It would be a pity if this thread degenerated into a rather mundane discussion of who thinks that homosexuality is neat and who thinks it not. Econo's "it says what its translators and editors wanted it to say" is of course both to the point and at the same time is intended (I believe) to (a) criticise all non QJV versions of the Bible and (b) to implicitly support a new contradiction of all other Bibles. But he has addressed the issue and I'd like to contribute to that point.
The existence or otherwise of the English word “homosexual” prior to 1800 – or in Bible translations prior to 1946 – is irrelevant. Smart people such as posters (sucking up) here should recognize that straw man argument because the entire English language did not exist when the books of the Bible were written.
Likewise to ‘re-translate’ the King James Version which is itself a defective English translation, is poor scholarship. But the QJV is not a translation at all – it is merely an English language reinterpretation of an English translation.
The debate over Biblical translation should confine itself to the Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek words and how they are to be understood using the words of modern languages. The QJV goes to extreme lengths to offer novel and extremely complicated interpretative arguments to show that the words do not mean what the words say but in fact mean what the “translators” of the QJV want them to mean.
Regarding the QJV translation of the English “know” in Gen 19, one argument against interpreting the Hebrew word to mean “to be acquainted with” applies also to the QJVs “rape and humiliate”:
Notice that Lot describes his daughters as women who "have not known" a man. Obviously this implies sexual intercourse and does not mean "to be acquainted with." It is unlikely that the first use of the word "to know" differs from the second use of the word. Both times the word "to know" should be translated "to have intercourse with." This is the only consistent translation for the passage.
http://bible.org/article/homosexual-theology
It is equally unlikely that Lot wanted to let the crowd know that his daughters had not recently been “raped and humiliated”!
As to the Greek language of the NT, here is an interesting view of the discussion:
The Greek word arsenokoitai (plural form of arsenokoitēs), is typically translated as referring to practicing homosexuals by standard English translations in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This is challenged by those [bold]seeking legitimization of homosexual behaviour[\bold] within Christianity.
http://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/230/
Romans 1:26-27 never uses the word “arsenokoitai” but says:
1:26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 1:27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες
which being translated is:
1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
So here is how the QJV renders the clear Greek of Romans 1:26-27 after a series of interpretative arguments to explain how the words do not actually mean what they say:
26 Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of (sic) the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; 27 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 (sic) of their error which was meet
And this they claim to be “our most major editing, but also one of our most powerfully (sic)
free of interpretive ambiguity; it has been made very clear, yet retains all of the content of the original”. (Emphasis added)
The Queen James website also makes this false claim: “Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there.”
Most English Bible translations are not based on the KJV because of its known errors and because the cleanest source with which to start are the ancient documents that far pre-date the KJV and are in the original languages.
Ironically, the QJV does exactly what it incorrectly accuses other English translations as doing: it bases itself on the KJV and (not erroneously but) purposely adapts its words to support its own agenda.
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
.
