|
Ad-Imaginem-Dei -> RE: Nude Resorts or Beaches (3/31/2008 8:54:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kjvthumper Le 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Hey, Thumper, First of all, I remind you that the Scriptures were not written in KJV, they were written (primarily) in Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, the Hebrew and Greek are the authority, not the KJV, NASB, NIV, or any other translation. They are ALL to be assessed on how well they render the original language in English. This presupposition is the basis of the post that follows. Do you know what the word "take" in that passage means? Compare it to how that Hebrew word is translated and used elsewhere in the OT. It means "marries." That's how it's used elsewhere in the KJV, even. And it is translated "marries" in newer translations. In other words, the text here is talking about what happens when a man marries his sister, and she "sees" him and he "sees" her. Obviously, it's a big problem. Yet, surely it is not the "seeing" that is the problem, because a husband and wife are allowed to see each other, are they not? Is it not permissible for a man to "uncover the nakedness" of his own wife? Yet, that is what is implied here if you take the words "sees his/her nakedness" and "uncover nakedness of" absolutely literally... it is the "seeing" of his wife that is wrong... So, either this verse means that a husband is NOT allowed to see his wife naked, or else this concept of "seeing his/her nakedness" and "uncovering nakedness" actually is a euphemism for something else. It's clear that the meaning is about sexual intercourse, or more specifically, INCEST (Even if you take it absolutely literally, you still have to conclude that the problem is incest, not the nakedness). There is no Hebrew word for "incest." Yet, God made it abundantly clear what it was, and that it was forbidden. He used the phrase "uncover the nakedness of" to represent "incest." In Lev. 18 & 20 God defines it and forbids it. Interestingly, it is ONLY in the context of defining incest that God ever uses that phrase, or makes any sort of supposed prohibition of nakedness. So, Lev. 18 & 20 are not about nakedness, they're about incest. quote:
ORIGINAL: kjvthumper 1Ti 2:9 ¶ In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (your point was one of modest behaviour but the scriptures talk of modest apparel, which means clothing should be worn. ) The word translated "adorn" (kosmeo) is the verb form of the noun "kosmos" which means "order" and is generally translated "world" The word translated "modest" (kosmios) is the adjectival form of the same noun, "kosmos." How then can it mean "modest" as in "covered so that none can see the lustful parts of your body"? Furthermore, in just the next chapter, 1 Tim 3:2, it is translated "of good behaviour" The NASB translates the same word as "proper" and "respectable." In other words, in the very same book, less than 10 verses apart, Paul used the same word twice, and the two best translations I know of used a total of 4 different words to translate it. So, I ask again, how can it mean "keep yourself adequately covered"? Clearly, it doesn't mean that. Its meaning is tied to the Greek word "kosmos" which really means "order." It has to do with order and design, not with the extent of covering. Furthermore, the word translated "apparel" (Greek: "katastole") is not a word used for clothing anywhere in the Bible. In fact, this is the only time it is used at all in the NT. It is the noun form of the Greek word "katastello" (check your Strong's). "katastello" shows up twice in the NT, both in the same context: Acts 19:35-36. There, "katastello" is translated "had appeased" in verse 35 and "to be quiet" in verse 36 (KJV) ("quieting" and "keep calm" in the NASB). How then can the verb which means something like "calming down" refer to a garment when changed to noun form? What's more, evidently, Paul considered "good works" as adequate fulfillment of his command to "adorn" themselves with "modest apparel." In fact, that's the only sign he gives that we may know that a woman is complying. I suggest that "apparel" is a mistranslation, and that the Greek word has much more to do with how a woman carries herself (calm and quiet, not loud and boisterous) , not with what she wears. And isn't that exactly what the entire context is talking about, from v.9 all the way to v.15? We may not have a good equivalent in English, but it sure seems that "apparel" is very misleading. Feel free to double-check my research. -- A I D
|
|
|
|