Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Cleansing one's home and life?

Here's a post that will rattle your cage! Jonathan's Love for David Becomes clearly homoerotic as seen in some literal translations of the Hebrew.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 ASV)

In a Hebrew-English Interlinear OT that gives the gender indicators, the underlined phrase reads:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was -tied in soul-of David"

Notice that the gender "she" is associated with "was-tied" in the Interlinear referring to Jonathan.
The KJV word "knit" is qashar in the Hebrew and most of the time no gender indicator is given, but notice:

"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad is not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 ASV) qashar here is "bound up" and in the Interlinear reads:

"and soul-of him being-tied in soul-of-him"

The feminine "she" is used with qashar in two other verses in the OT:

"And it came to pass, when she travailed, that one put out a hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first." (Gen 38:28 ASV)
The literal Hebrew: "and she-is-tying on hand-of him"

"And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window." (Josh 2:21 ASV) *Referring to Rahab, the female
The literal Hebrew: "and she-is-tying tape-of"

Those are the only three occurrences of qashar being modified by "she" in the entire OT. Jonathan, and then two women, the mid-wife and Rahab.

There are several verses where qashar is modied by "he", male gender, such as in 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:9,16,20; 2 Kgs 9:14; 10:9; 15:10, 15, 25, 30; Job 41:4 and Amos 7:19 where the Interlinear shows this.

The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament, by John R. Kohlenberger, III by Zondervan also shows these gender indicators as well as the online Interlinear I quoted.

So, why is Jonathan's soul called "she" and the other two occurrences where the feminine gender are, theyre all females indeed? There are the multiple uses of the male gender with qashar. When taken together with the following, it seems clear that there was a homoerotic element to Jonathan's love for David:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 ASV) *Not love of wife or wives; nor love of father, brother or mother, but the obvious reference to gender, sexual love.

It is revealing when you read where Jerome, when he translated the Bible into Latin, added a sentence to the verse that is non-existent in the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Douay-Rheims is an English translation of that Latin and it reads:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26 DRC)

The underlined sentence is a total fraud, obviously inserted to detract from the meaning of the phrase "love of women".

I've yet to read, after searching, an explanation for this matter of gender applied to Jonathan.
 
I WANT IT NOTED, I DRAW A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LGBTQ+ CROWD, AND TWO MALES IN A LOVING, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP. I OPPOSE THE HOMOPHOBIA OF CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
 
I WANT IT NOTED, I DRAW A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LGBTQ+ CROWD, AND TWO MALES IN A LOVING, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP. I OPPOSE THE HOMOPHOBIA OF CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
No you oppose the Truth He is not in you your full of excuses of why n you try n lead many astray with you twisting of words I see what you is

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit using Him to excuse vile evil ways is an unforgivable sin

¯⁠\⁠_⁠༼⁠ᴼ⁠ل͜⁠ᴼ⁠༽⁠_⁠/⁠¯
 
No you oppose the Truth He is not in you your full of excuses of why n you try n lead many astray with you twisting of words I see what you is

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit using Him to excuse vile evil ways is an unforgivable sin

¯⁠\⁠_⁠༼⁠ᴼ⁠ل͜⁠ᴼ⁠༽⁠_⁠/⁠¯
N fyi I claim not title from th world like the people of the world do.. shows even more of why you are so twisted
 
I WANT IT NOTED, I DRAW A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LGBTQ+ CROWD, AND TWO MALES IN A LOVING, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP. I OPPOSE THE HOMOPHOBIA OF CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS P

I WANT IT NOTED, I DRAW A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LGBTQ+ CROWD, AND TWO MALES IN A LOVING, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP. I OPPOSE THE HOMOPHOBIA OF CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
hypocrite; plural noun: hypocrites
a person who indulges in hypocrisy.
"the story tells of respectable Ben who turns out to be a cheat and a hypocrite"
Similar:
sanctimonious person
pietist
whited sepulcher
plaster saint
humbug
pretender
deceiver
dissembler
impostor
phoney
Holy Willie
creeping Jesus
bluenose
Pharisee
Tartuffe

Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and believes in his life

If one is a homo n claims to be a Christian then that would make them a hypocrite just like one who rapes little children or goes around murdering or goes around lying n don't have no interest into getting to know the Lord n Allow the Holy Spirit to lead n has no interest in repenting or changing his or hers ways are all hypocrites


In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken

There's gonna be a day n them excuses you like so much will be of no use

Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.

ᕦ⁠[⁠ ⁠◑⁠ ⁠□⁠ ⁠◑⁠ ⁠]⁠ᕤ
 
I used to have a friend who is gay. So much we had the "talk" and it didn't end well.
He insist he was "born that way" and has never been attracted to women. I have an office desk and chair well worn that I need to get rid of. I have replacements coming next week.
Second, I've a lot of books by Stephen King and Ann Rice. I used to be into Horror on such a level and read those books more than anything. I still have them and they're stitting on the bottom of a book shelf. I'd rather get rid of them than sell them to someone else
IMO and experience you don't keep evil things in your home. You don't let people who refuse to repent and change into your home.
We are born in that way, towards sin .Its why mankind must be born again. . . power to change.

Same with racism, identity theft, preconceived judging others outward .

Satan the father of lies a murderer from the beginning
 
If the word "sodomy" were to be found in the Bible, it would be there in Ezekiel. There is just no word in the Hebrew or Greek that can be translated "sodomy". I repeat, there is NO sin called "sodomy" in the English translations, because there is no Hebrew or Greek word that can be translated as "sodomy". The KJV uses "sodomite" in the OT, never in the NT. The NRSV uses "sodomite" in the NT, never in the OT. The English translations don't even agree where to use "sodomites", in Hebrew or in Greek. There is no sin called "sodomy" in the Bible languages, so you cannot connect "sodomite" to a word that does not exist in the Bible. If you wish to know the meaning of today of "sodomite", it is best to see it in the synonyms, as in the Roget:
The word sodomy is the action or work of a Sodomite. . . a male ***** .

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no ***** of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Male and female transexual whores

Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
 
Here's a post that will rattle your cage! Jonathan's Love for David Becomes clearly homoerotic as seen in some literal translations of the Hebrew.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 ASV)

In a Hebrew-English Interlinear OT that gives the gender indicators, the underlined phrase reads:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was -tied in soul-of David"

Notice that the gender "she" is associated with "was-tied" in the Interlinear referring to Jonathan.
The KJV word "knit" is qashar in the Hebrew and most of the time no gender indicator is given, but notice:

"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad is not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 ASV) qashar here is "bound up" and in the Interlinear reads:

"and soul-of him being-tied in soul-of-him"

The feminine "she" is used with qashar in two other verses in the OT:

"And it came to pass, when she travailed, that one put out a hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first." (Gen 38:28 ASV)
The literal Hebrew: "and she-is-tying on hand-of him"

"And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window." (Josh 2:21 ASV) *Referring to Rahab, the female
The literal Hebrew: "and she-is-tying tape-of"

Those are the only three occurrences of qashar being modified by "she" in the entire OT. Jonathan, and then two women, the mid-wife and Rahab.

There are several verses where qashar is modied by "he", male gender, such as in 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:9,16,20; 2 Kgs 9:14; 10:9; 15:10, 15, 25, 30; Job 41:4 and Amos 7:19 where the Interlinear shows this.

The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament, by John R. Kohlenberger, III by Zondervan also shows these gender indicators as well as the online Interlinear I quoted.

So, why is Jonathan's soul called "she" and the other two occurrences where the feminine gender are, theyre all females indeed? There are the multiple uses of the male gender with qashar. When taken together with the following, it seems clear that there was a homoerotic element to Jonathan's love for David:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 ASV) *Not love of wife or wives; nor love of father, brother or mother, but the obvious reference to gender, sexual love.

It is revealing when you read where Jerome, when he translated the Bible into Latin, added a sentence to the verse that is non-existent in the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Douay-Rheims is an English translation of that Latin and it reads:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26 DRC)

The underlined sentence is a total fraud, obviously inserted to detract from the meaning of the phrase "love of women".

I've yet to read, after searching, an explanation for this matter of gender applied to Jonathan.
Is there no one here who can discuss this topic in an educated, reasonable manner? Everyone here believes God's word condemns any sort or form of a male with male monogamous relationship. I get that, but where is there any discussion in a reasonable way on what the Bible says when studied carefully? There is TOO MUCH EISEGESIS in the traditional view. For example, does anyone see the statement in Rom. 1:26 that women were having sex with women? NO. It must be read into the verse. The statement in v26 can easily mean women having unnatural sex with men. The "likewise" in Rom. 1:27, tying v26 to v27 can mean oral and anal sex, which is performed by women with men, and men with men. If we wish to be strict, only sex for the purpose of procreation is moral, and for many years that was the view of the church.
 
Here's a post that will rattle your cage! Jonathan's Love for David Becomes clearly homoerotic as seen in some literal translations of the Hebrew.
Dylan, it's only there because you want to see it. It's the same delusion others suffer when trying to make Jesus gay.

Is there no one here who can discuss this topic in an educated, reasonable manner?
Sure, but you're not reasonable, Dylan. No reasonable person would post this:
There is not one single verse or passage in the entire Bible that condemns two males in a loving homoerotic relationship.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.​
(Leviticus 20:13 NRSV)

No reasonable person would even try to think up convolutions to avoid the obvious, except for those who want to justify "two males in a loving homoerotic relationship" from being a sin.

No reasonable person would think that God would ever need to describe Sixteen types of relationships. Male/Female; Sex/Love; Married/Single (2 squared, squared). Most all know that the standard of creation is Male/Female/Love/Married, and that Male/Female/Sex/Unmarried is roundly rejected by God, and that those involved will bring upon themselves woeful pain and suffering. Now I also happen to think that God would have a problem with Male/Female/Sex/Married (where there is no love).

You want educated? I gave you educated. I even posted the FIVE Greek words that describe their mindset for "love." Did you address any of these? NO.

Now while you may have me on ignore, the entirety of the membership can see that you really don't want an educated reasonable discussion.

God's commandments existed from Genesis through to Revelation, but you referred to a verse(s) in Leviticus, a part of the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses. You guys are stumbling all over yourselves. :laughing:
And look where all your education got you. If your reasoning and education brought you to this point, then what good was all that education?

To sleep with children is a psychological disorder and classed as such.
And at one point, to sleep male with male was a psychological disorder and classed as such. I'd tell you about my uncle, but you won't listen, so I won't waste my time unless you ask.

The book of Leviticus itself says to ignore it, unless you are an Israelite at Mt. Sinai!
"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46 KJV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 KJV)
With this reasoning, then all non Jews (these NOT children of Israel) can steal, murder, bear false witness.... drink blood... rut with animals... rape, pillage, and plunder. (Dylan, I crown you the patron saint of pirates.)

So at this point, it's rather clear that you cannot have an educated reasonable discussion, not us.

The underlined sentence is a total fraud, obviously inserted to detract from the meaning of the phrase "love of women".
Inserted ( :scream: ) by whom?

And when?

The phrase is in the Septuagint: (agape, btw)
I am grieved for thee, my brother Jonathan; thou wast very lovely to me; thy love to me was wonderful beyond the love of women.​
(2 Samuel 1:26 Brenton)

So I think you've just outed yourself as one of those "Cafeteria Christians" about which you moaned and complained.

I've yet to read, after searching, an explanation for this matter of gender applied to Jonathan.
Just talk with your friendly neighborhood Rabbi. He'll set you straight on the matter.

...where is there any discussion in a reasonable way on what the Bible says when studied carefully?
(Over there... in the Talmud... a LOT of education, but very little wisdom.)

For example, does anyone see the statement in Rom. 1:26 that women were having sex with women? NO. It must be read into the verse. The statement in v26 can easily mean women having unnatural sex with men.
Or horses. Like Catherine the Great. Since it doesn't actually prohibit horses, it must be okay with Paul, then, right? Right? RIGHT?

Like I said, no reasonable person would think that God would ever need to describe Sixteen types of relationships - now 32 with things non-human. I'd include orgies, but I can't do math that high.

Yet isn't this one single verse enough?

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 NRSV)​

Nope, not misleading.

Merely descriptive. (Adequately descriptive.)

Your friendly neighborhood Thumper,
Rhema
 
Back
Top