# The Queen James Version. Yes I'm serious



## JohnGill (Dec 18, 2012)

It's finally happened, the new pro-sodomite translation, The Queen James Version, is "out." Personally I see it as the obvious end result of the "Communication theory" that's part and parcel of the modern Bible movement. Wondering what everyone else thought of it. 

For those who see no problems with other modern versions that take great liberties with the apographs, are you for or against this new version and if against how do you square this with regards for being for other modern versions who've taken liberties?

From Will Graham



> *5 REASONS TO BURN THE ‘GAY’ BIBLE*
> Well, believe it or not, it has finally happened. In an attempt to prevent an ongoing “homophobic misinterpretation of God’s word,” the world’s first ever pro-gay Bible has just been published in the States. Sporting a large multi-coloured rainbow cross on its front page, the new ‘Queen James Version’ claims that its author is none other than God Himself and that Jesus Christ is a chief contributor. It’s on the market, ready for sale and just in time for Christmas.
> 
> Editors of the Bible have defended their translation on the Bible’s official webpage by writing that, “Homosexuality was first overtly 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.”
> ...



I agree with him.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 18, 2012)

I think I'm going to vomit.


----------



## Zach (Dec 18, 2012)

Outrageous.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 18, 2012)

Maybe it's a post-millennial-style 'christianizing' of the sodomite segment of the pagan population.... or maybe not.

Blasphemous on so many levels.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm just surprised it took this long. I expected this version out in the early 90s. I think TBS and many others were right to fear the removal of Bible translation & production from the churches to missionary societies and then naturally to companies.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 18, 2012)

I thought it was a joke/mockery of the discernment sites not real....I'm speechless, though I should not be surprised, and yet I wasn't prepared....


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 18, 2012)

Some links about it:

Queen James Bible Claims To Be First-Ever 'Gay Bible,' But Some Say It Rewrites Scripture
The Queen James Bible - A Gay Bible
Recently Released 'Queen James' Purports to Be First-Ever 'Gay Bible'


----------



## nicnap (Dec 18, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> For those who see no problems with other modern versions that take great liberties with the apographs, are you for or against this new version and if against how do you square this with regards for being for other modern versions who've taken liberties?



I suppose you'll have to define "great liberties." I know of no one here who would advocate a paraphrase as a Bible, but I am not sure what you mean by great liberties...perhaps the changes made in the 2011 NIV? (I am not speaking on a textual basis here; my positions on such things are fairly well known on the board.) I am simply asking for clarification here.

Oh, and of course, this is not a Bible. It is an abomination.


----------



## Berean (Dec 18, 2012)

"Bible" should be in quotes, similar to homosexual "marriage" since we know that neither is what they claim it to be.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 18, 2012)

So is this the KJV with some (many?) verses changed? 

If I was stuck on a desert island with just this book, it would be my Bible not my firestarter. I think. Perhaps I had better get more disciplined about memorising Scripture!


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 18, 2012)

nicnap said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > For those who see no problems with other modern versions that take great liberties with the apographs, are you for or against this new version and if against how do you square this with regards for being for other modern versions who've taken liberties?
> ...



We can ignore the underlying textual considerations as this deals more with the how we should translate and not which apographs should be translated.

Removal of virgin from the RSV in Is 7:14 and its removal of propitiation would be examples of taking great liberties. Softening on sodomy in the NIV (1984) would be another example. Another is the paraphrasing in the NIV. Yet both versions have been promoted knowing that their translators have taken great liberties with the underlying text. The so-called "QJB" has merely taken this process to its next logical step. If we decry this translation, then should we not decry other translations which also substitute personal interpretations for actual translation? If we call this version an abomination, then we must be willing to do the same for others which take similar interpretive liberties, though they be different liberties, to remain consistent. The arguments made for not calling the RSV, NIV, et al similar versions abomination can equally be applied to the "QJB". 

Personally I find this so-called (per) version an abomination. But I consider any version that is soft on sodomy or tries to remove the virgin birth or substitutes personal interpretations for translation to be an abomination.


----------



## ooguyx (Dec 18, 2012)

Quick question: What is TBS?


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 18, 2012)

ooguyx said:


> Quick question: What is TBS?



TBS stands for Trinitarian Bible Society which split from the British and Foreign Bible Society primarily of allowing Unitarians into and to hold office in the BFBS.

Trinitarian Bible Society


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 18, 2012)

Talk about "vulgar" ... as if we needed another perVersion of God's Word!


----------



## nicnap (Dec 19, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> We can ignore the underlying textual considerations as this deals more with the how we should translate and not which apographs should be translated.
> 
> Removal of virgin from the RSV in Is 7:14 and its removal of propitiation would be examples of taking great liberties. Softening on sodomy in the NIV (1984) would be another example. Another is the paraphrasing in the NIV. Yet both versions have been promoted knowing that their translators have taken great liberties with the underlying text. The so-called "QJB" has merely taken this process to its next logical step. If we decry this translation, then should we not decry other translations which also substitute personal interpretations for actual translation? If we call this version an abomination, then we must be willing to do the same for others which take similar interpretive liberties, though they be different liberties, to remain consistent. The arguments made for not calling the RSV, NIV, et al similar versions abomination can equally be applied to the "QJB".



As for textual issues, I agree---which is why I said I wasn't speaking to textual issues. 

There is a difference in a version (NIV, RSV) which, though takes "liberties", is still trying to maintain a faithful rendering of the text. I am no friend of dynamic equivalence. However, what the NIV (84) does is a far cry from what the QJB does. The interpretive liberties of the NIV (84) had a completely different set of motives (readability) than those of the QJB. Though I don't think such motives are to be the aim of translation--if the Scripture is what we say it is, the Word of God, then translations should be done a near to the original manuscripts as possible. 

The RSV's translators did have an agenda in their translation of virgin as young woman/maiden. Though the translation is wrong, it is able to be made from the Hebrew. (Don't misread me as saying that I find the removal of the virgin birth as acceptable.) I do not care for the RSV or the NIV, but their translations do not lead to the QJB. The QJB is a deliberate rebellion against what the Lord has declared in the Scripture. This "Bible" would have been produced eventually, whether there had been an NIV or RSV or not. Translation/translation philosophies is not the point of the QJB -- rebellion is.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 19, 2012)

nicnap said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > We can ignore the underlying textual considerations as this deals more with the how we should translate and not which apographs should be translated.
> ...



I agree with your last statement. My point is, rebellion is the point of the NIV (soft spots on sodomy and other such issues) and of the RSV (Is 7:14 & propitiation). I consider both of those and many more modern versions to be "deliberate rebellion against what the Lord has declared in the Scripture." In taking the liberties that the NIV and RSV did it cannot be said that they are trying to maintain a faithful rendering of the text. But even it were so, that argument can also be used of the "QJB". Its producers believed they were trying to maintain a faithful rendering of the text. Now we're left with equal authorities in competition and no resolution. The "QJB", NIV, and RSV are not faithful to the apographs and for that reason alone they have no place in Christendom. And yes it is the philosophy which produced the NIV & RSV that has brought about the "QJB". Because all autonomous philosophy is rebellion. We are merely looking at different hues of this rebellion in these 3 versions.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 19, 2012)

I was convinced it was a spoof, too. Speechless.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 19, 2012)

JonathanHunt said:


> I was convinced it was a spoof, too. Speechless.



I know, I had to search a little to find it for sale before I believed it!

Are there any examples of how exactly they've treated some of the verses? Trying to see just how different it is from some of the examples JohnGill mentioned


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 19, 2012)

This QJV is another symptom of the idolatrous act of creating a god in your own image.


----------



## newcreature (Dec 20, 2012)

I agree it is an abomination, but for some reason I thought there was already a gay "bible" in print.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 20, 2012)

newcreature said:


> I agree it is an abomination, but for some reason I thought there was already a gay "bible" in print.



The NIV (1984 & 2011) is extremely friendly towards sodomy. It may have been the one you were thinking of.


----------



## Zach (Dec 20, 2012)

I cannot believe that we are even comparing the NIV to this. I'm not an NIV user and admit that I think there are some serious problems with the 2011 translation, but I don't know how you could possibly think that it is akin to this QJV outrage that claims to be a bible.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 20, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> The NIV (1984 & 2011) is extremely friendly towards sodomy. It may have been the one you were thinking of.



I am not being combative, but you'll have to substantiate that. You're the first I've heard make this claim. Is it b/c the word sodomy is not used?


----------



## BibleCyst (Dec 20, 2012)

nicnap said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > The NIV (1984 & 2011) is extremely friendly towards sodomy. It may have been the one you were thinking of.
> ...



I second what Pastor Nicholas said. I'm not a fan of the NIV, but I cannot find any place where it is "soft" or even "extremely friendly" towards sodomy.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 20, 2012)

Zach said:


> I cannot believe that we are even comparing the NIV to this. I'm not an NIV user and admit that I think there are some serious problems with the 2011 translation, but I don't know how you could possibly think that it is akin to this QJV outrage that claims to be a bible.



I believe what Chris is pointing to is that if we accept the NIV and other translations who used "dynamic equivalence" as a translation philosophy, you basically have accepted the trojan horse and this abomination is just the logical conclusion since you have accepted that adding your interpretation when translating the scriptures is acceptable. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.


----------



## reformedminister (Dec 20, 2012)

Absolutely blasphemous!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 20, 2012)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-10


----------



## Somerset (Dec 20, 2012)

I'm surprised this was not done years ago. It's legal, it's profitable - so someone will do it.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 20, 2012)

nicnap said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > The NIV (1984 & 2011) is extremely friendly towards sodomy. It may have been the one you were thinking of.
> ...



No, it has nothing to do with their lacking the word sodomite. The NIV (1984) has been called weak on sodomy for one by Dr. Douglas Moo who worked on the NIV (2011). Weakening scriptures stand on sin is making scripture friendly to sin. Regrettably, while strengthening some language dealing with the issue, by using gender inclusive language and leaving some verses unchanged, it still supports the sodomite agenda which seeks in part to remove gender distinctions. If gender distinctions are meaningless, then so are any verses that condemn "men" having carnal relations with "men". The NIV (2011) cannot have it both ways. Until this and other inconsistencies are removed from the NIV it cannot be considered a reliable, nor a useful, version of scripture.



Fogetaboutit said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot believe that we are even comparing the NIV to this. I'm not an NIV user and admit that I think there are some serious problems with the 2011 translation, but I don't know how you could possibly think that it is akin to this QJV outrage that claims to be a bible.
> ...



Yes, that is what I am pointing to. If you accept the former to remain consistent, you must accept the latter. Personal interpretations have no place in translation. We cannot have it both ways.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 21, 2012)

Hmmm...this seems to misunderstand "dynamic equivalence" which is not so much a translational philosophy _per se_ as a point on a spectrum of "identity of thing signified" to "identity of signifier". To give an example, in Job 19:27, Job talks about his "kidneys" being consumed. The KJV translates here in a literal word for word fashion, albeit using archaic English that would confuse many modern readers "though my reins be consumed". All other translations, including the NKJV and the NASV translate the Hebrew word for "kidneys" as "heart" using the principle of dynamic equivalence: since modern Western readers feel with their hearts not their other internal organs, the translators felt that the point of the text would be obscured by a word for word translation here. I daresay I could find examples where the KJV does this as well. 

So all good translators will at times adopt dynamic equivalence in order to convey the message of the text accurately. The only question is how often and in what contexts that needs to be done. The NIV adopted the practice more often, which makes it a less academically demanding version to read (it usually comes out at about a 7th grade reading level); other translations, such as the ESV and HCSV (rightly in my view), are further towards the more literal scale (and as a result often score at about a 9th grade reading level). The NASV is much more word for word and as a result, reading it one is inclined to say "No man ever spoke like this". That makes it very useful for people who read some Greek and Hebrew. But if a little leaven leavens the whole lump, you'll have to throw away all Bible translations, including the KJV. And the issue with the QJV (which turns my stomach even to type) is not that they are arguing that best practices in Hebrew and Greek and trends in modern English usage require a different translation of a particular verse but that the Bible needs to be changed to suit a particular agenda. That is something wholly different from any of the major translations, even the RSV.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 21, 2012)

It used to be so easy - people were Christians or not and non-Christians didn't try to 'pretend' to be one, because they openly mocked the faith. The further we stray from orthodoxy, the further we open the door to this nonsense; we already have the Joel Osteens of the world as supposed messengers of Christ; this is only the next iteration of 'the wide road'.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 21, 2012)

Crazy. I guess this is their attempt to convince God that He is also possibly wrong about the matter.


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 21, 2012)

Funny take on it Tyrese, but seems about right. I wonder how He will feel about that?


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 21, 2012)

iainduguid said:


> Hmmm...this seems to misunderstand "dynamic equivalence" which is not so much a translational philosophy _per se_ as a point on a spectrum of "identity of thing signified" to "identity of signifier". To give an example, in Job 19:27, Job talks about his "kidneys" being consumed. The KJV translates here in a literal word for word fashion, albeit using archaic English that would confuse many modern readers "though my reins be consumed". All other translations, including the NKJV and the NASV translate the Hebrew word for "kidneys" as "heart" using the principle of dynamic equivalence: since modern Western readers feel with their hearts not their other internal organs, the translators felt that the point of the text would be obscured by a word for word translation here. I daresay I could find examples where the KJV does this as well.
> 
> So all good translators will at times adopt dynamic equivalence in order to convey the message of the text accurately. The only question is how often and in what contexts that needs to be done. The NIV adopted the practice more often, which makes it a less academically demanding version to read (it usually comes out at about a 7th grade reading level); other translations, such as the ESV and HCSV (rightly in my view), are further towards the more literal scale (and as a result often score at about a 9th grade reading level). The NASV is much more word for word and as a result, reading it one is inclined to say "No man ever spoke like this". That makes it very useful for people who read some Greek and Hebrew. But if a little leaven leavens the whole lump, you'll have to throw away all Bible translations, including the KJV. And the issue with the QJV (which turns my stomach even to type) is not that they are arguing that best practices in Hebrew and Greek and trends in modern English usage require a different translation of a particular verse but that *the Bible needs to be changed to suit a particular agenda.* That is something wholly different from any of the major translations, even the RSV.



It's a matter of the nature of "dynamic equivalence" used in the NIV. Which is quite different in nature from the form of dynamic equivalence used in the formal equivalence translations such as the AV & the Geneva. Dynamic equivalence in the NIV was used to insert the translators' personal opinions. The RSV, though they may have attempted to keep it literal, suffers the same flaw. Namely, that personal interpretations were inserted into the text of scripture. 19th century Baptist attempts at having a "Baptist" translation were just as flawed as the NIV, RSV, & QJB for this reason. You state, "the issue with the QJV" is "that *the Bible needs to be changed to suit a particular agenda."* But substituting personal interpretations [NIV(1984&2011), RSV] for translation *IS* changing the Bible to suit a particular agenda. If it is abominable for the producers of the QJB to insert their own interpretations into the text of scripture, then it must be equally abominable for the NIV (1984 & 2011), the RSV, and all the other modern versions that do so, to do the same. Otherwise, it is hypocritical to denounce the QJB while affirming the NIV, RSV, et al. Personally I find it more abominable that the NIV (1984 & 2011) & the RSV have destroyed the full doctrine of propitiation by substituting personal opinions for translation. It is more insidious than the blatant attack by the producers of the QJB.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 21, 2012)

If "inserting the interpreter's private opinion" is what you mean, it has nothing to do with dynamic equivalence as that term is normally used. Can you demonstrate that this actually happened with the NIV - that is, the translators were aware that the translation they offered was an inferior translation linguistically, but were determined to make the Bible say something different? That seems a pretty serious charge, and rather stronger than "I think they didn't do a particularly good job of translating X verse" which I suspect most Biblical scholars would believe about every single Bible translation there is (which is why learning the original languages is so important). As a reasonably competent Hebrew scholar, I recognize the complexity of some of the issues (for example in Isaiah 7:14, where there really is no English word exactly equivalent to _'almah_. Unlike a commentary, where you can take a couple of pages to explain your view, in a translation you sometimes have to make a choice between not entirely satisfactory alternatives. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "dynamic equivalence" vs "formal equivalence" as a translation strategy.


----------



## NB3K (Dec 22, 2012)

It's sad! Instead of crying for mercy to God, by the grace in Jesus Christ, because of their sin, these homosexuals will have no avenue to repentance if they do not know that their lifestyle is sinful before the Holy God of creation.


----------

