Texan Bigotry

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again the question, "where does scripture condemn incest", the answer is in Lot's daughters.

Where exactly is the condemning?

And the New Living Translation isn't a conservative translation, Imran.

It tends to be the conservatives who advocate for it. The liberals tend to like things like NRSV or some versions of the NIV (even though the NIV was created with conservative evangelicals in mind)

Vulgate has it:

"Dixitque major ad minorem: Pater noster senex est, et nullus virorum remansit in terra, qui possit ingredi ad nos juxta morem universæ terræ."

juxta morem universae terrae, As is the custom of the entire world.

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in Latin .

[Ben Kenobi]

I just told you, the subject was divorce without cause - thats what Jesus was addressing - not sexual immorality or polygamy

Jesus goes on to address that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Again, I see your argument, I just don't see how Matthew 19 backs you up here. Jesus is rather clear here.

let men not separate... without justification

That interpolation isn't in the text, Berz.

What was not so?

Divorce, period.

There were only 2 people in the Garden, polygamy involves 3 or more.

And this is significant. If polygamy were the intended ideal, wouldn't God have created more than one woman for Adam?

So when Jesus criticized easy divorce laws allowing men to dump their wives, he was actually accusing patriarchs of sin for not dumping their wives?

No, he was accusing the Israelites of sinning when they divorced their wives. Sinning when they took up another wife. Saying that both were contrary to God's ideal of marriage.

You said people were made for monogamous marriage, but Jesus said those who can accept it should accept it.

They are. If they were not made for marriage than why did God create Eve for Adam?

I didn't mention Islam, I said Arabs. And many Arabs claim Abraham as their father thru Hagar and Ishmael - and God says he made a great nation from their marriage and offspring.

Only AFTER Muhammed. There's no record of them making this claim prior.

The Bible says Ishmael fathered 12 princes and became a great nation.

And one of them is the English! Another one of them are Norwegians. One of them is the French. Another one is the Russians. Then you have the Germans! Gosh, isn't genealogy fun? All of us are descended from Abraham!

Yes it is, Hagar was Abraham's wife too. Many of the patriarchs were polygamists, your interpretation requires us to believe the OT was wrong when it describes them as wives.

No, it's not, Berz. In order to be married in the Church, you would have to divorce your other wives and choose one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where exactly is the condemning?

What happens to the Ammonites?

It tends to be the conservatives who advocate for it. The liberals tend to like things like NRSV or some versions of the NIV (even though the NIV was created with conservative evangelicals in mind)

So you're saying that my citation of the NIV, (which is used by conservative Evangelicals), is less viable among Conservatives than your liberal translation. I see. Fun game, Imran.

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in Latin

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in English. The Vulgate is much older and much closer to the date of composition than the English translation in the NIV. And the Vulgate has that passage that (oddly enough), the liberal New Living Translation omits. Curious that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Bible says Ishmael fathered 12 princes and became a great nation.

Indeed so:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of 12 rulers, and I will make them into a great nation.
—Genesis 17:20

What other great nation has arisen in that area of the world?

[Ben Kenobi]

What other great nation has arisen in that area of the world?

That's an argument from silence. If Arabs really were descended from Ishmael, why don't Arab Christians claim this prior to Muhammed?

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's a hint, Muhammed claimed this for the same reason as Joseph Smith claimed it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What happens to the Ammonites?

Considering that Justin Martyr still spoke of their existence in the 2nd century, I assume they intermarried with other folks and a great Mesopotamian blend occurred.

So you're saying that my citation of the NIV, (which is used by conservative Evangelicals), is less viable among Conservatives than your liberal translation. I see. Fun game, Imran.

You mean the conservative NIV that is used by many Anglicans and Presbyterians, who are obviously super liberals . NLT is a conservative evangelical translation. To call it a "liberal translation" is to be stunningly ignorant.

The fun part is that if you read your NIV test the "custom" part comes right after "children".

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in English. The Vulgate is much older and much closer to the date of composition than the English translation in the NIV. And the Vulgate has that passage that (oddly enough), the liberal New Living Translation omits. Curious that.

The Vulgate doesn't use the best in Biblical scholarship (ie, the Dead Sea Scrolls are unknown to it). I'll use translations to go to the oldest Greek and Hebrew, rather than some Latin piss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's an argument from silence. If Arabs really were descended from Ishmael, why don't Arab Christians claim this prior to Muhammed?

Yay for stepping right into this (it was way too easy)!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

Some Pre-Islamic poetry mentions Ishmael, his father Abraham, and the sacrifice story, such as the Pre-Islamic poet "Umayyah Ibn Abi As-Salt", who said in one of his poems: بكره لم يكن ليصبر عنه أو يراه في معشر أقتال ([The sacrifice] of his first-born of whose separation he [Abraham] could not bear neither could he see him surrounded in foes).[17][18][19]
"Zayd Ibn Amr" was another Pre-Islamic figure who refused idolatry and preached monotheism, claiming it was the original belief of their [Arabs] father Ishmael.[20][21]
Also, some of the tribes of Central West Arabia called themselves the "people of Abraham and the offspring of Ishmael", as evidenced by a common opening of speeches and harangues of reconciliation between rival tribes in that area.[22][23]

[Ben Kenobi]

Nikolai believes a lot of the same stuff as you. People do not think Nikolai is a lying scumbag with no moral compass or human empathy. Put your victim card away, you're embarrassing yourself.

We have evidence in this thread showing the same people who are rude and hostile to me are also rude and hostile to Nikolai. For the exact same reason, they believe his beliefs (and my beliefs) are stupid. They are willing to apologize so that they can save face. Not because they are actually sorry but they know that this entire facade collapses unless they treat Nikolai differently from me.

Lots of repulsive bigots also spread their vile filth without resorting to personal attacks.

Christianity is 'vile filth'?

This not not make them any less bigoted or repulsive.

The only bigots here are conservative Christians. This is a fact.

Just a hint though, when you drop into someones thread celebrating their engagement and **** all over it, that is a form of personal attack.

When the person warns them saying that "this won't end well", is that a personal attack?

You are a compulsive liar. Would you care to disagree?

Where's the evidence? You said, "I was afraid to challenge", and here you are without evidence.

Absolutely. You are everything that is wrong with the world rolled up into a single waste of human body parts.

Hey if you submit it you might make "Apolyton's top 100 insults!"

[Ben Kenobi]

Your source for this is... Wikipedia? Not a reliable source!

Let's dig into the citations...

First source dates to the 8th century.

Second source is Ibn Kaldun writing in the 14th century.

Third source:

"The Signs of Prophethood" Ooh. That sounds like a reliable source!

Fourth Source

"The Collection of the Speeches of Arabs"

No ISBN Number, no reference anywhere. Gosh. All the sources are Islamic and the earliest dates to the eighth century. Next?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also:

http://unsettledchristianity.com/category/bible-translation/nlt-bible-translation/

So, now comes the inevitable question: Would I recommend the NLT Chronological Life Application Study Bible? I would, but not because of some forlorn loyalty to the translation who kept me reading Scripture. Nor would I because I was provided this as a review copy. There is nothing to actually make me recommended a bible except for the fact that it is a good one. Yes, it is geared to more conservative Christians, including a Christian Worker’s Resource Guide that is, in fact, not about labor unions. Yes, it is deeply evangelical. But it is a solid translation for reading.

It is also a bible endorsed by that great liberal, Billy Graham .

“The Life Application Study Bible is a great step forward in helping Christians apply the Bible’s life-changing message in their own lives.”
Dr. Billy Graham
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/lasb.asp

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your source for this is... Wikipedia? Not a reliable source!

So you have no reasonable response. Check.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering that Justin Martyr still spoke of their existence in the 2nd century, I assume they intermarried with other folks and a great Mesopotamian blend occurred.

Numbers states that they were dispossessed. Gosh. That sounds like they found favor from God because of incest!

NLT is a conservative evangelical translation. To call it a "liberal translation" is to be stunningly ignorant.

It's a liberal translation. It's got Gender inclusive language.

The fun part is that if you read your NIV test the "custom" part comes right after "children".

The fun part is when I read the Vulgate, it includes sections that the 'conservative' New Liberal Translation excludes. One would think that a 'conservative' translation would be faithful to earlier translations.

The Vulgate doesn't use the best in Biblical scholarship

True, it uses sources that are no longer extant. It had the original Septuagint.

(ie, the Dead Sea Scrolls are unknown to it). I'll use translations to go to the oldest Greek and Hebrew, rather than some Latin piss.

The Greek says the same thing. You'd rather use English inclusive language piss and lie about it being 'conservative'. No, it's not a 'conservative translation'.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you have no reasonable response. Check.

Of the four 'sources', only two are actually citations, and of the two, one is from the 14th century and another is from the 9th century. All are Islamic. All postdate Muhammed confirming my statement that Islam made this up for the same reason Joseph Smith made it up.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is also a bible endorsed by that great liberal, Billy Graham

It's got inclusive language. It's not a 'conservative' translation, no matter what the ad copy you cite claims. I *was* an Evangelical, and we had "New Liberal Translations" available back then too. Just as liberal then as now.