Re: Donna Danna (25 Aug 2026)
"TO NANSINGS: Bible Verses About Homosexual Sin Were In Original Hebrew Masoretic Text, Hebrew Tanakh & RC Latin Vulgate"A: Evidence that the Sodom & Gomorrah story was changed from the original manuscript lies in Ezekiel 16:48-50 KJV below. Since the translators didn't have computers to cross-check the Bible for any possible related connection to what they were doing, they completely missed Ezekiel's reference to the reason why God punished Sodom (Note: In this instance there is no mention of homosexuality being the reason for punishment, though I am not debating for homosexuality):God speaking: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (This matches the claim that the original story was not about angels wanted by gay men, etc. It was about lack of hospitality which was very important in those days, otherwise God would have certainly addressed it.) And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
D: As for your statement, "Jesus told His disciples that some people can't "receive" what He had to say about gays (aka eunuchs), except those to whom it is given," the word "gays" is not in that Bible verse of Matthew 19:12 although the word "eunuchs" is. That verse has nothing to do with homosexuals. I have never heard of a homosexual making himself a eunuch (castrated) for the kingdom of heaven's sake when all he has to do is not have sex with another man and repent of his sin. And if he is having a problem giving up his homosexual sin, then he should ask Jesus to help him.A: You said above that "eunuchs" has nothing to do with the word "gays." That's an opinion. That the word "gays" is not in the Bible is because it is a modern term, so obviously it wouldn't be in the Bible. ;) Everything Jesus said about "Eunuchs" applies to "gays;" castrated or not. Many young people today are having transition operations to remove sexual organs which is castration. If after the surgery, they change their mind but can't decide or afford to undergo further medical procedures to correct it, on top of having a conversion to Jesus experience and then decide to go into the ministry, that qualifies as being a "eunuch" in the sense you view it.The reason Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego got physically castrated was so they would be wholly devoted to serving the king. I'm certain they didn't opt for that. It was imposed upon them by their enemies but they continued to devote their lives to serving God. You don't have to be castrated to be a eunuch. You could just be someone who, instead of marriage, wants to live in sexual abstinence (a mental form of castration) like a monk does in a life at a monastery devoted to serving God.With regards to your disagreement with Rabbi Lapin, you'd have to take it up with him as I am neither a rabbi or a physician. However, I find what he said about hermaphrodites makes perfect sense. You quoted "Eve's DNA: First of all, does the man’s rib contain enough genetic information to make a woman? The answer is “yes,” Adam’s ribs contained many copies of the genetic information required to make a woman." That gives credence to what Rabbi Lapin was saying.
As for the claim by someone that Jesus stated He was bi-sexual, that was not the product of an NDE, it was what my late youngest brother (now in Heaven) was told by Jesus, Himself. As for what's correct, we'll know soon enough when Jesus returns. I don't have trouble with it because the Bride of Christ is made up of both men and women. Also, I personally doubt there is sex as we know it in Heaven. There is, however, intimacy via the Holy Spirit (Note: He was the one who "overshadowed" Mary who then became pregnant with Jesus) and God, the Father, gives a dire warning not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit or risk eternal damnation in Hell.A: You also stated in your reply that "someone from the Roman Catholic Church cannot add verses.." I was told that during the time of the construction of the King James version of the Bible the choice was made by a person on the committee to remove some verses in the book of Psalms because they weren't significant or meaningful. So they hired a good poet to construct a filler. The end product was chapter 23, "The Lord is my shepherd..." Who knows what else the committee took the freedom to change.