People are entitled to their own lifestyle choices. However, when they attempt to justify those choices by recklessly appealing to the Bible for affirmation, that’s another matter. That is exactly what has happened with the Queen James Version of the Bible – dubbed The Gay Bible.
According to the editors, The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality – “we edited eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” The editing was based on the 1769 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
According to the anonymous editors, the crux of the argument is that homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. The editors contend that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946, only interpretations have been made.”
According to my former professor Dr. Douglas Moo, “while it is true that the word homosexual did not appear in the Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that – the word did not exist in the English language until 1890.” Moo further argues, “That that does not, however mean, that the subject was not broached in earlier translations – the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”
The truth is, The Gay Bible lacks intellectual credibility. The very name of the text, The Queen James Version is based on dubious history. The editors assert that King James I was a well-known bisexual. They believe that “although the king did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’. It is in his great debt and honor that we name our translation The Queen James Version.”
Among historians, the sexuality of King James I is a matter of dispute. The authors of Early Modern England, 1458-1714, assert that the issue is murky. However, in order to satisfy their bias, the editors of The Gay Bible show little interest in historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were confirmed that King James I was bisexual, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the text.
That disregard for accuracy is reflected in each of the eight citations in The Gay Bible. Because of the limits of this column, I will examine one of the eight passage that was changed – 1 Corinthians 6:9.
KING JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
QUEEN JAMES VERSION
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous.
The Greek word that The Gay Bible translates as “morally weak” is a combination of two Greek words. The first word (arsen) means a male. The second word (koite) means a bed. The combined Greek word is describing “a man who lies in bed with another male” – that is a contemporary description of homosexuality.
The editors of The Gay Bible contend that “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in the text before us. We changed the phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ to ‘promiscuous’ as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”
Linguistically and historically that is utter crap. In nearly every classical and Septuagintal use of the word, the masculine gender is in focus. Actually, the Greek word used in the text (arsenokoites) expresses active homosexuality. A related term (malakos) connotes effeminate behavior or passive homosexuality, in which a man allows others to exploit him sexually. Both Greek words are used in the text under review.
Interestingly, the editors of The Gay Bible have chosen to remain anonymous. That decision to remain anonymous is both deceitful and unscholarly. Their work cannot be called a translation – it borders on blasphemy, in that it attempts to attribute to God a perspective that is dishonorable and ungodly. The prophet Isaiah was correct when he said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil...” (Isaiah 5:20).
4 comments:
Unfortunately, we as Christians put more stress and importance, and preach more "hell fire" when it comes to homosexuality than we do about adultery, fornication and worshipping idols. Could this be a result of what is happening in the church from the pulpit to the pew where fornication, adultery, and idolatry (love of money, especially in these mega churches) seem to be more acceptable? Sin is sin in the eyes of God. Let's not amplify one above the other. Let us practice love and compassion for sinners, pray, preach the gospel, and God will do the rest. Let's not spend too much time criticizing behavior that can only be changed by God who makes us into a "new creation/creature". Let God be the judge.
Although there is much merit in what you are saying, it is not a response to the topic - the credibility of the Gay Bible. Your topics can be handled in subsequent commentaries.
David Corbin
Your first statement ["unfortunately, we as Christians put more stress and importance, and preach more 'hell fire' when it comes to homosexuality...etc."] is rather very interesting, since it is a very long time now since I have heard the word "hell" in our churches. Even more interesting is your statement "Let's practice love and compassion for sinners. . .etc." This suggest that to raise the issue of homosexuality is unloving and lacking compassion. I am well aware that many evangelicals have gone about this matter rather inappropriately, but we should not forget that the preaching of the gospel involves the diagnosis of the human condition. I do not mean to say that your statement is off the mark in any way, it's just the impression it seems to create--as if to speak of the particular sin of homosexuality is "tabooed."
Everyone is free to write a so called Bible to justify their beliefs. While your commentary defends the King James Bible as the infallible word of God, and quite rightly so, we as Christians are responsible for spreading God's love, forgiveness and promise of eternal life. You may think the editors of the Gay Bible "decision to remain anonymous" may be "deceitful and unscholarly", but pseudonyms and anonymity is always acceptable in the literary field. Satan is truly on the warpath trying to distract us from our true mission - i.e. preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and let God do the rest. Again I say homosexuality is not a bigger sin than any other. It is not even mentioned in the 10 commandments. The gays are having a field day ruffling the feathers of heterosexuals - Christians and non-christians alike. Sin is going to be with us until Christ returns.
Anyhow, this is good fodder for discussion.
Post a Comment