- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The bible doesn't forbid homosexuality - the left
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:18 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:18 pm to AggieHank86
Abraham was from a sumerian city. I believe UR. so would think baylonian influence predates babylonian exile.
Abraham was faithful, rejected idol worship, and received God's promise. so influence would have to be from other migrants.
Abraham was faithful, rejected idol worship, and received God's promise. so influence would have to be from other migrants.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:19 pm to roadGator
Jesus explained that it was wrong.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:21 pm to L.A.
quote:This is a bit of a non-sequitur, but it is interesting to me. The idea that the Babylonians took the entire population of Judea to Babylon is ... questionable. It seems far more likely that they took a big chunk of the elite, as hostages against the good behavior of the Jew/Israelite population that was left behind in Judea. What I have read is that it was probably about 10,000 people.
The Jews returned to Jerusalem speaking Aramaic
So, the Persians kick the Babylonians' butts and send the Judean elite home to run the province of Judea for their Persian overlords. It does not seem to have taken long (a couple of centuries maybe) for Aramaic to have taken the place of the primary language not just in Judea, but also in the areas of the former Northern Kingdom. By the Roman period, it was even the language of the peasants in Galilee, which was NOT part of Judea during the Babylonian period OR the Persian period.
It seems like Aramaic spread into the former Northern Kingdom AFTER the end of the Babylonia period, probably because it was a second language of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:22 pm to blueboy
Jesus said in Matthew 19:5-6
Checkmate
Your move queers
quote:
'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.' So they are no longer two but one.
Checkmate
Your move queers
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:23 pm to blueboy
I had left tell me that soddam and Gomorrah were fireballed but because of homosexuality but because of the residents were not hospitable . Which was required at the time.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:30 pm to THog
quote:Ur of the Chaldees.
Abraham was from a sumerian city. I believe UR. so would think baylonian influence predates babylonian exile.
It is certainly possible that Abraham came from a city called Ur in the Fertile Crescent. As I recall, there was even a period when the EARLY Sumerian Empire extended into the Levant. He might even have migrated during that time period.
There was also (briefly) a small country called Chaldea, but it never extended into the modern Levant. If Abraham came from there, he would have been truly leaving his country. Of course, that is not outside the realm of possibilities.
There were several cities called Ur in the Fertile Crescent in various places over a period of several thousand years. Here, we have been talking about the neo-Babylonian Empire (even when using shorthand).
To make the chronology work, Abraham would have had to relocated during an earlier period, perhaps during the OLD Babylonia Empire, which followed the Sumerians but pre-dated the neo-Babylonians by about a thousand years. There were SEVERAL intervening empires in the same territory, between the time of the Old Babylonian Empire and the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:33 pm to AggieHank86
yeah. was suggesting pagan influence from sumeria could far predate the babylonian exile.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:37 pm to THog
quote:Gotcha.
yeah. was suggesting pagan influence from sumeria could far predate the babylonian exile.
I sometimes get confused because there are just so DAMNED MANY different kingdoms and empires that ruled all or part of the Fertile Crescent over a period of thousands of years.
I try to use "Fertile Crescent" for the region and the specific name of a given polity when relevant. Probably pedantic.
And it is basically impossible NOW to determine exactly WHEN he may have migrated and what polity would have controlled the northern parts of the Fertile Crescent at the time.
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:40 pm to blueboy
How about Romas 1:26-27
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:46 pm to catholictigerfan
In Mark chapter 10 Jesus said "But from the beginning of creation, God CREATED THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”
This ruled out a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and multiple women, a man and an animal, etc.
This ruled out a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and multiple women, a man and an animal, etc.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 3:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Definitely NOT the entire population.
The idea that the Babylonians took the entire population of Judea to Babylon is ... questionable
quote:I have my doubts that there even was an actual Norhtern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom, at least in the sense we think of it.
So, the Persians kick the Babylonians' butts and send the Judean elite home to run the province of Judea for their Persian overlords. It does not seem to have taken long (a couple of centuries maybe) for Aramaic to have taken the place of the primary language not just in Judea, but also in the areas of the former Northern Kingdom
From Philip R. Davies: In Search of 'Ancient Israel', 1992
quote:
There is no evidence of any united kingdom of Israel and Judah. The archaeological evidence tells us that the northern and southern highlands were settled and developed independently. There was no link between them. It is implausible to suggest Israel (which did evolve into a small kingdom) broke away from Judah (which was nothing more than very sparse and insignificant settlements.)
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Personally, I cannot make heads or tails of the literal translation. Perhaps context might help.
One doesn’t even have to do a word study here to debunk your reasoning. The passage says,” a man shouldn’t lie with another man like he does with a woman.
If we assume this is talking about rape of a male against a younger male, we’d also have to believe that passage was talking about a man raping a woman, and we know that’s not what it’s talking about. It’s talking about normal sexual relations.
For your interpretation to be correct the passage would have to mean, don’t rape other males like you rape women.
This post was edited on 12/11/22 at 8:48 am
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:03 pm to L.A.
quote:I too have my doubts about the historical existence of a United Kingdom, and I think that a Southern Kingdom (Judea) and a Northern Kingdom (Israel) developed separately but largely contemporaneously.
I have my doubts that there even was an actual Norhtern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom, at least in the sense we think of it.quote:
There is no evidence of any united kingdom of Israel and Judah
The latter appears to me to have been based in Samaria and to have been destroyed by the Assyrians when they conquered the area. I do have my doubts about the Assyrians affirmatively scattering the entire populations of the Ten Tribes who supposedly lived in the Northern Kingdom. It seems more likely that they either fled south to Judea (some of them) or just blended into the new Assyrian polity. The Abrahamic religion does not appear to have been fully-formed at this time, so it would have been VERY easy for them to slide back into the Canaanite religion and disappear like a drop of ink in a lake.
But I see the HUGE similarities between the Samaritan (Samaria??) religion and Judaism (Judea), including a VERY similar Torah, as being evidence of vestiges of the destroyed Northern Kingdom.
Hell, the Samaritans and the Jews have been arguing for at least 2500 years about which is the "authentic" Abrahamic religion.
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Yep. There's even a story about it in John's gospel, the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at a well and they get into a discussion about which mountain is the correct one for worship
I see the HUGE similarities between the Samaritan (Samaria??) religion and Judaism (Judea), including a VERY similar Torah, as being evidence of vestiges of the destroyed Northern Kingdom.
Hell, the Samaritans and the Jews have been arguing for at least 2500 years about which is the "authentic" Abrahamic religion.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:19 pm to L.A.
On the United Kingdom matter, I do have one theory on which I waffle.
Sometimes I consider the possibility that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms existed and that there may have been some sort of dynastic marriage to unite them under the leadership of an historical Saul, albeit only for a couple of generations. Kind of like the Austro-Hungarian empire, with one guy having two separate thrones and two separate crowns.
Then you get rival sons, and the two kingdoms split up again. A bit like the Carolingian split at the death of Charles Martel.
Sometimes I consider the possibility that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms existed and that there may have been some sort of dynastic marriage to unite them under the leadership of an historical Saul, albeit only for a couple of generations. Kind of like the Austro-Hungarian empire, with one guy having two separate thrones and two separate crowns.
Then you get rival sons, and the two kingdoms split up again. A bit like the Carolingian split at the death of Charles Martel.
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:21 pm to L.A.
quote:Do you ever toy with the notion that the First Temple was actually in Samaria? Or maybe that there was a "First Temple" in BOTH Samaria and Jerusalem, with the first destroyed by the Assyrians and the other later destroyed by the Babylonians ... and only the Jerusalem Temple being rebuit?
There's even a story about it in John's gospel, the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at a well and they get into a discussion about which mountain is the correct one for worship
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:24 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Was the original marriage valid?
Why wouldn’t it be? Bible is pretty clear on divorce.
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:My God, you're practically a Fundamentalist.
Sometimes I consider the possibility that the Northern and Southern Kingdoms existed and that there may have been some sort of dynastic marriage to unite them under the leadership of an historical Saul, albeit only for a couple of generations. Kind of like the Austro-Hungarian empire, with one guy having two separate thrones and two separate crowns.
Then they split up again.
J/K. You have more confidence in the narrative than I do. I see it as a post-exile narrative designed to create a back story for the nation
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:28 pm to L.A.
Please look back. I edited to clarify at the same time you were typing.
I can see two kingdoms developing completely separately and then attempting a dynastic consolidation, which failed.
I think that is a good bit different than the Biblical narrative.
I can see two kingdoms developing completely separately and then attempting a dynastic consolidation, which failed.
I think that is a good bit different than the Biblical narrative.
quote:I do tend to think that there ARE kernels of historical fact in much of the Biblical narrative, though I MAY try too hard to tie most of them to something ACTUALLY historical.
You have more confidence in the narrative than I do
This post was edited on 12/10/22 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 12/10/22 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Ive never considered that. Seems like there'd be some remnant of a legend surrounding it if that were the case
Do you ever toy with the notion that the First Temple was actually in Samaria? Or maybe that there was a "First Temple" in BOTH Samaria and Jerusalem, with the first destroyed by the Assyrians and the other later destroyed by the Babylonians ... and only the Jerusalem Temple being rebuit?
Popular
Back to top


2






