214 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

A book claiming to be the world's first 'gay bible' has been published to coincide with the debate on same-sex marriage.

Titled the 'Queen James Bible', its editors claim that it is a re-working of the King James Bible translated in a way that 'prevents homophobic misinterpretation of God's Word'.

'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', the book's official website said.

http://www.dailymail...-sentences.html

[pallidin]

"Queen James Bible" Hahahahahah !!!!!

Classic.

Edited by pallidin, 17 December 2012 - 08:08 PM.

[Arbitran]

No anti-homosexual passages in the Bible until 1946? That's bull****. In that case, they must have only added Leviticus and the writings of Paul in the 40s...

[ealdwita]

Can't wait for the PC edition of the Q'uran!

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Still Waters, on 17 December 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

A book claiming to be the world's first 'gay bible' has been published to coincide with the debate on same-sex marriage.

Titled the 'Queen James Bible', its editors claim that it is a re-working of the King James Bible translated in a way that 'prevents homophobic misinterpretation of God's Word'.

well, that's apprporiate in some ways, considering King James's fondness for a young man with a nice codpiece.

[Hasina]

Pardon me for saying but I think

[Sean93]

This is Hilarious - Queen James Bible. Haha. They're celebrating it too, check out this video here at 2.51, they're positively thrilled.

[Zaphod222]

Still Waters, on 17 December 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

A book claiming to be the world's first 'gay bible' has been published to coincide with the debate on same-sex marriage.

Titled the 'Queen James Bible', its editors claim that it is a re-working of the King James Bible translated in a way that 'prevents homophobic misinterpretation of God's Word'.

'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', the book's official website said.

http://www.dailymail...-sentences.html

Yeah, well, big deal. As if it took any courage to produce a gay bible.

Now lets see if a publisher dares to come out with gay koran... and have his business burnt down.

I am not holding my breath.

The "gay community" complaining about Christianity is so barking up the wrong tree.

[Frank Merton]

I think anyone with an open mind going out to the internet to see the discussions by pro-gay web sites of the texts usually quoted as anti-homosexual can see that the biases against both gays and witches were introduced via questionable translations and some cases and by stupid interpretations in others.

The ancient world, including the Hebrews, had no concept of homosexuality as such.  They condemned temple prostitution, which sometimes had a homosexual component in the offerings, and some Bible authors (Paul comes to mind) were clearly uncomfortable about their own sexuality.  Pre-scientific societies tend to recognize the existence of transsexuals but not of the more ordinary homosexual who typically is able to hide his or her inclinations.

[libstaK]

Why do they feel the need for a "Queen James" Bible?  There was no historical figure by the name of Queen James, it's mockery and ridicule of what many hold sacred as far as I'm concerned.  They are just making themselves look silly.

[Knight Of Shadows]

what a captivating name !

[Frank Merton]

libstaK, on 05 February 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Why do they feel the need for a "Queen James" Bible?  There was no historical figure by the name of Queen James, it's mockery and ridicule of what many hold sacred as far as I'm concerned.  They are just making themselves look silly.

Maybe a little silly, but I think the idea is to take some of the sting out of words like "queen" by using them in such ways.  They've done much the same thing with "queer" rather successfully.  I think it's a better tactic than trying to get the use banned.

[libstaK]

Frank Merton, on 05 February 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Maybe a little silly, but I think the idea is to take some of the sting out of words like "queen" by using them in such ways.  They've done much the same thing with "queer" rather successfully.  I think it's a better tactic than trying to get the use banned.

Gay pride I can understand and respect but I still think this is flamebaiting those who do not see things as they do.

[Beckys_Mom]

libstaK, on 05 February 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Gay pride I can understand and respect but I still think this is flamebaiting those who do not see things as they do.

Even if it were, it is nothing compared to what the King James bible says about them, nor is it as bad compared to the hate and abuse they get from many religious people  ( including others ) over time for just being gay.. So calling it a Queen James bible might look like a mockery, but I say fair play to them..I see it more as a statement, taking a stand.. If they were to re-write the bible  to suit themselves, we can't say that has not been done before.. King James did it, so why not a Queen James?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 05 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Frank Merton]

libstaK, on 05 February 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Gay pride I can understand and respect but I still think this is flamebaiting those who do not see things as they do.

Well of course it is.  In Britain after an extensive campaign the words "retard" and "spastic" have been turned into totally banned expressions, even in hyperbolic or humorous use.  A man cannot refer to his mistake as, "What a retarded thing for me to do," without giving serious offense.  I rarely get to Britain and so was not aware of this, and learned the hard way.

When a word comes to be used insultingly, the way to deal with it is to take out the stinger, not kill the bee.