Thread: Are you a manly man or a girly man?

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. no, i caught that part. i just think it was nullified by the statement right before it. to me it would be like saying, "i hate white people, but i'm not racist." the first part nullifies the second, because i see them as being at odds.
2. i do feel that way. it's my view that you should take care of yourself, first and foremost. my wife feels the same way, and we are both happy and taken care of. i am aware that this is a rather unpopular worldview, but it is what i believe.

This is definitely a point at which you and I will never agree. I would go so far as to say that our paradigms are so wildly different that you and I probably cannot even effectively communicate on the subject. I say mutual love and respect, and taking care of eachother; you hear subjegation, degredation and enforced superiority. You say independence, taking care of yourself, total equality and uniformity, and I hear heartlessness, coldness, selfishness and a lack of all the things that make spending your life with another person worth while.

All I can say is that I tried it your way before I grew up, and the marriage ended in infidelity and divorce after just under 2 years. I sincerely hope that it works better for you.

Personally, I think that it is far better to take care of each other. Granted, the ability to take care of yourself if highly important, but to take care of each other builds love and trust.

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. the context of MARRIAGE has also changed in the last 2000 years. so i would say the verses are either both applicable, or neither. seems rather convenient that parts of it stay relevant and parts of it don't and the one quoting it gets to choose

Actually, I agree completely. That's why I didn't let you get away with throwing one more verse, which looks completely different out of context.

I think that both are perfectly relevant, but both are only relevant when considered in context. Both in the full context of the chapter as I pointed out by referencing how that chapter concludes, and also within the context of when/where it was written. A marriage (in 45 states) is still a union between a man and a woman. Slavery is more or less gone from our world, not all translations even use the word slave, and the definition of the word slave has not been the same throughout history. (example: Victorian erra England, a person would sell themselves into temporary slavery as a way to pay a master craftsman who would train them as an apprentice. For litterary example, see "Great Expectations")

Originally Posted by jockeys

2. I spent 5 years at a theological school, where the KJV was consistently ridiculed as being "a very good translation of a very poor manuscript." it is wildly inconsistent with many of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts found since the KJV was written. not saying the NIV was perfect, but it was considered to be a more accurate translation, at least 10 years ago.

That's so far off topic, that I wouldn't touch it at all if I could help myself, which I can't. I'll keep it as short as I can though.

If you've spent time in theological school, you should be as aware as anyone that which translations are most accurate is, has been, and forever shall be a source of enormous debate in the judao-christian community. Whether the KJV or NIV is more accurate depends largely upond whether you are part of a protestant or orthodox religion. I can assure you that in Catholic seminary (having spoken to priests on the subject in the past) you would have heard very similar views expressed, except it would be the NIV, NLT, BBE, LITV and other translations that were the brunt of jokes.

One thing I think we can both agree on, is that unless a person speaks half a dozen languages, including several dead languages (Sanskrit, etc), and has the most historically significant colleciton of ancient bible texts ever imagined by modern man, there is no single, authoritative, guaranteed to be accurate translation of the bible.