The Berean's Desk: Handling the Word of God Deceitfully

If you are not already aware, the homosexual community has come out with their own per-version of the King James Bible, which they have dubbed the Queen James Bible, apparently because of the "obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as 'Queen James' because of his many gay lovers."

The editors of this per-version claim they did not remove the "offending" verses, but that, "We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations. We made changes to eight verses." First of all, there are no so-called "homophobic" interpretations; only precise interpretations of the exact words of Scripture. Second of all, the homosexual community is offended by these verses because these verses speak the truth. They should be offended. It lets them know that they do not have the truth. We can see evidence of this simply by reading 2 Corinthians 4:1-2:

"Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

Let us look at the eight verses that the homosexual community has deceitfully altered with dishonest craftiness in order to suit their own corrupt interpretations:

Genesis 19:5
KJV: "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."
QJV: "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 rape and humiliate them." (Page 21)
The words "rape and humiliate them" are nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew or the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The homosexual community is eisegeting this passage, making it say what they want it to say despite the clear evidence to the contrary. The Hebrew word translated "know" is yada (יךע), which, amongst its various meanings, means "to know a person sexually" (Gen. 4:1; 19:5; 1 Kings 1:4). If rape was truly the issue here, then the men of Sodom would have had no problem raping the two women Lot offered to them instead. Rape is rape. The fact they did not want the women, but desired the men, informs us that homosexuality is in view here. The word "men" in verse 4 is the Hebrew אנושׁ, which is an entirely masculine noun meaning man. In the Septuagint, it is the Greek ανηρ, which again is an entirely masculine noun meaning man or husband. There were no women involved here.

Leviticus 18:22
KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."
QJV: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination." (Page 75)
The words "in the temple of Molech" do not exist anywhere in the original Hebrew or the Greek translation, the Septuagint. The homosexual community is adding to the Word of God what they want to be there—not what is there naturally. Likewise, these words are nowhere to be found in the Latin Vulgate either: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est." Notice the word "coitu"? It means "coupling"; i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language) is that of homosexuality. It does not matter where it is done, whether a temple, a monastery, a bedroom, or a closet. Homosexuality is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
KJV: "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."
QJV: "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." (Page 76)
Once again, the words "in the temple of Molech" do not exist anywhere in the original Hebrew or the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Again, the homosexual community is adding to the Word of God what they want to be there—not what is there naturally. Interestingly enough, these words are also nowhere to be found in the Latin Vulgate: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos." Once again, we have the word "coitu," which means "sexual intercourse." But we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps." The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language), yet again, is that of homosexuality.

Romans 1:26
KJV: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their nature."
QJV: "_____ Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another." (Page 545)
The blank area at the beginning of the verse indicates something that is missing from this verse, something key to the context and exegetical interpretation thereof. The underlined text does not belong to verse 26; it belongs to verse 27. Furthermore, there is no word for "ritual" in the original Greek passage. The word for "lust" is the Greek orexis (ορεξις), which means "the excitement of the mind; desire." It is always the reaching out after an object with the purpose of drawing it to oneself and appropriating it. Anyone who reads these two verses (26-27) in any Bible translation (Wycliffe to King James, Revised Standard to English Standard, or any other language) will come to the simple exegetical conclusion that it is speaking about female and male homosexuality. The language and description cannot get much clearer. Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote:
"If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty."¹

Romans 1:27
KJV: "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."
QJV: "_____ 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." (Page 545)
Once again, the blank area at the beginning of the verse indicates something that is missing from this verse. The underlined text does not belong to verse 27; it belongs to verse 26. However, the word "idolators" does not appear in the original Greek for verse 26. Furthermore, the words "pagan and" are not in the original Greek passage. The homosexual community has attempted to re-construct these verses in an effort to get rid of the crystal clear condemnation of homosexual practice that is described thereby. Again, anyone who reads these two verses (26-27) in any Bible translation (Wycliffe to King James, Revised Standard to English Standard, or any other language) will come to the simple exegetical conclusion that it is speaking about female and male homosexuality. The language and description cannot get much clearer.

1 Corinthians 6:9
KJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."
QJV: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous." (Page 554)
Neither the term "morally weak" nor the term "promiscuous" are accurate translations of the Greek words μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται (although homosexuals could be accurately described as "morally weak," since their actions go against all morality). Figuratively, μαλακοι means "effeminate" (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who make themselves out to be women), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. There are those who argue that μαλακοι means "soft" (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as "soft". The question would arise, "Soft what?" Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:

soft, soft to the touch

metaph. in a bad sense

effeminate

of a catamite

of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

of a male prostitute

We will address the word αρσενοκοιται in the next passage, since it is found both here and there.

1 Timothy 1:10
KJV: "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."
QJV: "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." (Page 575)
As you can see, the homosexual community has deliberately removed the words "with mankind" that complete the description derived from the Greek word used, which we find in the 1530 Tyndale Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and the 1611 King James Version. The 1380 Wycliffe Bible has "they that do lechery with men." Letchery is offensive sexual desire; lustfulness. The 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bibles have it rendered more accurately and correctly with "buggerers," which, of course, means Sodomites, which means homosexuals. Kenneth Wuest in his The New Testament: An Expanded Translation renders this word "sodomites." The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means "a male bed partner" or "a man who lies in bed with another male—a homosexual, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men." Interestingly enough, Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, uses these root words side-by-side: αρσενος κοιτην.

Jude 1:7
KJV: "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."
QJV: "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." (Page 593)
The word "nonhuman" is not even remotely an adequate translation of the Greek word heteros (ετερας). This rendering here by the homosexual community utterly contradicts the interpretation they gave to Genesis 19:5. The phrase translated "strange flesh" is σαρκος ετερας, which has the meaning of going after flesh unnatural to them, i.e., outside the moral law. Where do we find this moral law? Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

In all the above verses, you can see how the homosexual community is guilty of breaking the things 2 Corinthians 4:1-2 says ought not to be done. While the homosexual community has been deceitfully dishonest and crafty with their "editing" of their so-called "Bible," all the ancient commentaries on these eight passages interpret them as having to do with homosexuality. So how is the homosexual community going to claim "homophobic" interpretation when 2,000 years ago the exact same interpretation was being given? Let us look as some of them:

"The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind." —Philo (Emphasis mine.)

"As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment." —Flavius Josephus (Emphasis mine.)

"But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination." —Methodius (Emphasis mine.)

"They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion." —St. Basil (Emphasis mine.)

"Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust." —St. Augustine (Emphasis mine.)

In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, St. John Chrysostom wrote:

"ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical." (Emphasis mine.)

The website for the Queen James Bible makes the false claim that homosexuality was first mentioned in the 1946 Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this—only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

First of all, eight verses is more than enough to prove that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, if there were only one verse in all of Scripture condemning homosexuality, it would be enough. The Bible only has to say something once for it to be true. Second of all, these people clearly have not done their homework if they think no versions of the Bible prior to 1946 addressed homosexuality. The word "homosexual" may not have appeared in earlier versions, but that does not change a thing. In the Geneva Bibles you find the word "buggerer," which is the same as the word "somodite," which is homosexuality. If you want biblical answers to many of their corrupt arguments, might I suggest these blog entries:

It does not matter whether they claim it is male-on-male rape, male-on-male prostitution, or pederasty; it does not matter the age difference involved; it does not matter with which brush they attempt to paint it, it is still homosexuality. A male raping another male is homosexuality. A male prostituting himself out to other males is homosexuality. An older male having sexual relations with a younger male is homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is unnatural. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a moral perversion and bankruptcy of human nature and sexuality. Homosexuality is condemned by God.

¹ Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Handling the Word of God Deceitfully