Is there scriptual support against premarital sex? I dont think so.

[Ted Striker]

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Well, its a good thing that I don't quote Martin Luther's version than. Strawman.

Odd, don't recall saying you did. Are you seeing things ?


I used Luther as an illustration of how a translator of a text can use their own doctrinal or political inclinations to transform or emend an original text.

The fact that you then falsely accused me of saying you had used Luther's translation and just before had asked me to prove that a translator can distort a text to suit their own purposes (implying you wouldn't dream of using such a tainted text) indicates you can't even seem to follow the thread of your own arguments.


The point, which you seem in your eagerness to mistake the trees for the wood, is that you consistently use a translation of a text that suits your doctrinal and political viewpoint.


You also ignored the point that a text which is written in a particular time and a particular context is not for all time when it deals with changing human societies and mores.


If you want it to apply to you and your lifestyle, fine. But don't use it to judge others, and don't act as though your version is the sole version or necessarily a 'correct' version.


Oh, and faux sententiousness is not a happy prose style.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Oh, and faux sententiousness is not a happy prose style.

Thats gotta hurt

but he'll have to get a dictionary

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Thats gotta hurt

but he'll have to get a dictionary

Well, I used to ignore it before, but since the conversion to unnatural gas it's been even more noticeable.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I swear he thinks he's the freakin Pope

No, he cheats. He's actually read the book being discussed, not just the Cliff notes.

[Ned]

Since no one answered my question as to what the greek word is for sexual intercourse, per se, I took a stab it myself. I came up with two words:

1. sunoursia; and
2. aphrodiria.

Now, if the writers of ancient texts wanted to condemn sex outside of marriage, why wouldn't they have used one of these words instead of a word, "porneia," that clearly relates almost exclusively to sex with a harlot, "porne."

I also find it somewhat amuzing that the footnote (Catholic Bible) to Matthew 5:32 does not refer to Matthew 9:19 in stating that this passage, with authorizes divorce, does not in fact authorize divorce, but only separation. Taken together, though, the two passages clearly authorize divorce and remarriage by both spouses if a wife commits adultery.

But the combination of the word porneia with the two Matthew verses can lead one to conclude that what is condemned is sex with harlots by married men, which, I have noted before, was not considered to be adultery under Roman Law.

[Ned]

The concept that the Church condemns sex outside "marriage," meaning, of course, formalized marriage by priest or civil authority, ignores the relationship Adam had with Eve, and indeed, almost all humans had with their spouses prior to the rise of civilization.

[Ben Kenobi]

faux sententiousness is not a happy prose style.

Why thank you molly. I think that's the best thing you've ever said about me. I didn't know you also valued humility as a virtue.

I used Luther as an illustration of how a translator of a text can use their own doctrinal or political inclinations to transform or emend an original text.

The strawman is not in citing Luther, but in applying Luther to the NIV.

I am not saying the NIV is free of these, but in order to prove the bias of the NIV, is something rather different than to prove the bias of Luther. The one bias will not necessarily resemble the other.

You also ignored the point that a text which is written in a particular time and a particular context is not for all time when it deals with changing human societies and mores.

If Christ perfectly upholds the morals of God, and God is unchanging, than his morals will be just as valid today as yesterday.

Christianity doesn't claim to be human teachings for a human society, but rather, to be the teachings of God for a human society.

don't act as though your version is the sole version or necessarily a 'correct' version.

Odd. One could say my use of the NIV is of an ecumenical bent, as this version is most certainly not the approved one for the Catholic church.

[Dinner]

Is a NIV like skvies? Because my girlfriend showed my some cute skivies she modeled for me the other night.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


No, he cheats. He's actually read the book being discussed, not just the Cliff notes.

Well I can't speak for others but I have read the bible from cover to cover, including a few chapters protestants don't read. I know it quite well.

So don't get snooty with me, you uppity heretic

[Ted Striker]

Which chapters are those?

[Alexander's Horse]

They are called "The Aprocrypha" or Deuterocanonical texts - the books of Tobit, Judith, Macabees, some other books and additions to other books.

Interestingly they were included in the original King James bible of 1611.

My bible is an ecumenical version approved by both the catholic church and the protestant national council of the churches of Christ, USA.

It was the first ever bible to be so approved

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The strawman is not in citing Luther, but in applying Luther to the NIV.

I don't have to prove the N.I.V. 's bias one way or another: I have only to show my point, that a translator changes a text when putting it into another language.


They may do so because there is a specific term that doesn't translate too easily (Weltanschauung, elan, chutzpah, manana) because there is a concept not fully understood, or non-existent in the language/culture the text is being put into, or because of their particular bias, be it sectarian or political, and so on.


I fail to see what's ecumenical about your use of the N.I.V.- Roman Catholicism may be the latest sect you've joined, but your use of a particular version of the Bible is your choice, presumably because it suits your viewpoints.

English Presbyterians or Scots Calvinists may quote from the Authorized King James Version rather than the Geneva Bible, but it makes them no more ecumenical than me- it could simply be they recognise good prose when they see it.

I know that many evangelicals favour the N.I.V and many don't; I'm also aware that there have been (and presumably will be) many translations of the Bible into English and other languages, and that differing Christian sects prefer their interpretations and their translations to others.

Presumably you don't favour the Quakers' injunction against oath-taking- for which they cite Biblical justification. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses' injunctions against celebrating birthdays, Christmas or the transfusion of whole blood- for which again they cite Biblical precedent.


With regard to your prose style- snippy comments about humility don't enter into it- I've studied the English language and literature in English and thought I'd just give you the benefit of my experience.

[Alexander's Horse]

and as literature goes the King James is a masterpiece, unfortunately its riddle with errors.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Very true. Both quote the same passage in Genesis, which is something I wondered if LoTM would be willing to admit.

Thank you for further establishing my argument, Boris.

Oy, im no expert on the dating of Matthew. But why does that matter? I assume, for the purpose of this arguement, that Matthew is quoting JC correctly - and the original quote antedates Pauls letter - Paul could have had that quote from an oral tradition - whatever source Matthew got it from. My point is to AGREE that both NT quotes are in agreement.

But again if its a direct reference to the Berei****, why doesnt Paul say "it is written"?