Reader comments · San Francisco: Gay-friendly ‘Queen James’ Bible launched · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


San Francisco: Gay-friendly ‘Queen James’ Bible launched

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A re-edited Book of Fiction –

    evolved humans don’t care what this story book has to say

    Society condemns gays not a mythic sky god!!!

    1. Staircase2 13 Dec 2012, 7:37pm

      Not true

      That’s like saying ‘evolved’ countries don’t care about what Terrorists have to say; bloody nonsense.

      A) if you believe Christianity has got it wrong how are you going to know unless you understand their source
      B) unless you read and understand that source how can you make a valid case against it?

      It’s all very well to use that fcvking irritating phrase ‘mythic sky god’ or ‘sky pixies’ or wherever other phrases everyone is currently slavishly copying from the lips of Richard bloody Dawkins, but it doesn’t an argument make (nor, ironically, a scientific one at that!)

      1. Calm down it’s just an argument. Countries cannot evolve they don’t have genes.

        If we had a convincing source we could examine it but i don’t think anything was written down until long after Jesus(If he existed, again no evidence) died. There were many people we know of who were alive during jesus supposed lifetime who were writing about the times, yet none of them mentioned all these incredible things that were happening just down the road in the very advanced roman empire, where news travelled fast.

        I find religion just as fcking irritating and have more valid reasons for doing so than you have for being irritated by facts shown by Richard Dawkins to be patently obviously true.

        Sky pixies actually have just as much evidence to support them as christianity does. The simple fact that more people believe in something doesn’t make it a fact.

      2. What source? It’s a collection of Jewish stories which are then added to by a collection of stories from a rebellious Judaic sect (written a long time after the main character’s supposed death by people that weren’t alive at the time) based on a character only mentioned in passing by two historians who were born a long time after he supposedly died which was then chopped up, changed and edited to fit in with Roman law and political policy and has since been translated and re-interpreted countless times. At this point it makes as much sense as using Game of Thrones as a religious text – the characters have just as much evidence to have existed.

        The origin of Gods and religions is well understood, it’s a huge part of the field of Sociology.

        1. At least they’re willing to edit what their religious texts say though, i’ll give them that. It removes whatever scraps of credibility it may have had and reveals it to be entirely fictitious but hey, at least the lies are becoming a bit more pleasant. The British Islamic bodies should take note.

    2. LOL. What makes you think religion will disappear any time soon?

  2. Where can I purchase this?

    1. Disney world. Next to the LION KIng.

      1. Well, Jesus is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah so quite a good description.


  3. Oh oh that’s put the cat among the pigeons!!

  4. Staircase2 13 Dec 2012, 7:32pm

    I’m not sure from the Pink News article exactly what this is about to be honest.

    It appears to be saying that the Bible never mentioned homosexuality until 1946 which seems a bit odd given, as it says, Leviticus was written a long long time ago and the King James Version of the Bible was finished (according to Wikipedia) in 1611.

    I’m far more interested in comparative translations which demonstrate how much political influence has been brought to bare in choosing specific words to twist meaning.

    1. Good luck. So many lies for so many hundreds of years, you don’t stand any chance.

    2. Leviticus does not mention homosexuals, ther trext that is often mistranslated in nfact is iuncomplete, there are holes in the text it makes no sense without inserttions, what it says is “a male with another male may not lay lyings of a woman” nobody today can know what this means or what this is condemning, is it men lying together in a womans sacred bed? is it two men lying with one woman in a menage a trois?, is it proscribing wrong same sex acts of ritual worship? Nobody knows, it’s convenient for some to give the text a homophobic interpretation thoiugh homosexuality per se is almost certainly not what is being condemned in Leviticus. certainly the mid 19th Century word “homosexual” is profoundly misleading when inserted into any Bible translation.

      1. Excuse spelling glitches, first sentence should read
        “Leviticus does not mention homosexuals, the text that is often mistranslated in fact is incomplete, there are holes in the text and it makes no sense without insertions, “

  5. File under “gay”

  6. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” I really can’t see why this is treated as an condemnation of homosexuality. All it seems to be saying is ‘don’t stick your penis in your boyfriend’s vagina, and vice-versa’, which I wouldn’t really have a problem complying with….

    1. David Turner - Baptist Pastor 13 Dec 2012, 9:34pm

      I also hope he translates Gen 19:4-5 “All the people from every part of the city of Sodom …Where are the people…?” and then used consistently throughout that passage. Hebrew is enowsh which has been translated as “people” in dozens of places eg Ex 10:7 “Let the people go”. Why do translators insist it MUST be men in Gen19? Only one verse says the sins of Sodom were sexual -Jude 7. The Gk is sarkos heteras, translated perverts. sarkos = “flesh” we get our word “heterosexual from “heteras”. The Bible clearly says the sexual sins of Sodom were heterosexual, not homosexual. There isn’t one verse that says that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality or that it even occurred there. If you find one please tell me.

      1. Don Harrison 17 Dec 2012, 3:05pm

        Well said David, when will this homophobic world learn this.

  7. The Bible condemns sex acts only. The concept of homosexuality was not known until the late 19th C.

  8. King James was quoted as having said to Parliament:

    “Christ had his John, and I have my George.”

  9. Good luck with that. All of the arguments saying the bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality sound so convoluted. It’s so simple. It was written long ago by by people whose primitive society is more or less irrelevant to ours. Menstruating women need to hide. Sacrifice your own son. Burning bush. Magic tricks with fish and bread. And wine. Rotting corpse comes to life. Jesus wept!
    Sorry, a gay bible is just as pathetic as the real one.

  10. Nice try; but the translations are just wrong. Conventional translations such as NIV and NASB are more accurate.

  11. the word homosexual only came into use in the mid 19th Century, the use of this word in a Bible translation is extremely misleading, there are no descriptions of homosexuals nor homosexuality per se in the original text, what is described there are either ritual same sex acts of worship condemned as wrong worship, orother abusive same sex acts. there is no attempt made by homophobes to distinguish between these and loving consenting same sex acts and relationshiops.
    The anti-gay position of the church is not backed up by an honest interpretation of scripture.

  12. Rollann McCleary 16 Dec 2012, 8:07am

    This version only alters 8 verses which isn’t too much. There always were a few more things involved in fully grasping what the Bible does say about the “homosexuality” word it never uses. What Jesus thought about for example what today we call homophobia is hidden in plain sight, never properly translated in the Sermon on the Mount. Christians need to reflect more deeply on all this, actually there’s quite a lot to discover.
    See YouTube talk
    “Gay…..Christians, Marriage, Jesus?”

  13. there is a serious problem with this.first of all NOBODY should chamge a single word in the Bible.worse is that is selling ilussion wich is the job of the devil and worst of all is that is keeping everybody in a big lie wich can lead to horrible events.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.