A newly unveiled statue of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk was vandalized at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.
The statue was found with red spray-paint. A nearby poster memorial in front of the statue was vandalized with red paint as well.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
I know, a twitter link. Throw it into yt-dlp.
Also, the line that Kirk counters Ms Rachel with may have been a mistranslation and the original text may have said something more along the lines of “Man shall not lay with a boy the same as they lay with a woman”, which is a very contentious idea among Christians. Whether that’s because it means they’re not being told to hate gay people or because they’re being told to hate statutory rapists is up to you.
It is not a mistranslation, it’s very clearly talking about same-sex intercourse. The “mistranslation” angle is being invented out of whole cloth to retcon the Bible.
I appreciate the Christians who are trying to be accepting of LGBTQ+, but IMO they should just acknowledge the Biblical authors were wrong about this instead of pretending they didn’t say what they said.
If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.
Clearly, it just meant that hetro couples shouldn’t do anal.
Favorite take so far. Lol
I’ll have to push back there and maybe you have an argument if this was the only time it was talked about in scripture but it is not and it matches the threads of other biblical narratives.
A common thread through the Bible is that families are God’s plan for humans on this side of death. They are good to His kingdom and to promote the values of His love. Now homosexuality would directly go against that narrative so I don’t think the “man to a woman role” is a valid argument anymore. Romans 1 goes through the “homosexuality is bad” too.
Someone else said we are to say the writers of the Bible are wrong and that is a fundamental difference in ideals that we cannot overcome. I believe the Bible is the word of God and it is complete, authoritative and not up for change based on societal influences where that may not be the case for others so we would be arguing from literal difference in fundamental values. And that’s ok to do but no resolution could possibly come out of that.
You can’t even speak in your own words and you think you are the all knowing authority on the Bible? Settle down with that blasphemy please.
Did I say I was an all knowing authority on the Bible? No I’m bringing up counterpoints. That’s how discussions work
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Oh, so you read the bible in its original ancient Hebrew? I wasn’t aware any copies survived past the end of the Mouseion. Or do you just conveniently not count all of the translations, excisions and retranslations, along with editorialising at times such as the council of Nicea as “change based on societal influences”? Or, perhaps, do you believe that God, YHWH himself, gave forth the words, in English, to produce the specific version you read?
There are literally readily available copies of the Hebrew Bible. Complete copies are available which are over 1000 years old, and individual books and fragments going back to the end of the biblical period.
But are there any remaining in the classical ancient Hebrew from before the Babylonian captivity? You know, the language that the Jewish survivors of the second temple period had to reconstruct nearly from whole cloth, because their own language had evolved orally, and the entire written language was purely contextual to determine which vowels were being used? My question is whether the bot up above was in the habit of reading a language so thoroughly dead that it might as well be fucking Minoan. When even the Jews of the second temple period had to just trust that the Septuagint was a faithful translation, that begs questions of accuracy in translation from “the word of god”.
You have a lot of misconceptions about Hebrew continuity. Also misunderstanding of when the Bible was written.
Try reading Robert Alter. Very respectable scholar, but also fairly accessible.
I am genuinely interested in the topic, and will gladly look into the scholarship! Thanks for the reference! I’m fairly certain, however, that the biblical Hebrew was no longer in use by the time of the second temple period, instead being replaced among the populace with Aramaic, and all pronunciations and vowel renderings were, therefore, purely guesswork on the part of the scholars (hence the three or four different pronunciation interpetations), the most common of which wasn’t even invented until the middle ages. It’s the same deal with so-called “Church Latin”, except that Latin isn’t an abjad, so there wasn’t any guessing at context clues for spelling.
As far as the original comment was concerned, my point was that any translation is a change, and meaning is often lost. The modern christian bible has gone through at least 4 translations, no matter which route it took from the hand of bloody moses to the Christian fundies. This, in addition to things such as the Second Temple Period changes to which books would be selected for the accepted canonical Hebrew bible, or the Council of Nicea, completely destroy any idea of some pure word of god, unadulterated by human reinterpretation, as the bot was suggesting. The bot was clearly claiming that it was a Christian reading the modern bible, and that it somehow was the word straight out of the mouth of YHWH himself. That’s fucking idiotic.
Removed by mod
Lmao you’re so lazy. And half your “citations” are Facebook and Reddit links. The other half are heavily biased Christian organizations.
Surprise surprise you demanded the AI to tell you something you wanted to hear, and it did.
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that’s
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
The amount of biblical reproductions and verifiable copies are factors higher than homers illiad. That’s a fact.
Removed by mod
Here are some real sources.
L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford University Press)
Paul Maas, Textkritik — the foundational 20th-century work laying out the method (stemmatics/cladistic analysis of manuscript families) that’s
Martin West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Teubner)
These compare the methods used on classic literature that society deems as some of the most accurate books and preservation in history. Using those same standards, the Bible becomes an outlier for accuracy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The Bible has been translated and re-translated across basically every language on the planet, as well as appropriated for propaganda purposes over and over as well. To think that you can take a line at face value - especially in English - is naive. There have been at least 50 different cultures and societal revolutions between you and when that line was first written.
For example, the King James version of the Bible is a propaganda piece commissioned by a monarch at a time when kings were quite literally losing their heads with the express purpose of including as many references to kings and monarchies as possible in order to foster positive sentiments in the peasants toward the “divine right of kings” or whatever.
In early versions of the Bible, Lucifer was imprisoned in Tartarus alongside the Titans that Zeus put in there. I’m pretty sure Hell was added later during a medieval reformation or something. The Bible was definitely altered several times during the Medieval period. The line in question here I think had at least 3 variants during this time period. The one claimed to be about same-sex intercourse, a version potentially about not engaging in CSAM, and one that might be about not fucking somebody in another person’s bed.
King David, one of God’s anointed, had something like 32 wives and a friend who “loved him in a way that no woman ever could.”
One of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word used is for a specific type of slave. A male slave commonly kept as a lover.
And we could have a field day on Biblically accurate angels, “Be not afraid,” and the Renaissance era redefining what an angel is.
And then there’s also the fact that the Bible was written by multiple different people across several hundred years, at least. The later parts of the New Testament were written by people who lived 300 years after the death of Christ and claimed to know him and what he wanted better than his apostles did. Some of whom who said that the Old Testament and original sin still counted despite the nullification of the Old Testament and the cleansing of original sin being one of the reasons that Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for.
There are significant scholars who agree that David was gay. FWIW
A) They can’t acknowledge the Bible was wrong about anything. The whole point of their religion is that the Bible is God’s words written down by man. Even when you know about the conclave that decided which of the hundreds of “biblical” stories were apocryphal and which were true, hundreds of years after the events of those stories supposedly happened, they will still say that God was guiding that conclave. Bringing up a bad translation also doesn’t help, since King James was guided by God to create his translation. The Bible CANNOT be wrong (according to Christians), since it is the word of God.
B) Historical context is important if you want to try interpreting God’s words instead of taking them literally. Romans had a very different lifestyle and view of sex and the role of men and women. It could be that God’s word was that the TYPE of male relationships the Romans had was not what God wanted, but just two dudes banging was fine.