https://www.yahoo.com/news/word-homosexual-bible-mistake-explosive-082916707.html

The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in the Bible was in 1946. That year, a committee gathered to translate an updated English version of the book from the Greek. Religious scholars, priests, theologists, linguists, anthropologists, and activists have done decades of research and investigation into the instances where the word appears in the book. Their conclusion is that it was a mistranslation.

In other words, the Biblical assertion that homosexuality is a sin—the catalyst for an entire shift in culture, with political repercussions, religious implications, consequences for LGBT rights and acceptance, and, frankly, deadly results—was, they allege, a mistake.

A grassroots campaign to promote the film on social media has gotten its official TikTok account more than 185,000 followers. That makes sense. For most people—practicing Christians or otherwise—what the film is stating is shocking.

There are layers to it: the realization that the Bible has been translated many times over the centuries, and that human error may have been involved in the process. That may be obvious, but it’s eye-opening. Moreover, there’s coming to terms with the notion that human error could be responsible for the stoking of homophobia—a mindset of hatred, oppression, and religious nationalism that has defined the last 75 years of our existence.

Before anyone has even seen the film, there has been an organized effort to attack and debunk the film’s claims. Roggio and others involved in the making of the documentary have received threats. Campaigns have been waged to get even innocuous social media posts taken down. An entire book was published to refute the evidence—even though the film has yet to be screened.

As a new film asserts, it was “the misuse of a single word that changed the course of history.”

1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture is a new documentary directed by Sharon “Rocky” Roggio. Ahead of its premiere this week at the DOC NYC festival, it has, as one might expect, gone viral within the conservative and Christian communities.

How many times did the word "abortion" appear in the buy bull ?

My guess is that it will start to show up in some future version somewhere. They'll "interpret" some lame passage to mean abortion.

I am shocked, but not as shocked as gays at BYU.

IDK of any published GA use of that word; their sayings & writings these days are so diluted & ambiguous they hardly say Anything notable.

Perhaps Boyd KKK and/or Holland?

Bottom line: Who really cares what the 'mighty 15' say anyway?

No worries for the Mormons, Spencer Kimball, with his prophetic know-it-allness, supersedes that pesky old mistranslated bible that we only believe parts of anyway.

"Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. All such deviations from normal, proper heterosexual relationships are not merely unnatural but wrong in the sight of God."

Unless a different prophet comes along with a different opinion, then Spencer was just speaking as a man. lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2022 02:21PM by eternal1.

The title of this thread sent me scurrying for my coke-bottle reading glasses and my dusty old dictionaries.

I'm not surprised the word "homosexuality" didn't appear in the Bible until 1946. In fact, the word didn't exist until the 1890s--it was a pastiche of Greek and Latin that no one with a classical education would have created--so it couldn't have shown up in any previous Bibles. Since most modern Bibles are revisions of those older ones, there would be no reason for the translators and editors to adopt the neologism.

Meanwhile Leviticus is pretty clear: it's an abomination to "lie with a man as with a woman" and anyone who does so must be put to death. It is interesting that the Biblical formulation emphasizes the act--lying with a man--and does not condemn homosexuality per se. In other words, it reflects the "hate the sin, not the sinner" platitude that we all know so well. Though trite, that distinction is in this instance important.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the Bible said nothing about a woman "lying with a woman as with a man." Perhaps God was more tolerant of the complexity of female sexuality than of men, or maybe he was so patriarchal that he didn't think women mattered one way or the other. My hunch is that YHWH was the latter sort of misogynist although the bottom line in either case is that no one who holds fast to the scriptures can cite them as justifying antipathy towards Lesbians. God only condemned homosexual acts between men.

Having said all that, the 1892 neologism and its encorporation into the Bible in 1946 is still important. Why? Because the word became the rallying cry for those who wanted to demonize a particular group of people rather than an "act" or a "behavior." A murderer could be forgiven his murder but a gay person could not be forgiven simply because he avoided gay sex: the problem was his nature. And the new intolerance of innate character now extended to women, a completely unscriptural view. Henceforth anyone born gay was evil unless s/he "converted." The change was obviously contemporaneous with the genesis of the born-again extremism--or at least its galvanization--that has caused so much harm in subsequent decades.

So yes, the adoption of a new term changed the bible. It anathematized the very nature of gay people, which YHWH had not done; and it extended the blanket condemnation to women. It is yet another example of a modern distortion of what was supposed to be the explicit word of God. And it came in an era when a big chunk of Christianity was turning towards politics and culture wars. God was brought into the movement as a sort of junior partner whose words could be fudged as necessary to support the new agenda.

there is a call on line 1 ~



for 1946 ~



from leviticus 18:22 ~

In your rush to hate "the other," you are misreading precisely that verse. You are an excellent example of someone imposing on the Bible his own politics as if God's word were a mere suggestion.

Your views are odious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2022 04:41PM by Lot's Wife.

Leviticus 20:16 "And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

The reason for leash laws.

And thou shalt not eat cheeseburgers or shrimp, nor shalt thou wear cotton-polyester blends, nor shalt thou divorce.

Any bets on whether ziller obeys those rules, which are every bit as authoritative as Leviticus 18:22?

what happens in vegas ~



stays in vegas ~

>> And thou shalt not eat cheeseburgers or shrimp, nor shalt thou wear cotton-polyester blends, nor shalt thou divorce. <<

Guilty on all counts! Well, there goes my eternal salvation. 61 years of indulgence down the drain!

If I were God, I'd save you and let you eat cheeseburgers.

But under no circumstances would it be okay to comingle red and yellow condiments lest dogs and cats start fornicating.

And don't get me started on dagny.

>> If I were God, I'd save you and let you eat cheeseburgers. <<

You are a saint oh wise one, a goddess in the making for sure.

Cheeseburgers are truly the food of the gods!

I'll have to work on the comingling of red and yellow condiments though...for I am guilty of mixing red, yellow, white and green on my hot dogs!

And if god wants tithing on a cheeseburger....I would gladly pay him Tuesday for a cheeseburger today!

It's a good thing they don't actually say what they mean! I lied down an hour ago with my dog and had a little nap. I'm waiting for the Xtian women and beast killers to show up any moment.

Anybody wrote in part:

"Before anyone has even seen the film, there has been an organized effort to attack and debunk the film’s claims. Roggio and others involved in the making of the documentary have received threats. Campaigns have been waged to get even innocuous social media posts taken down. An entire book was published to refute the evidence—even though the film has yet to be screened."

While not directly related to the film and its controversy, the above paragraph reminded me of what happened when I went to an Ozfest concert in the late 1990s where one of the performers was Marilyn Manson. When my friend and I left his automobile, we were approached by several "Christian" groups begging us not to see the Marilyn Manson portion of the show. These people said that he performed naked while onstage, and that he cut up aborted babies during his show as well.

We ignored the group entreaties and attended the show anyway. While I can't remember any of the songs he performed, my friend told me that what Marilyn Manson did while onstage was to cut himself--he looked like he had a lot of blood on him. Both of us thought that it was probably stage blood, and I didn't think anything more about it.

I've wondered since if Marilyn Manson paid some of the people who accosted us in the parking lot--I certainly think it's possible. As I think it is possible that the directors of this new film may be paying some potential critics of the film on the side to criticize the film before it's released in an effort to gain more publicity for the film.

Consider it this way. If this film were released with no negative publicity about when the word "homosexuality" was inserted in to the Bible, a lot fewer people would actually go to see it.

Nothing of what I've just said means that I support those who oppose this documentary; only that I think that the opposition may have been given advanced notice about the movie to generate some extra publicity to encourage people to see it.

No matter the text, it's the interpretation that counts.

Note: This is from 2015.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/05/us/samesex-scriptures.html


The debate over gay marriage is not just taking place in the nation’s courts – it is also a subject of intense discussion in the nation’s churches.

Matthew Vines, an openly gay, evangelical Christian and the author of “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” has been actively encouraging conservative Christians to re-evaluate their beliefs about homosexuality. He has engaged them in private conversations, in public talks and through the organization he founded, the Reformation Project.

He was recently invited by the Rev. Caleb Kaltenbach, lead pastor of Discovery Church in Simi Valley, Calif,, to talk privately with a small group of evangelical leaders to discuss what the Bible says about gay relationships. Mr. Kaltenbach is the author of the forthcoming book “Messy Grace,” which is about how he reconciles his conservative Christian convictions with his experience as the child of gay parents.

After the session, they were each asked to interpret some of the most cited verses relating to homosexuality in the Bible. (Text from the New International Version, 1984 edition.)




Romans 1:26-27

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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"


Caleb Kaltenbach
Lead pastor of Discovery Church in Simi Valley, Calif.

In this passage, Paul, who was quite familiar with biblical and secular views of sexual orientation, says that having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin. Some interpret this passage as a reference to heterosexuals who exchanged their natural sexual orientation for that which was not natural to them. The word that Paul uses for “natural” is not referring to what is natural to a specific person, but rather what is natural in light of God's intent for the sexual design of humanity. Ultimately, the passage serves as an introduction to verses 28-32, where Paul lists many other general sins that ultimately show our need for the Gospel.


Matthew Vines
Author of “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.”

Paul is explicit that the same-sex behavior in this passage is motivated by lust. His description is similar to the common ancient idea that people “exchange” opposite-sex for same-sex relations because they are driven by out-of-control desire, not because they have a different sexual orientation. And while Paul labels same-sex behavior “unnatural,” he uses the same word to criticize long hair in men in 1 Corinthians 11:14, which most Christians read as a synonym for “unconventional.” Christians should continue to affirm with Paul that we shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness. But that’s very different than same-sex marriages that are based on self-giving love, and we shouldn’t conflate the two in how we interpret this text today.




Leviticus 18:22

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



Caleb Kaltenbach

God’s prohibition always has positive intentions. While no longer under the Law, Christians see the Law as a moral compass with principles for holy living. The Bible doesn’t have middle ground on same-sex relationships, monogamous or not. God reserves sex for marriage between a man and woman, because sex is a unique foundation of intimacy. Imagine all the evils, struggles and pain that could be avoided in relationships if we really followed God’s principles. When sex is only seen as a benefit for individuals rather than a foundation of social structures, it becomes selfish and manipulative.




Matthew Vines

Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law, and the New Testament teaches that Christians should live under the new covenant rather than the old one. Consequently, this verse has never applied to Christians. For a man to lie with a man “as with a woman” violated the patriarchal gender norms of the ancient world, which is likely why Leviticus prohibited it. But the New Testament casts a vision of God’s kingdom in which the hierarchy between men and women is overcome in Christ. So not only is Leviticus’s prohibition inapplicable to Christians on its own, the rationale behind it doesn’t extend to Christians, either.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2022 05:08PM by anybody.