Sexual allegations -- political aspects


#102

This I agree with. There are a lot of sociopaths in powerful positions.


#103

It could be more interesting discussion, if you wouldn’t try to hijack other threads for this topic. Here, they basically just told that it is off topic, and not much on your topic itself.


#104

To add insult to injury, then Dayton came along. It should have only been temporary fix, but has went on for so long that once again, Bosnia is on the verge of collapse, and once again no one is looking.


#105

I don’t think you thought that through!


#106

Sure I did. Need a hint what a deleted thread looks like?


#107

This is so Zen, man…


#108

Here’s a question looking back at Christian history…since (the virgin) Mary was married to Joseph and supposedly a virgin - did God sexually assault her when he impregnated her with Jesus? Just wondering if this should be investigated.


#109

You could argue that Mary gave consent:


#110

Now, this Bible passage has actually been translated into English - could there have been a misinterpretation in the translation over history… like the frequent errors in Chinese to English translations??


#111

Modern versions like the NIV are translated as close to the original as possible. The passage seems pretty straightforward.


#112

What language was the original in and when was it translated??


#113

Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean at that time. A lot of transcription errors have cropped up in the bible over time, and the earliest copies of the books don’t exist, so there there certainly were some errors (everything had to be copied by hand in that era). But you’d just be speculating if you imagined it’s anything different than what’s there. Some passages are known to be later interpolations, etc., but there’s no reason to think that’s the case here. I’m not sure when the NIV was translated, but it’s modern, and modern versions usually seek to go back to the earliest possible source text and translate it directly into English from there. This is a pretty cool free course on the history of the NT if you’re interested in this kind of stuff. Bart Ehrman has a number of good lectures too, among others.


#114

Of course, this is all assuming that the original has not been messed with - like the Council of Nicaea repackaging and deletion.


#115

Sure, there’s no way to know that. But I doubt that there are any reasons to think it may have been changed to any particular perspective. I don’t think anyone would have objected at the time if the point hadn’t been raised. In fact, Matthew gives a different account which avoids the issue of consent entirely:

I don’t think there’s much point to making guesses about what it might have said without some reason. It’s interesting that Luke brings it up and Matthew doesn’t though. Unsurprisingly the issue has been noticed, a search on “Luke 1:38 consent” turns up some, and indeed at least one translation question (servant or slave?), here’s an alternate:


#116

Interesting… we all must remember - as little as 500 years ago every single person on earth thought it was flat!


#117

Not true :slight_smile:


#118

Absolute arsewallop.


#119

Um…what about Pythagoras?


#120

Dropping like flies, lol


#121

He was even worse than Spacey! And yet, not a word from the liberal media in 26 centuries!