Well like all gays. They like them tight. But then politics rules. Was this a true perception or one manufactured by the Scots to formant rebellion? He was the King of the Scots before taking over from Elizabeth.
When the Earl Of Lennox died he preferred the company of men. A very poor evidence for homosexuality. Especially, considering, the fact, that after he was infatuated with his one and only wife AND PRODUCED 3 CHILDREN.
METROSEXUAL before his time!!!
We here! We're kind of wierd!
You've got to be careful here. The homosexual cheering section on this site likes to differentuate between men who like men and men who like boys. Apparently the later is somehow not counted as gay but, is is in a special pedephile catergory. In any case, show your compeling proof. I want to see how little it takes for you to believe something.
Ben Chayyim and Stephanus compiled there texts by viewing thosands of copies of the original autographs. They rejected the ones that were obviously corrupted and identified copying errors in the trustworthy texts. The end result was a trustworthy copy of the Old and New Testament.
So basically they put in the parts they thought sounded about right. Left out the parts they didn't like, essentially it is their interpretation of someone elses interpretation which was then reinterpreted a few hundred times more before we got it.
So you are quizzing him on a concept that has been debated throughout Christianity since 300AD?
With ever new scroll finding? AND really archeological finding? SO yes we all (Christians) ask THAT ULTIMATE QUESTION!
You will find the same ambivalence in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. The only religion with absolutism is ISLAM.
No I am trying to point out the ridiculusness of claiming the bible is the literal word of God when most of the bible, even the new testament is contradictory, violent and borderline insane, if Calgaryborn believes the bible is the word of God then he believes in slavery, the stoning of women to death for being raped or just not being a virgin on their marriage etc.
He doesn't believe these things I am sure, like most reasonable christians he believes in a god of love and forgiveness, he choses to ignore the vast numbers of old testement nastyness, the condemming of a whole race of people to perpetual slavery by a vengeful and angry god etc, which is fine and good.
The bible is a semi histroical text writen by men with all their frailties and weaknesses, that fact does not negate the existance of God or Jesus and to be honest I think any one that has to cling to semi superstitious hokum about the bible actually shows a lack of faith in the basic tenants of the religeon, I think you should understand and agree with Jesus morally, not blindly accept it because 'its the law'.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 08-26-2011 at 01:29 PM.
Well like all gays. They like them tight. But then politics rules. Was this a true perception or one manufactured by the Scots to formant rebellion? He was the King of the Scots before taking over from Elizabeth.
When the Earl Of Lennox died he preferred the company of men. A very poor evidence for homosexuality. Especially, considering, the fact, that after he was infatuated with his one and only wife AND PRODUCED 3 CHILDREN.
METROSEXUAL before his time!!!
We here! We're kind of wierd!
In an age with little effective birth control this isn't exactly a large family, not to mention most gay men in this time had to marry anyway and had kids as best they could for appearences sake (they tended to be hung otherwise) he lived most of his life apart from his wife so the infactuation didn't run that deep.
This is not what she's saying at all, the existence of David is a pretty well established idea in archeology, but more so the depth of his rule. She's arguing along side with many religious scholars that David's empire was at most a chiefdom which was later scribed to sound more impressive as the Jews were needing all the help they could get being inspired after the destruction of their temple mount and the exile from Jerusalem.
I think what's happened more recently in the last 10-30 years in archeology is that more and more it looks as if a lot of exaggeration is done in order to give the Jewish people a greater divine background and examples of that is surely the exodus from Egypt which is now pretty well considered a tale to inspire the people of the age, and was likely tied to a small group fleeing Egypt and settling in the hills of Canaanite country to tell stories of their great exodus, their one true God Yahweh who they encountered in yahoo and attributed for their salvation.
TC could hopefully give us his insight, I'm way to early on in my readings to give any trustworthy accounts, just what I've read/seen briefly in my last month of delving seriously into biblical history
It seems to me that she went over the (very) slim and questionable amount of evidence alluding to David's existence and the existence of his "empire," and that, whether it's a well-established idea in archaeology or not, considering the slim amount of evidence on his historicity, viewing all of it with a healthy dose of skepticism seems like a more than prudent thing to do.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
If you watch, the Bible's buried secrets, the PBS Nova version, they are more confident in David and having a respectable kingdom, they keep going back to those 3 city gates sharing the 6 box configuration.
You've got to be careful here. The homosexual cheering section on this site likes to differentuate between men who like men and men who like boys. Apparently the later is somehow not counted as gay but, is is in a special pedephile catergory.
lol
Do you even realize how silly this statement is? It's a prize even among your regular schtick CB.
What about the instances where they contradict each other? And what about the Septuagint, which is the oldest collation of the Hebrew Bible that we have (even if it is in Greek)? Or, for that matter, the more recent archaeological finds which include snippets of the text which are older than anything available at the time when Stephanus (for example) was working?
1. More often then not the contradiction is caused because one text omits a verse or a part of a verse. This could be caused by human error or perhaps in a few cases the scribe didn't like the doctrine the verse taught. When confronted with conflicting texts one can look at the reading from other texts associated with different geographical locations. There is also early translations available in Latin and Syriac and a couple other languages. One could also look at the writings of the church Fathers. You could almost reconstruct the entire New Testament from quotes made by the church Fathers.
Text that have been shown to be tampered with needs to be rejected out right regardless of age. Much of the problem with modern textual critism is refuse to reject any text out right. This is because they believe all texts are corrupt. If you removed any text from the equation that are known to contain multiple deliberate errors you wouldn't have much problem constructing a true copy of the original autographs.
2. I doubt that the Septuagint is the oldest copy of the Hebrew bible we have today. The Dead Sea scrolls contain a complete and an incomplete text of Isaiah, a couple chapters of Habakkuk, parts of Samuel and Leviticus. They also contain a translation into Aramaic of part of Genesis and all of Job.
There are about 30 papyrus fragment written in greek which are called the "Septuagint Papyri" which were written between 150 to 750 A.D. The exception is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which contains portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy from 150 B.C.
The responsibility for preserving the text of the Hebrew bible belonged to the Jews. From what I've read they took great pains to get it right. The Dead Sea scrolls affirms their work as well. The extant manuscripts of the Septuagint were copied between 350 and 500 A.D. They are attached to or associated with some corrupt New Testament texts originating in Alexandria Egypt. They are though to have been the sixth column of Origen's Hexapla. I think they should be rejected for those reasons.
3. I don't believe much has been uncovered since Stephanus worked that would contribute to or change his edition. It wouldn't make sense for God to hide his scriptures away for 15 hundred years leaving countless generations with an incomplete witness. If God has preserved his word at all it should be found in living streams and within faithful religious communities.
You've got to be careful here. The homosexual cheering section on this site likes to differentuate between men who like men and men who like boys. Apparently the later is somehow not counted as gay but, is is in a special pedephile catergory.
You've got to be careful here. We have a hard time differentuating between your insane posts from the special stoopid catergory.
In an age with little effective birth control this isn't exactly a large family, not to mention most gay men in this time had to marry anyway and had kids as best they could for appearences sake (they tended to be hung otherwise) he lived most of his life apart from his wife so the infactuation didn't run that deep.
First of all, you could be right. BUT! This is very poor evidence for gayness.
Charlemagne had 6 wives and umpteen number of lovers. He spent MOST of his life on the road expanding and or guarding his conquests. He had only 2 heirs, who eventually split his empire.
Tutor Kings were a dearth of children. Scottish kings could sire either. The French and the Burundians were horrid too. Numerous Kings has this problem. Genetics? Inbreeding? Bad lifestyles?
