Introducing The Queen James Bible

There is now a Gay Bible. It’s a thing.

It is not (as I fervently hoped) a reexamination of the relationships of the twelve disciples. Rather, it’s a sincere re-wording of the anti-gay passages from the King James Bible.

The best part?  It’s called The Queen James Bible.

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!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Because I grew up in a secular household, I have always been baffled by… well, many things about religion.  But one thing that has always been confusing to me is how people cherry-pick verses and attempt to cram the words of the Bible into their own interpretation of it. It always seems to result in circular logic:

  • The Bible is the one true word of God
  • There are some things in the Bible that I disagree with. (Condoning rape/murder, the subjugation of women, the whole ”no blended fabrics” thing, etc)
  • The Bible was translated by humans and is therefore flawed/The Bible was written in a different time/The Bible is an allegory
  • Then why should we listen to anything the Bible has to say?
  • Because the Bible is the one true word of God

My point being, it’s evident that people pick and chose which parts of the Bible they are going to follow, and I don’t know why all of the anti-gay stuff should be followed while the murder/slavery/rape passages should be condemned.

So, cool, I guess?  I don’t know, I have a hard time believing anyone who uses the Bible as a way to justify their homophobia is going to get on board with anyone’s reinterpretation of the Bible, let alone one with a big rainbow cross on the front.

In case you’re wondering, here’s a list of the verses they changed:

1. Genesis 19:5

KJV: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

QJV: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them. (Page 21)

2. Leviticus 18:22

KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

QJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. (Page 75)

3. Leviticus 20:13

KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

QJV: If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Page 76)

4. Romans 1:26

KJV: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their nature.

QJV: Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another. (Page 545)

5. Romans 1:27

KJV: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

QJV: Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (Page 545)

6. 1 Corinthians 6:9

KJV: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

QJV: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous. (Page 554)

7. 1 Corinthians 6:10

KJV: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

QJV: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (Page 554)

8. 1 Timothy 1:10

KJV: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

QJV: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. (Page 575)

9. Jude 1:7

KJV: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

QJV: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Page 593)

More details regarding The Queen James Bible, including an explanation of changed verses can be found here.

(Via Buzzfeed)

About Jessica Bluemke

Jessica Bluemke grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and graduated from Ball State University in 2008 with a BA in Literature. She currently works as a writer and resides on the North side of Chicago.

  • Brian Scott

    Oy gevalt.

    Wouldn’t it be of more, how do you say, feasible framing to realise the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity are the works of people set in certain historical context and that their purported revelatory nature is not guaranteed and, thus, acceptance of the validity of revealed claims is not required?

    • Houndentenor

       This is what happens when people are ready to let go of some of their religious beliefs but not quite ready to let go of their belief in belief.  I used to glomm onto things like this: rationalizations trying to make it sound like the Bible doesn’t say what it really says.  In a few cases there’s a point.  I spend a lot of time translating texts from other languages into English and those who have never had to do this really ought to be required to at some point, especially if they ever wish to speak authoritatively about texts that were not composed in modern English.  Not only do some words not translate, but often even the concept communicated by those words has no equivalent in the other language.  That said, it’s rather obvious that the authors of the Bible considered sex outside of marriage to be a serious sin and there’s not much getting around that.  The answer is to either admit that you don’t believe most of what it says or live your life according to a bronze age text.  Be forewarned, it’s not going to be much fun taking it literally.  Ask someone raised in an Orthodox Jewish household if you don’t believe me.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

        in terms of marketing, this is probably the sort of person this buybull is aimed at. being pro-gay is all the rage these days, and it’s unsurprising to witness a group of bible sellers jumping on that bandwagon. 40$ for a few changed lines, when 000s of versions are available online for free? yeah, a sucker is born every minute. 

  • daryl carpenter

    I’ve always thought it rather wonderful that the King James Bible bears the name of a massively gay English/Scottish monarch. It’s strange that fundamentalists never seem to notice that. 

  • jose

    Um, isn’t there a passage in Revelation that says essentially “you better not change anything in this book or you’re in big trouble”?

    Anyway, yeah, just a clear example of how people create God in their own image.

    • CelticWhisper

       Easily fixed.  Just get some pencilneck from an ISP or Telco’s legal department to write a counter-passage saying “we may change the contents of your bible at any time with no advance notice, you give up your right to a class-action suit, blah blah blah” and let the lawyers and the clergy slug the shit out of each other for centuries over it.

      Meanwhile, while it’s mired in legal proceedings, interpret to your heart’s content!

    • Kengi

      The passage is generally interpreted to mean that no one should remove any passages from the “book”. Whether the “book” means Revelations or any part of the Bible is also up to interpretation. Either way, unless you read the various books in their original languages, translation inherently means interpretation, so Bible scholars generally don’t take that passage to mean “don’t change anything”…

      • psych46

        ‘translation inherently means interpretation’. While it’s true that the books of the Bible were not written to the 21st Century Church, they were written FOR it; and the CHURCH has 2000 years of interpretation of its Holy Scriptures to consult. Furthermore, not just anyone can presume to take up the Bible and read believing that he can correctly interpret what is written. Only those filled with the Holy Spirit of God are likely with all the aids now available to arrive at a plausible interpretation. For Christians, at the heart of the Scriptures stands Jesus CHRIST, Messiah who accepts fully the Old Testament and chooses disciples and apostles who then write the New Testament. Jesus is the linchpin of the whole of the Christian Faith.

        BTW, your credibility re Biblical knowledge is suspect when you fail to get the spelling of the book of Revelation correct. It’s not RevelationS but Revelation. Just one complete Revelation given to the apostle John.

        • Kengi

          Your credibility regarding any knowledge is suspect when you randomly capitalize entire words. But that was a great job spewing random nonsense! Do you have a Holy Spirit of God gauge on your body telling you when you are full of it?

          • psych46

             The capitalisation is to help people who obviously need it to follow a cogent argument and see where emphasis is meant. I notice that you argue with abuse. I’m sorry that you feel reduced to doing this in the face of what I have presented. A wise person would take the correction and learn from it. Why so aggressive? I am only trying to instruct you and so improve your life. Second, the Christian church is a community of believers. The Spirit of God dwells in all Christian believers that is the promise of Scripture. It doesn’t grant infallibility to any individual but not just anyone has the qualifications to read the Scriptures correctly. The Word of God expressly says that those outside the Church cannot understand the things of the Spirit because they are ‘spiritually discerned’.

            • Kengi

              Allow me to APPLY your METHOD of argument.

              The FLYING Spaghetti Monster fills ME, and not just anyone LIKE you with the Spirit of The Sauce allowing me to MAGICALLY discern the TRUE meaning of ANYONE’S religious texts.

              The HOLY FSM is the ONLY entity in the UNIVERSE with the power to do so. The Word of the FSM can’t be understood by you, a pagan non-believer, but, BLESSED by His Spirit, I’m allowed to fully UNDERSTAND the TRUE meaning of the Christian Bible better than any OTHER Christian.

        • frustratedbythelackoflogic

          Wow are you full of it. Do you not see all the discrepancies? Can you not comprehend all the multitude of holes in your precious bible? Whether interpreted by a ‘religious scholar’ or not? How is it that you can continue to see your bible as the word of God when in its very conception it was flawed by human thinking and planning.  Even should there be a one true God rather than dozens or none at all (have you seen how many religious texts there are?), it is highly doubtful that the bible is a correct interpretation.

        • matt

          “Furthermore, not just anyone can presume to take up the Bible and read
          believing that he can correctly interpret what is written.”

          Why not?  Don’t you think a god who is all knowing/powerful and supposedly loves everyone would make it easily understandable?  Why would He/She/It inspire something so deceitful?

        • Leatherneck001

          What you describe sounds a lot like “peer review.”

        • emmywell

          There is no need for any argument or for anybody to fight over anything!Those that are supporting the Gay bible issue and condemning the authenticity of the Holy Bible are pursuing a cause so also are those that hold the Holy Bible in high esteem.But for one thing,nobody can try that with the Holy Quoran.Till today Salman Rushie is still in hiding for writing Satanic Verses.People should fear God,that Christians maintain peace does not mean that they are cowards.

      • JohnnieCanuck

        There’s no ‘s’ in Revelation.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    Yet they didn’t change the bit about cross dressing. The Queen James Bible does not accept Drag Queens.

    The woman shall not wear
    that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s
    garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. (Deut 22:5)

    • Helanna

      I mean, on the plus side, it also doesn’t seem to accept women wearing, say, pants, so at least it’s being sexist towards *everyone*! 

  • WoodyTanaka

    This is really pathetic.  Rather than simply accepting the fact that the Jewish and Christian religions are gay-hating systems, they’re deceving themselves into thinking that it’s just someone’s wrong “interpretation.”  How pathetic. 

    Give up the woobie!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

      That’s just the thing, it’s ALL someone’s wrong interpretation. About EVERYTHING. In short the religion, it’s ‘holy texts’ and priests – all of it – is just a load of rubbish and bollocks.

    • Jim Jones

       Leviticus IS a wrong interpretation. The actual verse says, “And with a man you shall not lie lyings of a woman”. No one knows what this means, however the best guess is that it means that incest between males is prohibited where it would be prohibited between male and female. Thus, since mother son sex is prohibited so is father son sex.

      Also, it is not an ‘abomination’. It is toevah, an unclean act to be repaired with a mikveh. (You can look all of this up online).

      But this bible should be called the Queer King James version, since he was England’s gayest King.

      • Tim

        “But this bible should be called the Queer King James version, since he was England’s gayest King”

        “Queen James” was a nickname used for King James VI/I in his own lifetime on account of his gay- or bisexuality-ness, although presumably not to his face.

  • Gus Snarp

    The answer to all the evil in the Bible, not just the anti-gay verses, is to throw the whole damned book out, and all it’s promoters with it.

  • C Peterson

    I agree with others about the pointlessness of reinterpreting a book with passages written by people who opposed homosexuality. It is the entire book that lacks relevance in today’s world; re-writing a few passages changes nothing.

    Also a bit concerning: the QJB page that describes the changes makes a couple of references  to the book of “Revelations”- an amateurish mistake if ever there was one, which really serves to diminish my faith in the competence of the editors!

  • Chris B.

    While they’re at it, when can we get a Bible with all of the verses condemning adultery, drunkenness, and fornication taken out?

  • Question Everything

    It’s often interesting to see reinterpretations of verses.  That’s one fun thing about online bibles, seeing various versions of the same text, and why the translated it in different ways.  I don’t believe in it, but it’s fascinating to see when, where, and why it changed.

    Being a retranslation with specific intent (removing homophobic lines) over another retranslation, however, doesn’t seem that useful.  I could retranslate the NKJ to remove/change all instances of ‘slave’, but that doesn’t make it any more ‘original’, or even useful.  It’d just be me changing words to be less about slavery.

    • Pseudonym

      Being a retranslation with specific intent (removing homophobic lines)
      over another retranslation, however, doesn’t seem that useful.

      I agree with you. It seems bizarre just to edit a few verses in the KJV rather than put then in context.

      Here’s the thing that most people in this thread don’t seem to get, though: Those “homophobic” passages in the Bible were, themselves, edited in when the Bible was translated into English. The translators and editors wrote the English versions of those passages using the lens of their own contemporary prejudices.

      It’s always been thus. The NIV translators, notoriously, turned the homophobia every so slightly up. The QJB editors are just doing what everyone has always done: spinning a historic document to suit their own agenda.

  • LesterBallard

    Did they change the patriarchal oppressiveness? They god sanctioned slaughter of innocents, including children? “Cause those are my favorite parts.

  • InvincibleIronyMan

    Frankly, this whole thing seems like an exercise in duplicity. The problem is not what the Bible says, but that people view it through the eyes of faith and take it as some kind of authority. It’s just a book, and no more authoritative than any other book, considerably less so than many. One does it no favors by making it say what we want it to say. There are limits to how much one can do this before we are no longer dealing with the Bible but a new, original creation. It is as well for the authors of this little exercise that the Bible says little enough about homosexuality that they can make these changes without rewriting it wholesale. Just try doing this exercise with slavery instead of homosexuality, and you’ll see what I mean. 

    I am reminded of the time I accompanied my friend to pick up his six-year-old son from school. Stepping into the classroom I saw a book of Bible Stories for Children. I picked it up and started leafing through it, and I came to the part where Moses comes down the mountain to find the Hebrews worshiping a golden calf. It said “God was very angry!”. Compare this with the Bible:

    Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

    What is this other than blatant dishonesty? The God of the Old Testament is made throughout to look like a kindly father figure in order to sell religion to children, when if you go to the Bible, which is supposed to be the final authority on these matters, he comes across as a bloodthirsty, vengeful bully.A good translation of the Bible should reflect what was in the source manuscript. This is essential if we are to understand the Bible for what it really is, which is embodied history. Studying it is practicing archaeology with words instead of trowels. We can’t do this if the Bible is twisted this way and that to say what we wish it to say, and any true value we may have had out of it is lost with the meaning. We should be sad and ashamed if that is allowed to happen.

    This exercise is as suspect morally as it is historically. Homosexuality is not immoral despite what the Bible says, not because of it. It is a fact that our morality has improved over the last three-thousand or so years. We should be proud of that fact, not pretend embarrasedly that we didn’t once condone slavery, burn witches and put our neighbors to the sword. Moral philosophy has advanced from the list-based morality of our ancestors, based on the arbitrary whims of some imagined deity. Gays should be proud that they have in many ways been at the forefront of this moral advance instead of retreating to a morality based on holy writ and pretending that the Bible wasn’t instrumental in keeping homophobic attitudes entrenched in society for centuries. To say it was all just some kind of silly misunderstanding cheapens the memory of the millions of homosexuals who died at the sharp end of religious persecution.

    • Nancyfrankandjoe

      Flat yes to all of this post.

  • MM

    While agree that Christians are on the wrong side of this subject, I think too many atheists fundamentally misunderstand how Christians view the Old Testament.  Too many times I see atheists, usually ones raised in non-religious households (yes, I’m talking about Jessica here, no offense though) say things like “well, the bible says not to mix fabrics, but Christians don’t follow that rule, so therefore Christianity is invalid.”  The thing is, Christians don’t follow the OT because they believe it wasn’t written for them.  For Christians, it’s history, not “this is how you should live.”  The reason is that Jesus supposedly came to fulfill the law, so peeps in the OT were “saved” by living according to the law, but God realized this was dumb and sent Jesus so he could die on the cross and then people just had to believe in Jesus rather than sacrifice animals or whatever.  Christians that are well-versed in this nuance generally don’t cite the OT on issues of morality and atheists who try to use this line of argument come off looking a bit foolish.

    Of course, I don’t mean to say that Christians aren’t deeply misguided here…sure, the NT frees them from the legalistic shit in the Pentateuch (how convenient), but the fact of the matter is that they worship a god that reportedly did some seriously fucked up shit, particularly in the OT, but they turn around and say “God is great, he did that all because he is perfect and his ways are beyond us.”

    • Gus Snarp

      Are you sure you’re reading or hearing the arguments correctly? Because I rarely, if ever, see ”well, the bible says not to mix fabrics, but Christians don’t follow that rule, so therefore Christianity is invalid.”

      What I do see is Christians arguing that the Bible condemns homosexuality, often specifically citing Leviticus, and that this is their justification for opposing marriage equality and for defending their right to bully gay people. Usually comments about shellfish and mixing fabrics are directly aimed at this argument. In other words, what we say is:

      You’re claiming that you oppose marriage equality because Leviticus condemns homosexuality, but Leviticus also condemns the eating of shellfish, the wearing of fabric blends, and the wearing of tattoos, all of which you participate in without considering them sins, so you are being inconsistent and Leviticus cannot possibly be a reasonable justification for homophobia.

      If we wanted to use the selective following of rules in the Bible to say all of Christianity was inconsistent, we could just as easily turn to Paul’s Epistles, which have rules that directly contradict one another, making a much stronger case. But that’s still not the argument we use to say that Christianity is invalid. That argument is that the Bible is simply not a reliable historical, let alone scientific, source. Nothing it says can be trusted to be true and an appeal to it is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Since that’s all Christianity has, Christianity is invalid.

      Most atheists know full well that there are many different kinds of Christianity, and that they all have different theology and Biblical interpretations. Arguments from Leviticus are made to challenge arguments from Leviticus, nothing more.

    • Kengi

      Generally, atheists only respond with the mixed fabric and shellfish lines in response to Christians who trot out the Levitican laws about homosexuality as being proof of God’s disapproval of gay people, so it’s the Christians who are foolish in that case.

      Also, I’ve never understood the “it’s just history” excuse for keeping part of the Torah in their holy book. They kept not just the history section of the Torah, but also the law section. If the laws no longer applied, then why keep that section (but not others) of the Torah in their holy book?

      I’ve also never heard a reasonable theological explanation for why they get to ignore the old laws even though Jesus supposedly told them specifically not to.

      Of course in terms of anthropology it makes much more sense. When you are selling a new monotheistic religion to a Roman population of polytheists who rejected Judaism because of rules like having to cut the tip of your penis off, it’s very convenient to be able to tell people “Oh, you don’t have to follow THAT rules in OUR new religion!”

      In some ways marketing hasn’t changed in thousands of years…

    • Gus Snarp

      In the specific case of Jessica’s post here, blended fabrics is only one in a list of inconsistencies that argues against the Bible being the one true word of God, not an argument that Christianity is invalid.

  • tychobrahesbladder

    I read the article title and sighed… then I read the article… and sighed…

  • rg57

    I’m not impressed.  The interpretations of #1 might even have just been made worse!  These folks need to stop “helping”.

    Books have been removed from the Bible before. The whole thing is essentially the work of committee.  Even today, Wikipedia tell me “Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon”.

    If liberal Christians want to avoid the bigot label, they need to remove bigotry from their holiest book (or identify it as such within the text).  But when they do this for LGBT people, perhaps they might want to also include women, pagans, atheists, Jews, and slaves.

    It’s a lot of work.  Much easier to just walk free of religious nonsense.

  • Ida Know

    I’ve had theist friends tell me that the verses about gay sex being an abomination and that people who have gay sex should be put to death were meant to apply only to cases where it was *harmful*, such as child molestation or rape.

    Of course I immediately thought, “Funny, that qualification has never been in any version of the bible I’m aware of, but if it is and I missed it somehow, how come none of the homophobic wingnuts ever seem to have read that bit?”  But being pathologically nonconfrontational and wanting to get back to the original subject of the conversation (whatever it was), I clammed up as usual and let it pass. *sigh*

    • Nancyfrankandjoe

      Which brings the point of all the times people are justified in heterosexual harm from consent issues to incest (like sarai) in the Bible.

      • Nancyfrankandjoe

        (And there’s always legitimate consent issues beyond rape cases in the Bible because of the dated culture of women as chattel, child grooming and so forth).

  • Baby_Raptor

    There’ve been several attempts to ‘translate away’  the issue. I’ve heard arguments that claim that Paul was mistranslated and that he really spoke of pedophilia. And there’s another group that claims “Do not lie with a man as you would a woman” merely means don’t treat your male sex partners like property as you do your vagina owning ones. 

    For a book that so many people claim is SO EASY to understand if you “just read it,” there are a lot of ways to mess it up…

  • Corby Ziesman

    This is just kind of sad to me. But anyway whats this Temple of Molech?

    “Hey you kids can’t be having sex in here, this is the Temple of Molech!” … “No, it’s ok, we’re having straight sex not gay sex.” … “Carry on then!”

    Or… “Hey no gay sex in the Temple of Molech!” … “Ok, we’ll go do it outside.” … “Thank you!”
    Somewhere, someone felt divinely inspired and actually believes this is the REAL meaning.

    • Chris

       Yep, I don’t know abouty this Molech. Is it supposed to be the same thing as the pagan god Moloch? Sex is often seen as a ritual act. So (if this revised translation is accurate) it might be another way to mean: don’t go messing with other gods.

      • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

        And that begs the question… what’s wrong with other gods? There are plenty of people in our society who worship non-biblical deities. If the Bible says there’s something wrong with following another religion, that’s not inclusive or accepting, either.

        • Nancyfrankandjoe

          Isn’t the romans 1:27 verse saying god made people do each other because they worshiped another god? So…it’s okay total force non-consentual sex if it’s just pagans! How lovin’!

          • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

            Good point! I don’t think the biblical deity would have much of a problem with that. After all, he didn’t ask Mary for her consent before he impregnated her.

            • JEWS ARE BLACK

              Joseph got Mary pregnant. Study the scriptures

              • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

                Since the whole thing is a myth, it hardly matters, but that’s not what most Christians believe. They believe their god impregnated Mary.

            • Rick2013

              QJ”B”:Another attempt from the devil to steal souls! I’m just happy to know that what God says is true;Indeed,He had already warned us about this (cf Revelation).
              They should just give up.Even though they change the word of God( add things like “Homosexuality is no allowed”),we stil have the Spirit of our heavenly Father that will make the difference.
              I repeat it:The QJB is NOTHING but another attempt from the devil to steal soul!!! If you are not sure about it,read Revelation,please!
              I’m crying for you at this very moment…don’t believe any single word from this “new version”! Homosexuality is and will always be condemned by our Holy God!!

              • Rick2013

                (ad things like “homosexuality is ALLOWED”),sorry!

            • Rick2013

              add*

  • psych46

    ‘My point being, it’s evident that people pick and chose which parts of
    the Bible they are going to follow, and I don’t know why all of the
    anti-gay stuff should be followed while the murder/slavery/rape passages
    should be condemned.’

    Well some people might but which sophisticated theologians have you talked with lately about the matter? It’s not a matter of picking and choosing on an INDIVIDUAL basis as you imply. Most Christians, in fact, are part of a tradition. The Roman and Orthodox Church traditions claim to go back to at least the early centuries after Christ. So this question has been settled for them long again and they make up a larger part of Christendom.

    I’m not part of these two traditions but along with them I would argue that there is continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The OT is primarily about the People from whom the Messiah, Jesus is to be born; the NT is primarily about the Lord Jesus Messiah and his Church which is made up of Jews and Gentiles.

    The people of the OT were an actual nation with borders while the Church has no borders and is international coming from every language, tribe and tongue. So although certain commandments and precepts are common to OT Israel and the NT Church, many things are not.

    No cherry-picking needs to be done although it has sometimes, I’ll admit, been hard for the Church in some parts of the world to know what is God’s will as in slavery in the US and in the UK. Though the Church in those places did have maj0r champions for the ending of slavery, views they held against the majority of the society of the time in Britain (e.g., William Wilberforce).

    However, homosexuality is much more black and white for the Church. First, it has a 2000-year history that condemns homosexuality and homosexual marriage was hardly an option even in the secular West until 30 years again. (The non-Christian East/Middle East hardly seems eager to embrace what the West wants to do either.)

    Second, when the Church looks back to the OT and particularly to the very beginnings of its authoritative revelation in Genesis, the male and female pair are the archetype forming the image of God. AND it’s about Adam and Eve that Jesus himself, the greatest authority for the Christian faith, quotes in the question of marriage and divorce.

    Now of course none of this cuts any mustard with those who are not Christians; I understand that.

    But my challenge to atheists is to ask, how do you justify your adoption of the scientific method or reason as your source of ‘truth’? You complain of Christians, Jessica, arguing in a circle but you also do the same thing! “I believe scientific reason gives truth because science tells me, so or because of all the wonderful technology (products) it has produced, or whatever.” Philosophically that argument will not do to establish the objectivity of your position. When it comes down to it, you believe in scientific reason because you believe in it. AND, we humans are all in the same boat with respect to that so it is not a criticism of you; just an observation of all human starting points. We all begin assuming something is true because for us, for our family, friends, group, it’s accepted as such. No argument can establish it; rather it is the point from which we begin to argue and reason.

    • Brian Scott

      For truth: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

      In other words, reason is useful for finding out truth if it’s useful for finding out truth. This isn’t arbitrary: again, reason, logic, etc. are methodologies and their proficiency and utility in discerning how the world works is a testament to their power. Incidentally, this is why the Pope’s earlier comments and your insinuation about “reason” arguing against homosexuality are baseless: the precepts you use (male and female from the beginning, blah blah) are not part of reason: they are teleological errors based in a prejudice rising from a non-reasoned position (faith).
      In response to one of your earlier comments, I have already cussed someone else out earlier for it, but a) I’m feeling more judicious and b) you don’t strike me as overly malicious/browbeating… yet, so I will inform you that trying to lock out atheists by asserting only those that agree with the scriptures can interpret it is… very poor thinking, at best. If you can’t allow someone to argue to criticise your ideas, at least while insisting they apply universally (which Christian tradition does), then you have literally argued yourself out of relevance. You’re no longer playing the game, you’re just preaching.

      So if you personally do not believe an atheist can have legitimate say in what Scripture was intended to mean (at least to those who wrote it, given Yaweh has not been shown as a possible agent) then leave, because you are not arguing in good faith or charity.

  • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

    I hate these kinds of things because they’re still giving the Bible authority that it doesn’t deserve. If the Bible is anti-gay, that’s one more reason to consider the text immoral. The anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-genocide verses are just as bad, and Christians try to explain them away because they want so desperately to believe that the book has some special moral authority. Instead of viewing the Bible’s pronouncements as irrelevant, they still insist on giving the book power not only over their own lives, but the lives of everyone else in our society, too.

  • WoodwindsRock

    The real problem is that being against homosexuality has nothing to do with what the Bible says, in reality. They claim it’s a “deeply held religious” belief, but that’s only so the society which has been ‘trained’ for thousands of years to hold the utmost respect for beliefs that are religious won’t look down upon them. Their irrational prejudice gets accepted all too easily.

    And that is one major reason I want organized religion knocked off of its podium.

  • The Other Weirdo

    Wow! An incredible feat, something on the order of replacing a broken door handle after blowing the engine. What a waste of time. 

  • Troglodyke

    I have to admit, as a lesbian, I am flummoxed by how so many of my gay peers feel the need to be accepted by Christians, and to be Christian.

    As so many others have said here: don’t rearrange the words in the book. Cast it aside completely. Live your own life, and stop trying to fit into a religion that condemns you. It may not be easy to take that step, but nothing worth having is easy.

    But, you say you like Christ’s message, and all the lovey-dovey stuff, and that’s why you’re a Xtian? There are plenty of philosophers and philosophies that you can follow that will give you the same feeling, all without needing to profess belief in a supernatural being.

    It’s true that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but the vast majority of his “followers” don’t let that stop them from hating it anyway.

  • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

    And another thing, where do these people get the idea that the writers of the Bible would have been affirming of same-sex relationships? Even if they hadn’t written down explicit prohibitions, living in the time and place that they did, is there any reason to suspect that they would have been totally cool with men having sex with men and women having sex with women?

    • Nancyfrankandjoe

      Beyond accepting homosexual acts, where would they fathom marriage equality? Everyone would probably be alarmed by the idea of comitted gay couples and parents…

  • Kaydenpat

    I’m sure that Christians who are accepting of their gay brothers and sisters will appreciate this new version.  

  • Topkaris

    All is set for the appearance of the Antichrist and the great tribulation. The mass delusion has taken place. The mass rejection of God, of Christ and of the Bible is here with us. The celebration of blasphemy, and of rebellion, and the deification of man is in full swing.

    There is no stopping the process now, for scriptures must be fulfilled. The Book of Revelation clearly says that even when God starts visiting the earth with His wrath and judgment, the people would still remain recalcitrant in their sins and judgment. By the time people see themselves in hell fire on that day, being tormented by the same demons that deceived them, repentance would have been too late. You can still turn to the Lord today, when He may still be found.

    Will this site publish my comment?

  • Ani J. Sharmin

    I find it odd when people think they’ve fixed or sufficiently reinterpreted the Bible by offering a different meaning for the anti-gay verses. What about all the other horrible things in it?

  • JEWS ARE BLACK

    You don’t have to believe in the KJV Bible. America is broke and is headed toward destruction by the hand of the Lord anyway. I laugh at the downfalling of this place. America is so confused that it doesn’t even have a clue on how to survive. Goodbye America! Your end is come. Ha ha ha

  • Mason Minell

    Please keep me updated to when they’ll release The Book of Gay Mormon, sooo looking forward to that lol

  • Levi

    Doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not but it’s a fact that Sodom and Gomorrha came to an end. However, you will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire if you do not repent and change. It has already begun. Taste the starters now.

    KJV: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roberto.schuim Roberto Schuim

    NEXT: Marriage between a Man and a Woman will be not only unpopular but also illegal. It’s a matter of time.

  • Mariah

    Their is not much a difference! both versions seem to be pretty much the same! The Gay Bible still seems to reject Homosexuality still! If your going to create a gay bible than you would have to completly change the whole scripture then replace it!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X