Mary Lambert Explains How “Homosexual” First Appeared in The Bible | 1946 The Movie
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- What if the word “homosexual” was never meant to be in the Bible? In 2020, more than 45,000 churches still preach that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin. But, what would happen to these churches if they knew the truth?
1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted a Culture is a new documentary that investigates how the word “homosexual” was incorrectly entered into the Bible, and the grave consequences its had on religion, culture, politics and the LGBTQIA+ community over the last century.
1946 will explore exactly what ignited the anti-gay movement within American conservative Christians. The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in any Bible was in 1946, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Revised Standard Version (RSV).
I hope Netflix or another big company puts this movie on the platform
@@trevorskopczynski5791 Lmao u mad?
@@trevorskopczynski5791 Who is that?
AN EXAMPLE OF MISINFORMATION IN THIS 1946 PROJECT
1946 PROJECT QUOTE: "The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in any bible was in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) published in February 11, 1946. In the RSV’s translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word “homosexual” was used"
RESPONSE: They are giving the impression that in the entire history of the English Bible (900-1946), the term "homosexual" had never been used before in dozens of other English translations. They say that they are after the truth yet mislead you with misinformation. Here is why the word "homosexual" was not used before.
Brief History of the Term Homosexual
The term Homosexual was coined in German in 1869. It was not used outside of German psychiatrists and psychologists until we get into the 20th century. The first known use of the term homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock’s 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg Affair. The word homosexual itself had different connotations 100 years ago than today. Although some early writers used the adjective homosexual to refer to any single-gender context (such as an all-girls school), today the term implies a sexual aspect. So, when the 1946 Project claims that the term homosexual was not used in the Bible before 1946, this is true because it was not a common word at the time and it had a different meaning in the early days when the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) was published or the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV). I mean the ERV had only been around a few years after the word homosexual was coined.
LEARN MORE ...
christianpublishinghouse.co/2021/04/28/homosexual-1946-was-there-a-mistranslation-that-shifted-culture/
@Ethan Mays I am afraid not. Get the book and see the facts.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 170+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Jesus loves you all:)))
They’re attacking a straw man. the biblical view is not that the Bible labels a person-a homosexual-as a sinner. The view is that the Bible condemns a behavior, homosexual sex, regardless of who engages in it.
In fact, the Greek word arsenokoitai, which the film claims is mistranslated as “homosexuals,” is a compound word that literally means “men who lie with males.” So, in one sense, I agree with the film. “Homosexuals” is probably not the best translation. I prefer the NIV’s “men who have sex with men” because the claim is that the Bible condemns a behavior.
Are you suggesting that a true heterosexual is going to engage in homosexual sex? Not very likely.
My thoughts exactly. The word might not be there but the bible is clear on the behaviour. This is definitely a straw man.
There were two separate words that were translated, and did not necessarily mean men who lie with males, but those who do so in an abuse of power, is what the film argues.. the trailer alone doesn't show that, you have to see the film
So its ok to be lesbian?
Hello! I would love to help in any way I can. How can help? I speak Spanish and Russian fluently and would love to do subtitles or anything that can help this movie reach a bigger audience.
Wow! That is AMAZING. Thank you so much. Email us here please and we can discuss! 1946themovieinfo@gmail.com
I am latina and speak spanish fluently so I thing it would be better to get someone of latin decent to translate it into spanish.
I pray that this movie can viewed by as many people as possible! What gives me hope is when it says in the bible - “you will know the truth. And the truth will set you free.”
If there is anything I can do to support this project, please let me know.
You know people are just gunna hate you more when they realize it’s based on a lie right?
@@wacawaka1802 Matthew 10:22 “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
@@milahofstein13 only the German version that came later used a different meaning. But I get your point. People shouldn’t care what others think if they are right.
@@milahofstein13 Is that you Donald Trump?
it's available now
I'm so excited. For the past years of my life i am scared to be me. I go to church for almost 2 yrs and a half yr. My sexuality doesn't change. I am trying to be straight as i can but it's so hard to keep the real me. But now when i saw your account on tiktok and some pastors saying that homosexuality is not a sin. Made me realize that I won't change bcs of them, because this is me. This is the real me. Thank you for giving me a comfort zone and hope that i am not worse to animals. Lovelots! I'm so excited to that movie💕
I'm going through your struggle! I have fears at best, panic attacks at worst about the thought of me being a sinner, but if pastors, the leaders of the house of god, the people who have much more knowledge of god than most people and share it to others, tell us it's not a sin to be Gay, than I'll be the most happiest girl alive. and if a pastor tells me that in person, I assure you I will cry from joy.
@@zuroku4159 i understand Zuro. Giving us comfort from this society is a good feeling. Let's go💕💕 Be who you are for your pride~~~~~
I once had someone tell me I could continue living in sin, could continue advocating and encouraging sin in others and still get to Heaven. I was sooo happy. But it seemed that that didn't agree with the Bible, and I was sad. So I asked that person what they thought about my interpretation, and they said they were right and the Bible didn't really mean what I read and understood with my own intellect, and they said they identified as a religious leader so they knew for sure, and i was sooo happy again. Man, I hope they're right. I'd hate to show up for my judgement and Jesus Christ The Son of the Living God say to me " I never knew you".
@@zuroku4159 remember, God loves everyone and he wants us all to love and accept others just as Jesus Christ did. he said to love thy neigbor and to not judge others or you risked being judged yourself. people who try to change the way we think and feel are being judged in his eyes. be you because you are beautiful in and out! God made you the way you are, and don’t let anyone tell you differently!!
@@ingeniousmechanic Jesus would never turn away anyone who harbors good and love in their heart. don’t let other sway your faith! as long as you believe he is with you, he will be! the devil sends people to sway your mind and to make you think “what if i go before him and he turns away” but that’s preposterous! Jesus loved everyone and he made you just the way you’re supposed to be. don’t let anyone tell you differently.
I'm praying homosexuality isn't a sin, nor being transgender. I just want to be me and love people who love me.
If homosexual is a mistranslation, why do Greek Orthodox point to the same passages English speakers do when talking about the sin of homosexuality, and have for nearly 2000 years?
Because it's not a mistranslation. These people are deluding themselves.
@@klarity1111 I know, but they never think through what they are saying; progressive Christianity is crappy fanfiction made by the theological equivalent of fecophiliacs playing with mudpies.
I've never been so hyped for a movie!
Awesome!
I’m a young Lesbian Christian, and I am so excited for this film! It is going to change my life. I have a really religious grandmother, and maybe after she watches this documentary, I’ll be able to come out to my whole family with little to no judgement!
I would love to help in any way I can to get this movie out. I’ve been in the closet for about 2 and 1/2 years and can’t wait to walk out freely...
@@pictureperfect4136 Thank you so much for your interest in the film!
Please follow our handle @1946themovie on Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook for more updates and to learn more about the film. Spreading the word and sharing our posts are very helpful! We are also accepting donations to finish production through our fiscal sponser Women Make Movies and GoFundMe. If you would like to be added to our mailing list, you can email us at 1946themovieinfo@gmail.com.
Thanks again!
- 1946 Team
@1946 The Movie Great! I would love to donate whenever I can, although I would prefer if I weren’t added to the mailing list. Just a personal preference. I will make sure this film gets released ASAP!
"Homosexual" wasn't in the older translations of the Bible because the word "homosexual" didn't exist until 1890. In addition, this video is factually incorrect when it says that no Bible before 1946 had the word homosexual in it. Maybe no English Bible did, but the Chinese Union Version uses a word that translates to homosexuality. That Bible was published in 1919, and the New Testament translation was finished in 1906.
In addition the greek bible which is one of the first version of the bible stated a phrase that means participating in homosexual acts.
AN EXAMPLE OF MISINFORMATION IN THIS 1946 PROJECT
1946 PROJECT QUOTE: "The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in any bible was in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) published in February 11, 1946. In the RSV’s translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word “homosexual” was used"
RESPONSE: They are giving the impression that in the entire history of the English Bible (900-1946), the term "homosexual" had never been used before in dozens of other English translations. They say that they are after the truth yet mislead you with misinformation. Here is why the word "homosexual" was not used before.
Brief History of the Term Homosexual
The term Homosexual was coined in German in 1869. It was not used outside of German psychiatrists and psychologists until we get into the 20th century. The first known use of the term homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock’s 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg Affair. The word homosexual itself had different connotations 100 years ago than today. Although some early writers used the adjective homosexual to refer to any single-gender context (such as an all-girls school), today the term implies a sexual aspect. So, when the 1946 Project claims that the term homosexual was not used in the Bible before 1946, this is true because it was not a common word at the time and it had a different meaning in the early days when the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) was published or the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV). I mean the ERV had only been around a few years after the word homosexual was coined.
LEARN MORE ...
christianpublishinghouse.co/2021/04/28/homosexual-1946-was-there-a-mistranslation-that-shifted-culture/
@@UpdatedAmericanStandardVersion Yes! Yes! Hoping that they know the gospel more. 🙏
big time fax man
I'm mean leviticus doesn't day homosexuality but it does say a man shall not lay with another man. It also says a man shall not lay with his mother as well. So I think it's safe to say lay means sex
When does this come out?
Thank you so much for your interest in the film!
The film is still in process of completion, we will be posting on our website and social media as soon as we know when the film will be made available. Would you like to be added to our newsletter?
-1946 team
@Riley Korkosh Thank you so much for your interest in the film!
We will be posting on our website and social media as soon as we know when and where the film will be made available. Would you like to be added to our newsletter?
-1946 team
I hope it has Spanish subtitles so I can show this to my family
YES! I hope this has Asian translations as well!!!
Me too
@@michelleoh9740 Speaking of Asian translations, a Chinese translation of the Bible (CUV) contains a word translating to male homosexuality. The CUV was published 27 years before the RSV, which the makers of this documentary claim to be the first Bible to include the word "homosexual."
The two words were spoken by Paul. The word was men who sleep with men. It affects two verses. The rest of verses on marriage , sexuality, fornication , and homosexuality still are in the Bible. Not sure this will affect much
The Biblical language scholars working on the RSV knew what they were doing. The student who argued with them was a homosexual himself. That's why he didn't want the word to be used.
I don't expect to be the first to say this but: DVDs??!! I'd shell out hard for a collector's edition. Some of us out here really still rock DVDs. Or blu-ray! Much easier to share than a stream!
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV): Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
I'm doing everything I can to spread this message and project!!!
Thank you so much. Email us here if you wish to receive our newsletter! 1946themovieinfo@gmail.com
"Homosexual" wasn't in the older translations of the Bible because the word "homosexual" didn't exist until 1890. In addition, this video is factually incorrect when it says that no Bible before 1946 had the word homosexual in it. Maybe no English Bible did, but the Chinese Union Version uses a word that translates to homosexuality. That Bible was published in 1919, and the New Testament translation was finished in 1906.
It's available now online for 12 dollars
Thanks for making this. I can't wait until it's somewhere accessible to watch.
When canI see it?
I am curious to see the line of thinking here. But from my prospective, the wrongness of homosexuality goes beyond just 1 Cor 6:9. Marriage itself is a picture of God's relationship to the nation of Israel (old testament) and God's relationship to the church (new testament). Homosexuality would imply that God could leave his people and love, what, another God somewhere? Or that the church could turn from God and, what, love another church? The entire theme of scripture breaks down when you allow for homosexuality, and you're forced to rewrite much more than just a word in a verse.
The church did a disservice by treating homosexuality like an unforgivable sin, but the church was never in error to call it a sin. Homosexuality is a picture of rejecting God.
People have no control over who they are attracted to or have capacity to love. It is part of the diversity in God's creation Mat 19.12, 1 Cor 7.7.
The mistranslation brought about the erroneous view that something not only harmless but beneficial is a "sin". Trying to then justify this erroneous view through those kind of arguments utlizing the Bible only happened since the late 1970s/early 80s. Basically, the Bible approves of opposite-secs relationships so it means God disapproves of same-secs ones. Go figure. That's like saying the Bible approves of acoustic musical instruments so it's a sin to use electric ones.
Go back to Gen 2 and work through the same reasoning for someone who's gay. It works seamlessly with no contradiction. A gay man should marry a man, not a woman, nor should he need to stay alone.
@MusicalRaichu Matthew 19:12 refers to eunuchs. Eunuchs born that way are those born with no desires and/or no organs. Eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others were those castrated for the service of a king or ruler. Those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are those that live a life of celibacy. None of those have anything to do with LGBT+. Ironic verse choice because earlier in the same chapter and part of the very same conversation Jesus was having, is Matthew 19:4-6 "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”" This reiterates that God made male and female, to be joined together (and tying in OT and NT teachings to this passage is how God has joined himself first to Israel, and now to the church). What God has joined together, let no one separate.
I Cor 7:7? Really? Are you just going to ignore I Cor 7:2-6, talking about marital relations in the context of marriage, between husband and wife, with no mention whatsoever of "same-secs" relations? It's clear from context that traditional marriage is the topic.
What about Romans 1:26-27? Lev 18:22? Lev 20:13?
You also didn't address the entire theology of marriage being a picture of God to Israel found in Ezekiel 16, Jeremiah 3, Romans 7:1-6, Ephesians 5:25-33, Revelation 19:7-9 (and other places). If hetero marriage is a picture of God to Israel and God to the church, what would homo marriage represent? God to "another god"? The church to the church? What would transgender represent, man trying to become God? This is a lot more than a mistranslation of a couple of words, but the entire theology of God and his relationship with his people.
As for the gay man, it is better for him to live alone, than to be given over to dishonorable passions. Someone "born gay" is no different than someone "born alcoholic". It is better for the alcoholic to abstain, than to be given over to drunkenness. Drinking in moderation isn't sinful, but drunkenness is.
@@85morpheous eunuchs in those days referred to a wide range of men including those with no desire for women. I'm merely pointing out that variation was recognized in the ancient world and it was not seen as wrong. They did not know about homoxesuality (it was only discovered late 19th cent), so they did not describe it.
I explained why your argument is invalid. Several writers in the Bible using straight patriarchal marriage as a metaphor for God's relationship to his people does not make straight patriarchal marriage the only valid relationship. I wouldn't quote the Bible as a model for marriage especially when today "Biblical marriage" is highly illegal.
As for the scripture references, 1 Cor 7 says married people should have secs with their partner not prostitoots. Mat 19 says marriage should be treated as permanent. Rom 1 is about socially unacceptable behaviour by male idolaters and fails to describe homoxesuality. Lev 18/20 is an ambiguous, now obsolete, Israelite taboo against only a subset of what we would classify as homoxesual today.
When God said "it is not good to be alone", who are you to contradict God and tell some people to stay alone just because of one minor biological difference? That's like when Jesus said "you nullify the word of God with human tradition".
You cannot compare drunkenness which is harmful with loving relationships which are beneficial. Sorry, but a pretty shameful comparison to make, really.
@@MusicalRaichu It's ridiculous to assert that no one knew about homosexuality before the late 19th century. That's simply when the word was coined.
I'm curious what you mean by ""Biblical marriage" is highly illegal".
My argument of traditional biblical marriage being a metaphor for God's relationship to his people is quite valid, and absolutely means it is the only valid relationship. The metaphor is there to help explain what would otherwise be beyond our comprehension. Opening up marriage to include homosexuality must therefore open up the metaphor to other gods or other churches.
You mention patriarchal like a buzzword, but that ultimately comes from 1 Tim 2:11-15, which points directly back to Genesis 3. 1 Tim 2:13-14 specifically give the reason for this. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Then verse 1 Tim 2:15 adds "Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.", referring to the offspring of the woman that would one day come (Jesus) that would save her.
If as you say "Lev 18/20 is an ambiguous, now obsolete, Israelite taboo against only a subset of what we would classify as homosexual today", then can all of Lev be thrown out? What do we keep and what do we throw out?
You really need to study the scriptures more if you think I'm contradicting God, but somehow you are not.
I would argue that homosexual relationships are at least as harmful than drunkenness, perhaps not acutely, but over time.
Where the church has done it's biggest disservice regarding LGBT+ is to pretend like it's a greater sin than others. Paul does argue that sexual sins are greater than non-sexual sins, but homosexuality was treated as worse than adultery.
For someone far more qualified and knowledgeable than I on this topic, check out Voddie Baucham's Biblically Informed Case Against Homosexuality.
ua-cam.com/video/EAC6vuhOHAQ/v-deo.htmlsi=JK8LAkTNtjtJ_rhb
@@85morpheous I'm sorry but what you say is misled. Baucham's talks on the issue are a disgrace. If that's where you got your (mis)information from, no wonder. This is going to be long, but please work through it.
Homoxesuality is not merely secs with the same secs, it is an innate, persistent pattern of attraction and capacity for intimate loving relationship. As you point out, it has always existed. But we didn't understand why some men desired men, that different people have different innate attractions that are resistant to change, and how harmful (potentially deadly) it is to resist or try to change one's orientation.
Categorizing males with males and women with women as a single category is also new. Even if an ancient document refers to males with males, it doesn't generalize to females with females. Long-standing traditional church teaching makes a similar mistake, classifying males with males as so-do-my (non-reproductive secs) and applying the same scriptures to husband and wife having oral secs!
The Bible spans many centuries, places and cultures. Its pages reflect marriage as it was variously practised, not one consistent description. The Bible nowhere says "marriage must be xyz or else it's a sin". The only consistent prescription is not to infringe another man's property (aka adultery). The most common understanding was a dominant male and as many submissive wives and secs slaivs he can afford. Property was obtained by a business transaction with a girl's father (girl as in child) or as spoil of war.
That's patriarchy. It's not a buzz word, it's a significant concept needed to make sense of most of the Bible. A Bible origin story presents it as a consequence of sin (Gen 3.16). The Bible comes from very different cultures. You cannot blindly impose advice and prescriptions from it to another culture without first understanding both cultures deeply.
The way patriarchy impacts this issue is that secs was treated as an active male role dominating and deriving pleasure from a passive female role. They classified roles based on pecking order: male pokes female, adult pokes child, free pokes slaiv. For a free adult male to take a female role was denigrating because women were assumed inferior.
By Paul's time, many men often straight men married to women deliberately poked slaiv boys and male prostitoots to up their masculinity by denigrating another male. It was not a loving relationship. Hence the negative references in the New Testament. Early Christian writings identify these concerns explicitly: harming boys, and denigration of men in a passive role.
Leviticus is part of Mosaic law, very much obsolete Heb 8.13, annulled Eph 2.15, not the way we obey God anyway Rom 7.6, and wrong to impose Acts 15.10, Gal 1.9. As scripture it contains valuable insights such as "love God", "love neighbour" and "be holy as I am holy", but I assure you, you do not practise the law of Moses. You would end up in jail.
The way we obey God today is not by following moral rules which doesn't work Rom 7, but by developing the fruit of the Spirit, a loving character that cares about others. That's what God will judge us on (Mat 25.31ff).
Rom 13 "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one word: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Therefore, two men/women in a relationship characterized by mutual love, according to scripture, obey ALL God's commands. And popular church teaching that condemns and harms them disobeys God.
This is an awesome project. One thing I pray you do is when the version comes out to include at a minimum a Spanish subtitles. This can double the good it does
AN EXAMPLE OF MISINFORMATION IN THIS 1946 PROJECT
1946 PROJECT QUOTE: "The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in any bible was in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) published in February 11, 1946. In the RSV’s translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word “homosexual” was used"
RESPONSE: They are giving the impression that in the entire history of the English Bible (900-1946), the term "homosexual" had never been used before in dozens of other English translations. They say that they are after the truth yet mislead you with misinformation. Here is why the word "homosexual" was not used before.
Brief History of the Term Homosexual
The term Homosexual was coined in German in 1869. It was not used outside of German psychiatrists and psychologists until we get into the 20th century. The first known use of the term homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock’s 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg Affair. The word homosexual itself had different connotations 100 years ago than today. Although some early writers used the adjective homosexual to refer to any single-gender context (such as an all-girls school), today the term implies a sexual aspect. So, when the 1946 Project claims that the term homosexual was not used in the Bible before 1946, this is true because it was not a common word at the time and it had a different meaning in the early days when the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) was published or the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV). I mean the ERV had only been around a few years after the word homosexual was coined.
LEARN MORE ...
christianpublishinghouse.co/2021/04/28/homosexual-1946-was-there-a-mistranslation-that-shifted-culture/
It's available now
I did a term paper in '86 that included part of this. I don't think I ever got it back either! Apparently it stayed in the teachers lounge for awhile, and at least one person asked me if they could Xerox it and take to their church conference.
Is the deeper issue hatred, or lazy ignorant people? I see both as the root of the current political and religious conflicts.
"Homosexual" wasn't in the older translations of the Bible because the word "homosexual" didn't exist until 1890. In addition, this video is factually incorrect when it says that no Bible before 1946 had the word homosexual in it. Maybe no English Bible did, but the Chinese Union Version uses a word that translates to homosexuality. That Bible was published in 1919, and the New Testament translation was finished in 1906.
It’s a mixture of both.
What grade did you get?
Revisionism is always difficult to substantiate. In this case it is impossible. What does one do with the mountain of pre-1946 sources found in Biblical translations into English, Biblical Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries that affirm the relative import of 1 Corinthians 6:9 as homosexual sex acts? How do you account for these sources? How do you account for the fact that the RSV Translation was not in wide use due to the fact that the translation was promulgated by the National Council of the Churches of Christ which was viewed by Reformed Protestants, Wesleyan Protestants and Fundamentalists as a defective translation due in part to interpretive problems and theological problems? All of these positions effectively refute the thesis you are attempting to advance. What about Catholicism? What do you do with the 1 Corinthians 6:9 translation of the Latin Vulgate into English? Its homosexual sex acts. I think the burden you are shouldering here relative to your revisionism is unsustainable.
The issue from middle ages until mid 20th cent and still for Catholics is non-reproductive secs. the church had become highly suspicious of secs and only allowed it for making babies. two men/women can't make a baby, so it was wrong. master-baiting was considered even worse.
I'm not aware of any christian literature before mid 20th cent that refers to homoxesuality. They refer to vice against nature, that is, non-reproductive secs, and to soda-my, putting a p in a hole other than a v regardless whether partner is same/opposite.
the RSV mistranslation wasn't the direct issue especially since they corrected it in the revised edition. the issue was that the error was copied into far more popular bibles in the 70s. that's when protestants were loosening up on christian tradition but the error prevented reform on their attitude to homoxesuality.
hope this helps clarify a little. it's an unbelievably complex issue, so it's unsurprising that people misunderstand what's going on.
There is a Catholic Edition of the RSV. They also translated the books that Martin Luther threw out. But I agree with you that the argument presented here doesn't work.
The KJV was publish in 1611 and it does nit features the word "homosexuality or "gay". Want proof?
1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)
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,
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV, RSV and many other bibles after 1946)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. eNeither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor 2homosexuals, nor sodomites
And before u say that the kjv does say homosexual. The New king James version was publish in 1982
“Nor abusers of themselves with mankind” mankind means humankind. This could be hetero too
When can I watch this and where??
On their website before the 14th January
Homosexuality was a sin before the Bible was written and it will still be a sin even after you cut out all the verses that you don't like.
Is there a reason that the "share" for posts from this channel does not work? I'd love to share this and the trailer for the film, but I'm not able to. Please fix this!
The concept still existed. If you say man sleeps with man that's no different than using the word homosexual. The concept still existed there whether you like it or not. Just because a word wasn't used does not mean that the concept wasn't there originally. Nobody reads the Bible and comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is allowable. You start with that attitude and then you go to the Bible to try to translate words and read your interpretations and to scripture. God made male and female for a reason. I'm sorry but this girl is not a true christian. Jesus even defined marriage as a man and a woman. So no matter how you try to rewrite it or try to use love to cover it up Jesus said people would come with false messages. And this is one of them
The concept of homosexuality as we now understand it did not exist in Biblical times at all. It was imposed on the bible by this translation.
The concept was invented in modern times by artificially combining androphilic men and gynephilic women into a single category. But the ancient world would not have categorized a man sleeping with a man as lying with "the same secs". Instances of males lying with males in the Bible is never said to be wrong for this reason but for violating social taboos (Lev), indecent behaviour (Rom 1) and secsual abyus (1 Cor/1 Tim).
Neither Jesus nor any writer in the Bible "defined" marriage. They accepted marriage as it was in society at the time, along with its evolution. The Law of Moses condones concubines and polygamy but these lost favour by New Testament times. You cannot logically deduce from statements of God's approval of straight marriage his disapproval of same-secs marriage. Nor is there such a prohibition in the Bible.
he never defined it he answered a question. He gave an example. It’s still the same principles for all marriages same sex or not
Just cause the word “homosexual” wasn’t in the Bible til 1946. Doesn’t mean the Bible didn’t condemn homosexuality!
uhh... that's exactly what it means tho
@@roosterb007 “thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, for it is an abominable”
- Leviticus 18:22
The greek version of the bible which is one of the earliest copy of the bible along with hebrew includes a phrase "participating in homosexual acts" . Maybe there is no English term for it before 1946 or who knows what year but it was clear in greek. The truth is the Bible condemns homosexuality.
@@jey7296 why does it matter that it wasn’t added til 1946?
@@jey7296 no I have a copy of the Greek bible it never condemns homosexuality
Seems like every religion against homosexuality
None of this is true. Please just do some simple research. To get to the heart of the matter, go to the original texts in Hebrew and Greek, not the much more recent German translation.
Funny, that's exactly what I did and concluded that these people are right. The original hebrew and greek texts fail to support modern theology on this issue.
Surely gay celebs would donate and get this movie made pronto. There is no time to waste on this issue.
I hope Lil’ Nas X knows about this...
@@pictureperfect4136 There could be a way of showing LGBTQIA celebrity members these sorts of films being made. We could @ them and make it noticeable to them in this way. I think that can definitely help send the message and show those who are allies as well. I genuinely think that would also help spread the word of this film. Especially when you mention Lil Nas X. Since the Lil Nas X Song that came out recently has to do with him being himself and the message that he is sending for others to be themselves in his music video. It would be a great help if other celebs saw this. We never know if they see a glimpse of an @ and what they're being @ for, will do/make the great difference and it's always worth the shot. Definitely excited for this film(I'm sorry this is longer then I had expected to write. I also hope this made sense)
I am about to watch this, I heard about this years ago and it seemed to disappear. It is sad in the comments you have some who still go against this. This will help many people, but we will still have those who choose to accept hate that will call this a lie and blame it on Satan, even though they show evidence. I made a point once to my congregation (who are against it) years ago, I told them what is a way that Satan could make hundreds of millions of people all over the world turn away from God, he would say something they can't change and that is good, is a sin. Then the faithful would do his work for him and in turn could commit a sin against the holy spirit by turning others away from God. People always like to say if something is incorrect in the bible then God would let us know, well for many years people have been showing evidence that it is a mistranslation and still we have it in most copies of the bible today. I told an elder of my congregation years ago about articles I found that talk of this, but he said the world isn't ready for that kind of change. I never went back to church after and got to see that even those who preach love are okay with this. It's not right or Christian.
Why is it that Netflix said this movie is unavailable in my region? What exactly does that mean? The U.S. or the southern U.S.? Hmmm, I wonder!
It's still screening elsewhere it's not available on a streaming platform yet, but you can pay 12 dollars to see it on their website
Why cant we just leave people alone i am considered a conservative Christian Other peoples life style has nothing to do with me Jesus said to love thy brother and sister as you love yourself.
Because morality affects society, and a lack of a moral society leads to an immoral generation. We don't exist in an isolated bubble. Also, Jesus had very harsh words as well. Christianity isn't just roses and pacifism. There are instructions and punishment as well. It's not compassionate to be apatethic to sin. Sin hurts the sinner.
You are deceived and dont even know it. I pray that you will open your eyes and truly know Jesus and His teachings. God created Adam and Eve, man and a woman is the true union.
Blasphemy
Afraid the bible can't stand up to scrutiny?
Sounds like it's not that strong of it can be picked apart so easily.
Could that mean that the "word of God" IS fallible?
This is such a weaselly argument. The word homosexual didn't exist until the 1800s. No shit it wouldn't be in bible translations from centuries before. Also, homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex. Obviously the bible doesn't condemn that. It doesn't condemn any temptation. It does condemn giving in to that temptation and acting on it.
mad fax man
I will pray for all!!
God is Holy
What is the Greek and Hebrew word that was mistranslated? Where is the discussion on what it really means and why?
The real meaning has been lost. There is some information on it here:
ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html
The history of how it got mistranslated and the effects of the error is outlined in Kathy Baldock's two-part video series that goes on for over 4 hours. Here's part 1, part 2 on same channel:
ua-cam.com/video/MBwajcvZtqw/v-deo.html
They don't want that discussion or the context, nor do they want supporting documentation from the numerous historical sources that proves this has never been questioned until in the 1970s when a homosexual man decided that he had found a 'loophole'. That loophole is gonna send him and many of his followers to hell.
Wrong. This 'mistranslation' theory has long been debunked. That is far from the only mention of 'homosexual' act. Only in the rsv was the word homosexual actually printed to begin with. You people are clowns, if you don't believe the Bible, fine. But if you say you believe, then it seems like you should believe it in entirety and not try to change it according to what you wish it said.
They would say the same thing to you.
The Bible makes no reference to homoxesuality, obvious in hindsight because the concept didn't even exist until modern times.
If you say you believe the Bible, then believe its entirety, including where loving one another is enough to obey God. Why do you want to change it according to what YOU wish it said?
@@MusicalRaichu
Romans 1
[26]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
You can believe anything or anyone you want, but if you can't see that this would incorporate two men living and sleeping together like a husband and wife, then there's no reasoning with you.
@@ingeniousmechanic You're kidding, right? I've known a few gay people and not a single word in Rom 1 describes any of them.
None of them worshiped idols. A gay man has not "left the natural use of the woman" because he never had such a use to begin with. They all acted with decency and respect, not "burned ... unseemly". None of them were filled with evil or approved of wrongdoing.
You quoted a verse out of context and claimed it's about something it even doesn't describe. That's like taking the story of David and Bathsheba and claiming all straight secs is immoral.
The Bible makes no reference to some people's capacity for attraction to and intimate relationship with those of the same secs. This aspect of human life was not discovered until modern times. The handful of references to males with males are about other concerns. Rom 1.27 reflects Jewish stereotypes of gentiles and seems to refer to idolatrous practices. 1 Cor 6.9 while unclear is probably about a form of secs abbuse that was prevalent at the time.
The point about the documentary is that the mistranslation in 1 Cor 6.9 led people astray, leading them to misinterpret Rom 1.27 and other Bible texts, just like you've just done.
Hope this helps.
@@MusicalRaichu not arguing with the blind. You've convinced yourself that it's perfectly NATURAL for two men to have a sexual relationship, a relationship which never has and never will have the possibility of producing offspring. I would ask this, though. If there were the slightest possibility that you were misinterpreting this, and your teaching was, in fact, encouraging people to continue in sin, would it be worth that risk?
@@ingeniousmechanic I'm not interpreting or misinterpreting anything. I compared what the text literally says with people you claim it's about and found not a single point of similarity. It's obviously you who misinterpreted it.
The risk of sin associated with your misinterpretation is serious. How many more children do you want to subject to anguish, rejection, mental illness and sue-side? Jesus said "if anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble" ... look up the rest if you don't know it.
If making babies is so essential, it means banning older women and other knowingly infertile people from getting married. Please think it through before making silly arguments.
I think you should graciously admit that you've misused holy scripture to malign innocent people and repent of your error. I also suggest an apology might be called for, but that's between you and the people you've hurt, not my business.
this is so easy to debunk that this has got to be a intentional lie. Are these people so ignorant of the Bible or intentionally misleading people? by the way, you are not "unworthy of Gods love", you are however a sinner just like the rest of us, just a different sin
What does this have to do with Strife
Why doesn't Mary pray for delivery?
Because she likely doesn't feel like she needs to be delivered from anything.
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong! If you care about somebody you tell them the truth. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.
Don't waste my time with this movie!
What is the original word translated in the Bible which they used “homosexual” for?
Man shall not lay with CHILD
Literally "male-bedder", but its meaning has been lost. There's lost of speculation, but one possibility is someone who deliberately denigrates a male by penetrating them in a secs act.
Most perpetrators would've been straight men, most victims enslaved boys, which is how the idea it's about boys arises. But we can't be sure, it might have been broader, as penetrating any male was seen as a deliberate act of denigration in their culture.
I gave a thumbs down because neither you nor anybody else can tell us where we can see this movie.
Save lives? It’ll save souls!
I frankly don’t give a single shit what anyone’s religious doctrine says about homosexuality. I’m an atheist and an American. The Establishment clause in the first amendment establishes a wall of separation of church and state so you don’t get to inject your religion into the lawmaking process. You also don’t get to tell me what to do. I don’t care what brand of religion makes you feel morally superior, you’re not entitled to dictate who I can and cannot love.
Where did it say any of that? Because I watched it twice and I didn't hear that.
I'm confident the film isn't aimed at you. It's directed at those people who feel "morally superior" and "entitled" to pontificate who people can love - as well as help their victims.
While church and state are separate in your country, the state is made of people, many of whom are religious and influence the state. Your constructive support would be helpful.
Please study the words yourselves before relying on others and their own studies. Look at the orignal language yourself to see what the authors of the Bible was trying to say. There are many different resources where you can look up a verse and see the original language used like Blue Letter Bible (app and online) or a ton of concordance. Do the studying yourself. You don't need to use the word 'Homosexual' to describe Homosexual acts.
I did. I dont see how this is wrong.
@@nickgagnon3626 your opinion on the subject does not change what the Bible says. Even if you don't like what it says or don't agree with it. (referring to your other comments on other peoples posts saying the Bible is wrong for saying homosexuality is an abomination).
@@DavidClason True but I have no idea why people would follow that awful book.
@@nickgagnon3626 again thats your opinion. There are others with the opinion/question of why people dont follow this great book.
You guys are confusing people and its not ok
Religion does that worse.
@@nickgagnon3626 that’s… that’s the point. These people are religious.
set the record "straight"
Ok lets unpack this bullshit:
- The whole concept that honosexuality became illegal because of a 1946 translation is stupid, from the very start gay people were condemned by the church drom thw time of the romans.
- The original word that the Apostle Paul used literaly meant "a guy who slept with another guy", not pedophile.
- This whole controversy arrises from a letter from some random 21 year old student who had no prior experience in translating the bible.
- Also the version described not only didn't cause any major controversy then it came out but was only one version, if the situation as was described happened it would have definetely caused controversy and the version would be very different from other versions of the bible.
- Also how come the idea that gay behaviour is a sin is agreed by almost every major congregation, some of them often relying on different translations of the same book.
- Gay behaviour is forbiden by numerous versus, like Levicistus 18:22 that are part of the old testament.
So please what should be the best word for the 'asenokotai'. Remember fornicators and adulterers have been mentioned in the same text already.
The first German translation (Martin Luther's) uses the German word for boy-molester or pederast.
@@StevenWaling how is that in any way relevant to the Greek?
@@winnietheblue3633 That translation is closer to the original meaning of the word that that very poor 'translation' from 1946. It also has a lot more relevance to what was happening in Roman society. Boy molesting, abuse of slaves, that kind of thing.
@@StevenWaling Paul is quoting Leviticus. It's an absolute prohibition against man on man intercourse, regardless of societal context.
@@winnietheblue3633 Another verse that's essentially about abusive sex - this time about temple prostitution - keep digging yourself in a hole. And that's assuming he was quoting a text that most of his gentile readers would neither have knowledge of nor access to. Perhaps stop using the bible as a sacred weapon against others...
The fundamental premise of the 1946 Project is flawed, and, not to put too fine a point on it, academically dishonest. It is not necessary that the word "homosexuality" appear in an English translation; it is sufficient that the behavior is described and forbidden. And God did not wait until Paul wrote his letters to mention it. It is forbidden in the Mosaic Law, in Levticus 18:22 and 20:13. It is also clear from Genesis 19 that it was among the reasons that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
The sadder fact here is the attempt to interpret the Bible to justify sinful behavior rather than submit to the Bible's authority and stop the sinful behavior. This, of course, makes no sense, to those who have not been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God. Nor is there any power to do it apart from God.
We are, all of us, fallen, sinful creatures. We are fallen in different ways, or, perhaps more accurately, our fallen nature manifests itself differently in each of us, but I think it is accurate to say that every single one of us is fallen in our sexuality. Homosexual sin is no worse than many forms of heterosexual sin, and should not be singled out as if it is, but neither can a true Christian accept it as Godly behavior. True Christians -- as opposed to so many who call themselves Christians but, like Mary Lambert, distort the Bible to excuse their sin.
I have no doubt that there are some people who are born with homosexual desires. That does not mean it is OK to act on that desire any more than it is OK for the person who was born greedy to steal, or for the person who has a strong heterosexual libido to sleep around.
Yes, it is not necessary that the word appeared. Trouble is, neither did a description of homoxesuality. It is not merely a man lying with a man, it's a man having a persistent innate attraction to and capacity for intimate relationship with men instead of women, and equivalently for a women. This was not discovered until the late 19th cent.
The Bible does not say that a relationship characterized by mutual care, kindness, faithfulness and so on is a sin. Exactly the opposite. It fulfills ALL God's commands Rom 13, against such there is no law Gal 5. Sin is wrongdoing, deliberately hurting someone, not being in a loving, mutually beneficial relationship.
The scant references in the Bible to males having secs have been grossly misinterpreted. Gen 19 attempted gang raip, Lev 18/20 violating cultural taboo, Rom 1 indecent behaviour, 1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 unknown (but probably secs abbuse). Most of these even fail to describe homoxesuality.
People are not "excusing sin". Who are they hurting for you to make such a claim? They have been distressed by false teaching and have looked deeper to discover that God loves them the way he has made them.
@@MusicalRaichu
Unlike what I suspect you want people to think, and not that it would make it right before God, but we both know that the vast majority of gay sex does not occur in committed relationships. If that was true, AIDS would not have spread like wildfire in the gay community in the 1980s. And to this day, two-thirds of new HIV cases are among gay and bi-sexual men, spread by indiscriminate sex.
Not known until the late 19th century? You should have done your research before you said that. It was known to the ancient Greeks, and, in fact prized by them on the theory that if a man and his lover were in battle together, they would fight harder in order to protect each other.
It is true that the references to homosexuality in the Bible have been misinterpreted, but not by me. Your interpretation of the Biblical texts is pure fantasy. For instance, what is it in Galatians 5 against which there is no law?
Galatians 5:22-23 says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."
That sentence begins with "But." So what is this sentence in contrast to?
Galatians 5:19-21 says, "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
You bollixed your interpretation of Galatians 5 because you broke one of the fundamental rules of interpretation, "What does the passage say in its context?" This is not just a rule for interpreting the Bible, it is for interpreting any document. They teach it in seminaries, but they also teach it in law schools.
We know from other passages, like Romans 1:26-27 that when Paul writes of sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, etc. that homosexual acts are among the things he has in mind.
As for Romans 13, you blew it again because you ignored the context.
Romans 13:8-10 says, "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
But the very next paragraph, Romans 13:11-14 says, "Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."
Your interpretations of Genesis and Leviticus are likewise laughable. On what planet can what God calls an abomination and a perversion be merely a cultural taboo?
You are like one of those to whom Peter was referring when he wrote about Paul's writing in 2 Peter 3:16, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." Although your issue is different from the one the Sadducees raised with Jesus, His answer to them also fits you. Mark 12:24, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?"
Does God love us the way we are? Yes, but He loves us too much to leave us they way we are. Love is not God's only attribute. He is also holy, righteous and pure, He hates sin with perfect hatred and will not excuse those who refuse to repent. If God is not angry about sin, If He can just ignore the whole business, why did Jesus have to die? Jesus' death is the measure of just how serious God is about sin and how angry He is about it.
Hurting people are not helped by lying to them, telling them that God does not care about their sin. God is not only loving, He is also holy, righteous and pure. He hates sin with perfect hatred. The way to help hurting people is to tell them the truth, that there is forgiveness for them if they will repent and turn to Jesus.
The "angels" came to Abraham and said that God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah BEFORE the men of the city wanted to have sex with them. The "angels" discussed this with Abraham BEFORE they went to the city. Abraham made a deal with God that if he could find 10 righteous men in the city God would spare them. They were unable and God destroyed the cities. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49-50 specifically states what the sins of Sodom were. Stop listening to preachers and peers and learn the Word of God. - - - - -49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
They address this in the film
She is wrong.
Hello, lapsed LGBT Catholic here. The RCC has done some truly terrible things and continues to support views that restrict womens’ rights over their bodies and the rights of queer ppl, however advocates for compassion and non-violence. In no way am I defending the RCC. But I will say this: this change to the bible comes from the people that believes in the Prosperity Gospel, purposefully omits the book of Job, and believes Martin Luther’s claim that salvation does not need Good Works - are you at all surprised that Prods did this?
Wow, a celebrity schooling me about the bible
The description of a homosexual was in the bible 2000 years ago long before 1946 Using different words.... This video is ridiculous
Private interpretation and presumptuous teaching being unraveled.
Bring Truth Jesus 🕊
Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
John macarthur is great
Wow To All Y'all And the World I Stand Alone By myself Let's Do this Your not Gay it Shows in your Eyes You Just Could not Get A man So A woman Will Do
nose ring = insanity
still waiting for this movie to be available to all
It's a virtual screening on their website if you pay 12 dollars.. and they will start screenings in London after that and hope to get some other media streaming platform
@@dylansharkey6040 thanks Dylan. I’ve seen it. Would love to own it
Yes im so glad it's here, there;s another lgbt film id been lookign for which started filming last summer about the uk government's reactuon to trans people and how this compares to the treatment of gay people in the 80s and 90s - the damage this caused for so long, in efforts to get people to recognise it now, they call it ' don't say gay' but i've lost track of them on social media@@paulwakefield1015
And 1946 was less than 80 years ago. Imagine the additions, deletions and edits over the past 800 years, or over the past 1800 years. If this one misinterpretation, this one word makes this big an impact over the course of just 8 decades, imagine if there was even just one similar mistranslation or misinterpretation every half century or so over the course of 2 millennia! And people base their entire world view, their entire identity on what's in that book today.
There are other words that have been interpreted in different ways such as
soul: a living being vs an immaterial floating consciousness
righteousness: fulfilling legal obligations vs fulfilling demands of relationship vs justice (e.g. when God demonstrates his righteousness, is it to judge the wicked or is it to do the right thing by us and repair our relationship with him?)
judgement: punitive vs restorative (e.g. when God comes to judge the earth, is it to inflict punishment or to restore goodness?)
Gehenna: ill-defined realm of the unrighteous vs fiery place of infinite torment
Through the science of textual criticism we know the texts of the original Greek manuscripts with a high degree of confidence. Pick up any critical edition of the Greek New Testament and look at the apparatus. At first glance it may look like there is a great deal of controversy over the text, but that is not true. It takes some effort to learn how to use the apparatus, but when you do you will find that the variations in the early manuscripts don't actually change the meaning of the text.
The New Testament is, far and away, the most reliably attested document surviving from antiquity, both in terms of the number of surviving documents and the number of years between the surviving manuscripts and the original autographs.
If you think you know what Plato or Aristotle wrote, the New Testament is incomparably better attested. The gap between the death of Plato and his earliest surviving manuscript is 1,248 years. The gap between the earliest surviving manuscripts from the New Testament and the original composition of the text is much shorter. Papyrus 52 has been dated to approximately 125 A.D. That means that this piece, a fragment of the Gospel of John, was copied around 25 or 30 years after John wrote his Gospel. If you count up all the surviving Greek manuscripts written within 1,248 years of the New Testament events, the number is over 5,500. If you add in translations into other languages withing that time period, the number is over 25,000. Only about a dozen ancient copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars survive, but nobody doubts historicity, though there is undoubtedly some significant bias from the author's hand. If you doubt the reliability of the New Testament, you have no plausible reason to think you know anything at all of the ancient world.
Romans 1:26 to 32
Thats taking about adultery
Can't wait for this movie. Ill try to save money to at least donate.
effeminates....no chance.....
The early scribes didn't know anything about punctuation. "Thou shalt not lie: with man kind, as with woman kind, it is abomination."
Why did they put the word homosexual in the bible? What were they thinking of that? Good Question. Maybe because God created the image of of a family out of a man and a woman. What a dumb question.
It will always be a sin! God doesn’t make mistakes!
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
Genesis 3:1
God never said that to the woman.
@@journeyintothebible I'm sorry, what??
@@ingeniousmechanic He told Adam, not Eve. Genesis 2:16-17, then 2:22.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Reply Don't Run Got More Does the Room Smell Like Bo bo Yes Keep A Candle lit O man y'all Do Better With Jungle LOVE NOT THE SONG BY MORRIS DAY MATE ING WITH A MONKEY IAM OUT DONT CHOKE
At least she will go to the cinema at foot :D . People say that fresh air is going to clear minds and i can make you healthy too!
The actual translation is man shall not lay with CHILD
Liar
🏳️🌈🩷🙏🏻
What is arsenokoita?
there's an explanation here
ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html
man + bed..........homosexuals.....stupid lady....learn greek....
You should all watch the video by Bill Donahue called, "Gays, God and the bible." He is honestly the greatest teacher on the bible ever. Just don't get him mixed up with Bill DonOhue. Very similar names but complete opposites.
I really wanna be apart of the documentary but I’m 14 and people will just laugh at me
Email them and see if you can help in some way! 1946themovieinfo@gmail.com
@@ChristianGHuber "Homosexual" wasn't in the older translations of the Bible because the word "homosexual" didn't exist until 1890. In addition, this video is factually incorrect when it says that no Bible before 1946 had the word homosexual in it. Maybe no English Bible did, but the Chinese Union Version uses a word that translates to homosexuality. That Bible was published in 1919, and the New Testament translation was finished in 1906.
@1946themovie is this true? Please fact check this.
Just subbed your channel.
Have you ever heard Becket Cook or Rosaria Butterfield?
May God bless you and comfort you ♥️
You've really disappointed me today C K
Tim 2 4:3 Explains it!! God Bless you!
You are so beautiful to me
3:33° how very appropriate of a symbolic number. Very original… 🙄
Jude 7 (KJV). Case closed.
This verse references gang rape rather than a consensual relationship between two homosexual people, hence this verse is taken out of context of what you're trying to fight against hence your point being invalid when trying to disprove this.
@@FYFAYAS The verse says absolutely nothing about gang rape. Is Leviticus 20:13 about gang rape, also? This law is talking to an individual man committing an abomination with another individual man. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@jasonelliott1722 Sure, this verse alone does look like it's about two men in a homosexual relationship, but knowing the context of situation that Sodom and Gomorrah caused would be completely negating the reason jesus punished their city, because Sodom and Gomorrah participated in gang rape. The verse talking about an unnatural desire is referencing how the wanted to commit sexual action without the consent of the other party, not homosexual relations. Oh, and references incest, you can look at how it was mistranslated here: blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/ So, most verses that condemn homosexuality are mistranslated and aren't valid reasons to hate lgbtq+ individuals. Maybe you might want to reevaluate your morals and realize that queer people are still people and are children of god too. Have a blessed day!
@@FYFAYAS amen
@@jasonelliott1722 Jude, a letter written by some guys brother? Jude also says a man named Jesus saved his people from Egypt. Ya, I don't think so.
Makes you wonder how truthful the bible really is
It’s all bs
@@destinab2316 if its all BS it wouldn't be used as a historical document by historians.
@@DavidClason exactly
It’s the people, not the Bible. Never gods fault. We are in a broken world
LGBTQQIA is a political organisation, not human rights. Your movement decides that some human beings can’t love other human beings (gay man can’t love lesbian ,even though they’re a man and a woman) just like Hitler decided particular races couldn’t marry and love each other (black man and white woman) because of race.
Nice try.
I am a homosexual Christian male who has nothing to do with the "LGBTQQIA" community as I find it too political. Many of my homosexual friends feel the same way. Meet new people, learn, and enJOY your PERSONAL relationship with God.
God love every single person but God do not approve having sex or creating a family with the same sex … if you believe in god everything that god make is perfect men and men can not have a baby … women and men !yes! So if god make gay people why do girl don’t have a d… or men have a pu…. God is so perfect that wen he make something need to be right.. we need to respect every person and don’t Judge because god is the only one ☝🏿 can judge you … but if you don’t accept that girl and boy is the Right way you don’t believe in the perfection of god … you disagreed that he is god … sorry for my English … no tenemos que tener odio ni atacar y rechazar a las persona si no hablarle de Dios para que tengan entendimiento pero si no llegan a ese entendimiento pues ellos no aceptan lo que Jehová !Dios! Pide , todo lo que Dios hace es perfecto por lo tanto el sistema de hombre mujer si funciona,pero el
Sistema de hombre y hombre no por que el tercero tiene un solo trabajo y es desechar no entrar ⛔️ entonces si Dios hubiese hecho la
Homosexuality por que nadie tiene otra parte íntima más bien estamos querido decir que el diseño de Dios está mal creado ….
I know of mary lambert from her song secrets.