The Queen James Bible has been edited to make
homophobic interpretations impossible
—the QJV editor
We now continue, from part 1, part 2 and part 3, considering a new version of the Bible is being published and in a way we Christians should take it as a compliment. The Bible is edited so as to conform to the authority of the homosexuality worldview-religion and is called the Queen James Bible.
If you just want to say, “The Queen James Bible is nonsense” or even “is a godsend” and leave it at that then; do not bother reading this series because we will actually details the issues involved.
We now pick up where we left off in the previous segment, with a consideration of Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13.
But the editor continues:
Next on the path of translation, we see that the pre-KJV Greek versions of Leviticus could have used the Hebrew word “zimah” or Greek “anomia” – words that mean “actual violation of law or a sin,” but notably did not use those words. Anomia was used in pre-KJV Greek translations in the case of child sacrifice, a popular pagan ritual.
So this time the argument is about what word the “pre-KJV Greek versions of Leviticus could have used” with clear reference to the Septuagint aka LXX.
To simply replace “abomination” with “taboo” would only address 18:22, and not the death penalty proposed in 20:13. Furthermore, we don’t believe homosexual relations to be taboo, so that solution would have been unsatisfactory. Since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death like this one leads us to believe there was translative error at some point: If having sex with a man is punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination.
Keep in mind that they are shall we say feigning scholarship by delving into Hebrew but again their honesty shines through. Thus, we learn that the reason for re-writing the text is because, “we don’t believe homosexual relations to be taboo.” Well, yes, that is the very reason for retranslating in the first place.
Next, note that in order to claim mistranslation one would delve into etymology (and again, historical context, grammatical context, cultural context, etc.) yet, the editor’s reason for making the claim is simply that “abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death.” True, but the logical conclusion is that abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death and not that since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death there must be a mistranslation.
The illogic continues as a non sequitur is propose, “If having sex with a man is punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination.” But why not, because “abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death.” But the logical conclusion is that abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death and not that since abominable offenses aren’t all punishable by death this must not have been one of them.
Think of it this way; murder is illegal in the USA and there are states in the USA wherein different degrees of murder carry different punishments so that a third degree murder will carry a prison sentence whilst a first degree may result in capital punishment and yet, they are both “murder.”
So, what is the end result? Did they change “it is an abomination” to “is a ritually unclean, scandalous taboo” or some such thing? No:
Therefore, we left the word abomination as is, and found a much more elegant and logically clear solution to this interpretive ambiguity…
Let us consider the elegant logic:
Context Within Leviticus
Leviticus is a very strict holy code designed to prevent acts associated with pre-Jewish idol worship. Many of the rules concern sexual acts, as most pagan rituals were sexual in nature. One notable and highly condemnable act was having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes. Both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are often referenced by themselves, but to understand the meaning behind the most famous anti-LGBT Bible verses, we looked at their context within Leviticus.
This is true and a good point: most pagan rituals still are sexual in nature and context must be considered:
Leviticus 18 includes a long list of forbidden sexual offenses in the form of incest, from verse 6 (“near of kin” relatives) to verse 18 (your wife’s sister). At verse 19, the sexual offenses are no longer incestuous, simply forbidding sex with a menstruating woman (verse 19) and your neighbor’s wife (verse 20).
True, homosexuality is included in a long list of abominable sexual practices:
Leviticus 18:20 switches to the important topic of pagan idolatry: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.”
Again we must leverage the historical context in which Leviticus was written: Molech is an ancient pagan god, often referred to as “the [the] false god.” Leviticus mentions Molech in several places. Archetypal pagan rituals for worship of Molech included child sacrifice (literally referenced here in verse 20, and which we know was a “zimah,” punishable by death), as well as sex with male temple prostitutes.
In fact, having sex with these male prostitutes in a pagan temple was the most popular form of Molech worship and therefore of “abominable” pagan idolatry.
We assert that Leviticus 18:21 refers to “lying” with these pagan male prostitutes as a form of pagan idolatry. This fits in with the story order of Leviticus, and with the other offenses punishments punishable by death within Leviticus. We therefore change Levticus 18:21 and 20:13 to read as follows:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination. (QJV) (Page 75)
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. (QJV) (Page 76)
So, apparently, homosexuality is acceptable yet, not with a temple prostitute. You can see how their argument plays out, and they may have a point: this particular form of homosexuality is an abominable act capital punishment deserving sin because it goes beyond homosexuality and is tied into idolatrous human sacrificing temple prostitution.
However, what is missed is that the biblical concept of sex is tied in to the biblical concept of marriage and it all goes back to the original marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman. We can know that their marriage was meant as a model because with regards to, within the context of their marriage, they who had no parents, it is stated, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” So there you have it: one man, one woman, not living together until marriage and only then sexually united. Thus, idolatrous human sacrificing temple prostitution or not: homosexuality is a violation of the model of and purpose for sex: reproduction and pleasure within the context of the model marriage or the marriage model.
For more info see:
Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality (White is a pro-homosexuality activist who makes the same exact arguments as the QJV editor).
Much more relevant info at True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.
Books of interest: