The Queen James Bible has been edited to make Homophobic interpretations impossible
—the QJV editor
For the whole series, see The Queen James Bible.
A new version of the Bible is being published and in a way we Christians should take it as a compliment. The Bible is edited so as to conform to the authority of the homosexuality worldview-religion and is called the Queen James Bible.
If you just want to say, “The Queen James Bible is nonsense” or even “is a godsend” and leave it at that then; do not bother reading this series because we will actually detail the issues involved.
Let us go step by step as there is a lot to define already. How can a Christian possibly consider it a compliment to have YHVH’s very own Holy Word purposefully corrupted?
Only in the context of the collection of such stories which we have chronicled in the section Unbelievers Compliment Christianity. That context is that they are only after corrupting the real thing. They want to change the King James Bible into the Queen James Bible but, will they change the Qur’an into the Qur’wom’an or Qur’man? Will they change the Bhagavad Gita into the Bhagavad Gay’ta? No, they would not dare.
Homosexuality is, after all, just two like-gendered people who love each other (right?) so why refer to homosexuality as a worldview-religion? Why is such a question necessary? Just think about it: what does two like-gendered people who love each other have to do with rewriting the Bible? It is because there is a big difference between homosexuality as two like-gendered people who love each other and homosexuality as worldview-religion.
In fact, people who object to homosexuality generally do not object to two like-gendered people who love each other but to the militant activism which seek not only tolerance but affirmation, acceptance and approval (see links at the end of this article for detailed info).
As for the Queen James Bible, the editor was nice enough to actually lay it all out and so let us go directly to the their Editor’s Notes page and see what they have to say.
They claim to have chosen to edit the 1769 AD King James Bible for various reasons including that King James had “many gay lovers.” And yet they note that:
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.
But why not return to the original Hebrew and Greek (of which we have more manuscripts now than they did back in 1769 AD)? And what does a gay king have to do with an anti-gay Bible? Exactly, nothing.
Another similar claim is:
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this – only interpretations have been made.
They appear to be playing the name game or rather, the word game. The claim seems to be that the word “homosexuality” was not in the Bible prior to 1946 AD but even if this is true it does not mean that the concept is not there.
For example, Leviticus 18:22 states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Can this truly, honestly, logically, grammatically, not be said to refer to homosexuality? Of course, it is about homosexuality; even whilst not using one word to reference the act.
In the “What We Changed” section the editor notes:
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality… Now, as you are quoting verse after verse in your mind; consider the follow up:
The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing [of] 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 formal and dynamic translations: formal translates word for word even if the meaning, the grammar, ends up difficult to read whilst dynamic translates thought for thought in order to make the sense clear even if it does not translate every word. But there is yet another manner whereby to go about translating and this is presuppositionally or to employ eisegesis. This refers to coming to the text and reading into that which you already want to see there, it is forcing the text to say what you want to hear rather than employing exegesis whereby you come to the text unbiased (as unbiased as you can get) and allow the text to speak to you.
Since the translators of the Queen James Bible want the Bible to say what they want to hear they changed it accordingly. In fact, the QJV is not even a translation but a paraphrase at best, it is a propaganda and you now get a clear understanding of the Biblical prophecy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2nd Timothy 4:3).
But it goes deeper as they are not saying that they modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it; they are bringing that up as an issue, a consideration, an option they claim to note have taken. In fact, they note that “There are problems with removal of verses” such as that:
It doesn’t address the problem of interpretive ambiguity, it only brushes it under the rug. It renders an incomplete Bible…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.
After some more attempts at covering up the crime scene via attempting to sound scholarly and academic they bottom line it and we should, at least, appreciate the honesty in this statement:
We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations. Thus, it is not about scholarship, academia, correctly translating Hebrew and Greek or anything of the sort: it is about having homosexuality as a worldview-religion and demanding that all thing conform to the homosexual view.
The point is that to personages such as the QJV editor (and what, exactly are their credentials?) good and evil, right and wrong, ethical and unethical, what theology is accurate, what political party to support, etc., etc., etc., are all issues that are defined and decided base on homosexuality. If the theology and political party support homosexuality then it is right, true, correct, ethical, etc. and if it does not, it is not. Thus, homosexuality has become a worldview-religion.
In the next segment we will begin considering the actual changes made to the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more info see:
Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality (White is a pro-homosexuality activist who makes the same exact arguments as the QJV editor).
Much more relevant info at True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.
Books of interest:
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible
When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They’re Gay
Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.
Twitter: #queenjamesbible, #LGBT, #homosexuality
Facebook: #queenjamesbible, LGBT, #homosexuality