
>In article <8Ok96.2187$I6.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> "Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> writes:
>> > No....I don't think Jesus would allow a gay person to be stoned.
>> > Maybe under the law....but not under grace.
>> > Thank God for that.
>> A "gay" person in those days was executed not merely on
>> the basis of religious law, but also civil law.
>False. Not only were homosexual acts not capital crimes under
>Roman civil law, they were perfectly legal. There was no
>"religious law" against lesbian acts - nor against male/male
>acts other than anal penetration.
And you know what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 1 too!
I will show later.
>> Christ CONFIRMED both.
>He confirmed both religious and civil laws generally; but the
>specific laws against homosexuality you are assuming did not
>exist.
[...]
>Good exegesis.
Where does the term "exegesis" appear in the Bible?
>> People who claim homosexuality is compatable with
>> Christianity don't understand the nature of the gospel,
>> and its relationship to the law.
>People who claim we don't understand the nature of the gospel
>don't understand the nature of our faith.
Is this an admission of your orientation?
>> You cannot be saved
>> unless you first die, and that includes your earthly
>> desires and fleshly lusts. We give our bodies
>> to God as a ~living sacrifice~ pleasing to him...
>Absolutely true.
>> acts such as homosexuality are clearly against the
>> moral code of the old law, therefore we know that
>> such an act could never be considered ~holy~
>> before him.
>Perfect nonsense. Eating shrimp and shaving are clearly
>against the code of the old law. No form of sex between two
>women was ever forbidden in the old law. Nothing in the
>Old Testament or the New Testament says that the old law
>was divided into a "moral" part and an "other" part; and
>nothing in either testament says that the law concerning
>"lying with a man as with a woman" belonged to the "moral"
>part.
>
>All homosexual acts are "clearly against" are the traditions
>of men to which you cling, without biblical justification.
YOU ARE IN VERY GREAT ERROR BELIAL!
What do you call this?
What does the Bible say about homosexuals and their activities or what
does it declare concerning "the gay and lesbian community"?
1 Corinthians 5
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people--
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy
and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls
himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer,
a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to
judge those inside?
13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God.
Romans 1:26-29,32 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women
exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and
receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not
fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness...
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice
such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve
of those who practice them.
<end>
For the record here are other Bible versions of verses 26 and 27
Romans 1:26-28 :: New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought
not to be done.
Romans 1:26-28 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for
even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;
27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the
female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males
working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in
themselves receiving.
28 And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God
gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;
Notice verse 28 and how it speaks of the mental condition of what the
Bible describes as: "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
They have depraved minds!
Romans 1:28 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
And just as they did not see fit [1] to acknowledge God any longer, <*1>
God gave them over to a depraved mind..
Romans 1:28 :: King James Version (KJV)
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind..
Romans 1:28 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a debased mind..
Romans 1:28 :: NIV formatted (New Testament) (NIV-IBS)
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind..
IOW they are mentally diseased!
Royce Buehler stating: "All homosexual acts are "clearly against" are the
traditions of men to which you cling, without biblical justification" shows that
he violates: "knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice
such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of
those who practice them" because he evidently does "approve of those who
practice them."
2 Peter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on
themselves.
2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into
disrepute.
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.
Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has
not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,
putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and
made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives
of lawless men
Why did God condemn Sodom and Gomorrah and why does the scripture say:
"he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of
lawless men"?
Want to retract your very mis-informed statement:
>All homosexual acts are "clearly against" are the traditions
>of men to which you cling, without biblical justification.
Here is some Biblical justification as if the above scriptures aren't!
Genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the
gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down
with his face to the ground.
2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash
your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.
He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of
Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out
to us so that we can have sex with them."
Want to retract your very mis-informed statement:
>All homosexual acts are "clearly against" are the traditions
>of men to which you cling, without biblical justification.
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them
out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to
these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as
an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them."
They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut
the door.
11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old,
with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or
daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,
13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against
its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land.
24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD
out of the heavens.
25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those
living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.
26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had
stood before the LORD.
28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain,
and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember what 2Peter said in what you
call the New Testament concerning Lot?
2 Peter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on
themselves.
2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into
disrepute.
3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.
Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has
not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,
putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and
made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives
of lawless men
FILTHY LIVES OF LAWLESS MEN who said: "Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Are you going to say I am once again showing hate and that I am gay bashing or
trying to stir up hatred toward gays because I tell the truth and refute you in
public?
How about this from what you call the New Testament?
Jude 1
1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been
called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by [1] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we
share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once
for all entrusted to the saints.
4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly
slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into
a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered
his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned
their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for
judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves
up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who
suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Want to retract your very mis-informed statement:
>All homosexual acts are "clearly against" are the traditions
>of men to which you cling, without biblical justification.
10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and
what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are
the very things that destroy them.
11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit
into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the
slightest qualm--shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without
rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted--twice
dead.
13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for
whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is
coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts
they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners
have spoken against him."
16 These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires;
they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
foretold.
18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow
their own ungodly desires."
19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do
not have the Spirit.
Different renditions of Genesis 19:5
Genesis 19:5 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
and they called to Lot and said to him, ""<*1> Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [1] have relations with them.''
I.e. have intercourse
Genesis 19:5 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
Need I say more?
Royce says there is no biblical justification against homosexuality and he says
Pharisees are heroes in another post. Hmmmh makes you wonder!
"a number of heros of the New Testament besides Paul were Pharisees.."
-Message-ID: <3AD66574...@earthlink.net>
-From: Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net>
-Reply-To: fig...@earthlink.net
-Subject: Re: I love children.
-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:31:07 GMT
<END>
Need I say more?
Doc Tavish
--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
evD1KiqppWmQLTl2WuPiD/Fh06OJgiEaWvBhiZua
4osnR/g8HeKuhQDNwuTcP8td1OFPHxlqFvafMckmB
Royce Buehler
>
> --
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT, <3AB04592...@earthlink.net> Royce
> Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
> Royce goes 100% against the Bible in defending homosexuals. Everyone examine the
> following:
Scott Bradbury aka "Nizkor Watch" goes 100% against history in
defending Hitler and denying the Holocaust; and he goes 100%
against the Bible in spending virtually all his spare time
spreading lies and hatred directed toward all Jews.
I am happy to discuss theological issues with Christians.
Discussing them with an anti-Semitic hate peddler, who has
declared that Paul was a liar and who likes to prove how
"evil" the Jews are by proving how "evil" the Old Testament is,
is pointless.
Most orthodox Christians disagree with my views on what the
Bible has to say about homosexuality. All orthodox Christians
disagree with Scott's view that the Trinity is bunk. So what?
The issue that got Scott mad at me was, that I have called him
on his lies about Jews. He can't argue on the issues - so he
tries to switch the subject.
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:41:01 GMT, <3ADA4E38...@earthlink.net> Royce Buehler
<fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 wrote:
>>
>> --
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT, <3AB04592...@earthlink.net> Royce
>> Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>[snips for length]
Can't refute it so snip it heh?
>> >Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>[snips for length]
Can't refute it so snip it heh?
>> Royce goes 100% against the Bible in defending homosexuals.
>> Everyone examine the following:
>
>Scott Bradbury aka "Nizkor Watch" goes 100% against history in
>defending Hitler and denying the Holocaust;
Once again the personal attack and smear. Care to show in front of everyone or
in a civil court for that matter where I have ever defended Hitler or denied the
Holocaust? Plain and simple- Royce Buehler is a LIAR! Care to show ANY example
where I have quoted Hitler or any Nazi in this news group or any news group for
that matter? Once again Royce Buehler is a LIAR!
>and he goes 100% against the Bible
You've been the one going against the Bible consistently and I will show so
below to show how you can only offer YOUR opinion instead of scripture showing
homosexuality is acceptable or not condemned in the Bible.
>in spending virtually all his spare time
>spreading lies and hatred directed toward all Jews.
When is showing what the Bible says hatred?
>I am happy to discuss theological issues with Christians.
>Discussing them with an anti-Semitic hate peddler, who has
>declared that Paul was a liar
Care to show where I ever "declared that Paul was a liar" you LIAR?!
>and who likes to prove how "evil" the Jews are by proving how
>"evil" the Old Testament is, is pointless.
You're pointless and the only reason why I respond to you is because you make an
excellent counterp[oint to what I post. You magnificently prove my pints for me.
In this post alone all you do is make personal attack, smear, and innuendo and I
will back up what I say with scripture.
>Most orthodox Christians disagree with my views on what the
>Bible has to say about homosexuality.
Your views are YOUR views and NOT what the Bible teaches at all. Here is what
the Bible teaches and how you go counter of what is written:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=digsig=&rnum=2&seld=902164390&ic=1
"Royce Buehler Exposed as a False Prophet?..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=digsig=&rnum=3&seld=901902233&ic=1
"Royce Buehler's Errant Way of Condoning Homosexuality ..."
Seeing how Royce claims the Bible does not condemn all homosexual acts then he
will probably say I am being hateful for posting this:
1 Corinthians 5
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people--
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy
and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls
himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer,
a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to
judge those inside?
13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified,
you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God.
Royce is on public record as stating the following and notice NOT once did he
use one scripture to prove his "belief."
Message-ID: <3AB04592...@earthlink.net>
From: Royce Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Luther on _arsenokoites_ and _malakos_
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT
The story so far:
This thrilling instalment:
had a chance to visit the copy of Luther's translation of the
Bible I sometimes drop in on. And I can now inform y'all:
Jim Upchurch's childlike faith that Luther *must* have translated
*that* one as "homosexual" is also completely off base.
Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
What he meant by this, I'm not certain. I doubt that he believed
that only people who regularly pump iron can get into heaven.
I'd guess that what he had in mind was people who failed to
stand steadfast in the faith under persecution. His was a fairly
literal translation into German of the Greek _malakoi_ (which
is literally "soft ones"), since "Weichlinge" derives from the
adjective, "weich", which has the primary meaning of "soft."
What is perfectly clear is that Luther *didn't* mean soft
in the sense of "effeminate." That would have been a different
German word altogether.
So, Jim, you're batting a perfect 0.000 on this one. Keep up
the good work.
<end>
Notice- not one scripture was cited by Royce in his post above.
>All orthodox Christians disagree with Scott's view that the
>Trinity is bunk.
Orthodox? Trinity? Where is either mentioned in the Bible?
Here is what the Bible says which counters your doctrines of men Trinity
which was added as a tradition around 350 AD:
From my: "Is Personal Attack and Smear All Royce Buehler Has? ..."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=digsig=&rnum=2&seld=902321721&ic=1
(Remember this Royce?)
EXCERPT
Royce Buehler previously stated:
>The key here is the denial that Jesus Christ has come "in the flesh."
>We already know that the antichrists were nominal Christians.
Where in the Bible does it say that?
>We know from church history that there was a Gnostic heresy running
>around at that time to the effect that Jesus merely *appeared* to
>be a human being, but was just a spirit, a very high order angel,
>*disguised* as a human being.
Where in the Bible does it say that? Looks like you're relying on
doctrines and teachings of men again.
>This is the group that I John was warning its readers against -
>heretics who denied the full humanity of Christ. (Jews, by contrast,
>have always agreed that Jesus was human.
You miss the point. Of course they said Jesus was human and in the flesh
BUT they did not acknowledge him as the Messiah as coming in the flesh.
You miss the point entirely.
>It's His divinity they have had a problem with.)
Where does the Bible say that Jesus was divinity?
Looks like you're into the teaching of men from the middle ages
known as the Trinity.
I posted this before BUT for a person like you here is some material which
will assault your preconceived notions:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tavish=&rnum=1&seld=992577916&ic=1
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:14:17 +0100, david_michael
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> Judaism has been around for 1221 years longer than Christianity. You
>> presumptuous clowns show up over 1200 years later and then expect
>> everybody to dance to your tune.Forget it.
Biblically-- Judaism was overturned by Christianity and Christianity has
been around for about 1970 years which is longer than Judaism-- which deep
sixes your argument!
>Hmmm. If the TRUTH of a religion depends on its AGE then shouldn't we all be
>Hindus:
>http://www.insight-books.com/new/1884852025.html
>> One of God's Commandments reads:"Thou shalt have no other gods before
>> me."
True and the Torah says God's name is Jehovah yet the Jews refer to him
as Hashem!
Exodus 6:
1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to
Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong
hand shall he drive them out of his land.
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of
God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Psalm 83:
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
high over all the earth.
(King James Version cited)
Jews never refer to the most as High as Jehovah yet their own Torah (Old
Testament) names him as the most High. Sad to say many churches who claim
to follow the Bible want to ignore the above as well. But the King James
Bible has been around since 1612!
[...]
>Psssssssssssst. They get around this by using some very clever metaphysics
>that enables God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be three in one.
Actually Jesus never claimed to be God or even to being equal to God.
The Holy Ghost or The Holy Spirit is never being mentioned as being God or
equal to God either. This myth or the teaching of the Trinity came about
in the middle ages. Jesus himself taught this about God, his relation to
God, and his rank to God:
John 14:
23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my
Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
24 He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you
hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that
I have said to you.
27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives
do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be
afraid.
28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you
loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the
Father is greater than I.
I GUESS ROYCE BUEHLER WILL SAY JESUS LIED WHEN JESUS SAID: " I go to the
Father; for the Father is greater than I." If Jesus were God then how can there
be "someone" his Father who would be greater!?
John 16:
1 "I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away.
2 They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when
whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.
3 And they will do this because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Jesus shows that he and his Father are two separate entities and the
verses in John 14 plainly show Jesus as the lesser!
John 17:
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and
said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify
thee,
2 since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to
all whom thou hast given him.
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
4 I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou
gavest me to do;
5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory
which I had with thee before the world was made.
If Jesus were God then who is he praying to? Himself?!
Luke 3:
21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been
baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a
voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well
pleased."
If Jesus were God why would he need to be Baptized? If Jesus were God
who said: "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
Was Jesus just being a ventriloquist!? See how teachings of men have
actually polluted and corrupted what the Bible itself actually teaches!?
Luke 4
1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the
Spirit in the desert,
2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.
If Jesus were God then how could the Devil tempt him?
2 (continued) He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was
hungry.
3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become
bread."
Even the Devil knew Jesus was the Son of God which is more than people who hold
to the Trinity Doctrine know!
4 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone.' "
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the
kingdoms of the world.
6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it
has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.
7 So if you worship me, it will all be yours."
8 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Worship the Lord your God and serve him
only.' "
If Jesus were God then when he said to the Devil: "`Worship the Lord your God
and serve him only.'" wouldn't make any sense in consideration of what Jesus
said in the scripture below with these words: "I am ascending to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God."
John 20:
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the
Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God."
If Jesus were God then who is he ascending to-- the GodFather? :-)
Who is Jesus' God that he said he was ascending to? I know BUT how many
others know!
Once again:
Exodus 6:
1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to
Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong
hand shall he drive them out of his land.
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of
God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Psalm 83:
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
high over all the earth.
(King James Version cited)
What does the Bible say about the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit?
John 14:
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make
our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the
beginning.
John 16:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into
all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall
hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Comforter is Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) is Spirit of Truth.
Never is the Holy Spirit referred to as God or equal to God.
All scripture cited from Revised Standard Version and King James Version
of the Bible.
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
As a bonus I will show one and all every reference made to Jehovak from the King
James Bible version of 1612:
Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is
said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name
of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Exodus 17:15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
Judges 6:24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it
Jehovahshalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
most high over all the earth.
Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for
the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is
everlasting strength..
This is the one whom Jesus said: "I am ascending to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God." John 20:17
For the record The Darby Translation uses Jehovah 300 times as well as Young's
Literal Translation does.
Here is the 21st Century King James Version:
Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh [that is,
The LORD will provide]; as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it
shall be seen."
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name
of God Almighty, but by My name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Exodus 17:15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi
[that is, The LORD my banner];
Judges 6:24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD and called it
Jehovahshalom [that is, The Lord send peace]. Unto this day it is yet in Ophrah
of the Abiezrites.
Psalm 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to His name! Extol Him that rideth upon
the heavens by His name Jehovah; and rejoice before Him.
Psalm 83:18 that men may know that Thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
Most High over all the earth.
Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid; for the
LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; He also has become my salvation."
Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever, for in the LORD JEHOVAH is
everlasting strength.
As a review Royce did say earlier in this post:
>All orthodox Christians disagree with Scott's view that the
>Trinity is bunk.
Out of all of those "Orthodox Christians" how many claim to adhere to the King
James Version of 1612 Bible? If they really adhered to the Bible instead of
"tradition" they would have NO ground at all to say that what I show on the
Trinity is "bunk."
You need to study up on the origin of the "Trinity Doctrine" and the year it was
first taught.
>So what? The issue that got Scott mad at me
Who said I was mad? You are the one who is mad and engaging in slanderous
personal attacks and smear campaigns on top of telling lies.
>was, that I have called him on his lies about Jews.
What lies?
> He can't argue on the issues - so he tries to switch the subject.
You're the one that applies to and you know it.
Need I say more?
Doc Tavish
--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
4M/SAqPTsNQpLguSEZ2VnExfKJLkq0MHyAVa3F2H
4nzG/S5nMuAVOti/5OVRDNf4hOjf8xZ7j3y01aEJ8
Shaun Tang
than anything else? I would suggest to separate these many issues, one by
one with independent subject headings for open discussion, to be effective.
Grouping all issues in a single and long post would be too complicate, I
would guess. If these issues are worth to explore, let others contribute
more ideas for the purpose of up-to-date and better understanding. If none
is worth to discuss, simply take a rest. God bless all! Peace, Shaun
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 <doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM>
wrote in message news:6hmkdtgabd2i0n07q...@4ax.com...
Royce Buehler
>
> --
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:41:01 GMT, <3ADA4E38...@earthlink.net> Royce Buehler
> <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:29:11 GMT, <3AB04592...@earthlink.net> Royce
> >> Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >[snips for length]
>
> Can't refute it so snip it heh?
Um, everything I snipped was words from my own post. Why would
I want to "refute" my own post?
> >> >Luther translated _malakoi_ as "Weichlinge" - "weaklings."
>
> >[snips for length]
>
> Can't refute it so snip it heh?
Um, everything I snipped was my own words from my own post. Why would
I want to "refute" my own words?
[remaining snips because Tavish has posted all of it half a dozen times
before]
Please answer the questions you've dodged thus far. I have some
hope you can answer two of them honorably, and are just playing coy.
(1) Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews?
(You are a Holocaust denier, but for some reason don't
want our current readers to know that fact; so you will
not answer this one at all.)
(2) When the identity adherent Buford shot up the Jewish day care
center in California, was that an immoral act?
(3) If all or almost all the Jews were rounded up and killed over
the next few months, would that be an immoral act?
Willie Martin's answers would be No, No, and No. Your answer to
the first would be No. I honestly don't know what your answers
to 2 and 3 would be. Please surprise me pleasantly.
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 06:01:08 GMT, <3ADA8B18...@earthlink.net> Royce
Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 wrote:
[...]
>[remaining snips because Tavish has posted all of it half a dozen times
>before]
>
>Please answer the questions you've dodged thus far.
I have NOT dodged and once again you are lying. I have already answered each and
every question you have asked and I will prove so by showing the posts and their
message IDs and other critical data.
>I have some hope you can answer two of them honorably,
I have answered all honorably.
>and are just playing coy.
Your mind playing tricks on you again!
>
>(1) Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews?
> (You are a Holocaust denier,
Once again you lie! Care to show where I have ever denied
the "Holocaust"? Show one post Royce- just one! Smear and repeated
lies is all you have isn't it Royce? Have I not asked you would you care to
prove in a civil court I ever denied Nazis killing Jews or that I ever claimed
to be a "Holocaust Denier"? Strange that you accuse me of telling lies BUT it is
YOU who spreads them like fertilizer!
>but for some reason don't want our current readers to know that fact;
What you spread as a lie is not a fact. I have never claimed to be a Holocaust
Denier not have I ever claimed the Nazis didn't kill Jews. I now ask you to show
proof that I have done as you falsely accuse!
>so you will not answer this one at all.)
I've already answered:
<START>
>You are a Holocaust denier as well.
Care to prove that in a civil court?
>You have accused me of misrepresenting you when I say that,
You have and it is a lie!
>but you have declined to answer my question, so I'll ask it again.
>Were millions of Jews murdered under Hitler's orders, or weren't they?
I do not know the quantity of Jews killed BUT I never denied that Nazis
had killed Jews!
>I do not know whether your campaign of let's-hate-the-Jews is like
>Willie Martin's, ultimately aimed at killing them all.
Once again personal attack, smear, innuendo and now implied guilt by
implied association. BTW I am not familiar with Willie Martin so will you
please show a post or posts in which he advocates or whatever that all
Jews be killed. I'll bet that you are engaging in smear against him as
well because that is about all you seem to have!
>So I ask you again these questions, which you have so far declined
>to answer:
> When the Identity adherent Burford shot up the Jewish day care
> center in California last year, was that morally wrong?
YES
> If Christians rounded up all or almost all the Jews over the next
> month or two, and killed them, would that be morally wrong?
YES
Are you satisfied? I went on public record again for you!
Christians, as individuals, are to kill nobody and no true Christian would
except in self defense. If someone is coming after me with a baseball bat
I would drop him quick with a firearm.
Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his
possessions are safe.
The Bible does allow for self defense and use of deadly force:
Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he
dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 <doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM>
Subject: Re: Bestiality and the Jewish Talmud - Doc Tavish Battles it Out With
Two Neo-Pharisees
Organization: WWW.NIZKOR.ORG Smears Private Citizens
Reply-To: doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM
Message-ID: <2nqkdtcqf3famupj4...@4ax.com>
References: <3ADA5C3E...@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:26:11 EDT
<END>
>(2) When the identity adherent Buford shot up the Jewish day care
>center in California, was that an immoral act?
I already answered and it is above.
>(3) If all or almost all the Jews were rounded up and killed over
>the next few months, would that be an immoral act?
I already answered and it is above.
>Willie Martin's answers would be No, No, and No.
That should prove that Willie and I are two different people. He believes what
he believes but I won't go and attack him like you do- wouldn't be Christian to
do such!
>Your answer to the first would be No.
You're a pathological liar. You have been shown numerous times proof yet you
continue the same lie! That makes you a pathological liar!
>I honestly don't know what your answers
>to 2 and 3 would be. Please surprise me pleasantly.
I've already answered but you were too quick to make more personal attacks and
evidently you missed it!
Need I say more!
Doc Tavish
--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
pr9xBQHs+Jt9QwDM66qlLnudA7UgZ4QcgiQ/PNtl
4KuzjINr3oZ98nZ+Z3rFDy0MJygfqPU2dBPNSErDI
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:29:22 GMT, <3AB6CF02...@earthlink.net> Royce
Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
>
>Mordecai:
>> The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
>> I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
>> IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
>> desires ...
>>
>> Sound a bit strange?
>Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
>it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
>*desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
>(As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
>
>One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
>is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
>One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
>Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
>the deed of murder?
Both of you err. Sin entered the world before Cain and Abel.
Do either of you know what the first sin was and who committed it?
Scroll down for the answer.
The very first recorded commandment was:
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Notice man "became a living soul" and was not given a soul?
15 And the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it
and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.
For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The above was the first commandment given to mankind.
Here comes the first sin and most people always get it wrong! The first sin was
a LIE and it was told by the serpent. It was not Eve eating from the "tree of
the knowledge of good and evil."
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of
the garden,
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
The first sin was a lie and it was told by the "serpent" who is later identified
in the scripture as the Devil which I will prove in a bit. Satan was at one time
one of God's Angels.
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the
fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.
Eve commits the second sin and Adam follows up. No where does it say the fruit
was an apple either!
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and
they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God, walking in the garden in the cool of
the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God
amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam and said unto him, "Where art thou?"
10 And he said, "I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was
naked; and I hid myself."
11 And He said, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
12 And the man said, "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of
the tree, and I ate."
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, "What is this that thou hast done?" And
the woman said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I ate."
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this, thou
art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field. Upon thy belly
shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and
her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."
Revelation 12
7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;
and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the Devil and
Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and his
angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit
and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and
Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Remember what Jesus said of the Devil:
John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was
a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar
and the father of it.
The devil is Satan is the serpent of old etc. the original liar!
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
LaDgjl9+5yMG82HGUMigHXzYIFNUv/f3k6W9nCtI
4Ik5XXR3yPjq3v+UDs6gkrxKnCDpS+1heVDn3hagr
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:29:22 GMT, <3AB6CF02...@earthlink.net> Royce
Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
>
>Mordecai:
>> The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
>> I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
>> IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
>> desires ...
>>
>> Sound a bit strange?
>Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
>it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
>*desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
>(As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
>
>One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
>is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
>One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
>Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
>the deed of murder?
Both of you err. Sin entered the world before Cain and Abel.
Charles Carter
Actually, no. The serpent never told a lie, not as we commonly define
untruths, anyway.
> Here comes the first sin and most people always get it wrong! The first
sin was
> a LIE and it was told by the serpent. It was not Eve eating from the "tree
of
> the knowledge of good and evil."
>
> Genesis 3
> 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
LORD God
> had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not
eat of
> every tree of the garden'?"
> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of
> the garden,
> 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
hath
> said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
What insured death for humanity was the posting of the cherubim at the gate
of the Garden to guard the Tree of Life. If, after eating the fruit from the
Tree of Knowledge the man and woman had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life,
they would have lived. Ch. 3, verses 22-24. The serpent said, "You shall not
surely die," and as far as we know from the Scripture, that was the absolute
truth.
Not true, either about the serpent being Satan.
1. The Bible never explicitly identifies the serpent with Satan.
2. The passage in Revelation 12 referred to leaves out verses 1-6, which
makes it clear that the war in Heaven, and the fall of Lucifer, occured
after the birth of the Child, not before.
3. Reading the O.T. references to Satan shows that during the O.T. period,
Satan was still a resident of Heaven and a loyal servant of the Lord God.
Satan is alway protrayed as doing God's will, never as being disobdient.
4. Reading the many, many passages in the O.T. describing the rebellion and
disobedience of the people of Israel, the inspired writers never, not one
single time, attribute the cause to Satan. The first time Satan appears as
the enemy of the Almighty is after the baptism of the Christ during the
temptation in the wilderness.
> Revelation 12
> 7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the
dragon;
> and the dragon fought and his angels,
> 8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
> 9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the
Devil and
> Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and
his
> angels were cast out with him.
> The devil is Satan is the serpent of old etc. the original liar!
Satan is the Father is Lies, but not the original Liar.
Royce Buehler
>
> --
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:29:22 GMT, <3AB6CF02...@earthlink.net> Royce
> Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
> >
> >Mordecai:
> >> The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
> >> I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
> >> IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
> >> desires ...
> >>
> >> Sound a bit strange?
>
> >Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
> >it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
> >*desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
> >(As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
> >
> >One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
> >is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> > Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> > [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
> >One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
> >Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
> >the deed of murder?
>
> Both of you err. Sin entered the world before Cain and Abel.
I agree that it did. Try reading for comprehension. I don't
know whether Mordecai thinks that the first human sin took
place in the Cain and Abel incident; but what he *said* was,
that the C&A story is the "first mention of sin." I.e., that
the word "sin" doesn't appear earlier in Genesis.
[Snip remainder. I'm always happy to discuss theology with
people of some good will. It's pointless to discuss theology with
rabid anti-Semites.]
Royce Buehler
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 06:01:08 GMT, <3ADA8B18...@earthlink.net> Royce
> Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2 wrote:
> >Please answer the questions you've dodged thus far.
>
> I have NOT dodged and once again you are lying. I have already answered each and
> every question you have asked and I will prove so by showing the posts and their
> message IDs and other critical data.
Beg pardon? You had answered none of them. I asked the question
twice again in posts last night. The message ID you show below
is for a post of yours that fell between my two. That post had
not appeared on my newsreader when I noted, truly, that you had
dodged the questions so far.
Thank you for answering two of the three.
> >(1) Did Hitler order the murder of millions of Jews?
, so I'll ask it again.
> >Were millions of Jews murdered under Hitler's orders, or weren't they?
>
> I do not know the quantity of Jews killed BUT I never denied that Nazis
> had killed Jews!
You can't even bring yourself to say "The Nazis killed Jews" -
just "I never denied that Nazis had killed Jews." (Your instinct
is always to phrase things in a way that places as little
blame as possible on Hitler or the Nazis.) You deny that
it is a historical fact that they killed millions of Jews -
you claim that it's not known whether they killed as many as
"millions".
That weak-kneed non-answer shows that you are in fact a Holocaust
denier, just as I stated. You could not bring yourself to affirm
the simple fact of history that millions of Jews were murdered
under Hitler's orders. Thank you for making your disagreement
with historians clear.
Historians don't say "it's unknown" whether millions of Jews were
killed. It is perfectly well known - and as someone obsessed
with hating Jews, you cannot be merely ignorant of the evidence.
You know the evidence; you know it is solid and unanswerable;
you know that Hitler had millions of Jews killed. But you do
not wish to acknowledge the truth, because it might tend to
support some sympathy toward Jews - and you wish to have the
Jews hated, at all costs.
> >I do not know whether your campaign of let's-hate-the-Jews is like
> >Willie Martin's, ultimately aimed at killing them all.
>
> Once again personal attack, smear, innuendo and now implied guilt by
> implied association.
On the contrary, I was saying I didn't know whether you were guilty,
or ought to be associated with Mr. Martin's views. That's why
I was asking the questions. And asking them again. And asking
them again. Until you answered.
> > When the Identity adherent Burford shot up the Jewish day care
> > center in California last year, was that morally wrong?
>
> YES
>
> > If Christians rounded up all or almost all the Jews over the next
> > month or two, and killed them, would that be morally wrong?
>
> YES
>
> Are you satisfied? I went on public record again for you!
Yes, unlike your non-answer to the question about the Holocaust,
those were straightforward, unequivocal answers. I asked you
to surprise me pleasantly with those two answers, and you did.
(And I didn't expect to be surprised by your non-answer to the
Holocaust question; and I wasn't.)
> >I honestly don't know what your answers
> >to 2 and 3 would be. Please surprise me pleasantly.
>
> I've already answered but you were too quick to make more personal
> attacks and evidently you missed it!
You make many essentially identical posts every day; it is scarcely
out of line for your opponents to ask identical questions twice
in one day. Your "already answered" crossed my second
posing of the question in the mail, so I hadn't seen it.
Pertinent questions are not "personal attacks."
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 03:29:22 GMT, <3AB6CF02...@earthlink.net> Royce
Buehler <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Warning: lots of tentative thinking out loud in this one.
>
>Mordecai:
>> The first mention of sin in the Tanach is Cain and Abel [...]
>> I assume you have read the story - and the key is that sin was at his door and
>> IF this is so, then its desires became Cain's and Cain would have control of the
>> desires ...
>>
>> Sound a bit strange?
>Genesis always sounds strange, and stranger the longer you look at
>it. But does it really say that Cain would have control of the
>*desires*? Seems like it says he will have control of the sin.
>(As long as we're drawing fine distinctions.)
>
>One fascinating thing about God's oracle to Cain is that it
>is almost a duplication of the curse on Eve:
> Your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you...
> [Sin's] desire will be to you, and you will rule over it...
>One almost wonders whether sin is in a "crouching" position at
>Cain's door because it is in the pangs of giving birth. Say, to
>the deed of murder?
Both of you err. Sin entered the world before Cain and Abel.
Do either of you know what the first sin was and who committed it?
Scroll down for the answer.
The very first recorded commandment was:
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Notice man "became a living soul" and was not given a soul?
15 And the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it
and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.
For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The above was the first commandment given to mankind.
Here comes the first sin and most people always get it wrong! The first sin was
a LIE and it was told by the serpent. It was not Eve eating from the "tree of
the knowledge of good and evil."
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of
the garden,
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
The first sin was a lie and it was told by the "serpent" who is later identified
Revelation 12
7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;
and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the Devil and
Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and his
angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit
and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and
Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Remember what Jesus said of the Devil:
John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was
a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar
and the father of it.
The devil is Satan is the serpent of old etc. the original liar!
--digsig
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:59 -0400, <TcDC6.93$7T....@news2.atl> "Charles
Carter" <ccc3...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2" <doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM>
>wrote in message news:embldt03gvvtqa6uu...@4ax.com...
>
>Actually, no. The serpent never told a lie, not as we commonly define
>untruths, anyway.
Yes he did. He said: "Ye shall not surely die" after God said: "Ye shall not eat
of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." That is the first recorded lie.
>> Here comes the first sin and most people always get it wrong! The first
>> sin was a LIE and it was told by the serpent. It was not Eve eating from the "tree
>> of the knowledge of good and evil."
>>
>> Genesis 3
>> 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
>> LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not
>> eat of every tree of the garden'?"
>> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the
>> trees of the garden,
>> 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
>> hath said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
>> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
>> 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?
>> And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
>> 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou
>> art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
>> belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
>> 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
>> and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
>What insured death for humanity was the posting of the cherubim at the gate
>of the Garden to guard the Tree of Life.
That would be a valid observation.
>If, after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge the man and woman
>had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived.
I don't dwell on conjecture but I don't see any wrong in it. You do present a
rather evoking thought. God is the ultimate giver and taker of life etc. The
logic does whirl...
>Ch. 3, verses 22-24. The serpent said, "You shall not surely die," and as
>far as we know from the Scripture, that was the absolute truth.
How is that? I don't follow the teaching that the souls is immortal. Souls
perish and there are examples of souls being put to death by the sword. Also man
became a living soul- he didn't receive a soul.
King James Version cited:
Joshua 10
28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword,
and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were
therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto
the king of Jericho.
29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and
fought against Libnah:
30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of
Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were
therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto
the king of Jericho.
31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and
encamped against it, and fought against it:
32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were
therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and
his people, until he had left him none remaining.
34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they
encamped against it, and fought against it:
35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and
all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all
that he had done to Lachish.
36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they
fought against it:
37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king
thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he
left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed
it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.
38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against
it:
39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they
smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that
were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to
Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.
40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the
vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but
utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it
became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
>Not true, either about the serpent being Satan.
>1. The Bible never explicitly identifies the serpent with Satan.
I take this to mean the serpent of old is Satan:
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the
Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
>2. The passage in Revelation 12 referred to leaves out verses 1-6, which
>makes it clear that the war in Heaven, and the fall of Lucifer, occured
>after the birth of the Child, not before.
I never said Satan didn'r have access to the heavenly realms.
>3. Reading the O.T. references to Satan shows that during the O.T. period,
>Satan was still a resident of Heaven and a loyal servant of the Lord God.
Let the reader decide:
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to
number Israel.
Job 2
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before
the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the
LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down
in it.
3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there
is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth
God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou
movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath
will he give for his life.
5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will
curse thee to thy face.
6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore
boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
Psalm 109
5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Zechariah 3
1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD,
and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD
that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee
>Satan is alway protrayed as doing God's will, never as being disobdient.
If he was obedient then why was he rebuked? Satan is always referred to in a
negative light- attcking God's people etc.
>4. Reading the many, many passages in the O.T. describing the rebellion and
>disobedience of the people of Israel, the inspired writers never, not one
>single time, attribute the cause to Satan.
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to
number Israel.
> The first time Satan appears as the enemy of the Almighty is after the
> baptism of the Christ during the temptation in the wilderness.
Not so. The scriptures above are all Old Testament.
>> Revelation 12
>> 7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the
>> dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
>> 8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
>> 9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the
>> Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and
>> his angels were cast out with him.
>>
>> The devil is Satan is the serpent of old etc. the original liar!
>Satan is the Father is Lies, but not the original Liar.
The Father of lies is the originator.
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
cgaKfefrdlPQqXxghOzMRwzPIx79lb0iezlID6Gm
4emUJel7wHdYRkDXu9rTA0Q6+ZtY+L+Sh6koQ9J6I
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
So what? What does the Bible say about the first HUMAN sin?
Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is
no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him
that was to come.
Who was the man that sin entered the owrld through? Adam or Cain?
ADAM!
You get slam dunked again so now more personmal attack will come my way as
usual.
> Try reading for comprehension.
Heed your own advice!! Read the Bible instead of all the
doctrines of men gobbledegook you read.
Why were Adam and Eve booted out of Eden? They sinned!
They sinned before there was Cain and Abel. They broke
the first commandment! God only commanded one thing
and they broke it. Live with it Royce!
Genesis 2
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man
whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to
the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress
it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Is not breaking a commandment a sin Royce? In the beginning there was but one
commandment!
Leviticus 4:2 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, `If a soul shall sin
through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD ..."
Leviticus 5:17 "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are
forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he knew it not, yet
is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity."
1 Samuel 15:24 "And Saul said unto Samuel, "I have sinned; for I have
transgressed the commandment of the LORD ..."
Again: "[T]he LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it..." Genesis 2:16, 17
>I don't know whether Mordecai thinks that the first human sin took
>place in the Cain and Abel incident; but what he *said* was,
>that the C&A story is the "first mention of sin." I.e., that
>the word "sin" doesn't appear earlier in Genesis.
>[Snip remainder. I'm always happy to discuss theology with
>people of some good will. It's pointless to discuss theology with
>rabid anti-Semites.]
You set yourself on high and judge when it is not YOUR station. You can't and
you haven't nor have you ever refuted what I've posted and as usual you hide
behind demonizing those who expose your proud ignorance. All you can do is make
personal attack and smear and because I post scriptures which make you uneasy
you resort to playing the anti-Semitic card. You're a loser Royce and you will
always be as long as you have to resort to smear.
Admit it- I slam dunked you again in this post as well as your implying not all
homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible among other things.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=digsig=&rnum=1&seld=901571881&ic=1
I could care less if you ever reply to another one of my posts but as long as
you do I will use your pride against you and slam dunk you again which of course
will result in more personal attacks- BUT I don't care. You are showing your
self for what you are. Read my sig line Royce and try to get the sense of it.
BTW I am not even mad at you or hate you.
Doc Tavish
---
"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or
falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. It is written:
"`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every
tongue will confess to God.'" So then, each of us will give an account of
himself to God." Romans 14:5,11,12
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
kMIEfSluz0zuLIrhergjxht4WVwCOvcDv2ltxW/m
4UJHlh8F0ZJdT1Q7owrzGvQLcIRsra68UrAEAVCUm
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:23:59 -0400, <TcDC6.93$7T....@news2.atl> "Charles
Carter" <ccc3...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2" <doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM>
>wrote in message news:embldt03gvvtqa6uu...@4ax.com...
>
>Actually, no. The serpent never told a lie, not as we commonly define
>untruths, anyway.
Yes he did. He said: "Ye shall not surely die" after God said: "Ye shall not eat
of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." That is the first recorded lie.
>> Here comes the first sin and most people always get it wrong! The first
>> sin was a LIE and it was told by the serpent. It was not Eve eating from the "tree
>> of the knowledge of good and evil."
>>
>> Genesis 3
>> 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
>> LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, `Ye shall not
>> eat of every tree of the garden'?"
>> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the
>> trees of the garden,
>> 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
>> hath said, `Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.'"
>> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
>> 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?
>> And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
>> 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou
>> art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
>> belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
>> 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
>> and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
>What insured death for humanity was the posting of the cherubim at the gate
>of the Garden to guard the Tree of Life.
That would be a valid observation.
>If, after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge the man and woman
>had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived.
I don't dwell on conjecture but I don't see any wrong in it. You do present a
rather evoking thought. God is the ultimate giver and taker of life etc. The
logic does whirl...
>Ch. 3, verses 22-24. The serpent said, "You shall not surely die," and as
>far as we know from the Scripture, that was the absolute truth.
How is that? I don't follow the teaching that the souls is immortal. Souls
King James Version cited:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it
became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
>Not true, either about the serpent being Satan.
>1. The Bible never explicitly identifies the serpent with Satan.
I take this to mean the serpent of old is Satan:
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the
Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him.
>2. The passage in Revelation 12 referred to leaves out verses 1-6, which
>makes it clear that the war in Heaven, and the fall of Lucifer, occured
>after the birth of the Child, not before.
I never said Satan didn't have access to the heavenly realms.
>3. Reading the O.T. references to Satan shows that during the O.T. period,
>Satan was still a resident of Heaven and a loyal servant of the Lord God.
Let the reader decide:
>Satan is alway protrayed as doing God's will, never as being disobdient.
If he was obedient then why was he rebuked? Satan is always referred to in a
negative light- attacking God's people etc.
>4. Reading the many, many passages in the O.T. describing the rebellion and
>disobedience of the people of Israel, the inspired writers never, not one
>single time, attribute the cause to Satan.
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to
number Israel.
> The first time Satan appears as the enemy of the Almighty is after the
> baptism of the Christ during the temptation in the wilderness.
Not so. The scriptures above are all Old Testament.
>> Revelation 12
>> 7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the
>> dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
>> 8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
>> 9 And the great dragon was cast out -- that serpent of old called the
>> Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and
>> his angels were cast out with him.
>>
>> The devil is Satan is the serpent of old etc. the original liar!
>Satan is the Father is Lies, but not the original Liar.
The Father of lies is the originator.
--digsig
Authentic Doc Tavish
Chyeer+xvAMg6mRtq2niuMN+bMnEkGsy0ShVPm2xATn
cgaKfefrdlPQqXxghOzMRwzPIx79lb0iezlID6Gm
4emUJel7wHdYRkDXu9rTA0Q6+ZtY+L+Sh6koQ9J6I
Mordecai!
Royce Buehler wrote:
Actually, Doc Tavish is the perfect example of this type of sin.
Hear his words ...
I don't care if you do not reply to me ... when you said "I will not debate with you."
This is of course the defence against being ignored ... a bravado "I do not care" which
shows he does but has defences up against an eventuality.
This in turn implies the drive is to be heard ... and respected.
Not that this is hard to see - for the words fo the Almighty to Cain were ...
Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well,
sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
See the first part ... "if you do well, you will be accepted" which is a most basic of
human desires and quite normal. It is used to sell products, the idea that this product
will make you acceptable ...
The next part, breaks the thread which a human would say "and if you do NOT do well, you
would be rejected" ... but instead of condemnation, the logic turns and makes the
statement that "if you don't do well, sin lies at the door." Not even you have sinned,
but the influence is there. It then moves a further step in the logic of And sin is a
nasty sort of thing for it has desires and these desires become yours ... and you shall
rule over them ...
The wisdom of this is profound for there is no words of rebuke and condemnation. Wisdom
yes ... warnings yes, explanation of the emotional state Cain was in ... but in no way
dealing with the real problem or providing a real solution. it was indeed the choice of
Cain and the analysis of how the Almighty played on the emotions of Cain to encourage him
to choose well, to turn from the path he decided to take ...
Now Doc denies he is angry as he calls you all sorts of vile names, and claiming you are
doing it to him.
He has tracked down every post you have written looking for weapons to attack you ...
look how far back he has gone seeking to find an excuse to blame and condemn.
Hardly a man in charge, but someone with a raging drive ... but ask him and it is not
anger ... as he screams abuse, it ain't anger ... so I am afraid I conclude again that
the drive and desire is anger despite his denial.
As collateral proof, I predicted this in my post to you, and the prediction has come
true.
So I can say he is driven by anger ... and the passion is rather obvious.
And anger can spill to violence easily ... which it did in Cain ... to murder.
Deeds come from passions, but passions do not necessarily lead to deeds. They can be
controlled. In fact Doc has great walls of defence to keep his passions under control.
Thus he denies it is anger for he has anger under control - he is merely ... reacting to
...and it is OK to react to ... and it is ok to lie and take things out of context
because you are ... and this is not anger but righteous response.
Don't laugh ... he is trying to keep his passions under control. Defence mechanisms have
kept him alive.
But go back to the original comment I made about him ... the sin. I spoke a little about
it - and mentioned that the sin was not his but was passed to him from the previous
generation. Through abuse ...
And he goes and picks this teaching to rebuke us .... sigh.
You notice how well he fits into my model ... which might imply my model is indeed a
reflection of the model of the Almighty?
I have psychological and spiritual models based on such ideas ...they are not merely
intellectual models but rather practical things which allow me to help people recover
from abuse and to grow in the more important things than deeds.
You notice how in this analysis, set between the getting of the sin by Cain, and the
outcome of the sin, as the Almighty tried to encourage Cain to walk in the better path -
but left the decision in his hand or rather in his heart? The psychology of the Almighty
is as profound as the study of the concept of Sin ... and again the principles I use are
found in the way I watch him work.
***********************************************
Now ... seeing the analysis of Doc above, and the excusing of his conduct because the sin
does not belong to him but to another ... and knowing the Almighty redeems the soul, what
can be done to help Doc?
There is one deed I react to, the effects of the sin on Doc, the self hatred and self
destructive behaviour. The desire for death as a way out ...
How can we bless him?
Mordecai!
Royce Buehler
In article <3ADC5648...@ace.net.au>,
"Mordecai!" <mld...@ace.net.au> writes:
>
[snip thoughtful analysis of Cain story in relation to Doc Tavish's
posts]
> Don't laugh ... he is trying to keep his passions under control. Defence mechanisms have
> kept him alive.
No laughter here. You're probably right.
[more snips]
> Now ... seeing the analysis of Doc above, and the excusing of his conduct because the sin
> does not belong to him but to another ... and knowing the Almighty redeems the soul, what
> can be done to help Doc?
>
> There is one deed I react to, the effects of the sin on Doc, the self hatred and self
> destructive behaviour. The desire for death as a way out ...
My first instinct is to defend his intended victims, and my first
energies will always go into that effort. But what you say
about his self hatred and self destructive path is also valid,
and helping him is certainly a desirable goal.
> How can we bless him?
Other than praying for him, frankly, I'm stumped on that.
Always open to suggestions though. Tavish isn't the only damaged
soul on the Net clinging to hatred as if it were his salvation.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
homophobics to be false, give it up already.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
PS Shorten your posts, so each point may be addressed. Not that you
covered anything that hasn't been addressed already.
You have ONLY biased English translations, and NOTHING else to back
you/
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
they win by default. And lack the guts to test it in small chunks
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
THE REAL NIZKOR WATCH _ R 2
christi...@ev1.net (Glenn (Christian Mystic)) wrote:
>They think that as no one wants to respond to two mile long posts that
>they win by default. And lack the guts to test it in small chunks
As a witness should I not tell the truth- the whole truth?
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
translations.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:35:38 GMT, <3ade327a...@news.ev1.net>
>christi...@ev1.net (Glenn (Christian Mystic)) wrote:
>
>>They think that as no one wants to respond to two mile long posts that
>>they win by default. And lack the guts to test it in small chunks
>
>As a witness should I not tell the truth- the whole truth?
By your headers, I strongly doubt that you are presenting the truth.
But lets say you were, it is far better to present the "whole truth"
in smaller bites so it can be digested.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)