Opinion on Mixed-Race Marriages?

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Including the 1631 version by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas? That's the one that says "Thou shalt commit adultery".

Probably a few satirical ones like that are the exceptions.

The NIV, for instance.

[Newwe Zion]

I came here expecting weird hot takes about mixed-race marriages and instead got Bible arguments. As a theology student, I see this as an absolute win.

For the record, as a conservative Christian man myself, I find absolutely no issues with mixed-race marriage. There's no Biblical basis against it, as pointed out all commands not to intermarry with foreigners were part of the ceremonial law for Old Testament Israel. Plus it's really just stupid to get worked up over things like race. Find a good partner and live a God-centered life with them, if it's God's will you marry.

If the Church Fathers wouldn't have agreed with what is written inside (like "call no man Father") then it is wrong.

How would you know they will agree or not? They have been dead for a very long time.

Including the 1631 version by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas? That's the one that says "Thou shalt commit adultery".

Probably a few satirical ones like that are the exceptions.

I've actually seen that translation in person at a museum, open to that very page. I can confirm that, according to the scholars, it was a typo and mistake on the editor's part, not an intentional translation.

[PUTAT]

The NIV, for instance.

I doubt it is a satirical version.

[New haven america]

Well sociological race didn't exist until the 1500's, so skin color wasn't something the Greeks nor eally bothered to care about when writing the NT.

And in the OT, Moses was in a what we'd now describe as an interracial marriage, so...

Yup. Race is a social construct.

1 form of it is.

There are 2 kinds of race, biological race and social race. Biological race denotes a subspecies, like Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc... (In other animals it'd be like the Asian/African Elephants/Rhinos), while social race is actually a completely different categorization called Polymorphism, which are evolutionary differences in 1 singular species used to better survive in a specific environment but that don't impede reproduction.

Humans are probably one of the most naturally polymorphic species on the planet. Another notable example would be Leopards/Jaguars and Panthers, with Panthers simply being a black coated variation of the former 2 due to both coats have evolutionary advantages and so both appear regularly. (And mixed coat litters being super common)

[New haven america]

Yeah. The Bible can be interpreted differently.



False. All translations of the Bible are valid.

Including the 1631 version by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas? That's the one that says "Thou shalt commit adultery".

Most accurate translation

[UNITYUNITYUNITY]

The KJV is invalid and was created with a Reformist agenda. The only correct way to read the Bible (NT specifically) is the Greek New Testament because it was used by all the Church Fathers.

KJV is valid for people who specifically want an English language Bible that is closer to the original, but don't care too much about the books Protestants exclude from canon. Love or hate it, that translation was used on a massive scale for over 400 years.

Closer to the original?! Than what? In what way? What original?

[Elwher]

If the Church Fathers wouldn't have agreed with what is written inside (like "call no man Father") then it is wrong.

How would you know they will agree or not? They have been dead for a very long time.

Including the 1631 version by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas? That's the one that says "Thou shalt commit adultery".

Probably a few satirical ones like that are the exceptions.

That was a printing error, not satire.

[-Saiwania-]

Closer to the original?! Than what? In what way? What original?

The core problem for the English speaking world is that the Bible was originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The British isles were a geopolitical backwater during the time of the old and new testaments. Greek was the dominant language of the ancient world in the Mediterranean region.

The KJV was the best translation overall that England produced, and it had state backing. But it is Protestant because England itself became Protestant from Henry VIII onward.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

The NIV, for instance.

I doubt it is a satirical version.

That's the joke.

[The Cavalier]

Closer to the original?! Than what? In what way? What original?

The KJV was the best translation overall that England produced, and it had state backing. But it is Protestant because England itself became Protestant from Henry VIII onward.

While the KJV is pretty, I don't think any scholar would hold it to be the "best" English translation that has been published, and it's certainly not the "closest to the original." The general progression and development of the English language since the KJV also gives a warped interpretation of its formality.

KJV "thou shalt not kill" might sound prettier than the ESV "you shall not murder", but the ESV translation is probably more accurate. ESV is based on older manuscripts, more manuscripts, and additional centuries of linguistic and archeological research. And its modern English, while potentially sounding less impressive, doesn't misrepresent scripture to modern readers as more fancy or elaborate than it actually is.

(Obviously ESV isn't the be-all-end-all of Bible translation, but KJV certainly isn't the absolute best English translation we've managed to put together).

[Ruszian]

Mixed-race marriages are simply marriages between 2 people of different races, like Black men and White women or White men and Asian women (most common). They blend 2 different cultural experiences together and have challenges raising their child, as some families might go so far as to disown their kids for dating a Black man.

Mixed-race marriages were actually illegal until 1967 and were known as "miscegenation" in the USA. They are rapidly growing and are everywhere too, like in France and the UK. Some people who are against it believe race mixing "dilutes" the race, and also, generally speaking, some marginalized people like Latinos and Black people believe that you should stay in your own race, as it prevents microaggressions.

However, looking at everything, mixed-race marriages are only a problem when Black people and other people do them; White men do it with Asians, Latinos, and so much more, and also face far less scrutiny despite doing it the most. An example of this is the "mudsharks" insult, which is given to white women who date Black men.

I view them very positively and don't think people should be judged on race but rather by their person as a whole, and we shouldn't use the rigid barriers of race to determine relationships.

But still, what is your opinion?.

As a scientific eugenicists I think we should incentivize interracial marriages enable to destroy race and strengthen our genes as a species while adding in cosmopolitian stability to cultures creating the best world we can for offspring.

[PUTAT]

That was a printing error, not satire.

Really? It sounds like a satirical take on the original Bible.

That's the joke.

It is a poor attempt at a joke.

[Ruszian]

Yup. Race is a social construct.

1 form of it is.

There are 2 kind of racist, biological race and social race. Biological race denotes a subspecies, like Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc... (In other animals it'd be like the Asian/African Elephants/Rhinos), while social race is actually a completely different categorization called Polymorphism, which are evolutionary differences in 1 singular species used to better survive in a specific environment but that don't impede reproduction.

Humans are probably one of the most naturally polymorphic species on the planet. Another notable example would be Leopards/Jaguars and Panthers, with Panthers simply being a black coated variation of the former 2 due to both coats have evolutionary advantages and so both appear regularly. (And mixed coat litters being super common)

Race is a social construct not evolutionary as no racial group has been isolated long enough for the total bounds of biology to significantly change, its more culturally based on local customs and adaptation to local environments thus if you take one racial group and drop them off in anothers area over time their descendants would adapt similarly to the local group if sharing the same diet and cultural practices which accelarates when intermixing occurs.

[PUTAT]

Race is a social construct not evolutionary as no racial group has been isolated long enough for the total bounds of biology to significantly change, its more culturally based on local customs and adaptation to local environments thus if you take one racial group and drop them off in anothers area over time their descendants would adapt similarly to the local group if sharing the same diet and cultural practices which accelarates when intermixing occurs.

No. Pygmies have a slightly different biology than regular humans.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

That's the joke.

It is a poor attempt at a joke.

Only if you lack a brain.

[New haven america]

1 form of it is.

There are 2 kind of racist, biological race and social race. Biological race denotes a subspecies, like Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc... (In other animals it'd be like the Asian/African Elephants/Rhinos), while social race is actually a completely different categorization called Polymorphism, which are evolutionary differences in 1 singular species used to better survive in a specific environment but that don't impede reproduction.

Humans are probably one of the most naturally polymorphic species on the planet. Another notable example would be Leopards/Jaguars and Panthers, with Panthers simply being a black coated variation of the former 2 due to both coats have evolutionary advantages and so both appear regularly. (And mixed coat litters being super common)

Race is a social construct not evolutionary as no racial group has been isolated long enough for the total bounds of biology to significantly change, its more culturally based on local customs and adaptation to local environments thus if you take one racial group and drop them off in anothers area over time their descendants would adapt similarly to the local group if sharing the same diet and cultural practices which accelarates when intermixing occurs.

Yes, that's called Polymorphism, I just went over it.

[UNITYUNITYUNITY]

Closer to the original?! Than what? In what way? What original?

The core problem for the English speaking world is that the Bible was originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The British isles were a geopolitical backwater during the time of the old and new testaments. Greek was the dominant language of the ancient world in the Mediterranean region.

The KJV was the best translation overall that England produced, and it had state backing. But it is Protestant because England itself became Protestant from Henry VIII onward.

Can you actually answer my three questions? The KJV is the best translation... — better than what? In what way? What do you mean by "original"? The understanding of the "original" in translations even of contemporary literature is a matter of debate, let alone in translations of literature containing multiple constituent parts that vary wildly in authorship and date of original composition, some of which were originally oral folklore, and that have been translated and transcribed thousands of times over the course of millennia. The makers of the KJV did not consult the oldest archival materials, for example, but newer reproductions of the Greek, and adjusted their translation to conform with prior English translations or the Vulgate in places where this would lessen the sense-for-sense correspondence with the Greek texts they were using. Does that make it the closest to the original? I don't know, because what even is the original?!

[PUTAT]

Only if you lack a brain.

No. It is really a bad joke.