Posted on 12/14/2012 6:34:13 AM PST by Kaslin
The King James version of the Bible has been hijacked by gay activists who want to rewrite history. Anonymous editors have published a Bible "friendly to gays," and have edited eight major verses to fit their narrative. The "Queen James Bible" is available on Amazon and is described as, "A Gay Bible. The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation." The description and reasoning for the changes is below.
Why We Chose the King James Version
We chose the 1769 form of the King James Bible for our revision for the following reasons:
1. The obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as “Queen James” because of his many gay lovers.
2. No Bible is perfect, but everyone knows the King James Bible; It is arguably the most popular Bible in history and the basis of many other translations.
3. Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there.
4. Some claim the language of the KJV is antiquated, but we believe it is poetic, traditional, and ceremonial. Christianity is an ancient tradition, and the King James and resultant Queen James versions remind us and keep us connected to that tradition.
What We Changed
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. However, there might be no other argument in contemporary faith as heated as what the Bible is interpreted to say about homosexuality.
The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.
There are problems with removal of verses:
• It doesn’t address the problem of interpretive ambiguity, it only brushes it under the rug.
• It renders an incomplete Bible.
• Revelation says not to “edit the book,” and people often extend that to mean the entire Bible, not just the book of Revelation.
We also refused to just say “that’s outdated” and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them. We wanted our Bible bulletproof from the ones shooting the bullets.
There are also problems with editing verses:• The context, idiom, and grammar from the time are almost impossible to recreate. • Changes could further create interpretive ambiguity.
Many versions of the Bible translated and published since the King James Bible have changed the language, so the precedent had been set for editing. Furthermore, both problems with editing are easily addressed by deciding to make the edits as simple as possible.
We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations.
Although these editors are correct when they say the Bible is for interpretation, it is important to understand that interpretation isn't the same thing as rewriting history or changing scripture.
The Bible has been messed with for centuries. The gay effort is but the most recent.
Given the prevalence of pederasty in some muslim countries, is it not already?
>>> I know a homofem that is in seminary.
That alone says a lot about where our society has fallen to.
You have to wonder... is she in this seminary under false pretense? or is it a homo-sem for the homo-fem?
When will there be an alcoholic Bible with no reference to drunkenness? Of course once you’re drunk there’s probably a lot of other things you’d have to erase from the Bible. Also, nobody really wants to read when they’re drunk. Okay, maybe an alcie Bible isn’t a good idea.
Queen James Version. Abraham took a look at Sodom and he pitched his tent right there.
Queen James Version?
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Galatians 6:7 — from the most beautiful English-language gift from God to man, the King James Bible.
“...They must be put to death...”
See that right there is pretty good evidence that much of the bible was written by people with as many flaws as you or I. Or do you believe that homosexuals should be executed?
Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Church
The first attack of Satan was on God’s word.
“Did God REALLY sssssay...”
Yep. And, there's a whole lot of Word editing going on out there, even in so-called "Christian" religions...
don’t tug on superman’s cape
Man justifies himself. That always works out well. /s
The gay bible is supposed to be read from the rear to the front. Probably blames homophobia as the reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.
Yeah I know..I was carrying it to literal extremes.
One other verse the Queen James needs to address is where Serpent questions: Hath God said... because that’s what this is all about the queers can’t accept that the Word says what it means. We all know what trouble lies ahead heeding the Serpent.
They may find out too late.
“Serious, if meeting another dude and giving him a BJ is NOT a sin, then there is no such thing as a sexual sin.”
So I figure if Bill Clinton had gotten his infamous non-sexual BJ from a guy, he still wouldn’t be a sinner in the eyes of these editors?
Actually, I was challenged to find in the Bible where homosexual sin was especially worse than heterosexual sin. All I could find was that sexual sin was especially heinous because it is a sin against the body which is a temple of the Lord.
Not to be sticking up for queers, but I’m guilty of heterosexual sin making me no less guilty than the queers, only that I am repentant and forgiven by the power of Jesus’ blood do I get a pass.
Jesus is an equal opportunity forgiver. (I know you know, just stating for the record.)
Can’t wait for them to publish a gay friendly koran. Even if it is the bulwark for a false religion, at least they get violent if someone tries to change it.
See my link at #50.
The verses about who begat who will be pretty sparse. Plus passages about beards will now have two very different meanings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.