Should we revise the King James Bible to get rid of the word "gay"?

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
The Revised Standard Version, which I use, is a revision of the American Standard Version, which I think is a revision of the King James Version. I suspect the new Revised Standard Version is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, and I suspect the New King James Version is a revision of the King James Version.


Hi D. Not entirely true. You are right about the RSV and the ASV, and then the NRSV and the 4 different editions of the ESV too.
But the ASV was NOT a revision of the KJB. It was based on a very different Greek text.

I can give you some concrete examples of how radically different these two streams of texts are if you would like to take a look. The differences number in the thousands of words.


And another change from the ASV to the RSV was that the RSV openly rejected many of the Hebrew readings that even the ASV kept.

Here are the main textual differences between the Reformation text of the KJB and the modern versions like the RSV, NRSV, ASV, ESV, etc.


ESV,=Catholic Part 2
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟201,456.00
Faith
Christian
Should we “revise” the King James Bible to get rid of the word “gay”?



James 2:3 “And ye have respect to him that weareth the GAY clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool.”



Bible agnostics (they don’t know for sure what or where God’s infallible words can be found) and unbelievers in the Inerrancy of Scripture are a funny and fickle bunch. Not one of them can show you a copy of God’s complete, inspired and 100% true words in ANY language, but they are all united in one thing. And that is that the King James Bible is “full of errors” and, at the very least, “needs to be updated”.



From time to time I run into guys who complain about “the old fashioned language” or the “archaic terms” we find in God’s Book and tell us how “out of date” or “misleading” certain terms or words are in that old Book.



I will readily admit that there are a few “archaic” words found in the King James Bible such as “let, conversation, leasing and prevent”, but this does not make the King James Bible inaccurate or uninspired. All a person needs to do is consult a good dictionary and learn a little more about the richness and variety of meanings found in our own English language.



See The “archaic” language of the King James Bible -



"Archaic" KJB






And “Why all those “Thee”s and “Ye”s are far more accurate -



http://brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm



I also find in highly ironic that these same people who so often criticize our King James Bible will then turn around and tell us that we need to consult or learn “the” Biblical Hebrew and Greek to find out what God REALLY said. It never seems to dawn on them that there is no such animal as “the” Hebrew and much less “the” Greek that they are referring to.





There are literally thousands of variants in “the” Greek texts and the scholars are constantly changing their minds and differ among themselves as to which Greek readings may or may not be the true words of God.



As for “the” Hebrew, most modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman etc. OFTEN reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places.



Here are some examples:



http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm



Just look at the footnotes in such modern versions as the ESV or NIV and you will see such notes as “Some Hebrew manuscripts read....”, “2 Hebrew mss. read....”, “Most Hebrew mss. read....” and very often “The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.”



It should also be pointed out that “the” Biblical Hebrew and Greek are BOTH themselves “archaic languages” that are not spoken today in modern Israel or Greece. Modern Hebrew and Greek are quite different from the Hebrew and Greek texts that make up our Bible, but modern day Jews and Greeks can and do understand them, even though they don’t speak that way. This is God’s pattern for His pure words.



Is it really that difficult to learn the different meanings of a few English words? Every student in school has to learn more vocabulary as they study different subjects or learn a new sport or hobby. If you are really interested in something, then you simply learn the meaning of the terms. So it is with God’s Book.



Anyway, the subject of this article is to look at the word “gay” as found in James 2:3 and try to use some common sense. We should not let the world’s use of slang or their highjacking certain words and applying new meanings to them be used as an excuse to toss out the old Book and “revise” God’s masterpiece - the King James Holy Bible.



The world often uses the words “hell”, “damn”, “God” or “Jesus Christ” as swear words. Or kids today will say “Wicked!” or “That’s bad.” when they really mean “It’s good.” Are we also supposed to remove these words from the Bible because the world uses them in a different way than God’s word does? I don’t think so. Try using a little common sense.



The English speaking world today often uses the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals. We all know this. But it should also be obvious that the word “gay” has had and continues to have other meanings such as bright, happy, brilliant in color or merry.



A simple look at Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th edition shows us the definitions and uses of the English word “gay”.



Definition of GAY


1a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood>



b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>



2a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>



b : brilliant in color



3 given to social pleasures; also : licentious



4 a : homosexual <gay men>



b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>



Examples of GAY


1.The band was playing a gay tune.

2.the gayest of the spring flowers



We also have the well know Christmas carol “Deck the Halls” which in part says: “Don we now our gay apparel", which simply means that we now put on our brightly colored clothing.



Not only does the King James Bible - the only English Bible believed by thousands of redeemed children of God today to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God - say “gay clothing” but so also do the following Bible translations: Tyndale 1525 - “ye have a respecte to him that weareth the GAYE clothynge”, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “him that weareth the GAIE clothing”, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston's N.T. 1745, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s Translation 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Young’s literal 1898 - “him bearing the GAY raiment”, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible of 1902, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Tomson New Testament 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005 and the Bond Slave Version 2009 - "the GAY clothing".



We live in a day when every man thinks he’s an expert and sets up his own mind and understanding as his “Final Authority” (subject to change at any moment) and in fact does NOT believe that any Bible in any language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God.



History has a habit of repeating itself. “In those days there was no king in Israel: EVERY MAN DID THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES.” Judges 21:25.
It's already been revised. It's called the New King James Version.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
It's already been revised. It's called the New King James Version.


The bogus NKJV has made a whole lot more changes, both textual and translational, than just substituting the generic "you" for the far more accurate "thou" and "ye" of the King James Bible.

If anyone is interested in taking a good look at some of the very real things that are wrong with the NKJV here are many examples.
Nobody seriously believes the NKJV is the inerrant words of God. In fact, most Christians today do not believe the ANY Bible in any language they can show us is the complete and inerrant words of God. And that is just a fact.


The NKJV - what you may not know.

NKJV same as KJB?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The bogus NKJV has made a whole lot more changes, both textual and translational, than just substituting the generic "you" for the far more accurate "thou" and "ye" of the King James Bible.

If anyone is interested in taking a good look at some of the very real things that are wrong with the NKJV here are many examples.
Nobody seriously believes the NKJV is the inerrant words of God. In fact, most Christians today do not believe the ANY Bible in any language they can show us is the complete and inerrant words of God. And that is just a fact.


The NKJV - what you may not know.

NKJV same as KJB?

In general, I agree. It appears to be the case that the name was borrowed for marketing purposes rather than that the product represents an updating of the thees and thous for the sake of clarity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brandplucked
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟201,456.00
Faith
Christian
The bogus NKJV has made a whole lot more changes, both textual and translational, than just substituting the generic "you" for the far more accurate "thou" and "ye" of the King James Bible.

If anyone is interested in taking a good look at some of the very real things that are wrong with the NKJV here are many examples.
Nobody seriously believes the NKJV is the inerrant words of God. In fact, most Christians today do not believe the ANY Bible in any language they can show us is the complete and inerrant words of God. And that is just a fact.


The NKJV - what you may not know.

NKJV same as KJB?
Maybe you should study Greek and Hebrew. Then you wouldn't need a translation at all.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Maybe you should study Greek and Hebrew. Then you wouldn't need a translation at all.


Hi bcbsr. Are you aware that there IS no such animal as "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek?

All modern versionists (ESV especially, RSV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, Modern English Version) etc. believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in many places and they change the names and numbers and whole phrases from the Hebrew readings into something else and either follow "some Septuagint" copies, or the Syraic, or the Latin, or they just make something up.

And when we get to "the" Greek, the issue becomes even more confusing and contradictory.

There are literally thousands of variant readings in "the" Greek, and the UBS, Nestle-Aland Critical text is constantly changing. They already have made 27 different editions and are now working on the 28th.

It is a simple fact that if you ask most Christians today to show you a copy of any Bible in any language - including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek - that they really believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God, not one of them will ever do it.

I have a little test I made up that deals with just a FEW of the examples I can give you to illustrate what is going on in today's Bible Babble Buffet.

Would you like to take a look at it? I ask people to just pick two of the examples given, and to let us know if they know what is the 100% true historical reading.

Most Christians I run into refuse to take the test. Do you want to give it a shot? Anybody here?

I call it The Bible Agnostic Test.

Bible Agnostic Test

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
God is apparrently not cool with fabulous queens, according to James.


Hi FireDragon. Not exactly sure what you are alluding to, but I suspect it is the nasty rumor circulating among those who do not believe that any bible they can show us is the inerrant words of God and who criticize the King James Bible, right?

If they were alive today, maybe king James' wife and 9 children would have something to say about this slander on his character.

Was King James a homo and a Free Mason?

king James a homo?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,664
18,548
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Paul and James knew nothing of English. So it's a big leap of faith to think the KJV is somehow the ultimate translation.

Besides, I'm in a Lutheran church. The correct translation of the Bible is German.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Hi FireDragon. Two things. First, are you saying that a translation cannot be the inerrant words of God? Where did you get that idea from? Certainly not the Bible. the Bible itself teaches us in several places that a translation can be the inspired and infallible words of God.


"Can a Translation Be the Inspired Words of God?"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/translationinspired.htm

Secondly, I don't think Paul and James spoke German either, did they?

Are you actually going to identify this inerrant German bible for us (there are many of them and they all differ from one another in both texts and meanings) that you supposedly believe in and take a consistent stand on it?

You do realize that if this as yet unidentified German bible is the complete and inerrant words of God, then the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET and KJB etc. are not the inerrant words of God because they all differ from it in both texts and meanings, right?

Are you willing to take that position? Some German bible most people have never even heard of and can't read that shook the world and was carried by missionaries to multiple countries and translated from into other langauges? I don't think so, my friend.

But if you've got one, can you give us a link to where we can see it and what it says?

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,664
18,548
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Uh...FireDragon, that is not humor. It is slander. There IS a difference between the two even if you can't see it.

Please... the KJV not the best Bible translation, just because it's written in ye olde Englishe
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
Please... the KJV not the best Bible translation, just because it's written in ye olde Englishe


Hi FireDragon. Two things. First, the King James Bible is NOT written in Old English. You might want to do a simple Google search on the English language (or not)

The KJB is not Old English neither is it Middle English, but it is early Modern English. Modern English begins around 1550 A.D.

Secondly, the fact remains that you are your own authority and you have NO complete and inerrant Bible in any language that you can show us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟201,456.00
Faith
Christian
Hi bcbsr. Are you aware that there IS no such animal as "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek?

All modern versionists (ESV especially, RSV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, Modern English Version) etc. believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in many places and they change the names and numbers and whole phrases from the Hebrew readings into something else and either follow "some Septuagint" copies, or the Syraic, or the Latin, or they just make something up.

And when we get to "the" Greek, the issue becomes even more confusing and contradictory.

There are literally thousands of variant readings in "the" Greek, and the UBS, Nestle-Aland Critical text is constantly changing. They already have made 27 different editions and are now working on the 28th.

It is a simple fact that if you ask most Christians today to show you a copy of any Bible in any language - including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek - that they really believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God, not one of them will ever do it.

I have a little test I made up that deals with just a FEW of the examples I can give you to illustrate what is going on in today's Bible Babble Buffet.

Would you like to take a look at it? I ask people to just pick two of the examples given, and to let us know if they know what is the 100% true historical reading.

Most Christians I run into refuse to take the test. Do you want to give it a shot? Anybody here?

I call it The Bible Agnostic Test.

Bible Agnostic Test

God bless.
I assume you realize that the English translations are translating from the Hebrew and Greek.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,419
6,800
✟916,702.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Paul and James knew nothing of English. So it's a big leap of faith to think the KJV is somehow the ultimate translation.

Besides, I'm in a Lutheran church. The correct translation of the Bible is German.

That doesn't equal a "correct translation" but simply "A translation". The best is of course, the original language but Any other translations into any other language is correct or not correct based on how well the translators know the two languages (original to the new)
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
I assume you realize that the English translations are translating from the Hebrew and Greek.


Hi bcbsr. Yes, I am aware of this. But the question remains, WHICH "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek do you think are the complete and inerrant words of God, since you don't have one in English or any other language?

My bet is that you simply don't know and will never actually show us a copy of any Bible in ANY language that you honestly believe IS now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Right?


This is where most Christians are today. Professing a faith in an inerrant Bible they have never seen, never read, can't show to anybody else, and that they KNOW does not exist.


And they think we King James Bible only believers are loopy!
 
Upvote 0

brandplucked

Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2004
769
17
✟4,973.00
Faith
Christian
That doesn't equal a "correct translation" but simply "A translation". The best is of course, the original language but Any other translations into any other language is correct or not correct based on how well the translators know the two languages (original to the new)


So, tell us, ewq, Can you give us a link to where we can see this "the original language" thingy you apparently want us to think you actually believe in?

Surely something so important is online somewhere, correct? Can you show it to us so that we can see what it says and then compare it to our King James Bible or ESV, NIV, NKJV, NET, NASB or Daffy Duck Version to see if they say the same things?


Yes or No? Thank you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,419
6,800
✟916,702.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So, tell us, ewq, Can you give us a link to where we can see this "the original language" thingy you apparently want us to think you actually believe in?


Do your own research. They are called the manuscripts. There are many of them but they are the foundations of ALL translations.
 
Upvote 0