The Queen James Bible has been edited to make Homophobic interpretations impossible
—the QJV editor
For the whole series, see The Queen James Bible.
We now continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering 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.
The next texts that they changed are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (KJV)
Leviticus 20:13
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. (KJV) But they had stated that “The Bible says nothing about homosexuality” but there it is so, what will they do with these texts? They begin with an ethically absolute statement:
Leviticus is outdated as a moral code, but we still picked it as our most important book to address in our edits, as most anti-LGBT religious activists cite Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as proof-positive that homosexuality is a sin, even worse, a sin punishable by death.
So, a homosexual activist doeth declare that “Leviticus is outdated as a moral code” but upon what absolute moral basis? Let us back up for a moment as you may have noticed that we employed the term “ethically” but the editor refers to “moral.” Ethics and morality are terms that are used interchangeably but they are actually different concepts:
Ethics refers the ethos and prescribes that which people ought to do.
Morals refers the mores and describes that which people do.
Thus, this turns into semantics but important semantics. With the correct definition of morals in place perhaps we should ask, “Is Leviticus outdated as a moral code?” The answer is a twofold, “Yes.” But twofold, how so? Firstly, since morals merely refers to whatever people have taken upon themselves to do then yes, it is outdated as society de jour has decided that homosexuality is normal, natural, good, moral, etc. This, by the way, is the very worst argument in favor of homosexuality because it leaves things at the whims of society. If within a few years society decides that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, bad, immoral, etc. then what?
Note also that the editor claims:
You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.
1) “You can’t choose your sexuality”: what is meant by “sexuality”? You see there is a difference between an impulse and an action. You may not be able to choose your impulse (as you were “born this way” which is another way of affirming the doctrine of original sin) but you can choose whether or not to carry out an impulse into an action. Thus, homosexuality, as in performing the sexual act, is a choice (for more see Is homosexuality a choice?).
2) “…but you can choose Jesus”: what does “choose” mean? That you can make an informed, adult decision to carry out a homosexual lifestyle and claim to be a Christian or otherwise follower of Jesus? What if someone claims to be a Christian idolater or Christian polytheist? Well, alright, there actually are entire religions who claim to be Christian but as idolaters and polytheist—see Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. But the question is; can those directly violating the Bible truly be Christians?
3) “Now you can choose a Bible, too”: indeed, if the Bible says something you do not like, something which is inconvenient to, if not condemnatory of, your chosen lifestyle then you can just publish your own version—oi vey!
Secondly, it is outdated, in a manner of speaking, for both Christians and Jews. This is because while both faith’s understand and follow the ethical concept of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Christians do not follow it to its litigious end, capital punishment, because that is an Old Testament prescription and Christians are under the New Testament. Jews do not follow through because they understand the context: the historical, cultural, grammatical, theological, chronological, etc. context. And that context is that the laws in Leviticus were not simply given to the generic “Jews” but to those who lived in YHVH’s theocratic (monarchy administered) kingdom, at a certain time and in a certain place. That kingdom no longer exists (no Temple, no priesthood, etc.) and so they are not subject to carrying out those laws to their litigious end.
The QJV attempts to delve into Hebrew:
Translation of the Word Abomination
To address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to look at the path of translation. The Hebrew word “to’evah” from which abomination is translated simply means something that is “ritually unclean,” or a “taboo.”
Given the definition of the Hebrew word “to’evah” and the other “to’evah”s in Leviticus, we suggest that by today’s standards, a biblical abomination would be understood to be “scandalous.” (Keep in mind, a biblical “abomination,” by Levitical standards, would be scandalous, for a Jewish priest. Leviticus a holiness code for Jewish priests; In Hebrew it is known as Torat Kohanim – “Instructions for the priests”.)
Just out of curiosity; if Leviticus is outdated as a moral code why bother retranslating it? So as to make it relevant for today’s morality, yes but why not just footnote it as “This text is outdated as a moral code” or some such thing? Seems like more pseudo-scholastic and pseudo-academia but we will consider the argument, to be fair:
To address Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, we need to look at the path of translation. The Hebrew word “to’evah” from which abomination is translated simply means something that is “ritually unclean,” or a “taboo.”
Given the definition of the Hebrew word “to’evah” and the other “to’evah”s in Leviticus, we suggest that by today’s standards, a biblical abomination would be understood to be “scandalous.” (Keep in mind, a biblical “abomination,” by Levitical standards, would be scandalous, for a Jewish priest. Leviticus a holiness code for Jewish priests; In Hebrew it is known as Torat Kohanim – “Instructions for the priests”.)
So the proposed reading will go from “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination” to “…it is ritually unclean” or “…it is taboo.” So for a man to “lie with mankind, as with womankind” is a ritually unclean, scandalous taboo.
In the next segment we will conclude the consideration of this text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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