Skip to comments.Rewriting History: New "Gay Friendly" Bible Published
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We also refused to just say “that’s outdated” and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them.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.
Just because the fudge-packers have made it homosexual-friendly, doesn’t make it so.
Let’s take a wild guess here. The editors were from Sodom and Gomorrah. We have traversed this road several thousand years ago.
Got a funny one for you.
I know a homofem that is in seminary. Don’t ask, ‘cuz I don’t know.
Anyway, she was explaining the account of Lott’s wife.
See, Lott’s wife cared so much about the people of Sodom and Gomorrah that she couldn’t help but look back in compassion as they were destroyed.
To reward her compassion, God made her into a pillar, as in a “pillar of the community”, as a monument to her love and compassion for people.
when do they come out with a version that says not to look at a woman with lust? That would be useful for myself.
Serious, if meeting another dude and giving him a BJ is NOT a sin, then there is no such thing as a sexual sin.
If there’s no such thing as a sexual sin, is there such thing as other sins?
Riiigghhht. That's why God zapped Sodom and Gomorrah. That's why it mentions womankind with womankind. Itching ears and all.
It really isn’t that different from The Message Bible or the Passages Bible.
The nations are really separating themselves, one from another, aren’t they?
It is incredible to witness.
In the new version, Lot's wife is not turned into a pillar of salt. She and Lot are taken to a television studio to watch them film the next episode of Glee.
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NIV
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." ESV
" a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." KJV
English (KJV), Strong's #, Root Form (Hebrew), Tense
If a man h376 איש 'iysh
also lie h7901 שכב shakab
with mankind, h2145 זכר zakar
as he lieth h4904 משכב mishkab
with a woman, h802 אשה 'ishshah
both h8147 שנים shĕnayim
of them have committed h6213 עשה `asah
an abomination: h8441 תועבה tow`ebah [
they shall surely h4191 מות muwth
be put to death; h4191 מות muwth
their blood h1818 דם dam
[shall be] upon them.
The Septuagint,["Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC."] reads like this:
20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν
An old Logos study Bible had the following in it (Im paraphrasing as I dont have the original in front of me):
Jesus came to John to be baptized, but the latter refused because he knew Jesus was no winner.
Ive always assumed it was a typo!
Uncover the nakedness thereof is pretty straightforward in the OT.
Not much sinning gets accomplished while fully clothed.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
-The Bible is already friendly towards all manner of sinners. It is an offer of amnesty to those who will accept it.-
Ding ding ding.
That one, "lie with" and sometimes forms of the word "know" are all Biblical euphamisms that mean "have sex".
Is she enjoying her time at Bob’s Discount Seminary?
Messing with God’s word is worse than playing with fire ! Even though I teach part time college classes, I will not teach the Word since I would be afraid of saying something wrong where I can cause someone to be mislead. And teachers of the Word are held to very high standards and I know I don’t meet them.
See my above “gay seminarian” explanation of Lot’s wife...
I gets my Inspired Word from lolcats.
The first commandment is this - If it feels good, do it.
There are no other commandments.
This is why I could not vote for a Mormon or a homosexual for that matter who "edits" God's Word.
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.