[Wondergirl]

Ignoring your claim to be able to read the minds of others, the definition of homosexual does not contain any reference regarding why.

Please go to a college or university that houses reputable journals and do a literature search. I am not reading anyone's mind.

Added to that, a male who was not interested in another male would be unable to perform a sex act on another man.

So all the heterosexual prisoners show their power and control by winning bridge games and trivia contests while munching on tea and crumpets.

Wikipedia -- "...the penetrating partner uses the act primarily to assert control or dominance, thus minimizing this activity as an expression of sexuality per se...."

[Tj3]

Please go to a college or university that houses reputable journals and do a literature search. I am not reading anyone's mind.

I did. But the point remains that your claims are not relevant to the definition of a "homosexual"

So all the heterosexual prisoners show their power and control by winning bridge games and trivia contests while munching on tea and crumpets.

Try all you wish, the definition does not change (unless of course you go back to the NPGA website <grin>)

[Akoue]

You should study the evidence. It would boggle you mind to see how accurately the documents have been copied.

Surely you mean it would boggle your mind what an abysmal mess the mss. Tradition is. And the earliest mss. Date from relatively late. There are no first or second century mss. Of the NT.

For you to say this means that you have no idea what on earth you are talking about.

BTW - your reference to "translation" is not relevant. The original text was copied, and then subsequently translated. We do not need to depend upon the translation - we can go back to the original language.

YOU can't. You've never bothered to learn Hebrew or Greek.

Oh, and lots of mss. Aren't in either. I'm guessing you don't read Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, or Armenian either.

[Tj3]

This is outright HOGWASH. There are tons of variant readings in the manuscript tradition and many of them are substantial.

Then you should notify the scholars who study this material. I am sure that they would be interested in seeing your new and variant findings.

[Tj3]

Surely you mean it would boggle your mind what an abysmal mess the mss. tradition is. And the earliest mss. date from relatively late. There are no first or second century mss. of the NT.

For you to say this means that you have no idea what on earth you are talking about.

YOU can't. You've never bothered to learn Hebrew or Greek.

Oh, and lots of mss. aren't in either. I'm guessing you don't read Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, or Armenian either.

I see that you decided to go with the personal attacks and making false claims against me.

[Wondergirl]

I did. But the point remains that your claims are not relevant to the definition of a "homosexual"



Try all you wish, the definition does not change (unless of course you go back to the NPGA website <grin>)

So you give on the prisoner issue. <grin>

[Tj3]

So you give on the prisoner issue. <grin>

Nice try, but no cigar!!

[Akoue]

Then you should notify the scholars who study this material. I am sure that they would be interested in seeing your new and variant findings.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Read some of Kugel's work on the OT, or Metzger (who has written two highly acclaimed books on the subject).

You have just outed yourself, Tom. You have no idea what you are talking about with this. It's a HUGE issue in NT studies. If you had been studying scholarly work on this as you have often claimed you would know better than to make such a ludicrous claim. Clearly your knowledge of the scholarly literature on the OT and NT is profoundly limited. There's just no other way you wouldn't know better than to say something like this in a public forum.

[Wondergirl]

I see that you decided to go with the personal attacks and making false claims against me.

You're a Hebrew and Greek scholar?

[Wondergirl]

Nice try, but no cigar!!!

I don't smoke anyway. *doing a happy dance*

[Tj3]

Now you're just embarassing yourself. Read some of Kugel's work on the OT, or Metzger (who has written two highly acclaimed books on the subject).

I have read plenty, Akoue. Your opinion of me, having seen your assessment of the Bible, and what you have claimed, does not matter in the slightest. I am quite happy to throw in my lot with those who I know have expertise in the field.

I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.

[Tj3]

I don't smoke anyway. *doing a happy dance*

Then what is causing your "happy dance"? ;)

[Wondergirl]

I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.

Ah, another Tomism I can add to the list.

[Tj3]

Ah, another Tomism I can add to the list.

If you keep a list, that is fine, but I trust that you are keep the context and the abuse that preceded it. Because I am sure that you would not want to post something mis-leading about someone else, would you :D

Only people who cannot defend themselves with the facts do that.

[Wondergirl]

Then what is causing your "happy dance"? ;)

Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations. On to discussion about the OT...

[Wondergirl]

Only people who cannot defend themselves with the facts do that.

Wow! Two in a row!

[Tj3]

Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations.

Wow, another on my list!!

[Tj3]

Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations.

Now, why don't you tell us how long you were in prison, and which prison? :)

[Akoue]

I have read plenty, Akoue. Your opinion of me, having seen your assessment of the Bible, and what you have claimed, does not matter in the slightest.

I'm sure they don't. You are apparently even unconstrained by simple grammar. Feel put upon all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you have just outed yourself in a big, big, way.

I'm not sure which "scholars" have put this notion in your head, but by all means, tell us who they are and where they say these preposterous things.

I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.

Yes, you're adept at playing the victim. We've all seen it before. When you don't like the way things are going for you you accuse others of misrepresenting you and insulting you and on and on. Everybody here has seen it a thousand times.

BTW, most of my posts have nothing whatsoever to do with you.

[Tj3]

I'm sure they don't. You are apparently even unconstrained by simple grammar. Feel put upon all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you have just outed yourself in a big, big, way.

Akoue, if you were as sure of yourself as your claim, and if you knew as much about the topic as you claim, you would not need to make on-going personal demeaning and abusive comments.

BTW, most of my posts have nothing whatsoever to do with you.

You should read what you say.

Let me challenge you - if you really think that you are so knowledgeable, why don't you put aside the personal comments and discuss respectfully? Can you do that? It would greatly enhance your credibility on here. Ad hominems never prove anything.