Aye it has become a copy of a copy of a copy.

Changed once to conform to the mores and beleifs of the time of the
translator. Changed from that to the next to again conform to what the
translators believed the next time it was translated. Will it become a
sin to breath in the next century?

Wonder how many more of these mistranslations I can find.

The more I read and research the more I see the hand of so called Anti
Christ in the current bible. For a simple message to have become so
twisted and filled with the things of man and few notice even AFTER WE
WERE WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN.

but wasn't it said also that the Antichrist would appear as the Messias?

Do you really wonder?

I checked with "Wikepedia","Web Bible Ecyclopedia","Word
History",Merrium-Webster","Concise Oxford English Dictionary",The
"American Heritage Dictionary","The Indo European, Greek to english"
Dictionary, The "Proto Indo European Dictionary".

n.
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
Word History: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to
what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers.
The Latin word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication,
is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a
vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade.
This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, "to commit
fornication," from which is derived fornicti, "whoredom, fornication."
Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303.

They all say the same thing.

Kat

I believe it says the Anti Christ will come in the name of Christ and
will first fool the very elect.

I reckon that has happend and prolly around the time of the Nicean
Councils or the Council of Trent which would fit the time tables given
in the bible for his appearance.

I do not know if this is true but I have been finding so many things in
the Bible that do not fit the Message of the person that spoke it and
caused it to come about. I have found numerous words translated and
twisted from what they meant in that time that the entire book AS IT IS
PRINTED IN THIS DAY has become suspect.

Do you think you could get hold of an older translation?
On second thoughts, they might be shut up some place or destroyed.

Thesaurus Legend Dictionary.:
Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Noun
1. fornication - voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not
married to each other
extramarital sex, free love - sexual intercourse between individuals who
are not married to one another
2. fornication - extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously
interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds
for divorce"
adultery, criminal conversation
extramarital sex, free love - sexual intercourse between individuals who
are not married to one another.

Yes AB, it is up to correct interpretation. Now to which people actually
get it right....now that is the question. Some will interpret to fit a
situation or time. Others will try and find the correct interpretation.
I guess it is up to people such as many here to keep trying. At least it
is being discussed.

Kat

Look up invisable. 1303. I am still going to search for older ones. I
have been very busy to try and find all I can. May take a while.
Kat

Would it matter. Once in power those in power will consolidate that
power to remain in power. It is the nature of that beast.

There have been generations of people fed upon the thought that if they
go to church and cry out to Christ they will be saved.

Generations that have been fed a partial lie and denied the freedom that
comes with the full truth of Jesus and his message. Those generations
my never see the truth because it has been buried by 2000 years of
control by the very powers and principalities they were warned about in
the begining of the Advent of Jesus the Annointed One.

AdventureBegins,

Porneia is the root word. You are posting all of the variations on the
root. The root word means all those things. Seriously, I'm out now.
The truth is obvious to everyone who is willing to accept it.

http://www.bl.uk/news/2005/pressrelease20050311.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-truth.htm

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/HWGI03.HTM

These are a few links that seem to be very interesting, it will take me
time to check them all out, and there are so many more.

Aye spider and I thank you for your part in bringing the truth to light.

I know that you and I have our differences but I would encourage you to
continue to post what you see in the bible.

Truth allways seeks the light.

God will allways find a way to make his truth visable to the world of
humanity.

Fri 06/01/07 02:04 PM
Would it matter. Once in power those in power will consolidate that
power to remain in power. It is the nature of that beast.

There have been generations of people fed upon the thought that if they
go to church and cry out to Christ they will be saved.

Generations that have been fed a partial lie and denied the freedom that
comes with the full truth of Jesus and his message. Those generations
my never see the truth because it has been buried by 2000 years of
control by the very powers and principalities they were warned about in
the begining of the Advent of Jesus the Annointed One.
==============================================================

I rarely go to church AB. I did not find my God in church. He came to
me. I was relunctant, then received. My truths did not come to me
without a fight. It has been a long road, with many curves. I was much
like many here. It wasn't until I opened my mind, that I began to see.
OMG!!! Wouldn't it be terrible to find out that (forgive me for saying
this), if the Bible were by the anti Christ? Question of questions. No,
it is too much for Jesus than against.

I can only hope that the end truths are as I believe that they will be.
What a terrible shame it would be to find out life is nothing but now.
Even if it were to be as I just said, I am glad that I found a way to
have something to make me be the better person that I am due to my
belief. I will have no regrets for hoping.
Kat

Kat from the way you present yourself you have seen the truths. They
are there.

I am not saying the Bible itself is not Truth. I am saying that a lot
of it has been twisted in the past in a very subtle way.

But when the churches reap what they have sown and colapse there will be
people like you to shine a light for the faithfull that are shaken loose
from them.

keep your light on.

Go read song of solomon.

Then tell us what we can and cant do with our women.

Arent there enough rules without making up more ???

OH yeah, Jesus Christ of Nazereth already said that once didnt he?

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)
The text of the story tells us that “the men of Sodom, both young and
old, all the people to the last man” (vs.4) gathered at Lot’s door and
demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is
important because it makes clear that the group oat Lot’s door was
compromised of either all the people of the city (men and women) or, at
a minimum, all the males of the city, both boys and men. This is a
telling fact. To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual
is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must
account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and
heterosexual) and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack.
Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.
This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story.
Lot, in a last ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin
daughters to the crowd at the door. Although Lot’s offer is
reprehensible, it does yield another important interpretive clue. If
you were entertaining some dinner guests at your home when suddenly a
group of men that you khew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the
door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would
ti make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead?

The motivaton to sexually abuse those we hate is, sadly, part of the
general human experience (even if it is not part of each of our personal
experiences). It is this motivation, not desire, which stands behind
the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of the city feared the two angelic
strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot (a recent immigrant)
had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused
their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of
Sodom were at Lot’s house clamoring to brutalize the strangers. This is
a story about attempted mob violence, not desire.


Me now – these verses do not indicate that the fornication you are all
speaking of , no matter the definition, has anything to do with desire
or “ungodly” sex of any kind. For if you interpret this with anything
sexually explicit, then it is a hate crime not unlike that of Matthew
Shephard. There is no sex here only brutality and hate.

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James
Version

Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics
and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who
enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today.

Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual
assumptions andrationale behind his condemnation of the behavior
described here. Does this passage apply to inherently
same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed
relationships?

Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a
logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the
Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits.
(v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in
an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander,
disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing her is explicitly
associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with
people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious
rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural
sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone
available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for
reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a
clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting
with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures,
then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the
experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.


Now me – I take offence, when the word homosexuality is read in the
bible in this manner and then associated with every person who
identifies as homosexual today. It is obvious from what you are all
saying, that sex, the giving of one’s body to another, is a sacred
thing. It is no less sacred for those who identify as homosexual. Of
course if you still need a tool with which to back up your fears and
hate and judgments, then by all means continue to see the what others
bias, and misinterpretation tells you. For by refusing to see the
truth, you are, yourself condemning your soul.

Red, I agree. The word homosexuality is not even really known to be in
scripture. There is a word that may be, but it is not a sure thing yet.
But it is clear that what I said was male with male sex is as bad a
female to male or any other way one can have sex, unmarried. You will be
hard pressed to talk to me about homosexuality. I do a lot of research
on it. It is a fact near and dear to my heart. I cannot believe that God
would purposefully born a child that was naturally that way and condemn
him for it.
Kat

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor
thieves…shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion.
First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often
viewed as a reference to nelly gay men. In truth, however, the Greek
word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is
malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is saying “soft people”
will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking
about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.

This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the
context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally
referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of
courage. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the
delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. Thus, men who ate too
much, liked wxpensive things, were lazy or liked to dress well were
considered “soft like awoman.” Althought this type of misogynistic
thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient
times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as
“effeminate.”

But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and
modern notations of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning
men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral
weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to
be manly or womanly was quite different from today.In First-century
Romans considered any man who as more interested in pleasure than duty
to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more
attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were
called effeminate.” In first-centry Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in
the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate,
because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes
and posturing. From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are
vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.

In recent years, however, some have suggested that, in the context in
which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically to
male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner ( i.e.,
soft, “woman-like”) in sexual intercourse. This translation is
reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations of
the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised Standard
Version. Since Malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the
negative trates associated with women in first century culture, it’s not
hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male
prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait
associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in
intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here, Paul ues
malakoi in the list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may
have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft
men in general.

To be continued:

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (continued)

from the King James Version “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A
similar phrase appears in a list of sins in 1 Timothy 1:10. both
phrases are derived from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is
quite rare. In fact, these two biblical references may be the first
examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time.
Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever.
However, some scholars have worked hared to make an educated guess.

One translation based on the root words alone. Arsenokoitai is a
combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to
sex, and another meaning “male.” Thus, some scholars surmise the tem
has something to do with male sexual expression – perhaps exclusive male
sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.

Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is
to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of
his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early
church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior
extensively, Clement of Alexandria and Joh Chrysostom, never used the
word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in
their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the
list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss
homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred
to homosexual behavior.

A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are
hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual
activity using terms other than arsenokaitai. If Paul had intended to
refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male
sex, he has other commonly-used, well known words at this disposal.


Now me – this goes on and on. Descriptions of other writings of the
period, meanings, interpretation based on the times and so on and so
forth. The end result is that there is nothing in any of these
Scriptures that reflect a bad light on the group that today identifies
as homosexual. Like all heterosexuals, they are looking for permanency,
for monogamy, for God and the same salvation that all good Christians
look for. The only humility in being homosexual is in the EXACT same
acts as for heterosexuals. Adultery, prostitution, hate crimes,
promiscuous sex , sex with children, sex with animals.

Do you see what your interpretations lead you when they are already
disposed to pre-conceptions. STOP IT DMN IT! No matter how you try
to interpret, you can never fully know what was meant. Because the
times, change, because the scripture changes, blame that on the Tower of
Babel and then ask God how we were every expected to muddle through all
these changes and have one perfect conceptions of one perfect God???

Sctter,
Thank-you , didn't mean to pass up your post, I was typing with
furious fingers and flames coming out my ears. Finally, scripture,
hitting home, it's too much to bear at times without going into a
tyraid. Too many would be internet interpretors, with too many
pre-conceptions to find truth in writings that have been misleading
people for 2000 years. It only gets worse, the more information at the
disposal of the world at large.

This was why I supported these threads, so that poeple could come to
an understanding, to accept what others believe as THEIR belief and to
respect them as people, not as the belief.

Interpret for yourselves, I am happy to listen and to accept who you
are and includes respecting your beliefs, but I draw the line when those
beliefs shadow the equality that all humans have when it comes to the
salvation some think is theirs alone. I'm not religious, so why does
this affect me so adversely? Because religion continues to designate
the moral definition of societies.
America is no better than those Eastern religious societies in which
women are subservient property of men. Until all the citizens of this
country are given the same respects, until religions change their view
or it is finally broken from it's malicious hate mongering judgement,
only then will this country peacefully, respectfully give equality to
every citizen.

Excuse me while I take my religious soap box in for repair, I seems to
have stomped on it....