Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Queen James Bible

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:33:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hear this has been generating some controversy recently. I wonder why? :D Thoughts?

http://queenjamesbible.com...

The editors explain their reasoning on why they changed some verses here.

"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."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:05:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:48:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
What's next, the Queer Quran?? I'm not sure why there would be much controversy over an obvious parody.

...it's not a parody, though.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:23:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 11:05:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:48:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
What's next, the Queer Quran?? I'm not sure why there would be much controversy over an obvious parody.

...it's not a parody, though.

Really?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:26:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ha ha the cover: http://queenjamesbible.com...

So it's a pro-gay interpretation of the bible? It's attracted some pretty harsh criticism on amazon: http://www.amazon.com... from people saying they make a load of misleading claims. For example, one says the bible doesn't even mention homosexuality until 1946 translations - obviously, because homosexuality wasn't even a word until around that time! But he claims there are greek words that unambiguously do mean gay.

I don't know about the correct translations, though. There always seems to be enough ambiguity in translations for Christians to twist doctrine into their particular take on what counts as moral and what doesn't.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:28:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 11:23:11 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/22/2012 11:05:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:48:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
What's next, the Queer Quran?? I'm not sure why there would be much controversy over an obvious parody.

...it's not a parody, though.

Really?

'The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.'

Sounds like a joke to me.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 12:07:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 11:26:52 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Ha ha the cover: http://queenjamesbible.com...

So it's a pro-gay interpretation of the bible? It's attracted some pretty harsh criticism on amazon: http://www.amazon.com... from people saying they make a load of misleading claims. For example, one says the bible doesn't even mention homosexuality until 1946 translations - obviously, because homosexuality wasn't even a word until around that time! But he claims there are greek words that unambiguously do mean gay.


Lol, did you see most of the "harsh" criticism though (or even the accolades)? "This translation is wrong/demon spawn because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong." Par for course for amazon, but still... lol

Anyways, I agree with this (mostly):

"First of all a few disclosures: I am a gay man and a gay Christian, so my thoughts on this issue obviously will lean in one direction.

Spoiler Alert: This is a King James Version bible with 8 verses edited: specifically: Gen. 19:5, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26, Rom. 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and Jude 1:7. The price of $ 35 for this is simply uncalled for. Save money, buy Holy Bible: King James Version , scratch out the relevant verses and insert the edits proposed on the QJV's website: Queenjamesbible.com

This is not helpful to the cause of GLBT equality or for GLBT Christians. Instead of acknowledging the difficulties in the Bible, this publication only glosses over them by covering them up. I as a gay Christian don't believe that the Bible should be interpreted against GLBT people, but I also believe that the debate has to be honest, and not use cheap trickery like changing the wording in a select eight verses to prove one's point and to make a Bible "discrimination proof". Do the "editors" not realize that the Bible that they published is also anti-woman? (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

The KJV of course has its own issues being that the source texts it uses (even in its 1769 incarnation) are grossly outdated. So why did these "editors" choose to use a translation that is out of date, and for all intents and purposes not used outside of fundamentalist groups? The simple answer is copyright. The KJV is public domain in the United States and not subject to copyright or licensing requirements. Respectable bible translations (especially ground up efforts) are very expensive and respectable translations used in the course of theological debate (such as ESV, NRSV, NIV, CEB) often have large committees of experienced, well-educated translators. Which brings me to the next critique of this book.

Who are the editors? The book's website is scant on details and simply lists the "Editors". If this is indeed a legitimate effort at debate in this field, I call out the editors to make their names AND their credentials public. Again, every respectable Bible translation effort is also transparent. Every Bible translation I own has at least the name of the head of the translation committee and a way to get a list of the names of the translators and their affiliated institutions. However, with the QJV, there are no details of who "edited" the translation and what if any organizations supported or underwrote this effort. It makes this edition of the Bible highly suspect, and seems to me just to be a money-making venture as opposed to a real contribution to the Church catholic's discussion on these issues."

I don't know about the correct translations, though. There always seems to be enough ambiguity in translations for Christians to twist doctrine into their particular take on what counts as moral and what doesn't.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only Queen that I know to be holy was the band consisting of the god Freddie Mercury and Arch-Gods of John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 11:05:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:48:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
What's next, the Queer Quran?? I'm not sure why there would be much controversy over an obvious parody.

...it's not a parody, though.

Really?? I can't really see too many Christians actually taking it seriously, unless they just like to argue.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 4:33:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's no limit to how you can interpret the Bible anymore. How about saying the Harry Potter books are the best Bible versions?
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 5:23:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:33:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I hear this has been generating some controversy recently. I wonder why? :D Thoughts?

http://queenjamesbible.com...

The editors explain their reasoning on why they changed some verses here.

"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."

Last days/scoffers..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
joshh_03
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 9:43:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"A pro-homosexual group (which to my knowledge has remained anonymous) recently released a Bible "translation" that they say they"ve "edited to make homophobic interpretations impossible." This new "Bible" is based on the 1769 King James Bible. Now, the editors have called their new translation the Queen James Bible (QueenJamesBible.com) because they claim that King James"s alleged homosexual acts led people in his time to refer to him as "Queen James." Whether or not that claim is true, this group has made a mockery of a beloved Bible translation and mutilated the Word of God to support their own anti-God agenda.

Now, the editors make the claim that "the Bible says nothing about homosexuality""which is absolutely false and contradicts their own "translation" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. We have articles available on our website that deal with this issue. I encourage you to visit www.AnswersinGenesis.org and read them for yourself.

So, how do the editors get around the clear strictures against homosexual behavior in Scripture? Well, they claim, "the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call "interpretive ambiguity."" Basically, they believe that we can never understand the true meaning of anything in the Bible because it was written so long ago"except that these editors seem to believe they"ve found the most accurate translation of the passages on homosexuality. This is totally inconsistent with their view of hermeneutics!

Of course, hermeneutics is the technical term for Bible interpretation. The hermeneutic we use at AiG is the historical-grammatical method, which really means we read the Bible "naturally," according to the genre of the passage. For example, the creation account of Genesis is historical narrative, so we read it as history. For more on the historical-grammatical approach, read Tim Chaffey"s series "How Should We Interpret the Bible?" Part 1 and Part 2.

Based on their faulty method of interpretation, these editors changed some key verses to try to claim that homosexual behavior is not a sin. I won"t discuss every single change, but I think it"s important to highlight one of the major flaws in how they approach God"s Word.

You see, the editors" primary tactic is to paint many of the passages that condemn homosexual behavior as being written in the context of idolatry. For example, in the KJV, two passages in Leviticus are clear on this issue:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If 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. (Leviticus 20:13)

Now, these two verses are in chapters that list many condemned behaviors, such as bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice. But you see, the editors already believe that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Even though there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support their "translation," they changed these two verses as follows (I"ve bolded the additions):

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22, Queen James Version)

If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13, QJV)

I should point out that not only is it wrong to make these verses solely about idolatry, but it"s also important to know that God had already forbidden idolatry in the strictest terms (Exodus 20:3"6). But if they are going to be consistent, then these editors have to apply this method of interpretation to every behavior listed in these chapters. If homosexual behavior is acceptable outside of ritual pagan worship, then that would mean that incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors are perfectly acceptable as long as idolatry is not involved! The editors make a similar claim with Romans 1"which is very clear on the sin of homesexual behavior.

Of course, the above are just a few in a whole series of issues with the Queen James Bible"s translations. And the editors conclude their list of changes by writing, "The Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction . . . No Bible is perfect, including this one." Basically, the editors show that they don"t believe the Word of God is inerrant in its original manuscripts or is understandable today. And what they"ve done is more than just editing"they"ve rewritten the Bible!

You know, this isn"t the first attempt sinful man has made at "editing" the Bible. In fact, the very first example of "rewriting" God"s Word is in Genesis 3, where the devil tempted Eve with "Did God really say . . . ?" Sadly, Adam and Eve really "rewrote" God"s Word"and look what happened as a result!

These people who have mutilated God"s Word for their own anti-God agenda will have to answer to God for that one day"and there will be a day of reckoning! I couldn"t imagine standing before the Creator God and saying, "I hope you liked how we rewrote your holy Word. We just felt like those verses about homosexual behavior were unfair and outdated. We knew better than you did, and you obviously didn"t want us to trust you in this area."

I encourage you to read our Pocket Guide to Social Issues for the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality and other issues.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken"

Source -- http://blogs.answersingenesis.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:53:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 4:33:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
There's no limit to how you can interpret the Bible anymore. How about saying the Harry Potter books are the best Bible versions?

Wanna debate that?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:36:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:53:30 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/22/2012 4:33:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
There's no limit to how you can interpret the Bible anymore. How about saying the Harry Potter books are the best Bible versions?

Wanna debate that?

The first sentence is regrettably true.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:14:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:36:27 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The first sentence is regrettably true.

It would be pretty difficult to interpret the bible as an advertisement for the film Kill Bill Volume II.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:17:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 5:14:24 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:36:27 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The first sentence is regrettably true.

It would be pretty difficult to interpret the bible as an advertisement for the film Kill Bill Volume II.

You'd be surprised.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:53:30 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/22/2012 4:33:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
There's no limit to how you can interpret the Bible anymore. How about saying the Harry Potter books are the best Bible versions?

Wanna debate that?

ROFL.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:50:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 9:43:44 PM, joshh_03 wrote:
"A pro-homosexual group (which to my knowledge has remained anonymous) recently released a Bible "translation" that they say they"ve "edited to make homophobic interpretations impossible." This new "Bible" is based on the 1769 King James Bible. Now, the editors have called their new translation the Queen James Bible (QueenJamesBible.com) because they claim that King James"s alleged homosexual acts led people in his time to refer to him as "Queen James." Whether or not that claim is true, this group has made a mockery of a beloved Bible translation and mutilated the Word of God to support their own anti-God agenda.

Now, the editors make the claim that "the Bible says nothing about homosexuality""which is absolutely false and contradicts their own "translation" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. We have articles available on our website that deal with this issue. I encourage you to visit www.AnswersinGenesis.org and read them for yourself.

So, how do the editors get around the clear strictures against homosexual behavior in Scripture? Well, they claim, "the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call "interpretive ambiguity."" Basically, they believe that we can never understand the true meaning of anything in the Bible because it was written so long ago"except that these editors seem to believe they"ve found the most accurate translation of the passages on homosexuality. This is totally inconsistent with their view of hermeneutics!

Of course, hermeneutics is the technical term for Bible interpretation. The hermeneutic we use at AiG is the historical-grammatical method, which really means we read the Bible "naturally," according to the genre of the passage. For example, the creation account of Genesis is historical narrative, so we read it as history. For more on the historical-grammatical approach, read Tim Chaffey"s series "How Should We Interpret the Bible?" Part 1 and Part 2.

Based on their faulty method of interpretation, these editors changed some key verses to try to claim that homosexual behavior is not a sin. I won"t discuss every single change, but I think it"s important to highlight one of the major flaws in how they approach God"s Word.

You see, the editors" primary tactic is to paint many of the passages that condemn homosexual behavior as being written in the context of idolatry. For example, in the KJV, two passages in Leviticus are clear on this issue:


Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If 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. (Leviticus 20:13)

Now, these two verses are in chapters that list many condemned behaviors, such as bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice. But you see, the editors already believe that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Even though there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support their "translation," they changed these two verses as follows (I"ve bolded the additions):


Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22, Queen James Version)

If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13, QJV)

I should point out that not only is it wrong to make these verses solely about idolatry, but it"s also important to know that God had already forbidden idolatry in the strictest terms (Exodus 20:3"6). But if they are going to be consistent, then these editors have to apply this method of interpretation to every behavior listed in these chapters. If homosexual behavior is acceptable outside of ritual pagan worship, then that would mean that incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors are perfectly acceptable as long as idolatry is not involved! The editors make a similar claim with Romans 1"which is very clear on the sin of homesexual behavior.

Of course, the above are just a few in a whole series of issues with the Queen James Bible"s translations. And the editors conclude their list of changes by writing, "The Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction . . . No Bible is perfect, including this one." Basically, the editors show that they don"t believe the Word of God is inerrant in its original manuscripts or is understandable today. And what they"ve done is more than just editing"they"ve rewritten the Bible!

You know, this isn"t the first attempt sinful man has made at "editing" the Bible. In fact, the very first example of "rewriting" God"s Word is in Genesis 3, where the devil tempted Eve with "Did God really say . . . ?" Sadly, Adam and Eve really "rewrote" God"s Word"and look what happened as a result!

These people who have mutilated God"s Word for their own anti-God agenda will have to answer to God for that one day"and there will be a day of reckoning! I couldn"t imagine standing before the Creator God and saying, "I hope you liked how we rewrote your holy Word. We just felt like those verses about homosexual behavior were unfair and outdated. We knew better than you did, and you obviously didn"t want us to trust you in this area."

I encourage you to read our Pocket Guide to Social Issues for the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality and other issues.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken"

Source -- http://blogs.answersingenesis.org...

We're going to have work on that whole AiG thing, bro.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!