Im going thru the same thing with my wife. She has come out as a liberal now and there are things in the Bible that she says are not true. We have a gay son and she encourages and celebrates his sexuality! It is a very difficult situation for me.

She's not wrong about it being interpreted and re-written with bias many many times.

Not being relevant may be a bit of a stretch.

"Being raised" one way or another doesn't mean much to me. Once we mature and open our eyes and minds and think for ourselves, we need to decide what we believe.

How many things are in the bible that the people of Trapperman don't strictly follow and then want to post passages and preach strictly against homosexuality? Seems to be a contradiction.

How many Trapperman people are divorced, eat shell fish, eat pork, have worked on a Sunday, had premarital sex, used the lords name in vain, treat others as yourself, love thy neighbor, own a labradoodle, etc etc etc...

There's never any posts about what you will do if your grandson is going to eat bacon when he grows up or not... what's with the homosexual fear / obsession? b/c the bible says so? the bible says lots of stuff.

I have had many but just a couple of instances would be where they will go into the gospels of the Essenes and try to sell that Jesus and John both were of the Essenes. Thus they were vegetarians. Jesus would not have did the miracle of feeding the multitude with fish and bread. It was grapes and bread because Jesus would not kill even a fish! I usually don't want to make them uncomfortable by talking about us Baptist eating fried chicken, lol.

Another is where they use their version of Greek to prove wine is fresh grape juice and Jesus never drank wine and thus wouldn't make a miracle by turning water into wine. They go even further to say wine wasn't served at the Last Supper but it was grape juice. They even have a way of keeping the juice from harvest until the Last Supper by making the juice into jelly then reconstituting it back into grape juice. Perhaps a demand for the cooperative Welsh's. Yes I believe not to tempt the weak by flaunting it in front of them, but not by making up a lie, especially when it comes to Jesus and miracles.

It even gets deeper when discussing the rebuilding of the "temple" and the "red Heifer". Theology replacement has become popular these days.

I don't think they rewrite the bible only change the wording which doesn't change the meaning.

It's more in the interpretation that varies with churches. Such as, some say when Jesus said, "This is my body and this is my blood." He was speaking literally. While others say he was speaking figuratively.

Personally, which interpretation you feel is correct, doesn't matter with regard to your salvation.

Words equate meaning. You can't change words without changing meaning.

Thou shall not kill.

Thou shall not murder.

Different words = different meanings.

Brother we wrap you and your situation up in prayer.

I agree with you. Animal lovers and vegetarians would be of the type that will bend the truth when it comes to eating meat.
There is no where in the bible where it refers to wine as being grape juice. There are places were it refers to being drunk with wine, though.
At the last supper it only refers to the bread and wine because Jesus mentioned the bread and wine as his body and blood. They may have had meat, but the writer only referred to the bread and wine because of its relevance to the body and blood.

As mentioned i think some of you are getting translation and interpretation mixed up.


Foxpaw I was looking for an incorrect translation in a mainstream, modern Bible translation where the context of the verse is is in contradiction of the original manuscripts of the Bible. A particular verse and the modern translation. Im thinking you are speaking more about the interpretation than the translation. If so you are say there are errors in the interpretation not the translation. There is an important difference. Correctly me if I'm wrong on what your saying.

ksnow, if what you are saying is true, what about the thieves on the cross? One gospel writer referred to them as criminals. The other referred to them as thieves. Which gospel writer do you want to believe? The meaning remains, they are both criminals. Same thing with kill or murder.

In the Hebrew Bible their are two different words that we translate to wine. One means wine as we know it the other is a product made from grape juice that is fermented for storage but does have a very low alcohol content. My understanding it was so low in alcohol it would be very difficult to feel any effects of it

Because there is a difference in actively living in sin and accidentally sinning. I would argue though that someone living with and/or engaging in premarital heterosexual sex would be in the exact same boat as the homosexual person in the eyes of God. They are actively living in and engaging in their sin. The New Testament seems to deem all foods as being clean. It’s easy to take versus out of context to come to any conclusion you want. It’s much harder to read scripture in its entirety and come away with the same conclusions that “it’s all the same”. Scripture also says sexual sin is especially damaging. I believe all sexual immorality should be treated very seriously as it pertains to believers

What about the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Was that just added in later because someone felt it should be?

Translation is the process of translating from one language to another. Interpretation is explaining the meaning of something.

Nonsense. When they found the dead sea scrolls, they found out that scripture hadn't changed in any significant way hundreds of years.

If your kids sinning, the type of sin isn't the important part. We love them regardless. We don't have to condone any wrong behavior.

You stated there are errors in the Bible which for me is a serious issue. Therefore I asked for examples of where modern mainstream translation is in contradiction of original manuscript. Examples such as a particular verse and which modern written translation.

That's true PA. I was going to mention that.
I have errands to run and have to leave. But, this an interesting, friendly discussion. Thanks for posting it.

Wouldn't someone blatantly living in sin be kinda like the boy who left his father and squandered his inheritance and ended up eating with the pigs. Yes he could go back to his father, but if he chooses to live in sin with the pigs and doesn't go back to the father then wouldn't the pigs be likely to eat him when he dies.

From what I've seen Alexander the Great is the gay communities hero. Yes he did great works and God even predicted him 200 yrs in advance but still he died in a miserable condition.

Murder refers to the unlawful and intentional killing of another person, while killing is a broader term that can include both lawful and unlawful acts, with or without intent.

Essentially, all murders are killings, but not all killings are considered murder.