The Queen James Version. Yes I'm serious

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
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.”

Leading Bible scholar Douglas Moo, however, is not convinced. Publically responding to the claims made by the ‘Queen James’ community, Moo said, “Few, if any English translations use the actual words ‘homosexuality’ or ‘homosexual’. But the history of English translations shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships.”

Well-known anti-gay passages such as Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10 as well as Jude 1:7 have been meticulously reworded so as not to offend the LGBT community and to justify homosexual activity as a God-ordained practice.

What, then, can be done with such a Bible? Simple answer! Burn it. Dump it. Tear it to shreds. It’s not even worthy to blow your nose with.

1.- It is not inspired by God. Although we recognize that only the original manuscripts of the Bible were directly God breathed, the Queen James Bible makes a conscientious and premeditated effort to side-step any problematic passages related with homosexuality. Rather than coming to the biblical text openly and objectively as honest scholars, the translators interpret the whole of Scripture within the rubric of their pro-gay worldview. Instead of subjecting homosexuality to the Scripture, they invert the order and subject the Scripture to homosexuality.

2.- It justifies falsehood and the sin of man. The Queen James Version has come about due to much displeasure regarding the anti-gay tone of traditional Bible versions which are seemingly too offensive. Nevertheless, truth always has this offensive quality about it. I was born in 1985. Now 1984 and 1986 may feel awfully offended about that, but the fact remains. The truth stands. This is not an issue of showing mercy and love to the gay community; it is a matter of establishing what God designates as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Contrary to common opinion, the God of the Bible does not applaud men when they walk against Him and therefore, neither must we. We cannot justify the sin which God has called us to renounce.

3.- It is an affront to the creation of the Father. The Bible tells us that God created men and women in His image and likeness. But what is God like? The Scriptural narrative testifies that God is a Trinity i.e. He abides in eternal community. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have mutually rejoiced in and loved one another from before time began. In this communal context, Adam and Eve were created. The Father determined that His image on earth would be reflected by men and women together- neither men with men nor women with women. A pro-gay Bible thus frustrates the creating purpose of the Creator God. So many are concerned about not offending the gay community; but how many stop to ask themselves if they are offending the great master Designer of the universe?

4.- It tramples the blood of Jesus Christ underfoot. Not only do the Rainbow Bible crew deny the Father’s aim in creation, but they also attack the saving purpose of the Son i.e. that Jesus came to save us from sin. Key to redemption is an open disavowal of sin and a repentant heart. But a pro-gay version of Scripture justifies the iniquity from which Jesus came to rescue us. After all, why repent of homosexuality if Jesus condones it? Such a message evidently kills off the efficacy of the Gospel and denigrates any demand of repentance from the One who preached, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

5.- It denies the Spirit of holiness. Lastly, the fifth reason to burn the Queen James Bible is that it directly opposes the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It is His job to transform us all into a Christ-like mould. Any spirit that goes against the spirit of holiness is not heaven-sent but has descended from the pit. Brother John called on us to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1), and the one behind the gay Bible is certainly not to be equated with the life-giving freedom of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not make you free to sin; He liberates us to not sin any longer.

All in all, these are just some of the reasons why the new Queen James Bible must be sent back to the abyss from which it has oozed forth. It not a Bible version, but a Bible 'per-version'. God saves gay folk. Hallelujah. But that doesn’t mean that we can justify gay activity. God saves liars. God saves prostitutes. God saves paedophiles. God saves rapists. God saves the incestuous. God saves adulterers. And who would think of publishing a Bible justifying any of those sins? No one! So this winter don’t forget to burn your pro-gay Bible. At least it will be able to keep you warm.

293122_535117633167590_1778997922_n.jpg

The Queen James Bible.

I agree with him.
 

Mushroom

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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....
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

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

JoannaV

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.

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.
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.

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.
 

JoannaV

Puritan Board Sophomore
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 :)
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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?

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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
Last edited:

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
"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
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top