Meat Excellent points…

[The Revolting Man]

The inestimable @robbkowalski did a livestream today that had several points that I don’t think I had heard before, or if I had I forgot them so please forgive me if you’ve pointed this out already.

The first was in Romans 1:26-27 the famous verse that gets interpreted against so called lesbianism. I had always thought that the women in that passage were being compared to the men, but I realized for the first time today that the men are doing something like the women are doing. The woman abandoned the natural function of the woman and so did the men AND also burned in their desire for one another. I know some of you are laughing at me right now but I had always read it as “The men were burning with desire for each other and likewise the women abandoned the natural use.” But that’s not it at all.

This really strengthens in my mind @Joleneakamama ’s assertion that the natural use is procreative sex; which is a far more expansive category than the more exotic act I thought was being addressed.

The second thing that struck me was concerning the Parable of the 10 Virgins. The five foolish virgins cry out to the Bridegroom and call him Lord. As we all know, lord is one the words that we frequently translate as “husband”. These virgins were literally calling for their husband at the door of the wedding. I don’t know how much more clear that one can get. I don’t know if it’s great opening argument since a skeptic is instantly going to ask if we’re implying that Jesus had a six way and that’s not only torturing a metaphor beyond what it can bear but possibly even straying a little close to blasphemy; still it really bolsters the claim in my kind that these are not bridesmaids.

Great job Rob! I’m 15 years in and still haven’t picked up on some obvious stuff.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The five foolish virgins cry out to the Bridegroom and call him Lord. As we all know here lord is one the words that we frequently translate as “husband”. These virgins were literally calling for their husband at the door of the wedding. I don’t know how much more clear that one can get. I don’t know if it’s great opening argument since a skeptic is instantly going to ask if we’re implying that Jesus had a six way and that’s not only torturing a metaphor beyond what it can bear but possibly even straying a little close to blasphemy; still it really bolsters the claim in my kind that these are not bridesmaids.

If they were bridesmaids (did they even have those back then?) Where is the bride? And then why are these wanting in excluded if five "bridesmaids" were allowed in?

But here is the contrast in English translation from the Greek.



They translated "MARRIAGES" into wedding festivities. ..they changed a plural to a singular....to keep with the church at Rome who had decided to "think to" change times AND LAWS!

The above pictures are the pages of a Greek intralinear we have.

Dont forget, Yeshua told a parable about a king who arranged MARRIAGES (plural) for his Son (singular).

The problems with making Romans 1:26 about "lesbianism" at all, is 1. It says nothing about the women leaving men. It says that they exchanged the "Natural" (instinctive) use for that which is against "Nature" and THAT word aught to be looked up! Oh wait! I've already done this a few times. Here it is (top and bottom)

The second problem (beyond reading into the text stuff that isn’t there) is that you then would also have to find a prohibition for this alleged behavior in the law/Torah.....and you will find that verse right next to the one that says "Thou shalt have ONLY ONE living wife at a time.' They are located in 1 opinions: 0-0

 

[PeteR]

If they were bridesmaids (did they even have those back then?) Where is the bride? And then why are these wanting in excluded if five "bridesmaids" were allowed in?

But here is the contrast in English translation from the Greek.

View attachment 9048View attachment 9049

They translated "MARRIAGES" into wedding festivities. ..they changed a plural to a singular....to keep with the church at Rome who had decided to "think to" change times AND LAWS!

The above pictures are the pages of a Greek intralinear we have.

Dont forget, Yeshua told a parable about a king who arranged MARRIAGES (plural) for his Son (singular).

The problems with making Romans 1:26 about "lesbianism" at all, is 1. It says nothing about the women leaving men. It says that they exchanged the "Natural" (instinctive) use for that which is against "Nature" and THAT word aught to be looked up! Oh wait! I've already done this a few times. Here it is (top and bottom)View attachment 9050

The second problem (beyond reading into the text stuff that isn’t there) is that you then would also have to find a prohibition for this alleged behavior in the law/Torah.....and you will find that verse right next to the one that says "Thou shalt have ONLY ONE living wife at a time.' They are located in 1 opinions: 0-0

When was this originally published? Details!! Thank you!

 

[steve]

Interesting, the “I am not acquainted with you” is so parallel with “I never knew you” of Matt 7:23

 

[Transformator Reformator]

As we all know, lord is one the words that we frequently translate as “husband”. These virgins were literally calling for their husband at the door of the wedding.

Even though the word may have been translated as a husband based on context, but it does not mean necessary a husband. The woman at the well called Yeshua "Lord", (John 4:11) he was still a stranger to her at this point. Unless I am missing something, it seems that it was just generic sign of respect like "sir", "mister".

 

[The Revolting Man]

Even though the word may have been translated as a husband based on context, but it does not mean necessary a husband. The woman at the well called Yeshua "Lord", (John 4:11) he was still a stranger to her at this point. Unless I am missing something, it seems that it was just generic sign of respect like "sir", "mister".

Yes, but this use of the word was made by virgins at the door of a bridal chamber so the contextual evidence is not lacking……

 

[Joleneakamama]

When was this originally published? Details!! Thank you!

There are over 40 pages explaining all the whys of what they did with this version. It starts with Matthew.

 

[OttoM]

They translated "MARRIAGES" into wedding festivities. ..they changed a plural to a singular....to keep with the church at Rome who had decided to "think to" change times AND LAWS!

Here's another instance of the translators changing the "plural" into the "singular":

Matthew 28:1 NKJV
Now after the Sabbath (It's Plural in Greek), as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Very few translations keep it plural:

Matthew 28:1 Berean Literal Bible
And after the Sabbaths, it being dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Anyone that has studied torah, and practiced the Holy Days; would know that there is a sabbath on the 1st day of unleavened bread - which occurs the night after the lambs are slaughtered for Passover. So, indeed, sometimes you can have more than one Sabbath in one week.

-----------------------------------

This is a reoccurring theme in the NT. The multitude of mis-translations and twistings. We see this in marriage. In adultery. Also other important topics as well, which many on here don't like to talk about. Which I understand because the focus is on marriage. But part of marriage has to do with the fact that Yahushua the Messiah did not do away with his torah, nor did he do violence to his own torah. It's a perfect divine instruction, and an everlasting righteousness.

The Word is consistent from beginning to end - which of course further validates biblical polygyny.