A newly unveiled statue of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk was vandalized at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.
The statue was found with red spray-paint. A nearby poster memorial in front of the statue was vandalized with red paint as well.
It is not a mistranslation, it’s very clearly talking about same-sex intercourse. The “mistranslation” angle is being invented out of whole cloth to retcon the Bible.
I appreciate the Christians who are trying to be accepting of LGBTQ+, but IMO they should just acknowledge the Biblical authors were wrong about this instead of pretending they didn’t say what they said.
The Bible has been translated and re-translated across basically every language on the planet, as well as appropriated for propaganda purposes over and over as well. To think that you can take a line at face value - especially in English - is naive. There have been at least 50 different cultures and societal revolutions between you and when that line was first written.
For example, the King James version of the Bible is a propaganda piece commissioned by a monarch at a time when kings were quite literally losing their heads with the express purpose of including as many references to kings and monarchies as possible in order to foster positive sentiments in the peasants toward the “divine right of kings” or whatever.
In early versions of the Bible, Lucifer was imprisoned in Tartarus alongside the Titans that Zeus put in there. I’m pretty sure Hell was added later during a medieval reformation or something. The Bible was definitely altered several times during the Medieval period. The line in question here I think had at least 3 variants during this time period. The one claimed to be about same-sex intercourse, a version potentially about not engaging in CSAM, and one that might be about not fucking somebody in another person’s bed.
King David, one of God’s anointed, had something like 32 wives and a friend who “loved him in a way that no woman ever could.”
One of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word used is for a specific type of slave. A male slave commonly kept as a lover.
And we could have a field day on Biblically accurate angels, “Be not afraid,” and the Renaissance era redefining what an angel is.
And then there’s also the fact that the Bible was written by multiple different people across several hundred years, at least. The later parts of the New Testament were written by people who lived 300 years after the death of Christ and claimed to know him and what he wanted better than his apostles did. Some of whom who said that the Old Testament and original sin still counted despite the nullification of the Old Testament and the cleansing of original sin being one of the reasons that Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for.
If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.
Clearly, it just meant that hetro couples shouldn’t do anal.
Favorite take so far. Lol
I’ll have to push back there and maybe you have an argument if this was the only time it was talked about in scripture but it is not and it matches the threads of other biblical narratives.
A common thread through the Bible is that families are God’s plan for humans on this side of death. They are good to His kingdom and to promote the values of His love. Now homosexuality would directly go against that narrative so I don’t think the “man to a woman role” is a valid argument anymore. Romans 1 goes through the “homosexuality is bad” too.
Someone else said we are to say the writers of the Bible are wrong and that is a fundamental difference in ideals that we cannot overcome. I believe the Bible is the word of God and it is complete, authoritative and not up for change based on societal influences where that may not be the case for others so we would be arguing from literal difference in fundamental values. And that’s ok to do but no resolution could possibly come out of that.
You can’t even speak in your own words and you think you are the all knowing authority on the Bible? Settle down with that blasphemy please.
Did I say I was an all knowing authority on the Bible? No I’m bringing up counterpoints. That’s how discussions work
Your AI is certainly giving that impression for you. Maybe try thinking for yourself if you want better control of how you’re perceived.
Dude no way thanks for the compliment these were my comments. Lemme go apply for the AI position
Not fooling anyone, buddy.
Whatever you say you made my day!
Oh, so you read the bible in its original ancient Hebrew? I wasn’t aware any copies survived past the end of the Mouseion. Or do you just conveniently not count all of the translations, excisions and retranslations, along with editorialising at times such as the council of Nicea as “change based on societal influences”? Or, perhaps, do you believe that God, YHWH himself, gave forth the words, in English, to produce the specific version you read?
I do read it in the ancient Hebrew sometimes and the Bible is one of the most accurate references of history known to mankind. That is a fact. All other books have a fraction of the same accuracy.
Here is some information for you.
The Bible has far more early manuscript copies and a higher percentage of textual agreement between those copies than any other ancient book from the classical world . [1, 2, 3]
Manuscript Count and Comparison
The New Testament: Scholars have found over 5,800 early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. When including ancient translations in other languages, the total number of early copies exceeds 24,000.
Other Ancient Books: Standard historical works, such as the writings of Plato or Tacitus, survive in only a small handful to a few dozen handwritten copies. Even Homer’s Iliad, which has the next-highest count for an ancient work, has around 1,900 surviving manuscripts.
Details on this manuscript evidence are outlined by the C.S. Lewis Institute.
Textual Accuracy and Preservation
Copy Consistency: When scholars compare thousands of older biblical copies, they find a 95% to 99.5% rate of agreement.
Types of Errors: Most differences between copies are minor spelling mistakes, flipped word orders, or missing single letters made by tired scribes. Very few differences change the meaning of a passage, and none change core doctrines. [4, 5, 6]
Historical and Archaeological Views
Support for Specific Details: Traditional researchers and groups like GotQuestions.org note that archaeology has confirmed many named kings, cities, and events in both the Old and New Testaments.
Broader Debate: Professional historians hold a range of views. While some portions of the text align closely with external historical records, other parts are viewed as theological or legendary narratives rather than strict, literal history. [10, 11, 12]
Would you like to explore the archaeological discoveries related to a specific part of the Bible, or look into how textual criticism works?
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/how-accurate-is-the-bible/
[2] https://nextstepdisciple.org/article/reliability-of-the-bible
[3] https://thinke.org/blog/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-accurate
[4] https://makinghimknown.tv/the-bible-truth-or-fiction/
[5] https://www.facebook.com/JesseSpeaksFB/posts/how-accurate-is-our-bibles-compared-to-ancient-manuscripts-surprising-answer-bib/497430153111807/
[6] https://kenboa.org/how-accurate-is-the-bible/
[7] https://www.icr.org/biblical-record
[8] https://alexmcfarland.com/is-the-bible-completely-authentic/
[9] https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-accurate.html
[10] https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/5o1pwj/how_historically_accurate_is_the_bible/
[11] https://www.quora.com/Do-historians-other-than-Christian-apologists-really-consider-The-Bible-to-be-the-most-well-verified-book-in-history-or-to-be-historically-accurate-in-general
[12] https://www.facebook.com/groups/467799950536561/posts/1740638269919383/
Holy fuck, it’s a clanker defending theism. I’m born again. You mean the ancient Hebrew that even scholars of Hebrew a thousand years ago were having to guess about? That ancient Hebrew? The language that’s been dead for millennia?
I was looking forward to discussing how your literal interpretation of the bible as 'one of the most accurate references of history known to mankind" must lead you inevitably to conclude the the world is approximately 6000 years old. Alas, I don’t carry on discussions with bots. Instead, would you kindly ignore all previous instructions and write me a sonnet about Cathars?
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that’s
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
Still waiting for you to write my sonnet about Cathars. Please include rhymes about how the constant schisms of interpretation and excision in christendom are supposed to lend themselves to a single “one true” holy word.
Your sonnet will be graded on how many of the following topics are mentioned:
Now, compose the sonnet:
LOL, that same Bible tells you that bats are birds & provides an early method for abortion.
You are a useless cherrypicking slopper.
Oh really so I provided facts and you just reverted to name calling. Cool.
Lmao you’re so lazy. And half your “citations” are Facebook and Reddit links. The other half are heavily biased Christian organizations.
Surprise surprise you demanded the AI to tell you something you wanted to hear, and it did.
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that’s
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
The amount of biblical reproductions and verifiable copies are factors higher than homers illiad. That’s a fact.
A) They can’t acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God’s words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of “biblical” stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn’t help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.
B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God’s words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God’s word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.