Your In Trouble

{Post too large and completely off topic}

[ April 29, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

{Post too large and off topic}

[ April 29, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Tim Wright,
You should limit your posts to something a little shorter than a book!

 

Nonsequitur, if not also reduction to the absurd.

So back to the original question..you've admitted you wouldn't use those words in public. So aren't you making my point and contradicting yourself(again)?

 

We've reached three pages and are veering off topic. Let's start wrapping this up.

 

We [Protestants/Evangelicals] take the blood out of the communion ['eucharist'], saying it is not real ['transsubstantiated'], even though Jesus said His blood is "drink indeed" (John 6:55). Does THIS offend you?

 

If you said, "He that urinates," I am pretty sure the maleness of it would come out. Second, the Hebrew word means to urinate. Therefore, "urinate" would be an accurate translation. Third, this is a masculine particple which seems pretty well to limit it to males.

HOwever, what basis do you have for saying that this word is strictly a male word?

You are right that it is not what the passage says. It is how the KJV translated it. This is not a bowing to society. They don't care whether one uses that word or not. In fact, they use it all the time. This is a matter where the word has become slang and could be better translated by a word that is not slang.

I could make the argument that you want to leave the word there because you refuse to make a difference with the filthy vulgar ways of the world. I bet you couldn't disprove me by your actions. My translation has made that difference with the world; yours has not.

 

Actually Christ himself is the one that took it out. If you read the LAst Supper passages, you will that it is fruit of the vine that was drunk from. Transubstantiation is a myth. No wine has ever been turned to blood by the incantation of the priest.

 

My question was rhetorical, and I do not accept the 'transsubstantiation' tenet. One of the posters, who refutes modern translations to begin with, purports to be concerned that newer translations may remove the word "blood." I was pointing out how this was already done, from literal to metaphorical, as a move away from Catholicism.