>Christians arguing about Bible translations and accusing each other of heresy due to the translation they prefer
>>24831574Now do Muslims...
>>24831574>Modern translations removing the sin of fornication from the Bible
>>24831653Which ones?Nobody ever substantiates anything. It's like everyone is just parroting things they read on twitter.
>>24831653Name one>inb4 Queen James Bible, which is entirely purchased by gaytheists looking to epic pwn religion
>>24831653>words words words Left can't meme.
>>24831663>>24831664NIV, ESV, NKJV, ERV, TLB, NASB, NLV, RSV, TLV, etc.>>24831684What indicates I'm left wing? Aren't left wingers pro-sex?
>>24831684>>24831664I think the meme is pertinent to today's world of female trans pastors and what have you, but as I said, nobody seems capable of substantiating their comments.. but this is sort of broader than the intended scope of the thread.. which is God-fearing men and women at each other's throats due to their preferred translation. I'm not talking hyper dynamic equivalence translations, like changing donkey to llama for Peruvian tribes, but EO, Catholics and Protestants gleefully damning a soul to hell because they read the NIV, NRSV or ESV over whatever their preferred translation might be.
>>24831700That's a list of translations, you've made no arguments or pointed out any examples. Why would anyone listen to you?
Socrates was right
>>24831574They argue about translations but they’ve never read any Bible. Ask theological questions and every christfag thread on this board is full of vacuousness. Bizarrely the larpers have simultaneously started pretending there’s One True Translation, but they can’t even pick a denomination because they know fuckall about them. Tradcaths get exposed as sedvacantists or other memes like a catholic who has “his own interpretation” of the Bible. Fucking lol.
>>24831714>asks for translations>given a list of translations>"all you've done was list translations!"Yeah, cause that's all you asked for.>>24831710>nobody seems capable of substantiating their commentsWhat the fuck does substantiating even mean?
>>24831730I'm reading the old testament now, I gotta pick a denomination too?
>>248317341. To establish by proof or competent evidence; to verify; to make good, as, to substantiate a charge or allegation; to substantiate a declarationYou made a claim, but you've provided no examples and seem unwilling, or perhaps more likely unable, to substantiate your claim.
>>24831743And what do you think my claim is? Say it in your own words, so I know exactly what to prove or argue.
>>24831746That's not how it works, so I'll use your words.>Modern translations removing the sin of fornication from the Bibleand when pressed for examples you listed >NIV, ESV, NKJV, ERV, TLB, NASB, NLV, RSV, TLV, etc.Can you form an intelligible response with examples of your claim?
>>24831753my church uses the nasb and definitely teaches fornication is grieveous sin.
>>24831574There's a reason why the other Abrahamic religions put a much bigger emphasis on the original languages.
>>24831574>killing eachother over the fundamental nature of reality is le stupid. Why? It just is okay now be my eternal slave cog. I’m god stupid. I control reality because I say so.
>>24831700Verses?
>>24831742If you’re reading the OT you’re still a jew. They don’t call their divisions denominations.
>>24831790why is Christianity so complicated
>>24831753>>248317881 Corinthians 6:18.Older translations like the Douay-Rheims and the KJV use the word "fornication" which unambiguously means "sex outside of marriage", and it is very clear from this verse that premarital sex is a sin. Newer translations like those shown in picrel use the vague phrase "sexual immorality". It is not obvious whether or not premarital sex is included, and hence you find NIV Christians going around saying "nowhere in the Bible does it say that premarital sex is a sin".>>24831762A church's dogma is a separate thing from the translation it uses.
which bible translation should I fucking get then KJV?
>>24831823Yes
>>24831815>Newer translations like those shown in picrel use the vague phrase "sexual immorality". It is not obvious whether or not premarital sex is included, and hence you find NIV Christians going around saying "nowhere in the Bible does it say that premarital sex is a sin".This is really bad, honestly. And people will really do mental gymnastics to try to make the Bible compatible with the Sexual Revolution to pander to liberals.Reminds me of the Arsenokoitai thing. Paul went out of his way to create a term that basically says "men who sleep with men" in order to be explicit and clear. I don't know a way he could be more explicit and clear. And they try to pretend it means something else."It means slavery or relationships with power differential, Paul was actually a Foucaldian"
>>24831851So did I "form an intelligible response with examples of my claim"?
>>24831854This is my first post in this thread. I'm not really following the discussion but I agreed with the point in your post
>>24831857Thanks for agreeing. I thought you were the other anon because of the way you space your paragraphs.
>>24831860Ah, I'm not the other anon. I like to space posts like this because they look better on phone.
>>24831815Interestingly enough, the NRSV a translation a lot of people decry as liberal slop actually translates this verse with the word fornication
>>24831860This was me >>24831753 Since fornication is a broader term that isn't limited to simply mean "sex outside of marriage", and covers a broad range of sexual sin, no, you didn't. Even if you were correct about the English definition of fornication, your argument still fails because translating to "sexual immorality" would broaden the mean... but that's a moot point since fornication isn't limited to pre-marital sex.
>>24831895>fornication is a broader term that isn't limited to simply mean "sex outside of marriage"What the hell are you talking about?
>>24831895NTARate the argument "nowhere in the Bible does it say that premarital sex is a sin"
>>24831815The Greek word is porneia, so the question is what porneia means. Most dictionaries seem to think it means something close to "whoredom, whorishness".
>>248319010/0Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm some liberal mainliner trying to engage in eisegetical reading to further silly ideas>>24831900In 1611 fornication meant more than pre-marital sex.
>>24831913I said NTA...
>>24831913>In 1611 fornication meant more than pre-marital sex.In 2025 English it doesn't, which is why a modern translation should use some other phrasing that makes the meaning of the Greek clear.
>>24831909>the question is what porneia means1 Corinthians 7:2 can only be understood as "porneia" meaning "sex outside of marriage". >>24831913>In 1611 fornication meant more than pre-marital sex.Source: your asshole. >>24831921>makes the meaning of the Greek clear>using the vague phrase "sexual immorality"
>>24831909I'm looking in Strong's now, and it also appears elsewhere to mean "incestuous", as in 1 Cor. 5:1, where he's arguing against the practice of taking your father's wife, and the original verse that the anon put forth as an example is most likely Paul chiding the men of the church for visiting prostitutes. It's clearly a term that encompasses more than pre-marital sex. As was fornication during the era the KJV was translated in.Anyway, just goes to show that most people attempting to shame you for reading a bible that isn't their own preferred version usually have no real argument for it. I'm not talking about literal vs. paraphrased and thought-for-thought translations either. There's good arguments for that. But sperging out about KJV onlyism, or Douay-Rheims, or whatever is almost always backed up by nothing more than emotion and habit.
>>24831925The Greek includes more than just premarital sex, though to the audience at the time it would have been understood to include it. (And this NIV verse makes it clear that "sexual immorality" is meant to be understood to include it, so I'm not sure how you can read the NIV as saying premarital sex is okay.)
>>24831921I agree. That's why I'm perplexed by anon thinking there's some grand conspiracy behind translations like the NASB, NIV, etc.>>24831925and the same word in other passages can't be understood to mean "sex outside of marriage", so it obviously has a wider use.. the first passage you chose is literally Paul using that word to tell the members of the Corinthian church to stop visiting prostitutes.I'm lazy, but I'll suppose I'll try to find proof of fornication being a broader term than simple adultery in the past for you.
They should keep some of the terms untranslated and have notes teaching what they mean.I have seen people confusing "charity" and "almsgiving" since in modern English they mean the same thing. And to avoid things like pastors saying "love is love".
>>24831928>1 Cor. 5:1, where he's arguing against the practice of taking your father's wifeIs that not an example of fornication? Fucking your stepmom?>Paul chiding the men of the church for visiting prostituteIs that not an example of fornication?>fornication is premarital sexNo, fornication is sex outside of marriage. There's a difference.>>24831932>The Greek includes more than just premarital sexAgain, fornication is not premarital sex, it is sex outside of marriage.>I'm not sure how you can read the NIV as saying premarital sex is okayPicrel is average NIV reader>>24831938>the same word in other passages can't be understood to mean "sex outside of marriage"Like what?>the first passage you chose is literally Paul using that word to tell the members of the Corinthian church to stop visiting prostitutesIs visiting a prostitute not an example of fornication?>fornication being a broader term than simple adulteryWhen did I ever say fornication was adultery?
>>24831932>>24831938NTA and I don't really follow English language Bible fights, since English is not even my primary language, but I have seen some academics trying to twist arsenokoitai... Some people do have an agenda to try to change definitions in order to push for "liberal politics".Again, I don't know if this is the case of those translations, but we shouldn't really be too innocent.
>>24831942Yeah, there's a reason Jewish religious discussion involves so many Hebrew words even if you're otherwise speaking English.>>24831945>Again, fornication is not premarital sex, it is sex outside of marriage.And πορνεία was understood to mean not only sex outside of marriage but in general anything that violated Jewish sexual ethics. From historical evidence we know this included sex outside of marriage; if we take the NT on its own it heavily implies this but does not outright say it.
>>24831953>if we take the NT on its own it heavily implies this but does not outright say it.1 Corinthians 7:2 can only be understood as "porneia" meaning "sex outside of marriage".
>>24831949How sure can we be of the meaning of a hapax legomenon whose context is just a long list?
>>24831957"Only having sex with your spouse is a good way to prevent πορνεία" is not precisely the same thing as "anything except sex with your spouse is by definition πορνεία". Closing the windows is a good way to prevent flies getting in, but "having open windows" is not what's meant by "fly infestation".
>>24831964>"Only having sex with your spouse is a good way to prevent πορνεία"That's a misphrasing of 1 Cor 7:2, faggot.
>>24831945I'll concede on fornication, even though I don't think I'm wrong, but I'm a retard and thought adultery did, too, so hey maybe I am..I still think your argument is flawed, and that the original Greek shows that the word has a broader meaning than pre-marital sex, and I don't find some clown trying to justify their sin as very compelling proof that "sexual immorality" is a bad translation of the Greek.>>24831949True
>>24831968Take the L with humility, brother
>>24831969>the original Greek shows that the word has a broader meaning than pre-marital sexYes, I agree with this, because "fornication" does not mean "pre-marital sex" only. My point is that "sexual immorality" is a bad translation because it is a vague phrase with ambiguous meaning. Paul is clearly being specific in definition because of how imperative he's speaking here. >>24831972kill yourself
>>24831974If that's true then fornication is also a bad translation, because it limits the scope of what was trying to be expressed by the author.>>24831974or spaz out and be mean, that's an option, too.
>>24831958I wonder what Paul meant when he created the term "male who sleeps with males". It is a mystery. We will never know what he meant.I wonder why the people who spoke the same language he did at a close era to Paul's never found any ambiguity with it and understood it as "men who have sex with men". I wonder how the Church Fathers could never see the ambiguity.But then, modern liberal academics "found" an ambiguity where if you try to make mental gymnastics hard enough it will actually not be anything at odds with their liberal views.Any academic that tries to make this mental gymastics is intellectually dishonest.
>>24831969>>24831974>>24831984They should just keep "porneia" and then having a note explaining what the Church Fathers understood by this.Doesn't having anal sex with your own wife count as "porneia" too?
>>24831968The very literal translation is "but because of πορνεία let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband". This implies that if extramarital sex is not occurring then πορνεία is probably not occurring, but it does not outright state that if extramarital sex is occurring πορνεία must be occurring. If not-P implies not-Q, then P does not necessarily imply Q. (As a matter of historical fact, Jewish communities at the time would have considered non-marital sex a form of πορνεία, but the NT taken on its own doesn't outright say as much directly.)>>24831987>I wonder what Paul meant when he created the term "male who sleeps with males".Very literally it means "male-liers" or "male-bedders", most likely referring to Leviticus 18:22, which in the Septuagint reads καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός, translating the Hebrew ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה. The exact meaning of this verse is disputed; what additional meaning is משכבי אשה imparting here that wouldn't have been covered by ואת־זכר לא תשכב?
>>24831664scofield bible, jewish horseshit
>>24832003>Very literally it means "male-liers" or "male-bedders"I wonder what he meant by that. The guy went out of his way to be explicit and brunt. The early Christians and Church Fathers understood him perfectly well.Is your liberal ass better able to understand what he meant than the people he wrote it for and who spoke his language natively?Was there any way Paul could be more explicit? Because I can't see any way he could.
>>24832013Luther, translating well before the modern gay rights movement, had it as Knabenschänder, men who molest boys. So the meaning was not undisputed before modern liberalism.
>>24832013>everyone in the thread disagrees with you>get mad and start insulting everyonelol
>>24831984>it limits the scope of what was trying to be expressed by the authorExcept it is clear from 1 Cor 7:2 that πορνεία only means "sex outside of marriage". >spaz out and be meanOn 4chan? You bet!>>24831992>Doesn't having anal sex with your own wife count as "porneia" too?I don't see why it should. If you bring up the first chapter of Romans, I'm gonna say it never uses the word porneia.>>24832003>This implies that if extramarital sex is not occurring then πορνεία is probably not occurringAgreed>it does not outright state that if extramarital sex is occurring πορνεία must be occurringI admit you are partly right, if you look at the verse in isolation. But you have to take into account the previous verse, 1 Corinthians 7:1. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." as well as 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
>>24832021>everyoneYou are not "everyone". Or do you think everyone here agrees with you that Paul was not disagreeing with "men who have sex with men" when he wrote that, but something about slaves or something?Which for some reason the Church Fathers never caught
>>24832025>Except it is clear from 1 Cor 7:2 that πορνεία only means "sex outside of marriage".Only shows that it means sexual immorality, and that he was using it in the context of sex outside of marriage to a single partner.
>>24832025>Except it is clear from 1 Cor 7:2 that πορνεία only means "sex outside of marriage".It certainly implies that it includes it, but how does it make it clear that it ONLY refers to it?
>>24832032The cultural context isn't irrelevant- in that part of the world at the time male-male sex was understood primarily as something a higher-status person did 'to' a lower-status person, not something that consenting adults would engage in as equal partners. (The latter may have existed marginally, but it wasn't part of general cultural consciousness, and being the passive partner would have been seen as shameful.)
>>24832040You said "everyone here agreed with you".
>>24832047that was me not him.
i also said they disagreed with you, i never posted anything for anyone to agree or disagree with kek
>it’s a Jews argue with other Jews about who is most jewish episode
>>24832040The Church Fathers didn't understand it this way and there were cases of mutually consensual partnerships.Heck, Hadrian who was the Roman Emperor in that era treated his male lover better than he did his wife.>>24832052And you lied. I was discussing with one person and you came up with this bullshit in order to pretend there is a consensus in this thread. Dishonest people like you piss me off. Bitch
>>24832035Why would Paul tell people to get married to have sex, if sex outside marriage were okay?>>24832036You have an assumption that "no sex is πορνεία, except those prohibited". You might not even be aware of this assumption, but it's there. But I'm saying "all sex is πορνεία, except those permitted". And this is the stance Paul has, if you look at the wider context of 1 Cor 7. So, since he excludes marital sex from πορνεία, and nothing else . . . well, you see my point.
>>24831823i don't remember which one is, BUT TARGET THAT ONE THAT STATES THAT TO CLEANSE YOUR SOUL AND BODY IS REQUIRED NOT ONLY PRAYING, BUT ALSO FASTING. jews modified the older one removing the fasting benefits (IN YOUTUBE WATCH THE VIDEO "PARASITES ARE DEMONS")
Shouldn't people try to look at the "spirit of the law" when understanding the Bible?Christian morality is about "loving God above all things with all your might and love your brothers as you love yourself".To get closer to God you need to detach yourself from material wealth, status and the pleasures of the fresh.You are not exactly detaching yourself from the pleasures of the fresh by having sex out of wedlock or having sex with males if you are a male.Paul said that celibacy is a better state, even.I think none of what I have said is at odds with any decent Christian tradition and I was not creative at all here.So, how anyone can think sex out of wedlock or sodomy is OK according to Christianity?
>>24832080Yes, it's foolish to do so, and has little to do with which translation that the're (not) reading
i just read the kjv, and use the nasb or esv for clarifying the passages where i find the archaic language difficult to interpret. i should probably invest in a concordance, greek lexicon and bible dictionary. should probably look more into the original documents, when and where they were discovered, and translation methodology, but ehh, i'm not a scholar i just want to submit to christ and seek the lord's face.
I love the brown mass of tradcaths in this thread flinging poo over the arcane historical connotations of a word they are never going to have anyway (sex)
>>24832803I joined a church then I saw a video of "cultish" on YouTube explaining how I just joined a cult.
>>24831574I have with me a copy of "The Revised English Bible with Apocrypha" published in 1989 by Oxford and Cambridge University presses, and I quite like it. It was made in agreement with representatives from all sorts of denominations from Baptist to Catholic to Moravian to Methodist
>>24831909>>24831913>>24831815>>24831900Per the 1828 webster dictionary and AV1611 dictionary:FORNICA'TION, n. L. fornicatio.1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.2. Adultery. Matt. 5.3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19."Sexual Immorality" in more updated English would include all of these things, not to mention that actually churches rally against it. If you believe that all of the churches and Christians that use a modern English bible just changed their doctrine suddenly than I don't think you've actually stepped foot in one of those churches.Also, the anon on porneia is right, it is a more general term that includes premarital sex in it, which makes sense for people who read the word fornication back then but not for many now, who wouldn't be aware it included other things beside that.> hence you find NIV Christians going around saying "nowhere in the Bible does it say that premarital sex is a sin".This is more the result of widespread Cultural Christians and lukewarm to progressive churches, most of which don't regularly read any translation of the bibleI would honestly agree that people should perhaps be given a footnote or something similar to help understand the phrase "sexual immorality" because it is quite vague, but that's certainly not a reason to become a KJV-Onlyist and most people who attend a solid church or read a solid commentary on the bible should understand the meaning.
>>24834193>1828 Dictionary>somehow this is what Renaissance English speakers meantWebster is a retard who can't even spell "colour" right, and you're a shithead for using him. Fornication has always meant what it has meant.>"Sexual Immorality" in more updated English would include all of these thingsIt's a vague phrase that doesn't mean shit.>the anon on porneia is right, it is a more general term that includes premarital sex in itFornication means more than premarital sex too, asshole.>This is more the result of widespread Cultural Christians and lukewarm to progressive churches, most of which don't regularly read any translation of the bibleShut the fuck up. These shitty translations are part of that spirit you're complaining about.
>>24834377Which translation do you suggest, my paranoid Moabite friend?
>>24834383Wycliffe
Some terms should just be left untranslated.Porneia and agape are just two examples.
>>24834406Also, Jesus should be left as Yeshua.
>>24834406lol, I thought you were a Catholic?
>>24834441Meant for >>24834398
>>24834441>>24834444You were the one saying "everyone disagrees with you and Paul was actually a modern liberal", weren't you?If that's the case, you are awful at trying to guess who is writing what.
>>24834474No, I'm OP. I'm assuming you're the dude who posted the maze meme. I'm not rereading the thread to remember why I assumed your Catholic, but it's extremely bizarre for one to be reading the Wycliffe, that's all.
>>24834486Even more bizarre and ironic for one to hold it as their preferred translation. Are you Catholic?
>>24834486I'm not the Wycliffe anon. Neither am I the maze anon.You should just give up at trying to guess who wrote what. You don't have a talent for that
>>24834491Hmm, okay
>>24834495More than one person here dislikes theological liberals trying to change terms in order to change doctrine.
>>24834500I don't like being accused of being theologically liberal, but okay.
>>24831574I decided that all of them were wrong and that I have to translate the Bible myself
>>24834377The 1828 dictionary is usually recommended because there just isn't really many widespread dictionary before that, and multiple "KJV dictionaries" more or less quote from it verbatim. You can check concordances such as Strong's as well. As for the color vs colour debate, that's just American vs British English, with Webster specifically trying to include both British and American English into his dictionary for unity.I agree that it's a vague phrase, but due to the fact that porneia includes things such as incest and adultery (outside of premarital sex) it does make sense. I'm not saying it's the best translation (I've already stated my view on this), but its not a denial of premarital sex as sinful.Fornication meaning more than premarital sex is exactly my point, because that is the case in older English but in modern English it usually only refers to pre-marital sex. This is why using a different phrase makes sense, because the modern reader will not grasp that fornication means multiple things, as the definition has changed over time and now only refers to one action.As for the translations being a part of the lukewarm spirit, I would honestly agree and disagree here. I think that Conservative Christian translations (such as the NIV and ESV) have done well to help evangelize and help many people understand the bible. At the same time, many liberal non-Christian translations such as the NRSVue that recently came out change the words on practicing homosexuality in 1 Cor. 6:9 or make a more secular or Jewish translation of Isaiah 7:14 (even then though, this is somewhat hit or miss, with the 1901 RSV translating homosexuality incorrectly as "sexual perverts" whereas the 1989 NRSV translated it more correctly as "sodomites" until the 2021 update).In the West today we have a serious issue of Cultural, progressive Christians. Blaming the imperfect translations (and to be clear, all translations can be criticized here) of the Bible only ignores this issue. The honest truth is that we need to be making good disciples and strengthening our churches.
>>24834912The 1828 is the ubiquitous big green one that all the Christian homeschoolers use. I have it set as my default search engine on my tablet so I can easily brong up definitions from Readera on my tablet. I wasn't familiar with the AV1611 resource that you posted earlier, thanks for that.
>>24834912What do you think of Webster's KJV update where he changed passages in Genesis cause he disagreed with the geographical implications
>>24834947nta, but what do you mean by revisions? Did he publish a translation, or was this commentary or what? What do you mean he "changed" passages? Not contesting you, just curious.
>>24834912Webster is a retarded dumbass who changed the spelling of words and his shit definitions are based off misinterpretations of the KJV.Shakespeare, on the other had, only used the word "fornicate" to mean "sex between people who aren't married". He never used it to mean "incest" or "idolatry".>porneia includes things such as incestSource? And if you bring up 1 Cor 5:1, fucking your stepmom isn't incest.>adulteryAdultery is a subset of fornication, retard, because it's sex between two people who aren't married.>Fornication meaning more than premarital sexHow many times do I have to say this? Fornication means "sex between people who aren't married". That's different from premarital sex. There is no example of "porneia" that is not fornication.>I think that Conservative Christian translations (such as the NIV and ESV) have done well to help evangelize and help many people understand the bible.No, all they've done was create Joel Osteen megachurch shit.>Blaming the imperfect translations (and to be clear, all translations can be criticized here) of the Bible only ignores this issue. It is part of the issue. You have not disproved the major objection here >>24831815 that "sexual immorality" is a vague phrase that doesn't discourage premarital sex in the reader.
>>24834996this dude is really adamant about the definition of the word fornicate.
>>24835000>fornication is a bad translation because of my misunderstanding of the word's meaning>why are you so obsessed with the definition?kill yourself.
>>24835008i dunno just seems like it's a minority opinin that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, you may well be absolutely correct, tho
>>24835015>you may well be absolutely correctI am.
>>24834981You don't know? Webster did his own revision of the KJV in 1833 where he changed some passages, removed words that had become offensive, and updated some others (like changing wherefore to why). It was poorly received at the time:https://bible-researcher.com/webster.htmlHe gave a big 5 paragraph explanation about why he changed Gen 2:13, here's the first paragraph:>CushforEthiopia. Gen. 2.13. By following the Septuagint, in rendering the Hebrew Cush byEthiopia, the translators have introduced confusion into the geography of the Bible; and laid the foundation for many mistakes and much skepticism. I well remember that when I supposedEthiopia, here mentioned, to be the country now called by this name, my faith in the authenticity of the scriptures was shaken; for I could not conceive how the Euphrates and the Nile, whose sources are several thousand miles distant, could both proceed from Eden. Yet so ignorant of geography were the Greeks and Jews, that even Josephus expressly refers the river Gibon, which “encompassed the whole land of Ethiopia,” to the Nile. But there is no difficulty in determining this to be a great mistake.
>>24834981Forgot to mention, it's available on Bible Hub:https://biblehub.com/wbt/genesis/2.htm
>>24835125Uhh.. no, that's why I asked.. but thank you for the explanation
>>24835137Among the words he changed was fornication lol:>Fornication. This word, in modern laws and usage, has acquired a technical meaning more limited than its signification in the scriptures. For which reason among others, I have generally substituted for it a word of more comprehensive signification, generallylewdness.
>>24835238that one dude is gonna be PISSED
>>24831574Man.. I miss school pizza
>>24835238Webster is full of shit
>>24834996> if you bring up 1 Cor 5:1, fucking your stepmom isn't incest.Having sex with your fathers wife, even if you marry her, is still not allowed (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:30, Deuteronomy 27:20, Amos 2:7), which is an example of porneia that would include married people. I would also note that the Septuagint translates the beastiality of Leviticus 18:23 as porniea.>Adultery is a subset of fornication, retard, because it's sex between two people who aren't married.While from a technical perspective this is true in English, porneia is sometimes separated from adultery, such as in 1 Corinthians 6:9>No, all they've done was create Joel Osteen megachurch shit.Megachurches and false gospels have existed before modern English translations, and the vast majority of churches who use modern English translations are not megachurches, and modern English bibles have genuinely been quite good for new believers who are not used to the more archaic English of something like the KJV or Wycliffe Bible.>that "sexual immorality" is a vague phrase that doesn't discourage premarital sex in the reader.I have already stated my view of the phrase, and agreed that it is vague multiple times. I would like to add that sex being specifically in the context of marriage already exists in the Bible from Genesis onwards (see 1 Corinthians 7:20 and Hebrews 13:4 as just two examples)>>24835238>in modern laws and usage, has acquired a technical meaning more limited than its signification in the scriptures.I don't know much about Webster but too be honest this isn't really that wrong, fornication in modern English tends to refer to only sex between unmarried persons without including the other things found in the word porneia that is used in the scriptures, hence the phrase "sexual immorality".
>>24835265Same
>>24831664>entirelyNo. It's christians who eat it up.
>>24836924>using old testament laws for the new covenantYou don't understand anything, do you.>the Septuagint translates the beastiality of Leviticus 18:23 as pornieaUh, no it doesn't? lmao https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/leviticus/18-23.html>While from a technical perspective this is true in EnglishSo you admit I'm right? Thanks.>porneia is sometimes separated from adultery, such as in 1 Corinthians 6:9There's no reason why the elements of a list are exclusive. Like "Friends, Romans, countrymen", someone can be all three.>Megachurches and false gospels have existed before modern English translationsNot to the same extent>the vast majority of churches who use modern English translations are not megachurchesBut the other way around is true.>the other things found in the word porneia that is used in the scripturesNo such thing. Noah Webster is full of shit.>tl;drYou grew up with a modern translation and don't want to admit you've been reading a shit translation your whole life.
>>24837243The new covenant is not a destroying of the old covenant but a fulfillment of it. Of course, old laws of Israel no longer apply because the nation of Israel is gone and many ceremonial laws have been fulfilled (sabbath keeping, dietary restrictions, etc.) but the essence of the old covenant is made deeper in the new. In terms of sex, the essence of the old covenant remains the same, with the prohibitions against adultery and other destructive practices made deeper and the pure essence made more distinct (such as with lust). Paul himself continues the language of the old testament with the word arsenokoitai, which was directly intended to be a reference to all homosexual actions, just like the old testament says (not "prostitution" or whatever nonsense liberal "scholars" try to make the text appear to be).With that being said however, 1 Cor. 5:1 is still an obvious allusion to these laws, even if the old covenant does not apply in the same way as the new. Pauls condemnation of the relationship here shows that he is not trying to do away with what these texts say, but interpret these rules that were not fulfilled in the same way as things like strict seventh-day sabbath keeping and kosher law but instead made fuller in light of the new covenant.>Uh, no it doesn't?My apologies, you are correct here.>So you admit I'm right? Thanks.Yes, fornication is a form of adultery, but many modern readers would not understanding it this way (only understanding the fornication by the literal "unmarried sex" type definition that wouldn't include adultery with married people)>There's no reason why the elements of a list are exclusive. Like "Friends, Romans, countrymen", someone can be all three.If this is the case, than "fornication" would include more than just unmarried sex, with things such as idolatry and homosexual acts. That is more akin to the vague phrase to the modern reader than fornication.>Not to the same extentActually, massive megachurches have existed since the 1800s, with even many prominent pastors leading them such as Charles Spurgeon. The reason megachurches are looked down on now is a result of charismatic cults and the prosperity gospel, which are heretical "gospels" invented the 1950s. Interestingly enough, the 1950s were actually before many modern English translations gained prominence or even existed at all, with many coming out from the late 70s to the 2000s (see the NKJV, NIV, ESV for example)>But the other way around is true.Okay, that's like saying the KJV is bad because the heretical Mormons use it. It's true that many megachurches use these translations, but so do most churches.>No such thing. Noah Webster is full of shit.Okay then, if you don't like Webster, check Strong's concordance, (number G4202)>You grew up with a modern translation and don't want to admit you've been reading a shit translation your whole life.I grew up using the KJV
>always hear about lucifer being le bad guywhy is there hardly any literature about his days before his descent? he didn't turn immediately, did he?
>>24831653I could not take Christianity seriously any longer once I got informed about the JewsI just can'tChristianity paved the way for Jews to control the whole world. It was the most damaging thing that ever happened to humanity
>>24837610>can't into Dutch literature
>>24837610The Catholics and EOs wrote a bunch of extrabiblical fanfic about him.
>>24837593>ceremonial lawsyou are a retard for using that phrase.>the essence of the old covenant remains the sameWhat the hell are you talking about?>Paul himself continues the language of the old testamentBy using Greek words?>1 Cor. 5:1 is still an obvious allusion to these lawsNo? Fucking your stepmom is weird everywhere.>fornication is a form of adulteryIt's the other way around, dumbass. Adultery = married person fucking someone whose not the spouse. Fornication = two people fucking, who aren't married. Adultery is a subset of fornication.>"fornication" would include more than just unmarried sexWhy?>with things such as idolatry and homosexual actsNo where does it ever suggest idolatry or homosexuality.>massive megachurches have existed since the 1800sBut there are more massive megachurches now than ever.>check Strong's concordanceStrong is shit too. >I grew up using the KJVAnd my father works for Nintendo.
>>24837726>curses, insults, and seethes the entire threadWhy would anyone take spiritual guidance from someone like you?
>>24837789Because I'm right.
>>24837806Imagine us on the day of judgement, being asked to account for 4chan posts. God help us.
>OP is instantly proven correct by the rest of the threadKino
>>24837818doesn't change the fact that i'm right
>>24831574That's just literalist spergs. Let them have their faggy little slap fights.KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, etc. they're all good. Even "The Message" is fine if you understand the intent was to be a paraphrase in very basic contemporary English.
This thread seems to be entirely autistic hair splitting. Fornication is, in a strict sense, the easiest translation for πορνεία (both words being derived form prostitution). Certainly it includes all sex outside of marriage. Whether or not you want to extend the term, all fornication is sexual immorality (I don't think most people would call sodomizing your wife fornication, but it would certainly be sexual immorality). The word fornication does, however, have the issue that it possesses an archaic flavor, for which reason many modern translators have eschewed it. Similarly, "homosexual" typically substitutes for "sodomite", or the particularly awkward euphemism from the KJV "abusers of themselves with mankind" (I despise this euphemism, as I think it's more likely to confuse people than a more straightforward term). To twist yourself into shreds over this issue is entirely retarded. Please get help. The KJV is nice, but the Greek is better.
>>24838144this whole thread is literally just one smug and obstinate retard arguing with everyone that the definition of fornication is limited to adultery.
>>24838369premarital sex, rather.
>>24838144>I don't think most people would call sodomizing your wife fornication, but it would certainly be sexual immoralityWrong. Why would God hate it when you fuck your wife in the ass?
