The Queen James Bible.

[InfinantSilence]

Finally a bible for gay people!!! Hah. Apparently they changed all the versus pertaining to homosexuality into more delicate ones... discuss.:)

[Neptune]

This is what I hate most about Bibles. Over the centuries, how many times has it been changed? When people can just change verses for no reason, what's the point in reading the bible? It's suppose to be God's word, not, whatever the author wanted to write. Are there any copies of the original Bible left in the world - is it written in a language not known to modern humans?

PS: Don't take this as I'm against gay people. I am not, I'm just stating my opinions regarding the Bible.

[Cicero]

I don't like this. Your not supposed to change the bible to fit different people or their needs. If the bible condemns homosexuality, you shouldn't go about trying to change it. If the bible condemns liars, you shouldn't try to change it to fit your lifestyle. If you disagree with some parts, then you disagree, but you shouldn't change it to fit your lifestyle. That's not the point of the bible. No matter what, the bible is going to offend someone. Some parts offend me. But I am not gonna go about trying to change the offensive parts.

The name itself mocks King James, which is sickening. I find this disgustingly offensive.

[CharlieHorse]

The word "bible" describes a sketchily written bunch of amendments and stories to scare people and force them to do things and how to think.
I never really liked religion...
If that book makes you happy, go for it! Live it! :)

[Skyline]

So what, they changed a few verses. If they want to practice religion without having to hear about them going to hell then let them! Its not like anyone has read the actual bible in the past century.

[Cicero]

So what, they changed a few verses. If they want to practice religion without having to hear about them going to hell then let them! Its not like anyone has read the actual bible in the past century.

But they read something very close to it. Sure, the bible isn't the exact terms of the original. But the scribes have made it really close to it, there were 2 different scribes, one working for the Catholic Church and another not working for them. The Catholic Church Scribes changed a few things here and there, whereas the non Catholic Church scribes kept it pretty close to word for word.

If they want to live in denial by thinking the bible says that, then let them. But as I've said, it's disgustingly offensive when they use the term Queen James, implying he was a drag queen or transgender. They're making mockery of the Christian faith even more. What's next, people are gonna change the commandments to "Thou shalt not lie in small situations." Most people find something offensive in the bible, but they don't go about changing it. They accept the fact that they may be sinning, I used to be a compulsive thief. Stole anything and everything. I knew I was in the wrong, I knew the bible condemned what I was doing. But I didn't think "Hey, I should change what the bible says about sinning to fit my personal lifestyle. So that I can feel better about myself." Ive read some of the passages they changed, and they basically changed it completely opposite of the original text.

[CharlieHorse]

If they want to live in denial, then let them.

IMO, living by religion is living in denial.
Nvm I don't belong here... :flees:

[Cicero]

IMO, living by religion is living in denial.
Nvm I don't belong here... :flees:

Living by religion is a faith.

The only way I see religion as denial, is the religious people don't wanna believe that when they die that's it. They wanna believe that their is an afterlife, and that this life is just the beginning.

[Skyline]

Thats what I'm saying... If they want to think they're not going to hell then let them... if you want to believe that they (why am using they??) WE are going to burn in hell then more power to you. I just don't see the big deal in letting people believe what they want.

[Cicero]

Thats what I'm saying... If they want to think they're not going to hell then let them... if you want to believe that they (why am using they??) WE are going to burn in hell then more power to you. I just don't see the big deal in letting people believe what they want.

I have no problem with that.
But I hate how people just change the bible like that because the bible condemns something. As I've said, it's like me changing the bible so it says that stealing isn't a sin.

[TigerBoy]

I don't like this. Your not supposed to change the bible to fit different people or their needs.
And that is why people take issue with some of the translations out there, since they believe they already have been changed from the original intent. There are over a hundred different translations of the bible in English alone and tens of thousands of Christian sects that stand as precedent for how differences in interpretations and translations matter. Wars have been fought over it.

If the bible condemns homosexuality,
It doesn't. That is only due to mis-interpretation and bad translation as I showed you in this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=161649).


The name itself mocks King James, which is sickening. I find this disgustingly offensive.
How? Are you related to King James or something?

But they read something very close to it. Sure, the bible isn't the exact terms of the original. But the scribes have made it really close to it, there were 2 different scribes, one working for the Catholic Church and another not working for them. The Catholic Church Scribes changed a few things here and there, whereas the non Catholic Church scribes kept it pretty close to word for word.
This is the same church that dug up the bones of the first translator of the bible into English (Wycliffe), crushed his bones and had them scattered in a river. They then burned John Hus at the stake with Wycliffe translations as kindling. They also burned people for even praying in English. So I think given the Catholic Church's vested interest in controlling society by keeping their own translation of the bible in Latin that only their priests could read (thus allowing them to interpret it even further in their own way), is hardly a reason to believe whatever version of a "history" of bible translations they choose to portray.


If they want to live in denial by thinking the bible says that, then let them. But as I've said, it's disgustingly offensive when they use the term Queen James, implying he was a drag queen or transgender.
King James was well known to be gay, and he was actually known by "Queen James" in court gossip at the time, records even hail his ascendence to the throne
Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus—"Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen."

He had a long term relationship with George Villiers who he often referred to as his 'wife'.

Your overplayed theatrical 'disgust' doesn't stand in lieu of a rational argument.

Most people find something offensive in the bible, but they don't go about changing it.

Yes they do, see above. Also this isn't about changing anything, it is about looking at the older texts and removing bias that has been added most notably by the Catholic Church in the middle ages, with their excessive manipulation of the whole religion leading to civil wars and the reformation.

[Cicero]

And that is why people take issue with some of the translations out there, since they believe they already have been changed from the original intent. There are over a hundred different translations of the bible in English alone and tens of thousands of Christian sects that stand as precedent for how differences in interpretations and translations matter. Wars have been fought over it.


It doesn't. That is only due to mis-interpretation and bad translation as I showed you in this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=161649).


How? Are you related to King James or something?


This is the same church that dug up the bones of the first translator of the bible into English (Wycliffe), crushed his bones and had them scattered in a river. They then burned John Hus at the stake with Wycliffe translations as kindling. They also burned people for even praying in English. So I think given the Catholic Church's vested interest in controlling society by keeping their own translation of the bible in Latin that only their priests could read (thus allowing them to interpret it even further in their own way), is hardly a reason to believe whatever version of a "history" of bible translations they choose to portray.


King James was well known to be gay, and he was actually known by "Queen James" in court gossip at the time, records even hail his ascendence to the throne

He had a long term relationship with George Villiers who he often referred to as his 'wife'.

Your overplayed theatrical 'disgust' doesn't stand in lieu of a rational argument.


Yes they do, see above. Also this isn't about changing anything, it is about looking at the older texts and removing bias that has been added most notably by the Catholic Church in the middle ages, with their excessive manipulation of the whole religion leading to civil wars and the reformation.

The Catholic Church isn't the only ones to translate the bible. No I'm not related. But what's next, are they going to say Jesus was gay? They probably will attempt that though.

...King James's critics ask: isn't it true that King James publicly kissed men on the cheek and called men affectionate names like darling and sweetheart? Didn't men routinely sleep at night in his bed? Didn't King James often lean on male members of the royal household? These allegations are true. Similar evidence is also used by modem homosexual activists to assert that William Shakespeare (a contemporary of King James) was a homosexual. But this is all a misreading of the customs of the time.

...Assassination of royalty was a common event and it was a customary thing for kings to have bodyguards sleep in their bed. No one accuses the promiscuous, womanizer, Henry VIII of being anything but a heterosexual. Yet he routinely slept with bodyguards in the royal bed. King James survived two kidnappings and four violent attempts on his life. Such experiences did nothing to cause King James to break with the normal procedure of always keeping his bodyguards close at hand. In sharing his bed with royal bodyguards, King James was only following the normal practice of the royalty of his time. (http://baptistbecause.com/Tracts/kingjames.htm)

The homosexual community just wants to make whats seen as a sin to most Christians normal in the bible.

Here is an perfectly worded reply to the whole "King James was gay" thing I found on Yahoo! Answers:
Despite this obvious bias, historians continue to consult the writings of Anthony Weldon who intimated that King James had inordinate affections towards other men--but he did not do this until 25 years after King James was dead and could not defend himself. Today's homosexual community is touting the King as one of their own, which he was not. These misinformed sources, virtually without exception, fail to mention that King James and his Queen had nine children together. You can read an excellently researched book on the subject by Stephen Coston, Sr. entitled, King James: Unjustly Accused?.

Almost prophetically, the king wrote of his enemies:

"They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."

Here's a bunch of translations that mention homosexuality in an accumulation of different translations:

New International Version (©1984)
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

English Standard Version (©2001)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

International Standard Version (©2012)
You are not to have sexual relations with a male as you would with a woman. It's detestable."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.

American King James Version
You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

American Standard Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Darby Bible Translation
And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.

English Revised Version
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Webster's Bible Translation
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

World English Bible
"'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.

Young's Literal Translation
And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.

And here is another good reply I found on Yahoo! Answers about Christianity and homosexuality:

http://carm.org/homosexuality
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/se…

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often, but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. But, it also goes against the created order of God who made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It is, therefore, a contradiction to God's stated desire in the created order.

Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it - and support it. This judgment is simple in that those who practice it are given over to their passions - which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27).

As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. They will not seek forgiveness. They will die in their sins. They will face God's holy condemnation. But, that isn't all. In addition to the judgment of being given over to their sin, those involved in it also promote it and condemn others who don't approve of their behavior.

"...and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them," (Rom. 1:32).

So, in their hearty approval of homosexuality they encourage others to be trapped in their sinfulness. They will not trust in Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell. But, we don't want this for anyone.


He made an excellent point about the Adam and Eve part, there was also another post that made a good point about the following scripture:
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.



So of course, if someone is gay, they cannot re-populate. And that proves that Gods intention was Man and Woman.


The Catholic Church wasn't the only religion, or they weren't the only people to translate the bible. Many other people translated the bible word for word. The Catholic Church wasn't the only religion or church around at that time...

[Gigablue]

Good. It's about time. The bible is a very hateful book, and any attempts to change that should be welcomed. There is no valid reason to oppose homosexuality, so the fact that other bible translations do is irrelevant. Also, the bible has been translated so many times, once more doesn't really make a difference.

[TigerBoy]

So your refutation is copy pasta from a baptist site and yahoo answers? Clearly you don't understand "authority of source". It doesn't surprise me that there are those in the religious community who will deny it, as they do so much else.

King James sexuality is a matter of record in documents such as the one I quoted (and how do you explain away that comment, incidentally?) It is also the conclusion of respected historians.

Whether or not you agree, you are still missing the point that there are documented references to "Queen James", which supports naming a gay-friendly bible after a figure who historical evidence shows was gay.


Now to address the preposterous and unfounded nonsense you quoted:
...King James's critics ask: isn't it true that King James publicly kissed men on the cheek and called men affectionate names like darling and sweetheart?
And "wife". Are we seriously expected to believe that "wife" is an ambiguous term of 'customary' affection? And how about we address the 'customary' affections in his love letters?


I desire only to live in the world for your sake, and I had rather live banished in any part of the world with you, than live a sorrowful widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.
King James to Buckingham
It was not "customary" to refer to your male friend as "child and wife". This is clearly the language of an older and more dominant lover to his younger counterpart.

And what of James' letters back:
"I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had"
Which other parts, one wonders?

Similar evidence is also used by modem homosexual activists to assert that William Shakespeare (a contemporary of King James) was a homosexual. But this is all a misreading of the customs of the time.
It was also "customary" to share a bed with your lovers, then as now. Neglecting that possibility is to misread custom.


...Assassination of royalty was a common event [...] In sharing his bed with royal bodyguards, King James was only following the normal practice of the royalty of his time.
The entire argument in favour of 'custom' is predicated on the assumption that someone sharing your bed is your bodyguard. Where is the evidence that Shakespeare needed bodyguards? If they were not bodyguards in his bed, who were they? For that matter where is the evidence that any British royalty routinely slept with bodyguards who were not lovers?

I also note that this is precisely the OPPOSITE argument for the one used by bigots to imply that the original word "arsenokoites" (a compound of "men" and "beds") refers to homosexuals in Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. I note that those same scholars don't try to imply that this was a case of those men sharing beds being 'bodyguards' rather than nasty homosexuals. Hypocrisy and muddy thinking are ever the companions of bigotry.

As a King James biographer put it:
In sexual matters, it is generally better to assume the obvious, unless there is some very good reason to think otherwise.
Lady Antonia Fraser
In other words, instead of stretching our credulity it is a lot easier to assume that someone sharing your bed is far more likely to be a lover than a "bodyguard", especially when that someone is a Duke rather than a manservant.


The homosexual community just wants to make whats seen as a sin to most Christians normal in the bible.

No, it already is normal. It is bigots who hide behind religion who try to make it otherwise.

Here is an perfectly worded reply to the whole "King James was gay" thing I found on Yahoo! Answers:
Putting aside the laughable matter of quoting yahoo answers, the fact that a king had heirs with his queen speaks of duty, not sexuality. There are plenty of gay dads out there even today, many of whom married out of duty only to come out later in life. The only endorsements I can find of that out-of-print work referenced are from religious sources, incidentally. Far from being authoritative, it seems a lonely and rather desperate attempt to rewrite history.

When you have attempted to explain the quotation I already gave you, perhaps you'd care to share your interpretation of the testimony of Sir John Oglander to the Privy Council:
The King is wonderous passionate, a lover of his favourites beyond the love of men to women. He is the chastest prince for women that ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favourites, especially Buckingham.


Can you also explain why, in 1623, Théophile de Viau wrote a poem in which he stated:

And it is well known that the King of England
Fucks the Duke of Buckingham.

Or lets take Francis Osborne's opinion:
In wanton looks and wanton gestures they [James and Buckingham] exceeded any part of womankind. The kissing them after so lascivious a mode in public and upon the theatre, as it were, of the world prompted many to imagine some things done in the tyring house [i.e. attiring or dressing room] that exceed my expression no less than they do my experience.

There is more, but whether or not you chose to see what is obvious to historians, the fact remains there is good precedent to refer to "Queen James", which was the original point.


Edit:
In reference to the tracts of quotes you just added that claim to condemn homosexuality, I have already refuted (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=161649) all those passages of the bible you previously raised. Repeating further translations that vary from the original does not alter the matter, nor does quoting opinion pieces. Your opinions are NOT the only ones in matters of translation, and preaching bigotry here without rational basis is neither relevant nor welcome.

[Danny_boi 16]

I'm sorry, I really see no point in this bible. Bibles change throughout the centuries and we just have to live with that. But I see this book to be a joke, kinda, its complete satire. But that's probably the point. I'm a catholic and I don't need the bible to make my choices about how I feel about the LGBTQ community. Just taking out a few lines will do nothing, don't dilute oneself into thinking otherwise.

[Jupiter]

I don't like this. Your not supposed to change the bible to fit different people or their needs.

Do you know that older bibles had so many different books that were cut out by early christians because they didn't like them?


If the bible condemns homosexuality, you shouldn't go about trying to change it. If the bible condemns liars, you shouldn't try to change it to fit your lifestyle. If you disagree with some parts, then you disagree, but you shouldn't change it to fit your lifestyle.
It does. It really does condemn liars. You know what i don't get? How you can be so ignorant to say that "nah we shouldn't change it just cuz some people are offended" then say "oh yeah i go to church every week" or like "i read the bible everyday." This bible that we read and these churches are nothing like olden day churches that there were.

That's not the point of the bible. No matter what, the bible is going to offend someone.
Then why are you so butthurt about them changing it? If someone is always going to be offended, then why the hell are you so surprised when it offends you? You obviously have no idea what it's like to be told you're going to hell just because of parts in the bible that they may or may not have misinterpreted.

Some parts offend me. But I am not gonna go about trying to change the offensive parts.
But whattttttttttttttttttttttttt. Yes, we get that you are offended. Everything offends you.

The name itself mocks King James, which is sickening. I find this disgustingly offensive.

The Jews mocked Jesus as he was dying on the cross, should you find that offensive? God why do you take everything so personally. I mean, who cares if it makes them happier. I mean, it's not like god was like WRITE WHAT I SAY OR ELSE. For what I know, the authors of the books in the bible (ie. Matthew, Mark, Luke) were not God. It was just their account of the gospel.

[TigerBoy]

I'm sorry, I really see no point in this bible. Bibles change throughout the centuries and we just have to live with that. But I see this book to be a joke, kinda, its complete satire. But that's probably the point. I'm a catholic and I don't need the bible to make my choices about how I feel about the LGBTQ community. Just taking out a few lines will do nothing, don't dilute oneself into thinking otherwise.

It is certainly not a satire, it is a translation with academic justification for that translation (and not omission as you falsely claim), which is more than can be said for many translations out there. Belittling it simply because you don't like the sound of it on the basis of (apparently) zero research simply makes you seem foolish and bigoted.

[Danny_boi 16]

It is certainly not a satire, it is a translation with academic justification for that translation (and not omission as you falsely claim), which is more than can be said for many translations out there. Belittling it simply because you don't like the sound of it on the basis of (apparently) zero research simply makes you seem foolish and bigoted.

I'm sorry, I just don't see a point in such a bible. It really means nothing to me and I say that as a member in the LGBTQ community. I don't get it.

[TigerBoy]

I'm sorry, I just don't see a point in such a bible. It really means nothing to me and I say that as a member in the LGBTQ community. I don't get it.

Well for that matter I'm agnostic, so it really doesn't matter to me personally either. My support of it is simply out of a sense of fair play.

Queer Christians (and indeed all Christians) are perfectly entitled to academically justified translations that remove bias that was demonstrably added in relatively recently in the Bible's history.

All bibles already have bias and interpretation, none more so than the Catholic church's own Latin translation which was greatly condemned for its inaccuracy and bias by many academics when they went back to the original greek (such as the Oxford professor Thomas Linacre in the 1490s).

[nick]

Good. It's about time. The bible is a very hateful book, and any attempts to change that should be welcomed. There is no valid reason to oppose homosexuality, so the fact that other bible translations do is irrelevant. Also, the bible has been translated so many times, once more doesn't really make a difference.
That's OK if the differences can genuinely be put down to translation, but that's not my impression of what is implied here. Changing the texts to suit an agenda is a whole different ball game.

I'm gay and Christian. If some scholar of ancient Hebrew is suggesting that all the anti gay statements have been wrongly translated then I have yet to hear of that. So it's more relevant and important to accept what is written but to argue over how it should be interpreted today.

If we followed all old testament law the world would be a strange, and a worse place. Few of us really accept "an eye for an eye" any more.

[Bharris13]

The bible should not be altered in a way that changes the message put across.

[TigerBoy]

That's OK if the differences can genuinely be put down to translation, but that's not my impression of what is implied here. Changing the texts to suit an agenda is a whole different ball game.

Translation is exactly what this is about as I have stated already, with academic support for those translations that have more rational basis than many bible versions historically. If you get some other impression I don't think you can have read this thread very closely.

This has more to do with translation of the Greek of the new testament as I alluded previously and very little to do with the Hebrew of the Old testament due to the lack of relevance of the Old Law. I refer you to the points I made in another thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=161649) on the precise passages that are taken as speaking against homosexuality : as you will see there are perfectly sound academic rejections of every single one of them. These points are not newly created, they are simply being used here to create a new complete bible translation for the first time.


So it's more relevant and important to accept what is written but to argue over how it should be interpreted today.
Aside from having disproven the premise you base this conclusion on, exactly where is "written" that which you wish to accept so blindly? In which of the 100 odd English translations do you invest such trust, and why ignore the 99 others that claim to have the correct version? You would be better to look at the original Greek (and Hebrew if you wish) as other scholars have done.


Just cause someone does like something that's been there for thousands of years doesn't mean they should just change it cause it hurts their feelings
Just because the Church has been saying the world was flat or the sun revolved around the earth for a few thousand years didn't make that right either.


Not everything offends me, just when they Change stuff in the bible to suit their life style. Yes, I know that there were older books that were taken out, which was over a thousand years ago. They were taken out due to historical error and error in general. Since I like stealing, I should change the bible so that it doesn't condemn stealing, I should make the words a little more 'friendly' for thieves. Cause you know how hurtful it is to hear the bible is against stealing. As already pointed out the Catholic Church has already translated the bible to suit itself and then gone round burning people at the stake for calling them out on it: you have no grounds to claim to have a problem when "they change stuff in the bible to suit their life style" if that change is to remove the crap the Catholics and other bigots put in.


The LGBTQ community should change the bible even further and make Jesus gay, just to make them feel better (although groups throughout history never had a problem with the bible and decided to change it).

Why would that make anyone feel better? There is a big difference between scholarly support for a translational interpretation and adding information that has no support. That would be silly.


The bible wasn't made to not offend people. The bible wasn't made to fit everyone's lifestyle.

Who's talking about lifestyles? Lifestyles are driving fast cars or hanging out with the emo kids.

Here is what a very well known theologian says about homosexuality:
Gods view of homosexuality (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-69/gods-view-of-homosexuality-part-1)
He has studied the bible, front to back for over 50+ years. Your probably not gonna take the time to listen. But there ya go
Rather than continuing to copy and paste others' arguments as a proxy for your own lack of one, I suggest you try to address points that have already been made to you to refute your earlier specific claims. We all know there are bigoted bible thumpers out there who hate gays so you get no credit for finding another one.

I have previously shown you refutations for all the homophobic interpretations of the bible. If you have anything new to add, lets hear it.

[Jupiter]

Just cause someone does like something that's been there for thousands of years doesn't mean they should just change it cause it hurts their feelings.
Incest, stoning, "release the vicious man eating lion" shall I go on about things that were there for thousands of years but turned into more of a fantasy thing/ taboo?


And I never said I go to church or read the bible every week.

Never said you did.

Not everything offends me,

Really? I can't tell. I mean all the time I see you talking ab-- that's not what this about. Stay on track, Eric.

[...] just when they Change stuff in the bible to suit their life style. Yes, I know that there were older books that were taken out, which was over a thousand years ago. They were taken out due to historical error and error in general.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? There was an error in the BIBLE? THEY WERE TAKEN OUT BECAUSE OF ERROR. this makes so little sense to what you mean now.. i mean you're saying that it's god's word, yet there was error and then you go onto say that all the things in the bible now are true and should not be changed because it would take away the meaning of what it was originally supposed to be.


Since I like stealing, I should change the bible so that it doesn't condemn stealing, I should make the words a little more 'friendly' for thieves. Cause you know how hurtful it is to hear the bible is against stealing.

ok. that's fine with me. i just won't read that bible. (do you see how easy that is?


The LGBTQ community should change the bible even further and make Jesus gay, just to make them feel better (although groups throughout history never had a problem with the bible and decided to change it).
NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that was dumb because who the hell said that jesus was even gay? i mean, changing it to make it more "gay friendly" so to speak has nothing to do with changing any of the characters. that's like saying in your new stealing bible that we should make joseph an kleptomaniac, because it really doesn't mean anything.

And yes, I know exactly how it feels to be told I'm going to hell. But I'm not changing the bible because of the reasons I'm going to hell.

So are you saying that gays go to hell?

The bible wasn't made to not offend people. The bible wasn't made to fit everyone's lifestyle.

yes. yes it was. but it was also made to fit their lifestyles around.. oh ya know.. 6 thousand years ago.

Here is what a very well known theologian says about homosexuality:
Gods view of homosexuality (http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-69/gods-view-of-homosexuality-part-1)

He has studied the bible, front to back for over 50+ years. Your probably not gonna take the time to listen. But there ya go

well why should i when it comes from someone who says Your probably not
what about my probably not? and why do i own a probably not?

Overall, you shouldn't change the bible to fit your life. The bible wasn't made for that. The bible says what God thinks is wrong (including homosexuality [which is proven in the video], murderers, liars, thrives, effiminate, etc).

[Jupiter]

You didn't quote all I said, I said you probably won't take the time to listen to it.

According to the bible, and most every theologian, gays don't go to heaven. According to the bible. Just listen to that video, that will tell you where the bible stands on homosexuality.

thank the fuck of you for telling me, just like everyother bigot that i'm going to hell.

i'm done.

[Noirtier]

You didn't quote all I said, I said you probably won't take the time to listen to it.

According to the bible, and most every theologian, gays don't go to heaven. According to the bible. Just listen to that video, that will tell you where the bible stands on homosexuality.

Tell me the verses in the New Testament that you're referring to saying that gays go to hell.

[Jupiter]

I'm done. Just listen to the video link I posted.

you didn't even answer his question

[Jupiter]

The video I posted will answer his question. I'm done. People obviously can't handle what the bible says, especially when I'm getting neg repped left and right.

maybe because we don't want to watch a video. we want to debate, as this is ramblings of the (notso) wise

[Jupiter]

Nice to know. I'm not gonna debate with people that neg rep me.

why?

[TigerBoy]

Nice to know. I'm not gonna debate with people that neg rep me. You wanted to know what the bible says about it, you can listen. I'm not gonna 'debate' with people who neg rep others for answers they don't like. It's not even considered a debate, it's considered "I don't like your response, so I will neg rep you" if you want an actual debate, then don't neg rep.
I haven't neg repped ya so don't let it stop you :P

The video I posted will answer his question. I'm done. People obviously can't handle what the bible says, especially when I'm getting neg repped left and right.
Step back a second and ask yourself why should we go listen to some guy bang his chops? That isn't debating, that's just lazy. If he makes any points that are new to this debate (or the other one I've referred to) you can raise them yourself, then we can debate them. Maybe someone learns something that way, its all good.

[Bigdon]

I personaly think they should no change the bible. It says it is a sin to lay down with another man, and it is a sin.

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a
detestable sin"

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense"

The Bible shouldn't be changed to please a group of people, it should be what was originally written.

[TigerBoy]

The Bible shouldn't be changed to please a group of people, it should be what was originally written.

Indeed? Then you need to go read Leviticus in the original Hebrew to get it right, because what you are quoting is already changed to please a group of people by being in English. And when you've done that, you'd best learn Greek so you can read all the bits in the New Testament that explain why the Old Law recorded in Leviticus is in fact obsolete (EG Hebrews 8:13).

You should also ask yourself why you would choose to quote a bunch of obsolete stuff that advocates death for people here, and just how that makes them feel towards you. Hint - not very friendly.

[ImCoolBeans]

Removing posts in a debate after you get disproven or somebody says something you don't like kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think...? I think when posts start getting removed by the poster it's safe to claim your victory :P

[FreeFall]

In my opinion, this new bible is the most harmless thing ever. So they change a few verses. In my eyes, that's much safer than the way most extremists interpret them.
Different strokes for different folks right? The verses can have stayed the exact same for 50 years, but yet, each year there can be over a dozen ways people have taken the meaning from it. Current one; Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. My mother takes that to mean women should love and devote themselves to their husbands as much as they do God. I take that to mean, when he wants something do it because if you don't, fear him like you fear god's wrath. My grandmother takes that to mean be the equal to your husband like god had intended when Eve was created and walk to god together.
People can twist a verse to fit their needs. I've seen many religious people twist the bible and faith to suit their needs. I've been to 3 different churches, and heard each pastor their give a different meaning to the same verse.

My point is, unless you're living by the edition of the scripture you have, it's safe to assume the words in there have shifted from their original print past the original meaning. As far as I know, the bible only speaks of homosexuals. People have interpreted it to mean to condemn them, others have taken it to mean nothing more than the mentioning of same sex relationships. I have no personal opinion on the bible per say, but I lean to the latter of my assumptions.
In the end as long as they love god, live by god, love their religion and feel secure and comfortable in it, where's the harm?

Edit: My grammar, was awful.

[Sir Suomi]

Well, I guess it was bound to happen. What are they going to add next? Flying unicorns?
-_- No further comments.

[TigerBoy]

Well, I guess it was bound to happen. What are they going to add next? Flying unicorns?
-_- No further comments.

That would be silly as has already been pointed out (some people even used big writing for the slow of reading, but I guess you missed that). This is about translating with academic justification, not making stuff up.

But if it's silly you want ...


http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/103-The-Bible-Talking-Donkeys.jpg

[Sir Suomi]

That would be silly as has already been pointed out (some people even used big writing for the slow of reading, but I guess you missed that). This is about translating with academic justification, not making stuff up.

But if it's silly you want ...


image (http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/103-The-Bible-Talking-Donkeys.jpg)

I was actually just kind of browsing through the threads quickly, and saw this post, read the first 3-4 posts, and decided just to post that. I'm too tired to read all the comments. :yawn:

[Zenos]

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. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

[CharlieFinley]

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. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

Eight verses in a book of thousands that has a whole lot of ground to cover. Now, I don't think homosexuality is a sin, but wow. Your argument is a complete non-starter. Also, it's wrong.

EDIT: It's a good thing I don't actually care about my rep power, because wow. A lot of people seem to take exception to my opinions.

[Emerald Dream]

I don't think it matters what kind of version of the Bible is released nowadays.

After years and years of re-translations and re-transcriptions (over and over and over...) I'm fairly certain that any Bible that exists nowadays is not what was originally intended as "the word of God," and may even be blasphemous in itself.

Might as well screw with it. It's wrong anyways.