Opinion of the Queen James Bible

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

The Queen James Bible is a translation of the Bible based on the King James Version that modifies scriptures in order to make them acceptable and not homophobic. Part of the name comes form the fact that King James himself had several male lovers.

 Here's the list of the changes.

Horrible Bible.

Oh, and don't say that the Bible is horrible by default, anyone.

[afleitch]

Well at least they have given reasons for each edit which are based strongly on progressive theological interpretations of the inferences. Would you argue that bibles like the New International Version that shoe horn in the word 'homosexual' to clarify these inferences in the other direction for theological purposes, despite the word and understanding of the word being modern concepts are also 'horrible bibles'?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I'd like to know how the Queen James Bible interprets Paul's statements about women.  I like the aim of the book and all, but its authors seem interested in only changing a single aspect of the Bible that people find problematic.  Frankly, I wouldn't spend twenty dollars on a version of the Bible that rectifies several verses out of the entire book.

But if you're a Christian and your only reason for disliking it is that it challenges your long-held views on homosexuality, well, then boo hoo.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, I applaud their effort to rewrite Leviticus, but it just does not wash with me.  Their reasoning for their change to Leviticus 18:22 stretches logic and might be acceptable as a resolution for that verse, but to then apply it to Leviticus 20:13 as well is utter nonsense.  Leviticus 18 is problematic in its organization, but Leviticus 20 is not. Leviticus 20 clearly places homosexual sex among the sexual perversions and not among the ritualistic ones.

However the presence of both Leviticus 18 and 20 is to me a clear indication that some form of the Documentary Hypothesis is at work here.  Even assuming that there was originally a singular version of the Holiness Code in Leviticus, it clearly had diverged into two versions which were then combined. So the Torah text is not inerrant and we cannot be assured that there were not additions that were the work of Man instead of the work of God.

[DC Al Fine]

The KJV is outdated, so the only reason to use it in my opinion is for it's poetic beauty. Tinkering with that to suit an agenda just ruins it. If you want a Bible that suits your biases, write a new translation.

[H. Ross Peron]

Orwellian revisionism. Horrible Bible.

[7,052,770]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

[7,052,770]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

[DC Al Fine]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

Can't allow any ungood thought in there can we.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

And interested, perhaps, in knowing what the text actually says? I'm sorry but this line of thought is more than a little classist. It's not as if this sort of thinking and the restriction of knowledge of Scripture to some perceived academic or spiritual elite is without historical precedent, after all; what you are advocating differs only in its temporal political positioning.

[Deus Naturae]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

This seems like a dangerous view to me. If your theological views lead you to believe that homosexual sex isn't sinful, then you should try to argue for that theology. Trying to alter Scripture to make your argument more convenient seems like it has a whole bunch of dangerous implications.

[DC Al Fine]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

And interested, perhaps, in knowing what the text actually says? I'm sorry but this line of thought is more than a little classist. It's not as if this sort of thinking and the restriction of knowledge of Scripture to some perceived academic or spiritual elite is without historical precedent, after all; what you are advocating differs only in its temporal political positioning.

Did you just make a Catholic joke?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

Counterproductive in that these "common men" who literally interpret the Bible are not going to be changed in their views by such a blatant change of the text.  If anything, stunts like this will tend to convince the literalistic that gays really are doomed to Hell for their god-forsaken ways since not only do they pervert sex from God's holy intentions, but they seek to pervert God's holy writ itself to justify their demonic lusts.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I didn't read every single one of the changes, but since I'm not a Klansman, I obviously support any effort to remove the flawed, hateful passages from the Bible.

Even if they make it say what it doesn't say?  While some of their changes fall within the purview of a translator to make certain passages clearer, others do not. in particular the changes they make to Leviticus.  Making those sorts of changes are not merely useless, but counterproductive.

Counterproductive for graduate history students maybe, but quite productive for the common man just reading the Bible, wanting to believe every word literally.

And interested, perhaps, in knowing what the text actually says? I'm sorry but this line of thought is more than a little classist. It's not as if this sort of thinking and the restriction of knowledge of Scripture to some perceived academic or spiritual elite is without historical precedent, after all; what you are advocating differs only in its temporal political positioning.

Did you just make a Catholic joke?

...maybe. As a High Churchman who subscribes to the Branch Theory and hopes for reunion one day I'm not proud of myself but I thought this situation merited it.

[afleitch]

No one has taken up my question and that is there seems to be an understandable rejection of 'edits' or redactions of this nature. Yet many commonly used modern Bibles have done so in the other direction; taking a clutch of vague Greek words and deciding that they must mean 'homosexual' even though there are very strong arguments to the contrary.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

No one has taken up my question and that is there seems to be an understandable rejection of 'edits' or redactions of this nature. Yet many commonly used modern Bibles have done so in the other direction; taking a clutch of vague Greek words and deciding that they must mean 'homosexual' even though there are very strong arguments to the contrary.

I happen to agree with you.  My main concern with this book is that the editors look as though they were interested in rectifying one problem with the KJV while ignoring the other prejudicial aspects of it, specifically those regarding women.  Perhaps the aim wasn't to "perfect" the Bible or make it more in line with Christian teachings and thus my criticism is unwarranted, but on the surface it appears that the editors did not intend to make scholarly, unbiased revisions to what many consider a sacred text.

Though it is funny how some of the literalists are only concerned about what the Bible actually says about something if it doesn't suit their prejudices.  Because if you adhere to a text that doesn't bash homosexuals, then well, why be a Christian in the first place?

[DC Al Fine]

No one has taken up my question and that is there seems to be an understandable rejection of 'edits' or redactions of this nature. Yet many commonly used modern Bibles have done so in the other direction; taking a clutch of vague Greek words and deciding that they must mean 'homosexual' even though there are very strong arguments to the contrary.

I'd like to look into it before I respond. What Greek words are you referring to and in what passages do they occur?

[The Mikado]

I have a couple friends who read the NT in Greek, though obviously I'm not in their number.  I tend to prefer texts that resemble what they're supposed to be as closely as possible, even to the point of losing some of the prettier language, which is why my go-to Bible for serious citation is the Oxford Study Bible.   I'm not personally familiar with the Queen James, but my tastes run against attempts to render ancient texts "relevant" or "socially acceptable" because they absolutely destroy their use of using the text to understand the mindset of the 1st century authors.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A pathetic cop-out.

Is there anything more transient than relevance?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No one has taken up my question and that is there seems to be an understandable rejection of 'edits' or redactions of this nature. Yet many commonly used modern Bibles have done so in the other direction; taking a clutch of vague Greek words and deciding that they must mean 'homosexual' even though there are very strong arguments to the contrary.

I'd like to look into it before I respond. What Greek words are you referring to and in what passages do they occur?

This probably wasn't all that afleitch had in mind but I do know that there's some debate about μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται  in 1 Corinthians 6.9.

[afleitch]

No one has taken up my question and that is there seems to be an understandable rejection of 'edits' or redactions of this nature. Yet many commonly used modern Bibles have done so in the other direction; taking a clutch of vague Greek words and deciding that they must mean 'homosexual' even though there are very strong arguments to the contrary.

I'd like to look into it before I respond. What Greek words are you referring to and in what passages do they occur?

This probably wasn't all that afleitch had in mind but I do know that there's some debate about μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται  in 1 Corinthians 6.9.

In part yes. There are screeds of stuff on this forum from my Christian days on here if you look. You have ‘absuers of themselves with mankind’ (arsenokoitai) now being translated as homosexuals, homosexual perversion in the NEB and homosexual offenders in the NIV because it’s helpful, in a counter sexual revolution theological mindset to do so. Whatever arsenokoiten means with respect to men (and it was about men); probably about sexual exploitation has now crossed genders and refers to everyone who is homosexual. Same with 'malakoi' which has went from soft and weak willed to effeminate and now in some translations also to homosexual (which is the closest interpretation to an outright slur)

You can even trace the differing interpretations right the way back. But now it’s all about the gays because that is what post-war Christian thought on sexual matters has become disproportionately obsessed with and the new translations are very helpful to people who have that mindset because they can now say that ‘that’s what it says in the Bible’, which of course on the surface it now does. And in parts of the world where evangelism is increasingly tinged with anti-gay vitriol that’s a very powerful influence.

What I was saying was that essentially that interpretation of the Bible; to support condemnation of normative homosexual behaviour by taking words and turns of phrases and making them fit to that mindset doesn’t seem to bother people as much as queers interpreting it the other way. And I’m not directing this at anyone here, but I can imagine that much of that would come from not what changes are actually being made, but who is making them. The reasoning behind the changes made in the 'Queen James' is not unreasonable (if you read them) there is thought behind them and they utilise the arguments given by liberal religious scholars.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reasoning behind the changes made in the 'Queen James' is not unreasonable (if you read them) there is thought behind them and they utilise the arguments given by liberal religious scholars.

For the most part yes, but their changes to Leviticus and in particular to Leviticus 20 are out and out insertions of material that cannot at all be justified from the context by an appeal to the difficulties of translation.  As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, there is absolutely no justification for reading Leviticus 20:13 as anything other than a blanket prohibition on homosexual behavior.  There really are only two way of approaching that passage if one takes the Hebrew Testament as an authentic religious text.  Either homosexual behavior is sinful or both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are later insertions into the original Mosaic law.

[afleitch]

The reasoning behind the changes made in the 'Queen James' is not unreasonable (if you read them) there is thought behind them and they utilise the arguments given by liberal religious scholars.

For the most part yes, but their changes to Leviticus and in particular to Leviticus 20 are out and out insertions of material that cannot at all be justified from the context by an appeal to the difficulties of translation.  As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, there is absolutely no justification for reading Leviticus 20:13 as anything other than a blanket prohibition on homosexual behavior.  There really are only two way of approaching that passage if one takes the Hebrew Testament as an authentic religious text.  Either homosexual behavior is sinful or both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are later insertions into the original Mosaic law.

I don't have a horse in this race. The Bible can say what it wants about anything. All I am saying, and again it's not been fully addressed is this isn't something exclusive to a bunch of gay Christians trying to make something they believe in less soul destroying.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well yes, that translation will be affected by the biases of the translators is a problem, especially of the translators don't realize they have a bias.  That's something that will unfortunately happen for all sorts of biases.  I suppose that's why you aren't getting people here to address the issue of there also being biases being made in the opposite direction, because we're not disagreeing with you.  If you want someone to disagree with you on this point, lobby for jmfcst to be unbanned.