Originally posted by ManInCamo
Dude, the New Internation Version, and the King James Version (hundreds of years old) are the two most common printing of the bible. Its not some new confangled hippie version or anything man. Thats why I put up TWO versions of the bible, both saying basically the same thing.
You're saying that the king james version (originally printed in 1600's I think) is some new hippie version?
btw: sodomy = buttsex
sodomites, those who practice anal sex... ie: homosexual.
Even your quote from the dictionary desribes a femenine, overly revined person... IE: GAY!
Also, your 'version' of the bible is probably one of the least common version. Especially considering nobody outside catholicism uses it. Also... uh.. non original... uh. Do you think that the Bible was written in English? Dude, unless you can read the language that the bible was written in, Hebrew(?) then, uh, uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh is a non--original interpretations. uh.
So because the NIV and King James versions are the most common printing, they are correct? Are you aware that more people read tabloids than the New York Times? Does that mean a three headed baby has been born with the mark of the devil and that the antichrist is coming? Probably not.
One would think that a 'new hippie version' of the bible would preach more of peace and love than of hate.
I also would like to mention that the King James version was rewritten by prodestants to better suit THEIR views when they broke away from the Catholic church (say oh, around 1600), so if you want to be technical, my version is far more accurate than yours.
It is the fact that the bible isn't in English that has caused a problem. If your denomination has a religious or political agenda, then your 'retranslation' of the bible to a 'more correct' and 'easily readable' state can shift the overall meaning of certain phrases or passages to better suit your needs.
And this is coming from a person who isn't a member of any christian faith, so it isn't as if I am biased towards roman catholic views.
Sodomy TODAY means anal sex (Fun fact: Only 9% of men and 4% of women identify themselves as gay, but 29% of men and 20% of women have had anal sex. Therefore, more heterosexuals than homosexuals commit sodomy.), but what I am referring to is the original meaning intended by Paul when he wrote these letters. In those times, sodomy refered to any act considered sexually deviant. Considering the strict laws put down in Deuteronomy, contemporary thoughts of sexual deviance are vastly different from period views.
My point about the NIV is that it was DELIBERATELY rephrased to specify effeminate and homosexual people, rather than its original meaning of general sexual perversion. Why? It is 'easier to understand' (makes them think it means what we want them to think) for the average person. Or, there wasn't any mention of homosexuality outside of Paul's writings and Leviticus, so they needed something a little more concrete.