Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Still Waters

World’s first 'gay bible' published

215 posts in this topic

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

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Queen James Bible" Hahahahahah !!!!!

Classic.

Edited by pallidin
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me for saying but I think

tumblr_m3be35GAXp1rtcfaqo1_500.gif

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a captivating name !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If it can achieve that, fair enough. I think the real victory will be when there is no need for such machinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

indeed, and you could add to that the whole concept of "original sin", referring to sex specifically, which was completely the idea of St Augustine.

it always amuses me how much "Christians" attach so much importance to those parts of the Bible that only mention things like this in passing, and about which Jesus had nothing whatsoever to say. it's interesting how little of the things "Christians" argue about so bitterly has to do with what Jesus actually said about anything. Really, I think the Bible coudl really do with some serious editing, to take out the bits that aren't really anything to do with the basic thrust of the story or the actual message of Jesus.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this resent development in atheist thinking, that the idea of homosexuality didn't appear in any Bible until 1946. Its nonsense. Romans 1:27, Young's Literal Translation 1898, Wycliffe Bible 1382, American Standard Versionn 1901, Darby 1890, Douay-Rheims 1899, Geneva Bible 1599,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this resent development in atheist thinking, that the idea of homosexuality didn't appear in any Bible until 1946. Its nonsense. Romans 1:27, Young's Literal Translation 1898, Wycliffe Bible 1382, American Standard Versionn 1901, Darby 1890, Douay-Rheims 1899, Geneva Bible 1599,

That's a straw man. Go to the internet and get yourself with the correct information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article, which was certainly an eye-brow raiser by the way!

I proceeded to amazon.com to see what kind of reviews it has gained.

I won't spoil it for you; however, the reviews were utterly entertaining! Especially the 1 rated stars... which is well pretty much over half of the reviews.

On a more serious note, I will say that this bible is one that will -not- be adorning my bookshelves.

Thanks for the information, OP :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article, which was certainly an eye-brow raiser by the way!

I proceeded to amazon.com to see what kind of reviews it has gained.

I won't spoil it for you; however, the reviews were utterly entertaining! Especially the 1 rated stars... which is well pretty much over half of the reviews.

On a more serious note, I will say that this bible is one that will -not- be adorning my bookshelves.

Thanks for the information, OP :tu:

Why not? I have lots of books I disagree with strongly, including the traditional Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a straw man. Go to the internet and get yourself with the correct information.

The consensus seems to be that the word homosexuality didn't appear in Bibles until 1946. If that is true then it means nothing because you can't get from that that the Bible wasn't making homosexual references or that historically speaking homosexuality wasn't known of in that time. I think it is intellectually dishonest or willful stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the word appears in the Bible today; the thing is that it was the King James Bible that introduced the standard homophobic passages. Look, I'm not an expert in this but I have read persuasive web sites by experts that show that the standard fundamentalist homophobia is not Biblical. If you are open minded you will seek them out.

If it is, then all I can say is that is just another strike against the Bible being something to take as a guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the word appears in the Bible today; the thing is that it was the King James Bible that introduced the standard homophobic passages. Look, I'm not an expert in this but I have read persuasive web sites by experts that show that the standard fundamentalist homophobia is not Biblical. If you are open minded you will seek them out.

If it is, then all I can say is that is just another strike against the Bible being something to take as a guide.

I don't want to seek those websites out because I know that the sentiment isn't correct. As a former practicing homosexual, meaning I am homosexual but no longer practice or engage in homosexual activity due to my beliefs, I can say that I wouldn't be displeased if it were true, but it isn't. It is, I think, a growing attempt to influence the consensus of the uninformed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

They do not have same sex marriages, only marriages with 9 year old girls.

Please do not quote me on the same sex marriage bit as I have not read the koran. the other bit we know does happen.

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.