The Bible And Me

[Jane Blond]

Ἰουνιᾶς Iounias
is what the extant mss read ..
you yourself posted Iounian (making it fem) is first seen in the 7th century

No, it was first Junia, then it is made by men to JUNIAS, because a woman can't be an Apostle in some men's eyes. They are enough well known Facts about it. If you didn't want to accept it, it is YOUR PROBLEM!

 

[ixoye_8]

It does not suffice to read a book. One must also UNDERSTAND what stands written in this. And I have my first doubts with you so there.

exactly ..
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

 

[ixoye_8]

It does not suffice to read a book. One must also UNDERSTAND what stands written in this. And I have my first doubts with you so there.

exactly ..
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

 

[ixoye_8]

No, it was first Junia, then it is made by men to JUNIAS, because a woman can't be an Apostle in some men's eyes. They are enough well known Facts about it. If you didn't want to accept it, it is YOUR PROBLEM!

what part of extant mss don't you get ???
the oldest mss says ..
Ἰουνιᾶς Iounias
your own post said they changed it in the 7th century to Iounian (fem) ..
if you do not want to accept what is written in the oldest Greek mss, then its your problem ..

 

[LysanderShapiro]

It does not suffice to read a book. One must also UNDERSTAND what stands written in this. And I have my first doubts with you so there.

What is your ultimate point? I'm not meaning that in a rude way, but what is your message? Is it that the Bible is fallible? Is it that the Bible is infallible but not the only source of infallibility? Is it that you believe in neither the Bible nor the Church? Is it that you only believe in Church teaching but reject the Bible? Is it that you reject both but believe in God? Is it that you reject it all? Is it that you are still exploring it all and asking questions to discover what is? Is it to uncover hypocritical Christian views?

I'm only curious so I can better contribute and hopefully provide some insight.

 

[KingJ]

You are very mistaken there, however! Homosexuality was never a topic in the Bible. Neither a homosexual love relation nor homosexual sexuality. The authors of the Bible always saw homosexuality in connection with shrine prostitution and the adoration of other idols. This gets clear both in the OT and in the NT. I have several Bible expenses. Getting some inherited, others bought or given. Among this a Bible with the Hebrew/Greek original text on one side and the German text on the other side. Moreover, I still have some very expensive Bible dictionaries which take advantage of clergymen. So I know exactly what I write. Do you also know it? The parents who did this were Christians. Her name has been well known in the seventies in Hamburg. The father had raped little boys; the mother knew it. The case was confessed in the nineties in public. I know the boy who was made by his parents homelessly and did suicide attempt. He was my half-brother (same mother, different father). I only made clear, where the faith in a devil comes from. And, that other religions took and developed further this faith. I did not want to clarify more. You feel attacked in your faith personally. I did not want this but facts still remain facts.

Regarding the underlined, you are simply wrong and showing your lack of knowledge on scripture. It is as though you did not read what ixoye or I have posted .

Regarding the bold, your reasoning is so biased . Did you miss my post on this?

Regarding the green, I agree that facts remain facts, fact is, needing to quote all the facts is a fact .

Conclusion: I am glad that you are at least honest about not professing to be a Christian. We should all assume you are here to learn. The sad thing is .....it seems pretty clear that you are not here to learn. You are merely showing your bias. So the obvious question arises, why the bias? Why are you ugly towards the Christian God? Please don't bring your weak 'God is bad because He allowed Lot's two girls to get raped type argument'. Share honestly with us why it is that you hate God of the bible, please. That would make for a fruitful discussion. Did something happen to you?

 

[KingJ]

What is your ultimate point? I'm not meaning that in a rude way, but what is your message? Is it that the Bible is fallible? Is it that the Bible is infallible but not the only source of infallibility? Is it that you believe in neither the Bible nor the Church? Is it that you only believe in Church teaching but reject the Bible? Is it that you reject both but believe in God? Is it that you reject it all? Is it that you are still exploring it all and asking questions to discover what is? Is it to uncover hypocritical Christian views?

I'm only curious so I can better contribute and hopefully provide some insight.

ditto!

 

[KingJ]

ixoye,

Show me any "love" towards gays in any of your posts.

The onus is on you River...

Prov 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Rom 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Mark 9:42 If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1 Tim 4:1-2 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Jude 16 False teachers often walk according to their lusts, speaking smooth words, flattering people to gain advantage.

 

[KingJ]

I found this link ( (http://www.gospelway.com/morality/lying.php) and must say this teaching is brilliant, some excerpts from it:

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 - "False apostles" are called "deceitful workers," because they pretend to be servants of Christ, angels of light, and ministers of righteousness. Many teachers present themselves as men of God teaching His word, yet they teach things they cannot find in the Bible.

Half Truths:
Some think they are innocent as long as they say what is technically true, even though they intend to mislead others to believe what is not true. It is possible to tell things that are technically true, yet we leave out pertinent facts or otherwise so speak that we lead others to believe untruths.

Bible examples
Genesis 37:28,31-33 - Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites, dipped his coat in blood, brought it to Jacob and said, "We found this coat. Does it look like your son's or not?" This was technically true, but they omitted pertinent facts so they could lead Jacob to believe a wild animal had killed Joseph.

Exodus 32:4,24 - When confronted by Moses regarding the golden calf, Aaron said he threw in the gold and out came the calf. But he neglected to say that he had fashioned the calf with an engraving tool!

Matthew 26:60,61; 27:40 - One of the accusations made against Jesus at His trials was that he claimed He would destroy the temple and built it again in three days. But those who said this were "false witnesses." It was technically true that Jesus had said He would build the temple in three days. But He was referring to His body, meaning that He would rise from the dead three days after they killed Him (John 2:19-21).

Modern examples
Many salesmen are experts at half-truths. This is the method the photographer at the Cubs game was using.

Modern entertainment is often filled with this. Even Disney movies, "I Love Lucy," "Andy Griffith," and other supposedly good programs often justify deceit.

A popular song entitled "Sad Movies Always Make Me Cry" tells of a girl who goes home crying because she saw her boyfriend at a movie with another girl. When her mother asks her what's wrong, she says "to keep from telling her a lie, I just said, 'Sad movies always make me cry.'" It was technically true, but deceitful.

Most false teaching involves half-truths. What the teacher says may be technically true, but he leaves out essential facts or twists the truth to lead people to believe something different from what God intended.

I emphasize: we are not required to tell people everything we know. Some things are confidential or there may be no good reason why some particular person should be told what we know. Keeping a matter secret or confidential is not necessarily wrong. But if you are keeping a matter to yourself, don't lead others to think things that are untrue or that you have told them the whole matter when you have not.

I suspect that every accountable person has violated these principles, most of us many times. But have we repented of it, or do we continue to justify such practices? [Proverbs 30:8; Acts 23:27; Genesis 3:4,5; Ezra 4:1,2,11-16]

 

[RiverJordan]

I do think that is a valid point. If we wanted to take faith and religion out of the scenario, this wouldn't mean society wouldn't have a reaction anymore. Some people are homophobic for instance because they are bigoted.

However, if we did the reverse and said that society was actually very calm regarding homosexuality--ie, homophobia was practically unheard of...would that change God's word? I absolutely agree that God does not teach us to be homophobic in the slightest, but this doesn't mean the practice of homosexuality isn't to be regarded as a sin either.

I have a feeling that if what you describe had always been the case, then some passages in the Bible would read very differently.

Fair enough. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I do agree that we can't judge people...but certain actions should indeed be judged right from wrong.

By who though? If someone's actions have no bearing on anything in my life, what is the point of me judging? Is that what we're supposed to do, go around and point out everyone's sins all day?

I think the right thing to do is defend people who are being treated as anything less than human.

I agree.

Keep in mind, media is also very much responsible for treating Christianity in a demeaning way. While there are many different forms of bigotry in western culture that still exists, Christianity seems to be the last acceptable bigotry. I remember when CNN highlighted one of Mel Gibson's misbehaviors and ended it with "Who knew Catholicism could be so fascinating." It took my breath away -- it was the strangest thing. I can't imagine a news source recounting Bernie Madoff's ponzie scheme activities and ending it with "Who knew Judaism could be interesting." They wouldn't hear the end of it.

Except the portrayal of Gibson and Catholicism was a direct result of his bigoted rants on the heels of his movie The Passion. It would be pretty difficult to put what he said in any other context. With Madoff, there was no religious context at all.

Perhaps one of the reasons the media treats Christianity in a demeaning way is because of the stupid and hateful things many Christians do and say in the name of their faith?

All in all, people of every kind, regardless of what they believe and reject, are still humans made in God's image and deserve love and kindness. What they do becomes another subject.

Agreed.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I have a feeling that if what you describe had always been the case, then some passages in the Bible would read very differently.

There are tens of thousands of different denominations. People are already reading the Bible very differently. However, they can't all be right on everything.

By who though? If someone's actions have no bearing on anything in my life, what is the point of me judging? Is that what we're supposed to do, go around and point out everyone's sins all day?

No, you're over-complicating and misunderstanding what I said. We don't go around pointing the finger and telling them what they are doing is wrong...ESPECIALLY if we don't know them. Wouldn't we in fact be judging the individuals if we did that...not to mention, that would be plain ol' ridiculous.

In short, what I meant is that we have a sense of right from wrong and should practice it.

Except the portrayal of Gibson and Catholicism was a direct result of his bigoted rants on the heels of his movie The Passion. It would be pretty difficult to put what he said in any other context. With Madoff, there was no religious context at all.

The story presented with Gibson had no religious context either. His directing The Passion is irrelevant. But further, even if his poor behavior was somehow in religious context would still make that statement silly and irresponsible.

Perhaps one of the reasons the media treats Christianity in a demeaning way is because of the stupid and hateful things many Christians do and say in the name of their faith?

To begin, The ONLY time anyone can treat ANY group or individual in a demeaning way is....NEVER. No one deserves to be treated this way. And that's only the half of it.

 

[Jane Blond]

exactly ..
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
here is what my bible says in English (which I have no doubt you can understand) ..

From which one Bible translation have you quoted? KJV? NBT? NWT (JW Bible)?
Then see and be astonished:
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/junia-and-the-esv/
In it you can found this interesting commend:

I have read countless articles and books which argue that Junia was a man named Junias and not a woman.[3] The weakness of this argument is that the masculine name, Junias, never actually appears in any Ancient Greek literature (or papyri or inscription) whatsoever before the 13th century, while the female name, Junia, appears frequently.[4] This fact is widely acknowledged by most modern Bible scholars. Even the translators of the ESV concede that Junia was most likely a woman. (Like many translations, however, they retain the masculine name, Junias, in a footnote.)

Or here:

http://www.churchofgoddfw.com/monthly/junia.shtml

From this page:

Iounias-Junia , a common Latin female name meaning "youthful", a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners, Thayer's Greek Definitions. Also see the following pages for more proof.

"Junia" becomes "Junias"
"Without exception the church fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus' partner in Romans 16:7 as a woman as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records Iounia (Greek for Junia) with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Romans 17:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name Iounias (Junias) with an s. This later name Junias did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name 'Junianus' is unlikely."13
At about the time of Pope Boniface's edict removing the freedom of nuns in 1298, copyists began writing the name Junia as Junias! Yet recent research has shown that the newly created name, Junias, didn't even exist at the time of Paul!
"This hypothetical name Junias is, however, as yet unattested in ancient inscriptions, but the female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among inscriptions from ancient Rome alone. Further, the ancient translations and the earliest manuscripts with accents support reading Iounian as Junia. Finally, Junias would be an irregular form. Therefore, critical scholars today increasingly interpret the name as the feminine Junia."14
Junia was a very common Latin female name and we have no record of any Roman male bearing the name Junia. But medieval copyists began copying the name with as "s" to hide Junia's sex, not knowing that the name Junias "did not exist in antiquity"! So Junia received a fictitious name, possibly at the command of Pope Boniface VIII!

Two topics have to be taken into account.
On the one hand the question whether Junia is a woman. This question was answered with a clear YES. Then the question whether Junia was an apostle. This question is a little harder to answer. But also here a clear YES! And to be more precise gratitude of the many enlightened Bible scientists and their researches.

 

[Jane Blond]

what part of extant mss don't you get ???
the oldest mss says ..
Ἰουνιᾶς Iounias
your own post said they changed it in the 7th century to Iounian (fem) ..
if you do not want to accept what is written in the oldest Greek mss, then its your problem ..

It wasn't in the 7th century, it was later (12th century) by a Dutch theologian.

 

[Jane Blond]

What is your ultimate point? I'm not meaning that in a rude way, but what is your message? Is it that the Bible is fallible? Is it that the Bible is infallible but not the only source of infallibility? Is it that you believe in neither the Bible nor the Church? Is it that you only believe in Church teaching but reject the Bible? Is it that you reject both but believe in God? Is it that you reject it all? Is it that you are still exploring it all and asking questions to discover what is? Is it to uncover hypocritical Christian views?

I'm only curious so I can better contribute and hopefully provide some insight.

The beginning of this topic treats my relations to the Bible. I do not believe in the Bible because many bad actions were called for by men "of God" in this: Genocide, murder to heterodox ones; Mentioning incest, rape and the role of the woman around only some. The JUNIA topic then arose. And I pointed with the help of the Internet that Junia was a woman and an apostle. And some here cannot accept this although everything is covered by Bible scientists.
It is not all about whether the Bible is faulty. It is not either about this which is the "best" translation. It is about my relations to the Bible.

 

[Jane Blond]

Conclusion: I am glad that you are at least honest about not professing to be a Christian. We should all assume you are here to learn. The sad thing is .....it seems pretty clear that you are not here to learn. You are merely showing your bias. So the obvious question arises, why the bias? Why are you ugly towards the Christian God? Please don't bring your weak 'God is bad because He allowed Lot's two girls to get raped type argument'. Share honestly with us why it is that you hate God of the bible, please. That would make for a fruitful discussion. Did something happen to you?

My goodness! Have you smoked something?
I am here to learn to understand. I have made this clear at the beginning. It is not for me about the Bible so much, but psychology and sociology. I have made also this clear.
I would like to learn to understand it because of my sister Gina and other Christians who exclude; it looks that way for me; not seeming to be capable of love to the unconditional one.
I would like to understand whether and how far the faith is responsible for it. Therefore I am. Around nothing else. I would like to harm nobody here or hurt his feelings. But I would like to have the right to be allowed to tell my opinion frankly. It is permitted to me by the U.S. constitution.
I don't believe to the Bible or God, I still believe on nothing.

 

[Glomung]

Jane, you've pretty much wasted your time and everyone else's here.
You have made the prejudiced assumption that Christians are a monolithic block of people who
all think the same due to all being "christian".
If you actually been paying attention you would have noticed that that there is little agreement on some subjects.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I'm going to have to agree with Glomung here. While I appreciate your response, Jane, I think his assertion is right. Much of the time, many of us sincere in our Christian faith dispute over many things--from Biblical translations to whether the Bible is even sole infallible authority to where science is or isn't valid.

Even Glomung and I who belong to the same church may have disagreements on certain matters. Your questions are welcome, but the assumptions are meaningless -- no offense.

 

[KingJ]

But I would like to have the right to be allowed to tell my opinion frankly. It is permitted to me by the U.S. constitution.

Your are then either deceitful or not thinking properly. You say the bible is wrong because of X and Y, then say that's your opinion? You choose to finalise your opinion off a half truth?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

But I would like to have the right to be allowed to tell my opinion frankly. It is permitted to me by the U.S. constitution.

I'm not trying to start something with you, but your right to speak (which does exist indeed) doesn't mean the people who run this forum (not me if course) can't censor you, delete your posts, or even dismiss you. Now I'm not saying I would side with their choice to, but that is THEIR right if they want to exercise that.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can speak up anywhere including privately owned environment as there is also a right to property.

Lets not make this a discussion, I just think you should understand the folks who run this forum could have you mind your P's and Q's if they want, and that is their right.

 

[RiverJordan]

There are tens of thousands of different denominations. People are already reading the Bible very differently. However, they can't all be right on everything.

Yup. And I think it's ridiculously naive to think this is a recent development.

No, you're over-complicating and misunderstanding what I said. We don't go around pointing the finger and telling them what they are doing is wrong...ESPECIALLY if we don't know them. Wouldn't we in fact be judging the individuals if we did that...not to mention, that would be plain ol' ridiculous.

Well, the conservatives here would probably disagree.

In short, what I meant is that we have a sense of right from wrong and should practice it.

No doubt.

The story presented with Gibson had no religious context either. His directing The Passion is irrelevant. But further, even if his poor behavior was somehow in religious context would still make that statement silly and irresponsible.

It most definitely had a religious context. The Passion was all over the news, and a big part of that stemmed from Jewish groups claiming that the movie was anti-Semitic and pointing out that "Passion Plays" were historically staged to enrage the populace against Jews. And in the midst of all that, Mel Gibson goes on a bigoted anti-Semitic rant after being pulled over.

I honestly don't see how that is anything but a religious context.

To begin, The ONLY time anyone can treat ANY group or individual in a demeaning way is....NEVER. No one deserves to be treated this way. And that's only the half of it.

True, but a lot of times the "demeaning" is simply giving them a microphone and putting them in front of a camera. When they start going off on how if gays can't be fired from their jobs for being gay, all of western society will collapse, or if gays are allowed to serve in the military we'll be conquered by a foreign power within the decade....the only criticism from me is why such people are given a public platform in the first place.

But rather than talk about hypotheticals, do you have a specific case of the media being "demeaning" to Christians?