ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 548
Apr 21 11 10:06 AM
Interact
Apr 21 11 10:10 AM
Posts: 234
Apr 22 11 10:10 AM
Apr 22 11 2:04 PM
Apr 25 11 2:21 PM
Apr 25 11 7:10 PM
Posts: 5033
Apr 26 11 6:27 AM
Propaganster wrote:SpiritRhythms wrote: re: " That being said, was the Bible, as Darrell suggests, translated anywhere near adequately?" I'm in agreement on this, and here's why: Beyond this, languages evolve to describe advances and new social realities. As such, the earliest languages had a far more limited vocabulary than language which appeared later in history, and which were often based on these earlier languages that became obsolete.For example, and sorry to expose such a thing to our more religiously inclined members, but at the time the Old Testament was written, the hebrew language had no word for 'homosexuality.' This is why any time the Bible touches upon the subject, it is described (a man shall not lay with another man in the manner he does with a woman, or something to that effect). Notice, also, that while there is some concept of the 'gay man' there is absolutely nothing at all about lesbians. A modern explanation for this would be that, as women were (are?) viewed as sex objects or, sorry, 'baby factories' and men as sperm providers, lesbianism was tolerated more than gayness. Attraction to a woman is 'natural' while attraction to men, especially by other men who are meant to view women as the recipients of their seed, are 'unnatural.'But that explanation is bogus, because I doubt societies were hypersexualized back in minus 1000.The truth is probably much simpler - fixed marriages and male dominance. It's not that there we no lesbians, it's that society didn't care. Girls had no sexual orientation because they were basically considered the property of their fathers until mariage, at which point the husband became the owner, and what the ladies had to say on this was unimportant. "You marry that guy, you do not refuse hs advances, and we shall have many grandchildren thanks to legalized rape." Now, I'm exaggerating, I'm sure some parents were good enough to select a man their daughter liked and everything, but it was also so 'important' for the daughter to be married that, obviously, many fixed weddings were quite the nightmare for women.
SpiritRhythms wrote: re: " That being said, was the Bible, as Darrell suggests, translated anywhere near adequately?" I'm in agreement on this, and here's why:
" That being said, was the Bible, as Darrell suggests, translated anywhere near adequately?"
Posts: 1549
Apr 26 11 8:18 PM
Strabo says that Sappho was the contemporary of Alcaeus of Mytilene (born ca. 620 BC) and Pittacus (ca. 645 - 570 BC) and according to Athenaeus she was the contemporary of Alyattes of Lydia (ca. 610 - 560 BC). The Suda, a 10th century Byzantine encyclopædia, dates her to the 42nd Olympiad (612/608 BC), meaning either that she was born then or that this was her floruit. The versions of Eusebius state that she was famous by the first or second year of the 45th or 46th Olympiad (between 600 and 594 BC). Taken together, these references make it likely that she was born ca. 620 BC, or a little earlier. Judging from the Parian Marble she was exiled from Lesbos to Sicily sometime between 604 and 594 BC. If fragment 98 of her poetry is accepted as biographical evidence and as a reference to her daughter (see below), it may indicate that she had already had a daughter by the time she was exiled. If fragment 58 is accepted as autobiographical it indicates that she lived into old age. If her connection to Rhodopis (see below) is accepted as historical it indicates that she lived into the mid-6th century BC.[2][3]
Apr 27 11 7:28 AM
Apr 27 11 8:40 PM
Apr 28 11 11:31 AM
I have not read any versions of the bible, Christian or other, but are there no mention of the Island of Lesbos, an the writings of Sapphos etc? Or did they come late, or were they assigned to some non-biblical historical existence?
Apr 28 11 3:09 PM
Posts: 2385
Apr 28 11 6:42 PM
That brat is your bud
Apr 28 11 7:10 PM
Apr 28 11 7:58 PM
Apr 28 11 9:06 PM
Ummm ... no, that's science. The preconceived notion is called the theorum, and looking for evidence (pro or con) is what science is all about.
It is only when one rules out evidence on one side of the equation that you get something other than science.
BTW, I notice that you said nothing about the "REED SEA" translation discrepancy correction. I found that explanation/clarification quite interesting.
As to the plagues, my curiosity as to early concession possibility effects by the pharoah on later plagues remains.
Which is fine. It was not my intent to convince anyone;
Posts: 21
Apr 29 11 8:32 AM
It is my discovery that the ten commandments are purposed to be words of individual transformation from being bound to the dead things of one's sense interpretation [one's visible ever changing effects of graven images/gods of materialism], to being lived of one's living spirit interpretation [one's invisible, unknown cause of unchanging spirit images of omniety].
Which means that from this perspective of God as being the spirit of Its individual transformation/expansion of I Am, the idea that truth can be found in the literalism of sense interpretation is to beat a dead horse and to continue beating a dead horse and to continue beating a dead horse....
___________________________________________________
Who knows what God is? No one. Who is the living expression of God? Everyone.
Apr 29 11 12:56 PM
Apr 29 11 6:55 PM
Apr 29 11 6:57 PM
Share This