glbtq: an encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture
home
arts
literature
social sciences
special features
www.glbtq.com Forum Index
about glbtq
   search
  
 
   Encyclopedia
   Discussion
 
 

   member name
  
   password
  
 
   
   Forgot Your Password?  
   
Not a Member Yet? 
   
JOIN TODAY. IT'S FREE!

 
 

  Advertising Opportunities
  Permissions & Licensing
  Terms of Service
  Privacy Policy
  Copyright
 

Index      FAQ       Member List       Report Abuse        Guidelines    


 Topic: Interesting essay on mistranslation

Reply to topic   Post new topic
Author Message
strngeluv  



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1


Posted: 14 Dec 2004, 1:34 am    Post subject: Interesting essay on mistranslation Reply with quote

A friend of mine, a minister, wrote this amazing essay about mistranslation in the Bible, which I think is a great assurance to people who identify as GLBTQ yet consider the Lord first and foremost in their lives...take a look!

~Fae


>-The Bible and Homosexuality-
>
> First off, the Bible says nothing condemning homosexuality. If this is a
>shock, it’s because you have been relying on false translations, and biased
>ministries.
> The two major direct mistranslations are:
>
>* “Qadesh” means a male prostitute, often one who engaged in ritual sex in a
>Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the
>surrounding countries. It is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or
>"homosexual."
>
>* “To'ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but
>often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food that contains both meat
>and dairy products is "to'ebah." A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah."
>
> Any passage that deals with criminal homosexuality is the condemnation of
>such practices as rape and prostitution. A passage that would say something to
>the effect of "the practice of Homosexuality/Sodomy is an abomination" is
>actually "the practice of men prostituting themselves is a condemned practice"
>to which is usually follows "as they did in the land of (insert Jewish
>oppressor).
>
> Another mistranslation is in Leviticus 18:22, commonly sited as God’s clear
>disdain for homosexuality.
> The New International Version of the Bible currently translates:
>
> "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
>
> The New Living Translation widens the translation to also include lesbians:
>
> “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”
>
> Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the
>original Hebrew and render this verse as:
>
> "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually
>unclean."
>
> That is "ritually unclean" like eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, or
>wearing synthetic clothing. Such a translation would not sell, as ministers
>will hold on to their prejudice, and common folk would likely assume that it
>is a poorly translated Bible, because they have been basing their beliefs on
>wrong information from the start.
>
>-Lot and the Angels-
>
> A second passage which is usually used as proof of "divine homophobia" is the
>narrative of the destruction of Sodom, (Sodom was actually not the name of the
>town, but is the Hebrew word S’dom- burned, thus referring to its fate) the
>town lending itself to the once scientific and now derogatory term Sodomite
>and Sodomy - homosexual, and ‘unclean’ sexual acts.
> In this little town, (which was really more of a fort that overlooked a trade
>route) at around the turn of the 4th millennium, God’s wrath at the then
>current state of mankind was violently expressed. As the men returned from a
>battle, God decided to warn the few good people of the town, sending two
>angels to a man called Lot and his family. Now as the strangers entered his
>dwelling, the Men of the town surrounded the house and demanded that Lot send
>them out so that they might "know" them. “Know” being the translation for the
>Hebrew Ya’da - which is used only a handful of times in the Bible to mean
>‘conceive‘, and everywhere else to mean ‘know a fact’ - not even remotely
>sexually. Lot then offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd, to satisfy
>them (the crowd declines).
> It is unclear whether the mob wanted to A) gang rape the angels B) engage in
>consensual homosexual acts with the angels, maybe start a family together,
>open a flower shop, that kind of thing, C) interrogate them, or D) beat them
>to a pulp. ‘B’ is the most unlikely (no matter what many would like the
>passage to say about gay people) and therefore the passage should not be used
>to condemn such scenarios, but there are some interesting things to take into
>consideration about this passage.
> The men had just returned from battle, and were therefore on high alert.
>Also, back then, the only strangers one was likely to see were enemies from
>other tribes. With that in consideration, the passage can be examined thus.
>Two strangers wander into Lots house, the rest of the men surround the house
>and demand that Lot give up the men to the crowd so they can A) determine
>whether or not they are spies, B) eliminate the threat they pose C) gang rape
>them, as was a common practice at the time to humiliate enemies. Trying to
>protect God’s messengers, Lot offers his daughters, but the crowd- not
>actually looking for sexual satisfaction- declines.
> All in all, this passage can in no way condemn the love between two men. If
>the crowd did mean to have sex with the angels (they were quite handsome of
>course), to use the passage in condemning homosexuality would be like taking
>another passage in the Bible, describing rape of the female sort, and using it
>to damn heterosexuality -it is absurd. Similarly, God’s distaste for the town,
>and his destruction to destroy it, preceded the Angels.
>
>-New Testament-
>Clearing up Misconceptions:
>
> Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
>even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
>And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
>their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
>and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
> These verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of
>homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. They stand as the
>capital New Testament text that prohibits homosexual behavior. Moreover, this
>text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible,
>so that homosexuals have steadily become the object of contempt and
>discrimination.
> As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting
>the writings of Paul. "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them
>of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
>that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
>unto their own destruction." Paul's writings have been taken out of context
>and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world:
>Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts,
>pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious
>reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. In addition to
>being hard to understand, a lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to
>translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from
>other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone
>conversation.
> Important to note is that the phrase "vile affections" is in the original
>Greek: "a frenzied state of mind" as what many ancient mystery cults induced
>in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. Here Paul seems to be
>describing Pagan sexual orgies (prevalent in Rome at the time). When he talks
>about leaving behind their natural desires he is speaking about people who
>were typically heterosexual, but because of such pagan rights, had acted out
>of their natural character, he is not classifying homosexuality as unnatural.
> Rather than take on more of Paul, I will just conclude by saying he obviously
>struggled with issues of lust, and his obvious psychosexual hang-ups fit the
>profile of a modern conflicted homosexual, if such a thing existed in ancient
>times; Paul was probably more confused himself than those who try to
>understand him.
>
>-Jesus-
>
> It is often said that Jesus never said anything on homosexuality. A partially
>true statement in that he never said anything against homosexuality, but in
>several passages homosexuality is involved, and Jesus seems to condone it.
>
>Matthew 5:22:
>"...anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin [the
>Council]. But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire"
>
> Raca or Rakha is a Hebrew word which is similar to the modern word ‘faggot,’
>and "fool" is translated from Moros, which has numerous meanings relating to
>homosexuality and sexual aggression. Simply put, Jesus was condemning
>homophobia.
>
>Matthew 8:5-13:
>These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his "pais" who
>lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to
>do was to say the right words to affect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion
>for his faith. The author chose "paias," not "uios" (son), or "duolos"
>(slave), but "paias," a word which refers to a young male kept for sexual
>purposes (the root of English "pederasty"); it is an unambiguous and
>deliberate choice - though it may be mistranslated or just left in esoteric
>Greek. Jesus did not take this moment to condemn the man, or the relationship,
>but praised him for his faith.
>
>Matthew 19:4-5:
>"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For
>this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife;
>and the two will become one flesh.'"
>
> This passage is often pointed out by conservatives as a remark made by Jesus
>to condemn homosexuality. However, he is actually speaking on the topic of
>divorce and whether it is right to remarry- a question posed by the Pharisees
>immediately preceding the passage (his verdict is that committed men and women
>become as one).
> Straight people often comment that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and
>Steve." To this I have only to say: "Tell me something I don't know - there
>wouldn’t be a human race if he didn’t, and that doesn’t condemn homosexuals."
>
>Homosexual Relationships in the Bible
>-David and Jonathan-
>
>1 Samuel 20:41
>"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and
>bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they
>kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." Here, "till
>David wept the most" is an interpretation of "till David became great" - in
>Hebrew, great being Gadal, the same word which in other parts of the Bible to
>mean erect or erection. Quite comically, to avoid entirely this blatant
>representation of gay love, the ‘Living Bible’ translates the entire phrase as
>"…they sadly shook hands."
>
>2 Samuel 1:26
>"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love
>for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." Because in ancient times
>it would be inconceivable for a man to experience platonic love with a woman
>(In ancient Israel the two sex’s couldn’t even talk to each other in public)
>the only love David could be referring to here, would be a private, romantic
>love, which because of their close bond, was even greater than just a private
>sexual relationship.
>
>-Jesus and John-
>
> John’s gospel, in how it is formatted and what it contains and emphasizes, is
>different than all the rest. And it has been speculated that he had a
>different "perspective," and a unique "spiritual connection" to Jesus, of a
>different nature than the rest of the disciples.
> There is definitely support for this, given all that is said about him being
>"the disciple that Jesus loved." The Greek word that is used in these passages
>over and over again is something to the extent of “eromenos,” which would
>identify him as the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. Jesus and
>John had a spiritual connection that had a special, sacred character because
>of their orientation, a sacred character as described in the opening of this
>Treatise. Jesus and John certainly fit the heroic model for such a couple.
> People do not like to think of Jesus in a sexual nature, especially a
>homosexual one, and surely no one can say for certain (the definitions of
>‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ can not be applied before modern times).
>However, divine as Jesus may have been, is it wrong to believe him without
>passion or the human capacity and drive for closeness? Certainly he was the
>combination of man and God, and to God do we owe our sexuality - as a thing of
>beauty, and God exists in every beautiful thing.
> We are called to glorify God through our love and relationships, love as it
>would exist everywhere. Jesus as a homosexual, or bisexual, or just sexual,
>makes a particularly poignant messenger for the vastness of God’s love;
>"whomsoever believes, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sword  



Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 40
Interests: Writer, Champion of the underdogs, Lay Minister, Registered Massage Therapy, playing pool, dancing, gardening
Physical Location: Galveston,Texas,USA

Posted: 11 Jun 2005, 10:13 pm    Post subject: A Gospel that does not have to be analyzed to Affirm LGBT Reply with quote

Reconciler Gospel of Thomas Verse 114 is the verse that I am refering to in Scripture. It may have been hidden for two thousand years but its time has come. e-mail me or go to my webpage to read it.
The rest of the Reconciler Gospel of Thomas is also for free to anyone who wants amunition in the fight for the Light. I don't want to see anymore people give up hope because they do not have a clear passage to quote.
God's Blessings,
Angel Eliza (Sword)
_________________
I have published a book that Affirms that God Loves GLBT. Get a free Reconciler Gospel of Thomas.The pot of Gold was the last verse 114.
Verse 114 is on my website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email
Corvo  



Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Interests: Books, Music, Opera, Theatre, Theology
Physical Location: London, UK

Posted: 27 Aug 2005, 4:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Interesting essay on mistranslation Reply with quote

strngeluv wrote:
A friend of mine, a minister, wrote this amazing essay about mistranslation in the Bible, which I think is a great assurance to people who identify as GLBTQ yet consider the Lord first and foremost in their lives...take a look!

~Fae


>-The Bible and Homosexuality-
>
> First off, the Bible says nothing condemning homosexuality. If this is a
>shock, it’s because you have been relying on false translations, and biased
>ministries.
> The two major direct mistranslations are:
>
>* “Qadesh” means a male prostitute, often one who engaged in ritual sex in a
>Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the
>surrounding countries. It is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or
>"homosexual."
>
>* “To'ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but
>often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food that contains both meat
>and dairy products is "to'ebah." A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah."
>
> Any passage that deals with criminal homosexuality is the condemnation of
>such practices as rape and prostitution. A passage that would say something to
>the effect of "the practice of Homosexuality/Sodomy is an abomination" is
>actually "the practice of men prostituting themselves is a condemned practice"
>to which is usually follows "as they did in the land of (insert Jewish
>oppressor).
>
> Another mistranslation is in Leviticus 18:22, commonly sited as God’s clear
>disdain for homosexuality.
> The New International Version of the Bible currently translates:
>
> "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
>
> The New Living Translation widens the translation to also include lesbians:
>
> “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”
>
> Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the
>original Hebrew and render this verse as:
>
> "Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually
>unclean."
>
> That is "ritually unclean" like eating shellfish, getting a tattoo, or
>wearing synthetic clothing. Such a translation would not sell, as ministers
>will hold on to their prejudice, and common folk would likely assume that it
>is a poorly translated Bible, because they have been basing their beliefs on
>wrong information from the start.
>
>-Lot and the Angels-
>
> A second passage which is usually used as proof of "divine homophobia" is the
>narrative of the destruction of Sodom, (Sodom was actually not the name of the
>town, but is the Hebrew word S’dom- burned, thus referring to its fate) the
>town lending itself to the once scientific and now derogatory term Sodomite
>and Sodomy - homosexual, and ‘unclean’ sexual acts.
> In this little town, (which was really more of a fort that overlooked a trade
>route) at around the turn of the 4th millennium, God’s wrath at the then
>current state of mankind was violently expressed. As the men returned from a
>battle, God decided to warn the few good people of the town, sending two
>angels to a man called Lot and his family. Now as the strangers entered his
>dwelling, the Men of the town surrounded the house and demanded that Lot send
>them out so that they might "know" them. “Know” being the translation for the
>Hebrew Ya’da - which is used only a handful of times in the Bible to mean
>‘conceive‘, and everywhere else to mean ‘know a fact’ - not even remotely
>sexually. Lot then offered his two virgin daughters to the crowd, to satisfy
>them (the crowd declines).
> It is unclear whether the mob wanted to A) gang rape the angels B) engage in
>consensual homosexual acts with the angels, maybe start a family together,
>open a flower shop, that kind of thing, C) interrogate them, or D) beat them
>to a pulp. ‘B’ is the most unlikely (no matter what many would like the
>passage to say about gay people) and therefore the passage should not be used
>to condemn such scenarios, but there are some interesting things to take into
>consideration about this passage.
> The men had just returned from battle, and were therefore on high alert.
>Also, back then, the only strangers one was likely to see were enemies from
>other tribes. With that in consideration, the passage can be examined thus.
>Two strangers wander into Lots house, the rest of the men surround the house
>and demand that Lot give up the men to the crowd so they can A) determine
>whether or not they are spies, B) eliminate the threat they pose C) gang rape
>them, as was a common practice at the time to humiliate enemies. Trying to
>protect God’s messengers, Lot offers his daughters, but the crowd- not
>actually looking for sexual satisfaction- declines.
> All in all, this passage can in no way condemn the love between two men. If
>the crowd did mean to have sex with the angels (they were quite handsome of
>course), to use the passage in condemning homosexuality would be like taking
>another passage in the Bible, describing rape of the female sort, and using it
>to damn heterosexuality -it is absurd. Similarly, God’s distaste for the town,
>and his destruction to destroy it, preceded the Angels.
>
>-New Testament-
>Clearing up Misconceptions:
>
> Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
>even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
>And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
>their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
>and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
> These verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of
>homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. They stand as the
>capital New Testament text that prohibits homosexual behavior. Moreover, this
>text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible,
>so that homosexuals have steadily become the object of contempt and
>discrimination.
> As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting
>the writings of Paul. "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them
>of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
>that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
>unto their own destruction." Paul's writings have been taken out of context
>and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world:
>Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts,
>pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious
>reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. In addition to
>being hard to understand, a lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to
>translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from
>other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone
>conversation.
> Important to note is that the phrase "vile affections" is in the original
>Greek: "a frenzied state of mind" as what many ancient mystery cults induced
>in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. Here Paul seems to be
>describing Pagan sexual orgies (prevalent in Rome at the time). When he talks
>about leaving behind their natural desires he is speaking about people who
>were typically heterosexual, but because of such pagan rights, had acted out
>of their natural character, he is not classifying homosexuality as unnatural.
> Rather than take on more of Paul, I will just conclude by saying he obviously
>struggled with issues of lust, and his obvious psychosexual hang-ups fit the
>profile of a modern conflicted homosexual, if such a thing existed in ancient
>times; Paul was probably more confused himself than those who try to
>understand him.
>
>-Jesus-
>
> It is often said that Jesus never said anything on homosexuality. A partially
>true statement in that he never said anything against homosexuality, but in
>several passages homosexuality is involved, and Jesus seems to condone it.
>
>Matthew 5:22:
>"...anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin [the
>Council]. But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire"
>
> Raca or Rakha is a Hebrew word which is similar to the modern word ‘faggot,’
>and "fool" is translated from Moros, which has numerous meanings relating to
>homosexuality and sexual aggression. Simply put, Jesus was condemning
>homophobia.
>
>Matthew 8:5-13:
>These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his "pais" who
>lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to
>do was to say the right words to affect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion
>for his faith. The author chose "paias," not "uios" (son), or "duolos"
>(slave), but "paias," a word which refers to a young male kept for sexual
>purposes (the root of English "pederasty"); it is an unambiguous and
>deliberate choice - though it may be mistranslated or just left in esoteric
>Greek. Jesus did not take this moment to condemn the man, or the relationship,
>but praised him for his faith.
>
>Matthew 19:4-5:
>"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For
>this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife;
>and the two will become one flesh.'"
>
> This passage is often pointed out by conservatives as a remark made by Jesus
>to condemn homosexuality. However, he is actually speaking on the topic of
>divorce and whether it is right to remarry- a question posed by the Pharisees
>immediately preceding the passage (his verdict is that committed men and women
>become as one).
> Straight people often comment that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and
>Steve." To this I have only to say: "Tell me something I don't know - there
>wouldn’t be a human race if he didn’t, and that doesn’t condemn homosexuals."
>
>Homosexual Relationships in the Bible
>-David and Jonathan-
>
>1 Samuel 20:41
>"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and
>bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they
>kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." Here, "till
>David wept the most" is an interpretation of "till David became great" - in
>Hebrew, great being Gadal, the same word which in other parts of the Bible to
>mean erect or erection. Quite comically, to avoid entirely this blatant
>representation of gay love, the ‘Living Bible’ translates the entire phrase as
>"…they sadly shook hands."
>
>2 Samuel 1:26
>"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love
>for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." Because in ancient times
>it would be inconceivable for a man to experience platonic love with a woman
>(In ancient Israel the two sex’s couldn’t even talk to each other in public)
>the only love David could be referring to here, would be a private, romantic
>love, which because of their close bond, was even greater than just a private
>sexual relationship.
>
>-Jesus and John-
>
> John’s gospel, in how it is formatted and what it contains and emphasizes, is
>different than all the rest. And it has been speculated that he had a
>different "perspective," and a unique "spiritual connection" to Jesus, of a
>different nature than the rest of the disciples.
> There is definitely support for this, given all that is said about him being
>"the disciple that Jesus loved." The Greek word that is used in these passages
>over and over again is something to the extent of “eromenos,” which would
>identify him as the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. Jesus and
>John had a spiritual connection that had a special, sacred character because
>of their orientation, a sacred character as described in the opening of this
>Treatise. Jesus and John certainly fit the heroic model for such a couple.
> People do not like to think of Jesus in a sexual nature, especially a
>homosexual one, and surely no one can say for certain (the definitions of
>‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ can not be applied before modern times).
>However, divine as Jesus may have been, is it wrong to believe him without
>passion or the human capacity and drive for closeness? Certainly he was the
>combination of man and God, and to God do we owe our sexuality - as a thing of
>beauty, and God exists in every beautiful thing.
> We are called to glorify God through our love and relationships, love as it
>would exist everywhere. Jesus as a homosexual, or bisexual, or just sexual,
>makes a particularly poignant messenger for the vastness of God’s love;
>"whomsoever believes, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


The question of centuries of scriptural mistranslation is always of interest. However, it cannot be ignored that in the traditions of main-stream Christian theology ( as opposed to Islam, for example) sacred texts do not exist, or rather have no meaning outside of the faith communities that over many centuries generated and interpret them. The constant condemnation of homosexual acts in Christtian tradition simply cannot be ignored, neither can that constant interpretation of all the texts cited in this posting. It is this which makes membership of any mainstream Church untenable. I will not place myself in subjection to such communities, neither will I aim for an authentic interpretation of ancient texts of dubious antecedents; I am rather partial to shellfish, and have no intention of not eating them. Finally, I WILL NOT be tolerated; I find the notion both patronising and offensive. The religious experience of mankind remains fascinating, but as a sexually active Gay man, the idea of signing up to any of these death cults beggars belief.[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send email
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic   Post new topic    

Page 1 of 1

 


Discussion Boards by phpBB © 2006 phpBB Group

www.glbtq.com is produced by glbtq, Inc., 1130 West Adams Street, Chicago, IL   60607
glbtq™ and its logo are trademarks of glbtq, Inc.
This site and its contents Copyright © 2002-2006, glbtq, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Your use of this site indicates that you accept its Terms of Service.