Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a WIFE..

[Nooj]

Good point. Marriage is also for procreation...which is only possible when there is a man and a woman.

I guess those infertile couples will just have to split up.

 

[Brieuse]

The Bible has NOTHING good to say concerning ANYTHING about homosexuality --------------- I wonder why?

The Bible has nothing good to say about my car I drive. I wonder why?

But your post I replied to

"HE who finds a MALE MATE finds what is evil and receives disfavor from the LORD"

It doesn't say that.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Brieuse,

The Bible has nothing good to say about my car I drive. I wonder why?

because it doesnt need to, we could discuss what the Bible does say and the exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations or discuss things the Bible doesnt talk about, we can discuss the car you drive and from my point of view 16th century dutch tapesty. which is it to be?

 

[Brieuse]

To Brieuse,
because it doesnt need to, we could discuss what the Bible does say and the exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations or discuss things the Bible doesnt talk about, we can discuss the car you drive and from my point of view 16th century dutch tapesty. which is it to be?

The Bible doesn't talk about homosexual relationships.

 

[keith99]

The Bible doesn't talk about homosexual relationships.

I does. Both old and new testiments. About half those in the Law can be explained as refering to temple prostitution. But the others remain. Just because what seem to be the favorites of fools are flawed does not discredit the others.

 

[Brieuse]

I does. Both old and new testiments. About half those in the Law can be explained as refering to temple prostitution. But the others remain. Just because what seem to be the favorites of fools are flawed does not discredit the others.

Wrong, not once does it mention a homosexual relationship.

 

[Penumbra]

Wrong, not once does it mention a homosexual relationship.

To my knowledge it does not mention a homosexual relationship, though it does mention homosexual sex. (Not that it matters if you're not a Christian, but you are.)

Some people look at those as the same thing, others fortunately do not.

-Lyn

 

[Mling]

Wrong, not once does it mention a homosexual relationship.

If we want to get nit-picky, the verse in Corinthians that talks about "neither the effeminate, nor the homosexual" will inherit the kingdom of heaven, at least gives the impression of sort of alluding to a relationship, by pairing those two together.
In Greek, it would have meant something like, "Both the soft, moral-less guy who gives sex in exchange for favors; and the powerful aggressor who demands sex from his subordinates." (Neither word is easily translatable, but both define a 'person' and a role within a relationship, not a single act.) So there is reference to a homosexual relationship there, but it's a sugar-daddy relationship, not an equal, loving one.

I think the Hebrew makes it fairly clear that David and Jonathon were lovers, too, so that's one more, but it's described in a neutral to positive way.

 

[Sojourner1]

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan?

 

[Mling]

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan?

That's based on an English reading. The Hebrew is filled with hinted subtext that's mostly translated out. Hebrew writers loved plays on words and double-meanings, and used it especially to speak about sexual matters discreetly. It never says outright, in Hebrew, "They were lovers" but the allusions and hints are glaring. Things like Saul offering his daughter and telling David, "If you marry her, you'll be my son in law, doubly" (in two, by two, or through two.) Their relationship is described using lines taken directly from the genesis description of a marriage, with a word here and there replaced with a synonym.

Any Hebrew reader would have looked at it and gone, "What the heck?"

 

[b&wpac4]

That's based on an English reading. The Hebrew is filled with hinted subtext that's mostly translated out. Hebrew writers loved plays on words and double-meanings, and used it especially to speak about sexual matters discreetly. It never says outright, in Hebrew, "They were lovers" but the allusions and hints are glaring. Things like Saul offering his daughter and telling David, "If you marry her, you'll be my son in law, doubly" (in two, by two, or through two.) Their relationship is described using lines taken directly from the genesis description of a marriage, with a word here and there replaced with a synonym.

Any Hebrew reader would have looked at it and gone, "What the heck?"

And why aren't you reading it in the original King James? HMM?

 

[Supernaut]

And why aren't you reading it in the original King James? HMM?

Personally I think the only accurate tranlsation is the NWT.

 

[b&wpac4]

Personally I think the only accurate tranlsation is the NWT.

I have a few translations on my book shelf. I try to read the passages from multiple sources and attempt to determine which translation most "gets" the message that seems to be coming through. It isn't a perfect system, of course, but one does what one can.

 

[Supernaut]

I have a few translations on my book shelf. I try to read the passages from multiple sources and attempt to determine which translation most "gets" the message that seems to be coming through. It isn't a perfect system, of course, but one does what one can.

Uh-oh...lol...I wasn't serious! I definetely do not prefer the NWT! Sorry for being "serious" seeming in my post.

Ultimately, I prefer the NLT and Message. Serious about those btw

 

[Andreusz]

The Bible says: He who finds a WIFE finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.

Does that mean the the alternative is the opposite? I would say so...

HE who finds a MALE MATE finds what is evil and receives disfavor from the LORD.

My, my, we are concerned about other people's sex lives, aren't we? Could it be for the plausible reason that we aren't getting enough ourselves?

 

[b&wpac4]

Ultimately, I prefer the NLT and Message. Serious about those btw

I'd give you my preferred ones, but you'd probably be surprised where they ended.

 

[Braunwyn]

double post. sorry.

 

[Braunwyn]

That's based on an English reading. The Hebrew is filled with hinted subtext that's mostly translated out. Hebrew writers loved plays on words and double-meanings, and used it especially to speak about sexual matters discreetly. It never says outright, in Hebrew, "They were lovers" but the allusions and hints are glaring. Things like Saul offering his daughter and telling David, "If you marry her, you'll be my son in law, doubly" (in two, by two, or through two.) Their relationship is described using lines taken directly from the genesis description of a marriage, with a word here and there replaced with a synonym.

Any Hebrew reader would have looked at it and gone, "What the heck?"

Excellent post. I'm looking forward to Sojourner1's response.

 

[Mling]

Excellent post. I'm looking foward to Sojourner1's response.

Hee, I was thinking the other night...as hints go, they aren't subtle. I wonder if the writer might actually have been trying to describe a homosexual relationship openly, and had to use the allusions and hints because he had no other words for it.

 

[Supernaut]

I'd give you my preferred ones, but you'd probably be surprised where they ended.

Maybe not?