Donations for the month of August


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 66
Joined: August 2021
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,565
Posts54,085
Members972
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,248
Tom 4,255
chestnutmare 3,226
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,841
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 20
Pilgrim 15
jta 4
Recent Posts
News from Canada
by Anthony C. - Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:59 PM
The Lord God omnipotent reigneth
by chestnutmare - Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:58 AM
Foundation of Reckoning –Miles Stanford
by NetChaplain - Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:11 AM
Armstrong First to step on the Moon
by Tom - Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:48 PM
Christian Nationalism
by Anthony C. - Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:59 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#57655 Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:39 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
The debate over homosexuality in the Bible has been battled over in vain for years, so I'm not getting into that; I'm focused on a translation question based on a single Hebrew word, qashar, which is Strong's #H7194. In 1 Sam. 18:1/KJV the word is translated "was knit with" and the verse reads: "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." Many cross references give Gen. 44:30/KJV because qashar is again used in reference to the love of a father to his son: "Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's life". It is here translated "bound up in", and since it is love of father for his son, most commentaries read that it cannot be a word of sexual nature. It is indeed the same word in both passages, qashar.

Yet, in 1970 the New English Bible translated qashar as "had given his heart to David", a phrase with strong sexual overtones and in the updated 1989 Revised English Bible, this translation was kept identical as in the NEB. Only recently did I encounter a reason given for the romantic sounding translation and it is found in a Hebrew-English Interlinear OT. I'm referring to the Zondervan Hebrew-English Interlinear OT, which can be reviewed on Amazon by searching for ISBN 978-0-310-40200-8. The rendering of qashar in this interlinear for 1 Sam. 18:1 is "then-spirit-of Jonathan she-became-one with-spirit-of David". The female pronoun "she" is included in the literal rendering of the word there, but the female pronoun "she" is not found in Gen. 44:30. The Hebrew qashar is found 44 times in the OT and I've found only 3 times the female pronoun "she" is part of the literal rendering of the word, this one about Jonathan and two others that are clearly referring to women: Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab". The male pronoun "he" is more than 10 times used to modify qashar in the OT and the contexts in those show it is clearly referring to men.

In the Introduction to the Zondervan Interlinear it states: "...no English words will be supplied that are not direct translations of a Hebrew word and its inflected form", therefore the "she" gives an inflected form of qashar and is not an addition of a word to the Hebrew text. This is not unique to the Zondervan Interlinear for an interlinear online reads in similar fashion by modifying with "she":

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David"
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa18.pdf

By referring to the soul/spirit of Jonathan as "she", which appears legitimate; how can it be avoided that the love of Jonathan included some sexuality? When seen along with other statements of Jonathan's love, it seems unavoidable that sexuality was meant. Studies indicate that many men are not always, 100% of the time purely heterosexual in their nature, so why would this be unusual in Jonathan's case? Has it been misleading to use Gen. 44:30 as a cross reference or instance of "comparing Scripture with Scripture", since the literal rendering of the word is different? I can think of no argument to counter this. Anyone have a substantive explanation for why sexuality (homosexuality) is not included in 1 Sam. 18:1?


Eddie

A New Covenant believer who embraces the Five Solas. My Sola Scriptura study uses the KJV, RV, YLT & LXX English translations using the 1828 Webster's Dict.; and word studies based on the Hebrew, Greek & LXX. I value the doctrinal understandings held in unison by the body of Christ as in the old paths, Jeremiah 6:16.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
1) The problem is NOT just how people translate 1Sam 18:1 but rather what the actual Hebrew is and then do not use the Bible's own hermeneutic to translate it.
2) More important is the fact that homosexuality is clearly forbidden by God. Myriad passages could be offered to support any/all forms of homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, against nature, contrary to God's creation, etc.

Thus it makes no wit of difference how some will use grammatical gymnastics to justify what God hates. Many, if not most, modern translations are corrupt and do not faithfully translate the original languages. The translators are typically social warriors and embrace political correctness. igiveup


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 99
Likes: 5
jta Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 99
Likes: 5
I won't try to start a "KJV only" fight here, but I will note that this is one reason why I trust neither modern translations, nor aberrant text types (including but not necessarily limited to the Alexandrinian family).

God's English-speaking people managed to get by with the KJV for hundreds of years, without (AFAIK) ever having to deal with nonsense like "The Bible supports sodomy."

Also, it does not matter to me how good a translation may be, if it is a translation of an aberrant text.

The burden of proof is not on us to prove that Jonathan and David were not guilty of sodomy together. It is on those who would wickedly claim that they were.


Aspiring student of Christ
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
[/i]
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1) The problem is NOT just how people [i]translate 1Sam 18:1 but rather what the actual Hebrew is and then do not use the Bible's own hermeneutic to translate it.
2) More important is the fact that homosexuality is clearly forbidden by God. Myriad passages could be offered to support any/all forms of homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, against nature, contrary to God's creation, etc.

Thus it makes no wit of difference how some will use grammatical gymnastics to justify what God hates. Many, if not most, modern translations are corrupt and do not faithfully translate the original languages. The translators are typically social warriors and embrace political correctness. igiveup

So, your answer on qashar is that the word is not in the feminine gender in 1 Sam. 18:1 as it is in the other two references clearly referring to females? You say that is not the "actual Hebrew"? The scholars who wrote those two Interlinears of the OT are just social warriors and embrace political correctness? The Hebrew-English Interlinears that I quote are just in error or intentionally misleading? I am not asking about where all other places in the Scripture homosexual sexual sin is mentioned. I'm asking about that particular word as found in 1 Sam. 18:1 using exegesis, not eisegesis.

The Zondervan OT Interlinear I quoted is by John R. Kohlenberger III and I'd not consider him a social warrior or PC advocate. A short article on his death is found on the Accordance Software site: https://accordancebible.com/John-Kohlenberger/

I'm looking for a source authority to explain the rendering of qashar in 1 Sam. 18:1 in the feminine gender, not opinions on the Bible and homosexuality.


Eddie

A New Covenant believer who embraces the Five Solas. My Sola Scriptura study uses the KJV, RV, YLT & LXX English translations using the 1828 Webster's Dict.; and word studies based on the Hebrew, Greek & LXX. I value the doctrinal understandings held in unison by the body of Christ as in the old paths, Jeremiah 6:16.
jta #57659 Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:11 AM
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by jta
I won't try to start a "KJV only" fight here, but I will note that this is one reason why I trust neither modern translations, nor aberrant text types (including but not necessarily limited to the Alexandrinian family).

God's English-speaking people managed to get by with the KJV for hundreds of years, without (AFAIK) ever having to deal with nonsense like "The Bible supports sodomy."

Also, it does not matter to me how good a translation may be, if it is a translation of an aberrant text.

The burden of proof is not on us to prove that Jonathan and David were not guilty of sodomy together. It is on those who would wickedly claim that they were.

My question is NOT about the Greek of the NT! I am quoting 1 Sam. 18:1, the Hebrew where I see no disagreement here about the actual Hebrew wording.


Eddie

A New Covenant believer who embraces the Five Solas. My Sola Scriptura study uses the KJV, RV, YLT & LXX English translations using the 1828 Webster's Dict.; and word studies based on the Hebrew, Greek & LXX. I value the doctrinal understandings held in unison by the body of Christ as in the old paths, Jeremiah 6:16.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
1. Yes, kah-shar in 1Sam 18:1 is in the perfect tense and feminine... so what? Are these people and you? saying that because the word is feminine in that text, then it de facto signifies a homosexual 'binding' between Jonathan and David? scratchchin

2. Consulting some of the most respected and reliable sources re: Hebrew and O.T. as to this word as it appears in 1Sam 18:1; BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs) A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament and Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance and Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol. 2, NONE even hint of anything untoward in the relationship between Jonathan and David.

BDB-Genesius: "the life of Jonathan was bound up with the life of David"
Keil-Delitzsch: (summary) with ongoing strained relationship between Saul and David who committed himself to remain under the authority of Saul despite the strong animosity of Saul toward David. And thus, Jonathan committed himself to follow David for the remaining days (for life), i.e., Jonathan made a covenant of friendship with David. And, as a pledge of his loyalty to the covenant made, he (Jonathan) gave David his clothes and his armor.

Thus, I maintain that the problem has to do with using the right text, using proper Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic and one's presupposition that respects the LGBTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx agenda. One or more applies to all who try to suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan.

If the above is not sufficient to answer your query, then I apologize for not supplying what you are desiring. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: jta
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Plebeian
OP Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1. Yes, kah-shar in 1Sam 18:1 is in the perfect tense and feminine... so what? Are these people and you? saying that because the word is feminine in that text, then it de facto signifies a homosexual 'binding' between Jonathan and David? scratchchin

2. Consulting some of the most respected and reliable sources re: Hebrew and O.T. as to this word as it appears in 1Sam 18:1; BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs) A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament and Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance and Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol. 2, NONE even hint of anything untoward in the relationship between Jonathan and David.

BDB-Genesius: "the life of Jonathan was bound up with the life of David"
Keil-Delitzsch: (summary) with ongoing strained relationship between Saul and David who committed himself to remain under the authority of Saul despite the strong animosity of Saul toward David. And thus, Jonathan committed himself to follow David for the remaining days (for life), i.e., Jonathan made a covenant of friendship with David. And, as a pledge of his loyalty to the covenant made, he (Jonathan) gave David his clothes and his armor.

Thus, I maintain that the problem has to do with using the right text, using proper Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic and one's presupposition that respects the LGBTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx agenda. One or more applies to all who try to suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan.

If the above is not sufficient to answer your query, then I apologize for not supplying what you are desiring. grin

It is true that gender does not always refer to sex for inanimate items like boats and airplanes are often being given female names, but we're dealing with human to human relationships here. But, the fact that in the two Hebrew-English Interlinears I quoted, they only use the Hebrew qashar parsed as perfect third feminine singular in three verses, this one about Jonathan and the other two concerning women, Gen 38:28 "midwife"; Josh 2:21 "Rahab". In the majority of the occurences of qashar there is no gender indicated, but these three are feminine, and in over ten other occurrences it is parsed as male. I do not see how this can be ignored or passed over.

When seen in the context where the word for Jonathan's love is the Hebrew 'ahabah in 18:3, it adds to the question of homoerotic content. The word 'ahabah in regard to human love can be traced as follows:

First occurrence - "And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love/'ahabah he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her."

The word is clearly connected with the sexual there. The next three occurrences of the word concerning human relations are about Jonathan's love for David, 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17 & 2 Sam. 1:26. The next occurrence is where Amnon committed sex with his sister Tamar because he loved her so much, but later this sexual love 'ahabah is written in this manner:

"Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love/'ahabah wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone." (2Sam 13:15, KJV)

The last use of 'ahabah in reference to Jonathan as before mentioned, is the following:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, KJV)

In both words "love" it is 'ahabah and Jonathan's love is compared to "women", NOT wife or wives or mother or mothers. The only translation to vary from the word "women" that I've encountered is the CEV which translates it here as "wife", but the word is plural. How can the love of multiple women, a harem, be a higher love than the singular love of one person to one person? If the word should be translated "wife" or "wives" here, why is it not translated that way? The words were available.

The matter of simple homosexual relationships between males is hotly debated, and I'm more and more seeing the evidence of honest exegesis and a sound hermeneutic is on the side of those contending that the biblical record does not condemn each and every form of male on male homoerotic relationships. The LGBTQ agenda is of course perverted but I'm not writing about that sort of corruption, but about the difficult situation of the regenerate child of God sitting in the pews hearing themselves preached into hell.

I've begun to see the anti-homosexual use of the Scriptures to be shallow proof texting not any different than the technique of the cults who line up proof texts to prove the Son of God is a created being. They superficially appear such until you begin to exegete and examine each text in its own context. This matter would not be such an important issue if it were not for the fact that homosexuals merely for their sexual/love relationships are condemned to hell based on such scant, superficial evidence in the Scriptures.

The complementarian approach of trying to define sin by the creation, which God calls "good", is baseless. We live in a fallen world and not every deviation from the good of creation can be called sin. It is God's law that defines sin, not the standard of goodness in God's creation. I know those convinced against their will remain unconvinced still, but I felt it important to bring this up. I'll close my input on this matter here except to say, I've not found where Bible scholars have not clarified 1 Sam. 18:1-3 as used by the LGBTQ supporters as seen in. The conservative Bible scholars I can find nowhere refuting this. It is just glossed over and not addressed.

"The scripture states that Jonathan’s soul is bound[iv] with David’s. Bound in Hebrew is נִקְשְׁרָ֖ה, meaning, “to bind, conspire,” but is parsed as perfect third feminine singular[v]. This verse details the beginning of an attraction, and is feminine on the part of Jonathan."
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/09/1-samuel-18-23-the-queerness-of-david-and-jonathan/

I'll end my input at this.


Eddie

A New Covenant believer who embraces the Five Solas. My Sola Scriptura study uses the KJV, RV, YLT & LXX English translations using the 1828 Webster's Dict.; and word studies based on the Hebrew, Greek & LXX. I value the doctrinal understandings held in unison by the body of Christ as in the old paths, Jeremiah 6:16.
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 99
Likes: 5
jta Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 99
Likes: 5
Quote
The matter of simple homosexual relationships between males is hotly debated

Only in the world. Not among those who know and believe Scripture.

Even if it could be proven that David and Jonathan's relationship was sexual in nature, which it can't, this would not come close to negating the many places in Scripture where homosexuality, and indeed all other types of fornication and lust, are called an abomination, and where those who commit or even tolerate them are warned that they are on their way to perdition.

The answer to sin - this or any other - is the Gospel. There is no other.


Aspiring student of Christ
jta #57673 Fri Apr 15, 2022 5:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
I will give you a different answer that i am certain pilgrim will not like, But i will be very interested to see what you think of it Ed?
KJV 'And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul'
The text seems to me have a plain and obvious meaning of two souls intertwined. Not one 'flesh'.mark 10 8. How can this be?
KJV Eph 2 6 'And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus'

This seems to be talking about sitting together (Paul and others) and past tense in heavenly places in Christ while they are still alive on Earth. How can this be?

Here is the bit you will not like i think, you are about to be taken out of your comfort box so hold on to your hat!.

Kat Kerr has revealed that as we are made 'in his image'- a body, spirit and soul to parallel Jesus, God the Father and The Holy Spirit respectively. The Holy Spirit being made of an infinite number of layers-explaining in part his omnipresence- and He deposits one of these in us at salvation . But our soul too in 'in His iamge' and is likewise made with sometimes many but not infinite layers. She describes as having seen it and likens it to looking like a vertically opened book with pages fanning out and each apge looking like us. She has specifically quoted this Eph 2:6 verse.
She says that at salvation Jesus as well as giving us a 'layer' of Himself takes a layer from us and sits it in Heaven.

Also, when in a deep relationship with someone we may 'give' a layer of our soul to them.(wife/husband or friend)and them likewise to us, She uses this to explain why some people just can not let go of even violent relationships.

A simple elegant plain text literal answer, no homosexuality described or condoned, souls intertwined not one flesh. One flesh just between married men and women.
Kerr has certainly got my attention

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,255
Likes: 4
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,255
Likes: 4
Interesting you brought a false prophetess into the equation. Thus revealing your true colours.

Hmm.., I wonder if Pilgrim noticed that?

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Sat Apr 16, 2022 7:53 PM.
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
I give due reference to who revealed the interpretation, rather then take credit myself. Instead of bashing her/me, why not refute her interpretation with scripture to prove she is false then? Still waiting for a reply to the above and the other 'adam' thread.

I am beginning to think you can not answer them?

Am happy to have a 'kerr false prophet' discussion with you but lets do it on a different thread.

If you cannot answer the questions/interpretations you will have to concede that they may be right?

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,255
Likes: 4
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,255
Likes: 4
Allan

I can answer those questions and have answered many question just like them in the past even here on the Highway.
These questions have also been addressed many times on these forums and there are probably articles written on them on the Highway.

The reason why I choose not to answer them is the issue I mentioned.
That is a very serious issue.

Tom

Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 27
Likes: 1
woh, you are running but you can not hide, Nice try but Im afraid you are not getting away with that,

All the so called answers i have seen on this site are not what you say they are and are easy to refute-every one.

Give me your best bible verses to contradict my stances, where i get them from, and they are not all from Kerr, is irrelevant

You hint that Kerr as a false prophet. What do you base that on?

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,248
Likes: 45
BYE [Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
1 member likes this: jta

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (chestnutmare), 91 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TheSojourner, Larry, Nana Dadzie Jr., Cliniql, John E
972 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
August
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,360,342 Gospel truth