Revelation 22:15

[PoetPhilosopher]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.

Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality". Person B can unfairly win the debate by showing that their Bible translation of Revelation mentions homosexuality, if Person A doesn't understand the counters to the subject.

 

[viole]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.

Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality". Person B can unfairly win the debate by showing that their Bible translation of Revelation mentions homosexuality, if Person A doesn't understand the counters to the subject.

Why unfairly? It is clear that the Christian God abhors homosexuality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Why unfairly? It is clear that the Christian God abhors homosexuality.

Ciao

- viole

Yes and no. I think He actually does, but what isn't clear is whether He views homosexuality as a punishable sin in this modern day. I think.

 

[viole]

Yes and no. I think He actually does, but what isn't clear is whether He views homosexuality as a punishable sin in this modern day. I think.

I strongly suggest you guys come up with a third Covenant, or something. A sort of Bible service pack. Double quick.

Things start getting terribly complicated: human organs grown in pigs, possible moral issues with artificial intelligence, stem research, etc.

I doubt anything whose last update took place 2000 years ago can be of any help.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sun rise]

In the region as exemplified in Islam, dogs are considered unclean. And this is one example where taking one word and applying a specific meaning rather than understanding the historical context can cause confusion.

The context is to distinguish those who are on the upward path toward the light and those who wallow in darkness.

And what are the commandments (from 22:14): the great commandments of love as amplified in the Sermon on the Mount.

So in modern terms this is how I would understand it: Those who are on the upward path of love will be rewarded according to love. Those on the path of darkness are earning darkness.

 

[sooda]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.

Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality". Person B can unfairly win the debate by showing that their Bible translation of Revelation mentions homosexuality, if Person A doesn't understand the counters to the subject.

Read what it says.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

 

[Enoch07]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.

Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality". Person B can unfairly win the debate by showing that their Bible translation of Revelation mentions homosexuality, if Person A doesn't understand the counters to the subject.

Etymology solves this problem.

Strong's Greek: 2965. κύων (kuón) -- a dog

Dogs used here doesn't mean gay guys.

It means a spiritual predator. So in other words a false priest, a deceiver, a charlatan.

 

[Nimos]

Yes and no. I think He actually does, but what isn't clear is whether He views homosexuality as a punishable sin in this modern day. I think.

So he went from them having to be killed and its their own fault... to Ill let it pass now, that was yesterday?

I think the homosexual believers would really appreciate him just leaving a note or something then, so its made clear to everyone

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.
Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality".........................

I would like your comments about the Bible verses found at Romans 1:22-29_______________________

Revelation being highly symbolic and written with very-vivid word pictures for us, so ' dog ' is Not a literal dog but people who might act like dogs act, 'dogs' in the sense of living by unclean spiritual practices.
The common unclean practices of non-Israelites - Deuteronomy 23:17-18
False clergy who act as described at Isaiah 56:10-12

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes and no. I think He actually does, but what isn't clear is whether He views homosexuality as a punishable sin in this modern day. I think.

I find, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 is modern day, and applies to today as does 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 A.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I've noticed that some, not all, translations of Revelation 22:15 speak against homosexuality. They interpret the word "dog" as "male homosexual" apparently, when there are quite a few other possible Bible interpretations if one searches the internet.

Why I find this harmful is say person A and person B are in a debate. Person A says, "The Bible doesn't speak on homosexuality, Sodom and Gammorah was a matter of hospitality". Person B can unfairly win the debate by showing that their Bible translation of Revelation mentions homosexuality, if Person A doesn't understand the counters to the subject.

Doesn't paul say something on that as well, not sure.