628b06 No.837948
https://nitter.net/rickiemarie_/status/1272873432401788928
I have talked about this before, but it's about the subject of things changing in the bible over the course of time when talking about it for so long, and also just the general conversation of how hard it is to keep faith when the bible has been rewritten by wrongful men.
This subject is about a bunch of twitter posts of people claiming when the bible quoted "Man should not lie with Man" it was actually "Man should not lie with boy" which is not talking about homosexuals, but pedophilia instead. I just wanted to get some kind of feedback from a place that are highly Christians and see if anything like this can change sometimes.
TLDR:people on twitter were mentioning the quote "Man should not lay with Man" was actually "Man should not lie with boy" which was referring to pedophilia which means same sexual encounters were not mentioned to be sinful.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
628b06 No.837949
I have taken a few screenshots and that touches a bit on the arguments a slight bit, but going to the full thread will see some points people make. I just wanted to put a few ideas down from the place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
09c81f No.837952
Remake the thread. I got lost in all of the words you wrote that fail to properly point towards the critical point.
Subject: Do Christians erroneously bash sodomy rather than pedophilia?
Comment: On Twitter, people are claiming that the Bible's statement that "Man should not lie with Man" was originally "Man should not lie with boy" and so the true teaching was actually against pedophilia rather than sodomy. Thoughts?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1bb86c No.837973
>>837948
My Septuagint says "male" instead of child.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2eae12 No.837974
>>837948
To be safe we should outlaw homosexuality, sodomy, pederasty, and pedophilia. They wouldn't want to contradict Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27, or 1 Corinthians 6:9, right? And it wouldn't make sense to legislate against those crimes in isolation; all sexual immorality should be illegal, so no more divorce, adultery, porn, or abortion.
Oh no no no no liberal bros looks like being a depraved pervert is off the table.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0bb89c No.837975
>>837948
There have been many times the bible spoke out against homosexuality, without referring to homosexuality,.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fd1b0d No.837983
This board can (and probably will in this thread) tear that argument apart a thousand different ways, but I’ll do it here in what is probably a less conventional way. Other than the obvious ways in which the interpretation is anachronistic, it also assumes that pedophilia is somewhere listed in the law as a sin. It is not. The law of God nowhere prohibits sexual relationships between men and young girls. What this means is that even if the argument otherwise had a leg to stand on, their position once harmonized with the indisputable reality of scripture would be that sex between men and women is permissible, sex between men and young girls is permissible, sex between men and men is permissible, but sex between men and young boys is not, which renders the argument incoherent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6e3949 No.837985
its always adultery as man cant marry man.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e963dd No.837987
Nothing new under the sun
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
adcc93 No.837994
>>837948
>gospel of matthew is problematic for right wingers because it's cucked
>instead of rightfully tossing out the trash you pilpul it to mean some made up bulls— about Roman duals
>now libtards do the same bulls— to other parts of the Bible to justify homosexuality
Something something do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88689c No.837996
>>837948
>read the other tweets
>yo cuh da whity devil wrote da bibluh das why so bad i be tellin' yall da wite peepl b ruinin' our lifes gzus was black he be my nig fo reel black lives matter vi wuz kangz n shiet mayne
Has the media made them this retarded? I don't want to believe blacks were always like this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
628b06 No.837997
>>837952
Yeah no, I am sorry about that, I was hoping the TLDR part was good enough to sum up what I was trying to say.
>>837973
This is what most people talk about though, inside many different bibles they claim to see the word "boy" instead of man, or male.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88689c No.837998
>>837997
>"boy" instead of man, or male.
Boy is a male though?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2eae12 No.837999
>>837996
Wait, how can blacks be both the israelites and egyptians when the egyptians oppressed the israelities?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
628b06 No.838001
>>837996
No one is claiming black people were always like this, I was hoping a board that is based on being christian wasn't racist like every other degenerate board.
>>837998
But boy refers to younger male, this is exactly what they claim.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
88689c No.838005
>>837999
Ancient gang wars, the roots of bloods and crips go back to 2000BC.
>>838001
>No one is claiming black people were always like this
Neither did I
>I was hoping a board that is based on being christian wasn't racist like every other degenerate board.
There is nothing racist about exposing racism. Go back to twitter and take this bait thread with you, faggot.
>the bible is propaganda. they stole the stories from egyptian myths & sumerian epics and distorted the truth to make wypepo seem like our saviors and they arent. There is not Jesus, its Horus. and the historical Jesus is King Tut. tht dying for ur sins s— is BS.
>The white king James was but not the black king James that transliterated the Bible.
>People swear they know so much about the Bible but never even read it!!! No wonder they think the white man created it
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fd1b0d No.838053
>>837997
Well Anon, the biggest problem with their argument is that the underlying Hebrew doesn’t mean boy, it means male.
Look at this https://biblehub.com/hebrew/zachar_2145.htm and see all the places where that word is used, see how it never means boy and clearly means male.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
952688 No.838059
>>838053
True but irrelevant because pilpul knows no bounds.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
628b06 No.838074
>>838070
I guess very much so, I just have a deep passion to help people following falsehood, when new information is presented or someone is interpreting something wrong, I want to lead them on the right path.
At this point these people are convinced a slight translation means a sin isn't real, and the other is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
628b06 No.838078
Thank you for your few replies, but directly I wanted to talk about this, it was posted in the thread and it's someone a bit more creditable talking about this subject of it not being a sin at all, he is a pastor.
You can find someone debating this in the thread as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fd8a15 No.838171
>>837948
My brain hurts after reading those tweets. How stupid are people to think being faggot isn't a sin or immoral?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fd8a15 No.838174
>>837948
Also why is that stupid thot wearing a towel and not actual clothes
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a7d6f No.838224
>>837983
What is always hard is directly pointing out what age is considered a child in the bible? 13? Untill they have their period? What exactly?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.