"This new version updates several passages from the original version that address homosexuality, including this passage from Leviticus 18:22
( Read more... )
I wonder how they translated it? i.e.if changes have any legitimate basis in translation, or not. Biblical scholars and teachers have always wrestled over the meaning of homosexuality in the Bible and how it applies to now, so I don't think there is a separate translation needed as it can be interpreted in different ways. "Queen " James? I didn't know King James was bisexual, or if there's even historical record of that.
-I think there is long standing tradition that King James was bisexual.
-I also think the understanding of how marriage and sexuality is an image of Christ with the Church is pretty clear. Further, why would God be so cruel as to not allow gay couples to conceive naturally with each other if that was what He intended all along? Why wouldn't He have orchestrated the evolution of better male to male sexual organs? The anal muscles, for example, are made to push debris out, not take anything in. They are actually much more susceptible to lesions, disease, and potential anal cancer with anal sex.
I guess what I'm saying, is that there is nothing in nature or theology that shows that God intended this, and no special interpretation of Scripture would change that. If God wanted this, He would have surely shown us through a better natural or special revelation.
HuffPo's mobile format makes this article hilarious. Right below this article is an invitation to look at a gallery -- of Abraham Lincoln.
That aside, it's probably a joke. Most of the verses in the Bible don't address LGBT anyway so that's like changing just a few verses and leaving everything else the same.
But lol this sounds like such a merchandising opportunity -- edit a few verses to fit whatever worldview, re-package it; profit! If I were so desperate for money and lacking in fear of God I'd probably do it lol.
Yeah, I think it was definitely for the money. I mean, according to one honest Amazon review from a gay Christian (who wasn't a fan) it sounds like it's basically the KJV + 8 altered passages.
Comments 7
Biblical scholars and teachers have always wrestled over the meaning of homosexuality in the Bible and how it applies to now, so I don't think there is a separate translation needed as it can be interpreted in different ways.
"Queen " James? I didn't know King James was bisexual, or if there's even historical record of that.
Reply
-I also think the understanding of how marriage and sexuality is an image of Christ with the Church is pretty clear. Further, why would God be so cruel as to not allow gay couples to conceive naturally with each other if that was what He intended all along? Why wouldn't He have orchestrated the evolution of better male to male sexual organs? The anal muscles, for example, are made to push debris out, not take anything in. They are actually much more susceptible to lesions, disease, and potential anal cancer with anal sex.
I guess what I'm saying, is that there is nothing in nature or theology that shows that God intended this, and no special interpretation of Scripture would change that. If God wanted this, He would have surely shown us through a better natural or special revelation.
Reply
That aside, it's probably a joke. Most of the verses in the Bible don't address LGBT anyway so that's like changing just a few verses and leaving everything else the same.
Reply
ETA: It is real. :ohttp://www.amazon.com/The-Queen-James-Bible-God/product-reviews/0615724531/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Reply
But lol this sounds like such a merchandising opportunity -- edit a few verses to fit whatever worldview, re-package it; profit! If I were so desperate for money and lacking in fear of God I'd probably do it lol.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment