Download Queen James Bible? by Brett Hickey, sermon #893 1 of 5 Queen

Sermon #893
Queen James Bible?
Challenging someone’s religious practice met at one time with the inspired response of Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let
us reason together…” But today, when discussing straightforward Scriptures on salvation, worship, or
doctrine, one is more likely to say, “That’s just your interpretation.” Admittedly, some passages in the Bible
are difficult; a warning light should go off whenever anyone says, for instance, that the book of Revelation is
easy to understand.
Sincere Bible students acknowledge their relative ignorance. When Philip asked the Ethiopian in Acts 8 if he
understood what he was reading (Isaiah 53), the Ethiopian answered, “How can I except some man guide
me?” He was uncertain about the subject of this Messianic prophecy. Many of Philip’s Jewish
contemporaries would have said, “That’s just your interpretation,” but the fact remains Philip provided the only
correct interpretation – that Jesus was the Messiah.
People suggest in saying, “That’s just your interpretation,” that we cannot know what the Bible teaches on
controversial topics. Others say, “You’ve got to make changes to keep up with the times.” These expressions
of religious tolerance are convenient for those unwilling to reevaluate their belief system. The interpretation
dodge relegates major religious issues to the realm of nebulous gray areas and enables those on the hot
seat in a Bible discussion to breathe a sigh of relief. “You see,” they say, “it really doesn’t matter.”
Unfortunately, many who use this avoidance technique are unwilling or unable to confront the ultimate
consequences of this approach. If everyone looks at every issue this way, where will it lead? What will happen
when others (like their children and grandchildren) apply the same approach to THEIR cherished moral and
religious convictions?
In a recent development in the ongoing proliferation of Bible translations, “the chickens,” as Robert Southey put
it in 1810, “have come home to roost.” When I first read the headline, The Queen James Bible, I assumed it
was a tasteless attempt at humor. As I read on, I realized this translation attempts to eliminate the sinfulness of
homosexuality from Scripture by what the editors call a misinterpretation. More on this attack on
Scripture, after our song…
The timing could not be more favorable for this new “translation.” President Obama became the first U. S.
President to mention gay rights during a Presidential inauguration, saying right after being sworn in, “Our
journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we
are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” During his first
term, President Obama signed the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law on December 22, 2010, that enabled
members of the military to openly express their romantic feelings for those of the same sex. Then, in May,
2012, Obama became the first President to promote the right of gays and lesbians to marry.
More recently in an interview on CBS News (February 5, 2013), President Obama, speaking as honorary
president of the Boy Scouts, urged the Boy Scouts of America to end their ban on gay membership. This
despite the Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) affirming the Boy Scouts’ right to
set their own membership standards.
The President is not acting alone. On May 20th, 2011, a Gallup poll found for the first time that the majority of
Americans (53%) favored legalizing gay marriage (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majorityamericans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx). No matter how receptive the culture may be to homosexuality, this
does not justify the editors of the Queen James Version in altering the Scriptures to cast this sin in a favorable
light. Some people say, “You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.” True, if you pervert and
twist it; if, as with the Queen James Version, you can add words NOT in the text and take away words that are
IN the text. Listen to the boldness of the Editors’ Notes in the Queen James Version:
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality….The Bible is the word of God translated by man.
This…means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive
ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing
interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.
1
Queen James Bible? by Brett Hickey, sermon #893
2 of 5
There are problems with removal of verses:
• It doesn’t address the problem of interpretive ambiguity, it only brushes it under the rug.
• It renders an incomplete Bible.
• Revelation says not to “edit the book,” and people often extend that to mean the entire Bible, not
just the book of Revelation.
We also refused to just say ‘that’s outdated’ and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly
outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them. We wanted our Bible bulletproof from the
ones shooting the bullets.”
The Editors pursued this project aware of the consequences of intentionally mischaracterizing Scripture. The
Editors’ Notes continue: “We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations. We made changes to
eight verses.” We will review the Editors’ claims to see if their changes are justified.
Genesis 19:5
King James Version: “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.”
Queen James Version: "…that we may rape and humiliate them."
The Editors of the Queen James Version replaced the statement, “bring them out…that we may know them”
with “that we may rape and humiliate them.” The Hebrew word translated “know” here means to engage in sex
and it is true these evil men intended to force themselves on these angels appearing as men, but the word
“humiliate” is absent from the original Greek text.
Steve Golden writes in his article on Pro Gay Theology, “Of course, the men of the city did intend to rape Lot’s
guests, and rape is indeed a sinful act. However, if the sin issue in Genesis 19 is rape alone (regardless of
whether it is heterosexual or homosexual), we must ask a similar question as before—why did God destroy
Sodom and Gomorrah for a sin that never actually occurred? The only reasonable answer is that the city was
guilty of regularly participating in homosexual behavior, and the attempt to rape Lot’s guests was just the latest
occurrence.”
The Queen James’ Editors suggest this passage did not condemn homosexual behavior, but rape only. If this
was the only passage on homosexuality, the editors might successfully cloud the issue. When put beside other
Scriptures, however, evidence supports the contention that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom.
In Leviticus 18:22, the editors of the Queen James Version insert the words “in the temple of Molech”
nowhere found in the Hebrew text.
King James Version: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Queen James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an
abomination."
The purpose of inserting this phrase is to remove the stigma from all consensual same-sex intercourse and to
assert the problem God was addressing was merely His frustration with the Jews engaging in idolatrous temple
practices. It WAS sinful to engage in pagan temple rituals as already addressed, but the sin mentioned in
Leviticus 18:22 is homosexual intimacy.
The editors downplayed the meaning of the word abomination associated with homosexual behavior in
Leviticus 18:22; they said an abomination was only something “ritually unclean” or “taboo.” They left the word
abomination in the text, though, because, they said “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
Queen James Bible? by Brett Hickey, sermon #893
3 of 5
death (Leviticus 20:13), it wouldn’t be called an abomination.” The editors had real difficulty in changing this
passage to suit their tastes.
The word towebah translated abomination is defined, “a disgusting thing, abomination… in a ritual sense (of
unclean food, idols, mixed marriages); in an ethical sense (of wickedness, etc).” Neither of these promote the
homosexual agenda. This same word for abomination is found in Proverbs 6:16-19, “These six things doth the
LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed
innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false
witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
Leviticus 20:13 is almost identical to Leviticus 18:22, with the addition of the death penalty for those engaged
in same-sex intercourse.
King James Version: “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.”
Queen James Version: "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."
The solution of the Queen James editors is, once again, to add the phrase “in the temple of Molech” to make it
look like the problem was not homosexuality, but associating with a pagan worship ritual to a false god. Steve
Golden writes, “But the implications of this hermeneutic are severe—incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a
number of other behaviors (mentioned in this passage) would all become acceptable except in the context of
pagan idolatry.” What proves too much proves nothing. The Queen James editors downplay these passages
as outdated, but the New Testament also rebukes this sin.
Romans 1:26-27. The editors admit they did their most aggressive editing here, adding the dubious claim that
it was “also one of our most powerfully free of interpretive ambiguity; it has been made very clear, yet retains
all of the content of the original.” In these two verses, they omit two words, change two words, relocate eight
words and add six words; the additions are the greatest concerns.
King James Version: “….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.”
Queen James Version: “….And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual
lust, one toward another; 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."
In describing their sin, instead of reading, “that the men…burned in their lust one toward another,” the Queen
James says they burned in “RITUAL lust” suggesting the problem involved pagan worship rituals. However, not
only is the word “ritual” not found in this verse in English or Greek, it is never found in the King James Bible
and never found in the New Testament in the New King James Version.
The words “pagan” and “idolaters” are also inserted in this passage, once again, to suggest that the real
problem was not homosexual behavior, but participation in the pagan worship practices. Unfortunately, for
these proponents of homosexuality, neither of these words are found in the original text either. If God wanted
merely to condemn pagan rituals, He could have done so without any mention of men leaving the natural use
of the woman to do with men that which is unseemly.
The changes made in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are straightforward; the word “effeminate” in the King James is
changed to “morally weak” while the phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind” is changed to
“promiscuous.”
Queen James Bible? by Brett Hickey, sermon #893
4 of 5
King James Version: “….Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind… shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Queen James Version: “….Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally
weak, nor promiscuous…shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Zodhiates’ Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, explains that the word translated
“promiscuous” by the Queen James actually is defined, “A man who lies in bed with another male, a
homosexual.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon renders the word, “one who lies with a male as with a female, a
sodomite.” Other authorities come to the same conclusion: Louw and Nida, Liddell and Scott, Friberg, Friberg
and Miller, Brown, Peterson, Balz & Schneider. Where does this word come from? Interestingly, it comes from
the Septuagint, the Greek Translation of the Old Testament of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that refer to men lying
with men as with women.
Instead of defining the other word “morally weak” as does the Queen James, standard lexicons and authorities
of the ancient Greek language define the word as “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse.” Once
again, the claims of this new translation are proven empty.
In 1 Timothy 1:10, the Queen James editors omit the phrase “with mankind” to remove the suggestion of
homosexuality and make it appear that sin is only self-defilement in general.
King James Version: 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;
Queen James Version: "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."
The word in the original Greek, though, is one we noticed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 properly translated
“sodomites” in the New King James Version and Young’s Literal Translation and “homosexuals” in the New
American Standard and Green’s Literal Translation. An accurate translation cannot hide the sin of
homosexuality in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Finally, in Jude 1:7, the editors change only one word to detach the sin of homosexuality from the text.
King James Version: “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.”
Queen James Version: "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."
The words at issue (“strange flesh” – KJV) mean literally “other flesh” and are so rendered by Green’s Literal
Translation. To translate the phrase “nonhuman flesh” is unwarranted. The editors of this rogue translation
offer the following rationale: “Given our clarification of the story of Sodom, we chose to highlight the fact that
the male mob in Sodom raped angels, which is “strange” in that it is nonhuman.” First of all, the editors
misspoke. Although the male mob wanted to rape angels, they were not permitted to do so. Secondly, the male
men thought they were men, not angels. More importantly, Jude isn’t talking about only one incident in one city
as mentioned in Genesis 19:5, but the common behavior of “Sodom, Gomorrha, and the cities about them.” As
scholars have traditionally understood, this is another reference to the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
Remember, God does not hate the homosexual, but the sin of homosexuality.
The next generation is listening to the fast and loose approach many take to salvation, worship, doctrine, and
morals. If it is acceptable to whisk away a Bible teaching we do not like, how can we criticize others for
applying the same standard to Scriptures that we hold dear. Stay with us for a final word, after our song…
Queen James Bible? by Brett Hickey, sermon #893
5 of 5
Thank you for watching Let the Bible Speak. For a free DVD of #893, “Queen James Bible,” call our 800
number or write the address on your screen. We offer our monthly newsletter. Visit LetTheBibleSpeak.com to
watch videos or read transcripts of the program at your convenience. Finally, we echo the sentiment of the
apostle Paul when he wrote in Romans 16:16, “the churches of Christ salute you.” Until next week, goodbye
and God bless.
Are you searching for the truth of God's word and have a sincere desire to learn about the Bible? Do you want to know what the Bible
says about salvation and about Christ and His church? If you are looking for Bible Founded discussion on these topics and many
others, then please accept this invitation to explore "Let the Bible Speak" and then contact us for additional studies.
We are members of the church of Christ as found in the New Testament. We are not members of a denomination or earthly religious
organization. We are a brotherhood of believers, joined by a common bond, Jesus Christ. We try to live and worship following the
patterns found in the New Testament.
(For manuscripts of other sermons visit: www.LetTheBibleSpeak.com)
COPYRIGHT © Let The Bible Speak. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
IMPORTANT COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
Express permission is granted to distribute any video, audio, or transcript of any broadcast message as long as the material is: unedited
and attribution is given to Let The Bible Speak; a hyperlink to LetTheBibleSpeak.com is included for electronic distribution; a text
reference is included to www.LetTheBibleSpeak.com for printed distribution; and the original author receives attribution. An
irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free license for distribution is granted as long as such distribution has the intent of: supporting the
truth as presented; giving glory and honor to God; and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.