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We also refused to just say “that’s outdated” and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them.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.
This was a commandment direct from God. Your comments about being written by people with many flaws don’t apply here.
Right? Unless you think God was flawed in making that law.
As far as being executed; that was right and just at that time. Now - thanks to the Cross - there is not a physical death. But unless they repent and are saved, there is worse - an eternal death.
So when will we hear about the new “Queer-an?”
I heartily disagree. There is idolatry, perjury, murder, coveting... and indeed, if you were to think of the story of the Good Samaritan the people it implicitly condemned (the priest & Levite, both people who should be near God and God's heart, and as Jesus said elsewhere: it is sin for one who knows to do good and does it not) were full-clothed.
Is participation in a gross distortion of Gods Word that can potentially lead millions of souls astray a worse sin than individual transgressions. I would say yes...Jesus said it would be worse for the Pharisees, hypocrites. How, I. do not know nor wish to find out but this is a perilous thing to be involved in.
Yeah, I don’t think God made the “law” that homosexuals should be executed. Your contention that it was “right and just” to execute homosexuals “at that time” is beyond absurd. I tend to believe that executing a homosexual (by, say, chopping his head off) would be far more morally reprehensible than homosexuality itself. I’m pretty comfortable Jesus would agree.
If the King James Version was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.
oh good grief...keep it in context of the verse. do people have to pick apart others posts. I am aware of all the aspects of disobedience to God. The point is God gave old man Adam skins for a reason...see no evil. Of course temptation and its fruits can still happen. anyway...thanks
Jesus, in Luke 24:44
The concept, I think, is of spiritual death, in the sense of Adam and Eve eating from the tree, or Cain mudering Abel. They were allowed to live on but from thence were flawed beings. These parables make sense in the world. Not to suggest that it didn’t happen, but there is no specific incident of execution for homosexuality in Torah.
Times were tough in OT days. Stones were thrown. Heads rolled. People were swallowed up by the earth. You towed the line or got made an example of what not to do. Ouch.
Fascinating. There is a parallel. Jesus dealt with a sexual sin by telling the woman: "Go and sin no more." Did the woman deserve to be executed? Of course. Jesus did not dispute that. But - as I've said - he came and died on the cross to save sinners. Even adulterers and queers.
But as you know... The New Testament is filled with warnings regarding those who do not repent and believe. There is no more physical death, but there is certainly a spiritual death.
I would presume they chose King James NOT for the reasons given, buy because they don’t have to worry about copyright infringement, like they would for many other more modern and accurate versions.
I love the circular logic of claiming the bible says “nothing” about homosexuality, and then editing verses that do so they no longer do, pretending they are simply “correcting” misinterpretation.
I wonder if that also tried to “fix” the many verses in the bible that make it clear that marriage is for a man and a woman.
I agree, of course, the argument you are trying to make. But your supporting of evidence has one giant flaw:
The bible was only compiled a couple centuries AFTER Revelation was written. I’ll be the first on line to eviscerate the arguments of those who say that somehow challenges the validity of any book of the bible. But the problem is that for two centuries, people read Revelation outside of its current context, that being at the end of the bible. It’s precisely because Revelation was the last book to be universally accepted throughout the Christian church that is why that verse seems to refer to the entire bible.
A much better argument to be made would come from Mathew 5:18: “Amen, Amen, I say to you: Til heaven and earth pass away, neither one jot nor tittle shall in any way pass from the law, til all has been fulfilled.”
Just wait till the pacifists begin working on Shakespeare.
Leni
Kenites.
This may become the best seller of the new, liberal “Amerika”.
So your evidence that Jesus agrees with your barbaric assertion that homosexuality deserved execution is a story in which Jesus did exactly the opposite. As you say, fascinating.
When the truth about a person’s behavior doesn’t matter, why should a true translation of holy text matter?
YES absolutely excellent, Thanks :)
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.