Is he wrong?

[The Baron]

If you choose to think it is a sin for you, then don't do it.I am just pointing out that due to the language, there are many alternate interpretations.

There is a lot of twisting going on.

Which simply begs the question, do you think all the Scriptures in both Old & New Testaments against homosexuality are equally open to alternative interpretations?

It's not imposing your interpretation on others...

Neither am I. I am simply pointing out that such behavior is sinful.

...and not doing actions detrimental to people who interpret things other than how you interpret it.

And what have I done that is detrimental to anyone?

 

[RAMOSS]

There is a lot of twisting going on.

Which simply begs the question, do you think all the Scriptures in both Old & New Testaments against homosexuality are equally open to alternative interpretations?

Neither am I. I am simply pointing out that such behavior is sinful.

And what have I done that is detrimental to anyone?

When it comes to Roman's, yes. If, for example, we look at the German translations that happened before 1900, they specificity say 'a man should not have relations with a young boy'. Swedish and Norwegian translations from the 17 and 18th century as 'boy abusers'. It wasn't till later that was changed. That shows that translation is interpretation.

And, if you condemn someone for being who they are, then it is detrimental to them.

 

[The Baron]

When it comes to Roman's, yes. If, for example, we look at the German translations that happened before 1900, they specificity say 'a man should not have relations with a young boy'. Swedish and Norwegian translations from the 17 and 18th century as 'boy abusers'. It wasn't till later that was changed. That shows that translation is interpretation.

You've dodged my question, so here it is again:

"Do you think all the Scriptures in both Old & New Testaments against homosexuality are equally open to alternative interpretations?"

And, if you condemn someone for being who they are, then it is detrimental to them.

Disagreeable has no reached the level of detrimental?

What is this based upon?

When did this happen?

I'm not sure I believe you.

 

[Daisy]

When it comes to Roman's, yes. If, for example, we look at the German translations that happened before 1900, they specificity say 'a man should not have relations with a young boy'. Swedish and Norwegian translations from the 17 and 18th century as 'boy abusers'. It wasn't till later that was changed. That shows that translation is interpretation.

And, if you condemn someone for being who they are, then it is detrimental to them.

And if we go back to the original words in Hebrew and Greek, that is not what the writers were talking about...

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm

"nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
https://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage/?q=1+corinthians+6:9,10&t=kjv

 

[The Baron]

When it comes to Roman's, yes. If, for example, we look at the German translations that happened before 1900, they specificity say 'a man should not have relations with a young boy'. Swedish and Norwegian translations from the 17 and 18th century as 'boy abusers'. It wasn't till later that was changed. That shows that translation is interpretation.

And, if you condemn someone for being who they are, then it is detrimental to them.

I took a moment and looked for the 1599 Geneva Bible (this was the bible of our Founding Fathers, by the way). It interprets Romans 1:27 this way:

"And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such [a]recompense of their error, as was meet."

It only talks about men...not boys.

You appear to be wrong again.

 

[devildavid]

I took a moment and looked for the 1599 Geneva Bible (this was the bible of our Founding Fathers, by the way). It interprets Romans 1:27 this way:

"And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthiness, and received in themselves such [a]recompense of their error, as was meet."

It only talks about men...not boys.

You appear to be wrong again.

You appear to lend importance to one version of the bible just because you mistakenly think it makes you right.