Oxford’s New Pro-Homosexual Bible a Hit with ‘Gay’ Activists

A new edition of the popular New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, reinterprets key sections of the Bible to negate or water down orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality, Jesus Christ’s sovereignty, and the sanctity of life.

The new Annotated Bible — edited in part by pro-"gay" and feminist scholars — adopts "gay" revisionist interpretations of Holy Scripture such as that God allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality — not homosexual sin.

The nation’s leading church for homosexuals swiftly hailed the new politically correct Bible commentary. Rev. Troy D. Perry, founder of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), wrote on the church’s Web site:

I’m excited to share with you today one of the most important theological breakthroughs in the 33-year history of Metropolitan Community Churches .. the world renowned biblical scholars who prepared The New Oxford Annotated Bible have adopted a great deal of MCC’s own scholarship and theology: There is no biblical condemnation of homosexuality — only prohibitions against its misuse, just as there is no biblical blanket condemnation of heterosexuality, only prohibitions against misuse of that gift.

I am pleased to commend this new study version of the Holy Scriptures. I believe it will be an important addition to the library of every MCC leader — and will be used by God to further open the doors of all faith communities to love, embrace and affirm God’s GLBT children.

Over the last several decades, the New Oxford Annotated Bible has gained wide acceptance in the large denominational churches as a valuable resource in Biblical interpretation. The Third Edition is a replacement for the Second Edition, which was published in 1991.

A comparison of selected commentaries between the two editions readily explains why homosexuals and their liberal allies are overjoyed.

SODOM SIN NOW ‘INHOSPITALITY’ For the last 3,500 years, the sin of Sodom was thought to be the widespread practice of homosexuality by the men of the city. The new Third Edition says differently:

Genesis 19:5-8: "…and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly."

Second Edition: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah impressed itself deeply upon later generations as an example of God’s total judgment upon appalling wickedness … the episode is told to illustrate the sexual excesses of Canaanites. 5. Know refers to sexual relations, here homosexual ("sodomy"). 8: Once guests had eaten in his house, Lot felt he had to obey the law of oriental hospitality, which guaranteed protection. Thus his proposal to hand over his daughters showed his determination to put first his obligation as a host.

Third Edition: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a prominent example in Israelite tradition of God’s total judgment. As in the case of 18:1-8, the main issue here is hospitality to secretly divine visitors. Here, however, the sanctity of hospitality is threatened by the men of the city who wish to rape (know) the guests. Though disapproval of male homosexuality is assumed here, the primary point of this text is how this threat by the townspeople violates the value of hospitality…As a result of his protection of his guests, he (Lot), like Noah, "finds favor" with God and he and his household are rescued out of destruction.

The new Oxford commentary ignores the fact that God had already decided to destroy the city because of the outcry over their grievous sins (see Genesis 18:20 and 19:13). The mission of the two angels who came to Lot’s door was to carry out God’s judgement.

Romans 1:26-28: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done."

Second Edition: God gave them up, because in turning from God they violated their true nature, becoming involved in terrible and destructive perversions; God let the process of death work itself out.

Third Edition: While Torah forbids a male "lying with a male as with a woman," Paul’s Jewish contemporaries criticized a range of sexual behaviors common in the pagan world. Although widely read today as a reference to homosexuality, the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul’s day to denote not the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body.

I Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Second Edition: Male prostitutes, young men or boys in a pederastic relationship; sodomites, the older homosexual.

Third Edition: The Greek term translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to "homosexuals," as in inappropriate older translations; "masturbators" and male prostitutes might be a better translation.

THIRD EDITION AMBIGUOUS ON CHRIST’S SOVEREIGNTY, DIVINITY Most perniciously, the New Oxford Annotated Bible’s Third Edition commentary leaves questions regarding the sovereignty and divinity of Christ:

John 14:6 –7: "Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.’

Note that the Third Edition removed the explicit declaration that Jesus is the only way to God.

Philippians 2:5-7: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness."

Second Edition: In the form of God, that is, pre-existent and divine. Something to be exploited and never relinquished. But emptied himself, the extreme limit of self-denial.

Third Edition: In the form of God, equality with God, may refer to divine status, or simply preexistence as a heavenly being, or Adam’s original immortality, which Christ renounced by becoming subject to death. But emptied himself, the extreme limit of self-denial.

The Third Edition commentary removes the declarative statement of Jesus’ divinity and introduces several other interpretations that leave his deity an open question.

SANCTITY OF LIFE PASSAGE DISREGARDED Psalm 139:13-16: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed."

Second Edition: God formed the embryo in the womb (poetically called the depths of the earth) and knew the psalmist’s character from the moment of conception.

The drastic changes in the Third Edition commentaries may have been influenced by new editors. The Second Edition was edited by Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy. The Third Edition replaced Mr. Murphy with editors Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, and Carol A. Newsom. Dr. Newsom, in particular, is a feminist theologian who partnered with Dr. Sharon H. Ringe to produce The Womens’ Bible Commentary—a feminist perspective of scripture. Dr. Ringe serves as a Biblical consultant to the Reconciling Congregation Program of the United Methodist Church — an outreach to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender Methodists.

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

There's your proof.

Did God destroy the poor and needy when he destroyed Sodom and Gormorrah? The story doesn't say one way or the other. Maybe he did.

If there were any poor and needy in Sodom or Gomorrah, they were undoubtedly wicked as well. Abraham asked God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if there were but 10 righteous there. There weren't. The only ones spared were Lot's family, which numbered 4. Easy math.

Were innocent people not destroyed in the great flood?

The biblical account gives us no indication whatsoever that there were any just people other than Noah and his family on earth at the time. Gen 6 says that every imagination of man's heart was evil continually. Only Noah found grace in God's sight.

To: DoughtyOne; agrace

Thanks for your reply. You say that there is "no doubt" in the meaning of the words of Gen. 19. Fair enough. Where in those words does God say that the reason for
the destruction of Sodom is homosexuality or sexual perversion? Clearly, the decision to destroy Sodom was made BEFORE the arrival of the angels, and hence,
before the attempt to have relations with them. Thus, that episode couldn't have been the reason for a decision that had already been made. There is absolutely
nothing in Gen. 19 that specifically gives homosexuality as the reason for the destruction of Sodom. If you disagree, point out the passage that does say that.

What you are confirming for me is that you seem to think the behavior by the people of Sodom and Gomorra on the night in question, was a one time anomaly, certainly not indicative of a lifestyle rampant with homosexual perversion. For the record, I believe that Lot's story reflects not only a collective lifestyle embracing the homosexual lifestyle, but one that had progressed to the point that public rape was jubilantly practiced as a norm. We're obviously not talking about one incident. We're talking about direct evidence of an abominable civilization which accepted and practiced perversion as the norm.

In your haste to dismiss what is undeniable, you seek to raise a red haring issue that is simply unsupportable.

I guess you don't like Ezekiel, or at least, what he "thought." But Ezekiel was a prophet, delivering the word of God, and he clearly states that Sodom's great sin was
it's neglect of the poor and needy. Deal with it.

Well, I guess you don't like reality.

Yes Ezekiel was a messenger of God. Yes he did mention issues that were also important. But he also mentioned the abominations. Once again, you cannot show where the poor were spared. Tell me what their sin was if not to join in the abominations. You can't, so I guess you'll have some "dealing" to address yourself.

Yes, the passage does mention other "abominable" actions. But it doesn't say that those other actions had anything to do with homosexuality or sexual perversion.
Maybe the inhabitants of Sodom consumed shellfish, which is also considered an "abomination" in the book of Leviticus. Or maybe they failed to observe the
Sabbath. It simply doesn't say. But what it does say is clear - and Gen. 19 offers absolutey no contradiction - that the great sin of Sodom was neglect of the poor
and needy.

An abomination was provided for you. Any community that would do what this community did, had clearly adopted abominations that were unmistakable. In light of this you ignore the obvious and look to shellfish, the Sabbath or other unmentionables. Why? What's you agenda here?

Did God destroy the poor and needy when he destroyed Sodom and Gormorrah? The story doesn't say one way or the other. Maybe he did. Were innocent people
not destroyed in the great flood?

As for the flood we are told there were only eight holy people on the face of the earth. Noah and his family warned people for 120 years. They were laughed at and scorned. Nobody joined them.

In the story of Sodom and Gomorra we are told that even to look back on the two cities would cause death. Great detail was given to demonstrate the utter thorough depravity that had infested the two cities. Every quarter of the city was involved. That is specific and excludes the possibility that the poor were innocent. Therefore there is only one abomination that could have caused the destruction.

God wasn't going to destroy the poor innocent people right along with the haughty rich.

The problem for both of you is that you simply misunderstood what you've read. You posted line after line from Gen. 19, and some of them refer to homosexuality,
but nothing you posted gave that as the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Get over it.

Let me see, you read an account encompasing the attemped abduction and rape of two angels from heaven, then the utter destruction of two cities full of people who to a man approved of this, then dismiss the only account of abomination contained in the story. You seek to dismiss that account as a one-time error that in no way specificied what abominations inflicted the communities, then tell me I and another person simply misunderstood what we read.

If you truly do think I'm confused, I thank God for that confusion. For if your clarity is the only alternative, the only true and shining light, I will bask in darkness along with Lot and his daughters.

45 posted on 9/13/02 12:12 PM Pacific by Col. Forbin

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.