Yesterday’s stunning and outrageous ruling of the California Supreme Court adds to the demand for a national Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is the relationship of one man/one woman. Traditional marriage is not only being attacked by runaway divorce rates from within the institution, but the California ruling, the Massachusetts same sex marriage law, and the polygamist camp in Texas remind us that not everyone seems to have gotten the memo on marriage.

This is not a time to be angry, but broken hearted. We should not hurl insults, but get on our knees and pray that we will have moral courage to stand for truth and what’s right, but the Master’s compassion to do so without rancor. It should be another wake up call as we as a culture keep hitting the snooze alarm.

Mike Huckabee, May 16, 2008 – 01:13 PM

is polygamy a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”?

Red Pill on May 19, 2008 at 2:31 AM

Yes.

29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 PM

29Victor, are you a polygamist?

Ironically, the biggest problem with most of the new translations is that they’re based on something very like a conspiracy theory: that the manuscripts used by the vast majority of Christians during the first few hundred years after Christ were actually bad manuscripts, because some nameless people held back the good manuscripts and substituted their own.

The truth is that the manuscripts used in the Textus Receptus and King James, and essentially all English Bibles before the Revised Version of 1889, were what is called the Majority Text. They were called the Majority Text because they were so much more widely used than any other. Very close to 99.5% of the texts lined up with each other.

The new translations are based on the Westcott and Hort theory, which is that a sharply limited number of even older manuscripts were better, because the majority text only existed because the “better” manuscripts were suppressed.

Newer is not necessarily better.

If same-sex marriage is a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”, then is polygamy a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”?

Red Pill on May 19, 2008 at 2:31 AM

Yes.

Someone who shall remain nameless has either intentionally or un-intentionally mis-taken my meaning on a couple of posts, but I am not surprised, as it appears that they do this with Scripture too, so I feel that I am in good company.

I showed that the word “converted” is not a good translation of the Hebrew word shuwb. I also said that the meaning of the English word “converted” is not the same as it was in 1611 (in reference to “converting a soul.”) I never said that the Word of God changed, I said that the English language did.

I was told that the KJV was a great translation compared to the NIV, but any Biblical scholar worth his salt will tell you that this is not true. It was interpreted by a small number of scholars (47, divided into 6 committees, each committee taking a “chunk” of the Bible), all with pretty much the same theology (all from the Church of England and all of whom had been instructed to keep it “in line” with the teachings of the Church of England) from a rather small number of recent manuscripts and the Vulgate.

My critic quoted a number of verses from different Bibles and compared them to the NIV translation (which was the one I used simply from expediency, I cut and paste it from biblegateway.com), but he didn’t quote the verse in question from any version of the Bible. Do you want to know why? It’s because the KJV is the only Bible out there that mis-translates the verse in question. The rest have it pretty much the same way the NIV does.

This is a tactic used by people who see the Bible as a source of authority to back-up convictions that they already hold. When someone who truely loves the Bible and wants to know God more comes across a piece of Scripture that doesn’t agree with what they believe, they change what they believe, they don’t pick out another translation that says what they want it to say.

What the KJV is really best for is misinterpretation because it’s so easy to interpret many of the archaic words and phrases to mean something that even the translators never thought they meant. This is what happened on this comment thread.

By Victor Davis Hanson:
A Simple Conservative Message
There is a lot of anguish among Republicans as they look at the dismal polls and the even more depressing performance of their candidates in various preliminary House races. New books and prophets f…

Gay marriage would discourage the promiscuous behavior that contributes to health problems in the homosexual community. Maybe a better way to put it – it would encourage stable, monogamous relationships. So that’s a public health benefit. ..

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM

Let’s see… homosexual sodomites and lesbian women rasing and teaching impressionable children and sending them out into the communities to teach other children… just like that old shampoo commercial, I told two friends, and they told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on and so on… ahem, RightOFLeft… I mean this in the most respectful way. Y’know, I don’t think you’re a bad guy. Really, I don’t. But, you need to stop doing drugs.

Like I said, I have over 1,000 years of the historical record on my side,

so you say. but in 6 hours or so you could not find any references to back up your assertions.

and I could tell you that the works of Hippocrates were lost until they were retranslated from Arabic,

I could tell you the sky is green, so what? any proof???

you darwiniacs are so arrogant, its laughable. you think whatever you say is from on high, and has to be right.

delusional.

Well, I can see that talking to you is an utter waste of time. Like I said, I have over 1,000 years of the historical record on my side, and you have Fjordman.

Utter waste of time. I had these kinds of conversations with truthers, to no avail. You are certain of something, and I could tell you that the works of Hippocrates were lost until they were retranslated from Arabic, but you wouldn’t care. I could tell you that Fjordman made several errors of omission in part one, but if you knew anything about the topic at hand, I wouldn’t have to.

Not reading parts 2 or 3, either.

One of the great contributions of the monasteries was the preservation of

the learning of the classical world and that of the church. Learning did not

entirely die out in western Europe, of course. Seeing that the ability to read

Greek was quickly disappearing, the sixth-century Roman scholar Boethius, an administrator under the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, determined to preserve Greek learning by translating all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin. Only Aristotle’s treatises on logic were translated, and these remained the sole works of that philosopher available in the West until the twelfth century.

Unjustly accused of treachery by Theodoric, Boethius was thrown into prison, where he wrote The Consolation of Philosophy while awaiting execution. This little work later became a medieval textbook on philosophy.

Cassiodorus, a contemporary of Boethius who had also served Theodoric,

devoted most of his life to the collection and preservation of classical

knowledge. By encouraging the monks to copy valuable manuscripts, he was instrumental in making the monasteries centers of learning. Following his example, many monasteries established scriptoria, departments concerned exclusively with copying manuscripts.

During the early Middle Ages most education took place in the

monasteries. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, when the effects of the

barbarian invasions were still being felt on the Continent, Irish monasteries

provided a safe haven for learning. There men studied Greek and Latin, copied and preserved manuscripts, and in illuminating them produced masterpieces of art. The Book of Kells is a surviving example of their skill.

http://history-world.org/churchmiddleages.htm

now where is your reference for anything you said??

The reason why the Christian West for centuries didn’t have easy access to the Classical learning of the Christian East was because Muslims and Jihad had made the Mediterranean unsafe. It has to be the height of absurdity to block access to something and then take credit for transmitting it, yet that is precisely what Arabs do. As stronger states slowly grew up in the West, regular contact with their Eastern cousins was gradually re-established, starting with the Italian city-states. And as soon as direct contact was established, Western Europeans gained access to the original Greco-Roman manuscripts preserved in Constantinople. They didn’t need to rely on limited translations in Arabic, which were anyway made from the same Byzantine manuscripts in the first place, and frequently by Christians. Moreover, Muslims have spent more than one thousand years systematically wiping out Greek culture in the Mediterranean region, a process which continues at Cyprus even into the twenty-first century, which makes it patently ridiculous when they now brag about how much we owe them for their efforts at “preserving the Greek heritage.” The efforts of Arabs are, in my view, as overrated as those by the Byzantine Empire are underrated.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018278.php

I get a kick out of it, but the most complete translations came from Islamic sources.

really? go ahead and post your proof.

Yes, I am in absolute pain that the TOE has brought about advances in biology that have saved millions of lives.

it hasn’t done anything for medicine. this is too funny!! I mean you’re clueless about the ‘science’ you pretend to understand. I can see why evolutionists don’t want to debate creationists or ID people, preferring to silence them.

even coyne admits the uselessness of evolution:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442983a.html

It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112&ct=1

Here’s the thing, and it will trouble you to no end, the racism of Charles Darwin (mild for his era, but I digress) in no way invalidates the TOE.

for the faithful, like you, nothing does. his theory was not only racist, its wrong!!

Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

his theory has done nothing but impede science…the whole ‘junk DNA’ is a byproduct of evolution, and its totally wrong, and it impedes research. laughable.

Finally! Waiting for that reference. I get a kick out of it, but the most complete translations came from Islamic sources. Sorry, dude.

cherry picking…snort! too funny, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

I’m sure you proud of the long line of racist evolutionists, from Darwin to Haeckel, to Galton, Sanger, and now Watson!!

Yes, I am in absolute pain that the TOE has brought about advances in biology that have saved millions of lives.

Here’s the thing, and it will trouble you to no end, the racism of Charles Darwin (mild for his era, but I digress) in no way invalidates the TOE. The Origin of Species is a foundational document, and the science has advanced in the past 150 odd years.

You know, the dudes who were essentially erased from history until the 12 century?

who do you think perserved all those people?? hmmm?? try the irish monks. and history 101

I like the cherry picking, by the by. AIG is a pretty neato source. Have fun with that.

Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM

cherry picking…snort! too funny, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

I’m sure you proud of the long line of racist evolutionists, from Darwin to Haeckel, to Galton, Sanger, and now Watson!!

Yeah, and the scientific method is a direct descendant from Classical Philosophy. Wouldn’t exist without Plato and Hippocrates and so forth. You know, the dudes who were essentially erased from history until the 12 century?

I like the cherry picking, by the by. AIG is a pretty neato source. Have fun with that.

Oh brother. All this means is that you have no idea what the theory is. Junk like this why the liberals laugh their asses off at the right. The theory of change over time is inherently racist? Really? Wow!

thats the ‘politically correct’ version of the theory of evolution. its a canard to cover the atheism inherent in the theory. Even gould admits the racism in evolution, why can’t you? its very simple, evolution states the races did not evolve equally, so there must be one more ‘fit’ than the other, and the subtitle of your hairygod’s book is

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

and I know you darwiniacs like to say that ‘darwin really meant species’ uh yeah right.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

btw: mutations do not add up, micro-evolution does not add up to macro, look at the tuatara.

people like Da Vince, Bacon, Kepler, etc would not be possible in an islamic society. whatever science islam had was from the many people they conquered…after islam pervaded societies, science was finished.

right4life

Oh brother. All this means is that you have no idea what the theory is. Junk like this why the liberals laugh their asses off at the right. The theory of change over time is inherently racist? Really? Wow!

we ever know how much of that credit is actually deserves to be given to their servants?

Good point. The thing to keep in mind, though is that those dhimmis could not do anything in Christian Europe. There was an exodous south after the last school was closed and they remained even after the rise of Islam.

Paying the dhimnmi tax was preferable to execution for heresy, after all.

Like to take this opportunity to apologize for derailing this topic.

Institutionalized scientific racism indeed. You know nothing of the topic, so please just stop. Unless you think you are well versed in evolutionary biology because you saw Expelled

enough to make you look very foolish, not that its very hard, obviously. your hairygod darwin was a racist, his followers were/are, and his ‘theory’ is inherently racist. as Gould admitted in my previous post.

It’s irrelevant if I name a single atheist abolitionist group. My point is that those in favour of institutionalized gender and race discrimination invariably use the Bible as the cornerstone of their argument. Those that stood against those things were in the minority.

you can say that, but you cannot prove it. its VERY relevent. oh you mean racists like Darwin, Haeckel, and Watson? in a long line of racist evolutionists??

just wondering…as Gould said:

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

As I suspected: you refuse to answer because you are aware of the hypocrisy and your complaints have nothing to do with principle on due process but instead is all about your antipathy for queers.

typical liberal lies. you sound like a racist.