The New Revised Perversion Bible

Good news folks! For all those who love their sin and want complete Biblical justification for it, helpful publishers are now quite happy to produce the Bible that fully condones and justifies your sin. Yep, if you are into adultery, you can now read in the comfort of your own home the new Adulterers’ Bible.

Or is fornication your thing? No probs, we now have just for you the Fornicator’s Bible. Do you enjoy a bit of theft? Hey have we got the Bible for you: check out the new Stealer’s Bible. Is lying a pet sin of yours which you would love to stop repenting of and start enjoying? Then the Liar’s Bible is just what you need.

homo 112Do you really think God is a figment of your imagination, but want a Scriptural source to promote this? Great, the Atheist’s Bible is just the thing for you. And have you always been a bit keen on kinky relations with your pet, but felt that it may not go down well in religious circles? No problems – just buy and enjoy the New Revised Bestiality Bible.

Have you always wanted to cheat on your tests and not worry about honesty and morality? Then go down to your fav bookshop and get a copy of the Cheater’s Bible. And if you can’t resist going out and shooting anyone who rubs you the wrong way, then the Killer’s Bible is for you.

Now, do any of these Bibles actually exist? Well no, but they might as well. You see, a group of militants have actually produced the exact same thing, but to help all those who love sodomy, and who want a Biblical warrant for it. I kid you not. Indeed, don’t take my word for it. Look it up here:

Amazon is quite happy to actually sell this blasphemous, heretical, and filthy piece of trash. Here is how they advertise the volume:

A Gay Bible
The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.

Homosexuality in The Bible
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. 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!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Who is Queen James?
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as “Queen James.” It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.

A Fabulous Bible
The QJB is a big, fabulous Bible. It is printed and bound in the United States on thick, high-quality paper in a beautiful, readable typeface. It is the perfect Bible for ceremony, study, sermon, gift-giving, or simply to put on display in the home or Church.

You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.

There you have it folks. Now we have full-scale perversion Bibles on the market. And of course the entire premise of this is completely false. They could not be more wrong if they tried. Their entire case is on the supposed fact that no Bible until recently even used the word “homosexuality”.

Wow, that really has me worried. I guess we must now completely revise our theology and ethics – not. What these deceivers do not tell you, or are too clueless to even be aware of, is that the English word “homosexuality” was never even used until a hundred years ago. So of course no Bible had the term – it never existed until last century!

This is simply the most lame and most idiotic argument yet coming from the theological revisionists. They just do not have a leg to stand on, and are clutching at straws big time. The truth is, there are all sorts of terms found in modern translations of the Bible that never appeared earlier for the simple reason that they did not exist until recently.

Paraphrases especially may well use contemporary terminology to convey ancient truths. This does not diminish the truth of the original texts of course – not one iota. It simply is about giving old Biblical passages new relevance by using more modern terms.

And the issue is not what a contemporary English term says or when it was coined. The issue is what do the original languages of the Bible say. What do the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament in fact say? That is the real issue here. And those passages in question all quite clearly refer to what we today refer to as homosexual acts.

Consider just one such passage, 1 Timothy 1:9-10: “We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine”. As I write in my book, Strained Relations:

The term rendered by the NIV as ‘perverts’ is arsenokoitai, which, as we have already seen, means males who take other males to bed. As scholars point out, it is a rare word. It “does not appear to have existed before the time of Paul”.

After examining some contemporary Greek and Roman usages of the term, New Testament scholar Ben Witherington says this: “This word literally and graphically refers to a male copulator, a man who has intercourse with another man.”

The compound word is made of two terms, arsenos (= male) and koitain (= sleep with, lie in bed, have sexual relations with, from which we get the word coitus, ie., intercourse). ‘Male bedders’ would be a literal, if somewhat wooden, translation. Sex between men, or homosexuality, is clearly in view here.

Both of these two terms come directly from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) version of the two Leviticus passages. Lev. 18:22 contains both terms, as does 20: 13. So Paul clearly has the Holiness Code in view when he used this term. Scholars such as David Wright in fact believe that Paul coined this term from the two Leviticus texts.

The term clearly covers all aspects of homosexuality, not just some. As George Knight comments, the “word does not refer, as some writers have alleged, only to sex with young boys or to male homosexual prostitutes, but simply to homosexuality itself (so Paul explicitly in Rom. 1:26, 27).” Or as Quinn and Wacker argue, “the arsenokoitai are … understood to be all homosexuals, active or passive, old or young”.

One leading expert on the Pastorals, Philip Towner, says this about the term in question: “It denotes, unequivocally, the activity of male homosexuality, and the view of this practice adopted in this text corresponds to that of Paul elsewhere (Rom. 1:27).”

Thus to foolishly claim the English term “homosexuality” is not found in any Bible until recently is not only being utterly anachronistic, but is being deliberately deceptive when it comes to the Biblical text. The Bible from start to finish condemns homosexuality while affirming the only divinely-mandated form of human sexuality: the one man, one woman marriage union.

But those who hate God, who hate his word, and hate his morality, will continue to trot out utterly ridiculous and disingenuous ploys like this. But to them the Word of God has already made clear warnings. Peter says that “ignorant and unstable people distort [Paul’s writings], as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3 16).

And John warns in Revelation 22:18, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

[1491 words]

32 Replies to “The New Revised Perversion Bible”

  1. As weird as this sounds, sometimes I am happy when some people do what they do. I read about this “Bible” earlier today and so have been thinking it over.

    It does what no argument could ever do: it proves beyond any doubt that all homosexuals are interested in is their sexuality. That’s it.

    And while in this big world we cannot have our say about people and their individual or group obsessions, when a group of obsessed people want to take over the church, to force her to bend her knee to them and give them anything they want while this same group does nothing, absolutely nothing, to be Christian, then it’s time to say, no. Go now. Go wherever you want and take that book with you and have your way with one another.

    But this church is for Jesus. The man who bravely taught us about humility and repentance and the love of God. Until you can display these beliefs in your actions, you need to go.

    Julia Marks

  2. This comment is slightly off topic but… Believers ‘down under’ will be encouraged to hear of a small but significant development in the UK’s House of Lords debate last night. It concerned an amendment tabled by a noble Lord Dear to change Section 5 of the Public Order Act and to delete the word in this section – “offensive”. It was passed by 150 votes for the amendment to 54 against.
    This is a nice Christmas present from the Lord as this word “offensive” (words) was a very nasty ‘catch all’ which has been used to intimidate, or even criminalise, British Christians who have merely expressed dissent – mainly on homosexual issues. Previously if someone felt “offended” by a relatively innocent remark, or an opinion expressed by someone else, they could take action under the law.

    Thus, to quote an untypical but nevertheless real case.
    A student was subjected to censure, (but don’t think he was charged) by the police for playfully passing a joking remark to a mounted policeman that “do you know your horse is gay”. Unbelievable almost! The clause has now gone – praise the Lord!

    Graham Wood, UK

  3. Whilst I know we shouldn’t be shocked at these sort of things anymore, but I still was. I thought Bill was having me on there until I followed through on the link. Only $34.95 and your miserably sinful life is fully justified. Not a bad price for marketing sin. Speaking of which, Bill have you done a article on the book the Marketing of Evil?
    Dwayne Ballast

  4. Thanks Rick

    Yes quite so. You can’t get any clearer than that. The same in the Old Testament. Who cares if a particular modern term is not there? The texts there 100 are quite clear as to what is being condemned, as in Leviticus 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

    All that these Bible destroyers and morality wreckers can do is cut entire passages out of the Bible to satisfy and justify their own lusts.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  5. Wonder how they translate Rom 1:27 as it doesn’t use the word homosexual?

    “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

    Rick Armitage

  6. Have you got this publication’s rendering on OT verses like: Genesis chapter 1 v 26 & 27; ch 19; Leviticus 18 v 22; ch 20 v 13?

    The Lord Jesus confirmed his commitment of OT law in the following verses. Have you got the rendering of these verses: Matthew 5 v 17 – 20; ch 7 v 21 – 23; ch 22 v 39 – 40; ch 23 v 23 – 24; John 10 v 35?

    The Lord Jesus also affirmed marriage as a male-female union and not homosexual. Do you have their renderings of: Matthew 19 v 4 – 5; and Mark 10 v 6 – 7?

    Our Lord and Saviour also specifically condemned homosexual behaviour in: Matthew chapter 15 v 19; and Mark chapter 7 v 22. Both of these verses speak of the evils that come out of the heart. The evils include: ‘porneiai’ in Greek and translated ‘fornications’ plural, which includes all sexual behavior, as perversions, outside Christian marriage, such as: homosexuality, beastiality and incest. What is the rendering of these verses?

    The Apostles also confirmed their commitment to OT law in the following scriptures: Romans 3 v 31; 7 v 12; Galations 3 v 19 – 22; 2 Timothy 3 v 16 – 17; Hebrews 8 v 10; & 2 Peter 3 v 15 – 16. I also wonder what the rendering is of these verses.

    And in addition to all the above, the writings of the Apostles also expressly condemns homosexuality. How does this so-called bible render: Romans 1 v 24 – 28; 1 Corinthians 6 v 9 – 11; and Jude v 7?

    As you state well in you opening use of hyperbole, they are going to have to justify lying from the scripture now too. Are there now only 9 commandments? Have they removed the ninth commandment to cover their tracks?

    I think this is going to be a great tool for witnessing; one on one with homosexuals. We can now ask them: Why are homosexuals seeking to use fraud and misrepresentation to justify their cause? I am confident homosexuals will come to Christ through this being exposed to these fraudulent activities.

    Politically one wonders if they really have the courage for all this. While our Bible is not the primary holy book for Muslims, nevertheless it is still holy scripture for them. Clearly, this provides ground for co-belligerency. Are they really up to offending the international Islamic community?

    Once again, thanks for your contribution in pointing this out Bill.

    Christopher McNicol

  7. The The Queen James Bible?

    One can only speculate as to the death toll and rioting if Amazon published a ‘Queen Mohammed Koran’ replete with all ‘homophobic’ texts revisited to avoid LGBT offence.

    Obama rightly calls for sensitivity and respect for the sacred texts of other religions. Fine, now we’ll await his condemnation of this revisionist theology. I wouldn’t hold your breath on it though.

    Doug Holland

  8. This is just another example of gay activists in their never-ending search for self-justification at the expense of others. When are they publishing a pro-gay Koran and Hadith? Should go down well.

    John Snowden

  9. Yes quite right Doug and John. The pink mafia would never dare to try something as stupid as that with the Koran. But they know they have soft targets in Christians.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  10. So, God was such a dunderhead He didn’t know what He was doing when He created male and female, nor when He oversaw the writing of Scripture. At least 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe, and little rebel humans think they can dictate terms to Him about how things are meant to be in creation. I don’t know whether to laugh or be profoundly sad.

    “…you can choose Jesus”? I can only wonder which ‘Jesus’ they actually mean.
    Not the real Jesus who quoted Deuteronomy (yes, that would be, Old Testament Law) to the devil three times – and the devil verified its power by going away.
    Not the real Jesus who quoted ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ (which the revisionists love to quote) …from Leviticus 19 right between 2 of those horrible eight verses in chapters 18 & 20.
    Not the real Jesus who gave no quarter to any other paradigm other than male and female in Matthew 19 / Mark 10 based on Genesis 1 & 2.
    Not the real Jesus who references the Old Testament multiple times (eg. Balaam – Numbers, Jezebel – 1 Kings, ‘iron scepter’ – Psalms, ‘the key of David’ – Isaiah) in the book of Revelation, verifying its ongoing validity.
    Not the real Jesus who did not lower the standard of morality from the Old Testament, but actually raised it! (eg. adultery)

    I find it hilarious that in the editors notes (linked above by Jereth and Alister) they state “We know from Leviticus that one is not allowed to have sex with a beast” Ummm, just wondering why they are quoting that as authoritative now? Especially when just a few pars on they write: “Leviticus is outdated as a moral code”.

    And then there’s this:
    “Romans is written in some of the most obtuse language in the entire Bible”
    I guess they must mean this kind of thing:
    “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

    “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

    “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

    “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
    …and so on.

    I guess that is too lofty and “obtuse” for all but these erudites.

    Personally, I especially liked it when they wrote “we really have no idea”. You can say that again.
    (OK, that’s out of context. Hey, if it’s good for the goose…)

    Anyway, didn’t young YouTube sensation Matthew Vines show us all how it’s just been misinterpreted anyway? So why bother rewriting anything? The people who released this version may as well have said about themselves “We will justify homosexuality even if God put up 50 km high neon signs saying it is wrong.”

    Yes, I also await with baited breath the ‘revised unhomophobified’ version of the Koran with its nice rainbow cover. Just so long as the place that publishes it is not near anywhere I frequent. At least 5000km away preferably.

    Furthermore, where is the outcry that this is ‘offensive’ and ‘intolerant’? Cue the crickets sound effect and tumbleweeds rolling through the frame…

    These people are only further condemning themselves. How I wish they would wake up. They seem to know what they are doing, yet in another sense they are utterly blind. They are chaining themselves – enslaving themselves – to their destructive desires and the consequences of that, here on this earth, and then forever. It’s so wrong on so many levels. Not one of them would exist without a mother and father, and not one of them ever created something that could reproduce. But they know everything better than the One who made them, even as they know they are not perfect.

    But they will not be able to say they did not know enough. Paul was right to say of humanity – we are without excuse. How I wish they would wake up, and repent. This ‘bible’ is not the path to life. Our own bodies empirically testify to the true biblical – and natural – complementary of man and woman. We would not – could not – be alive without it.

    Mark Rabich

  11. I was saying a few days ago that it won’t be long before the Equalities brigade insists that God is for believers and non-believers alike. All should be blessed no matter what they do; all should have prizes, even clergy who don’t believe in God can earn a living as clergy.

    This is the cynical grabbing of a concept society has long held dear, precious and valuable and saying “we want some of that”. It’s more reductionist revisionism where words get lost in translation and even have the opposite meaning attributed to them. Thanks Bill for reminding us of the original unadulterated epistles, texts and specific words. I always prefer the source to a watered-down or adulterated variation of the source.

    Rachel Smith, UK

  12. John Bunyan wouldn’t have been surprised – you can buy anything you like in Vanity Fair, but our Lord walked through it without buying its wares and so should we. I have seen bible translations that eliminated all references to ‘obedience’ and ‘obey’ – ironic as the word literally means to hear, to listen to. The people writing these bowdlerised bibles are listening to their lust, not God.
    Nina Blondel

  13. This is a serious matter…but I appreciate your use of humour Bill and Mark…
    Terry Darmody

  14. I suppose they forgot to mention that during the reign of King James, buggery was punishable by hanging.

    The Act defined buggery as an unnatural sexual act against the will of God and man….

    Buggery Act 1533

    Jeffrey Carl

  15. Lol, and I hear mischief-makers are soon to bring out a bible that “revises” passages to make it permissible to wear garments of mixed fabric, and to eat prawns. When I’m on my period I don’t go up a mountain in deliberate rejection of God’s word. Where will the PC madness end!
    Mavis Marion Hartnell

  16. Thanks Mavis

    All I can offer those who appeal to such “arguments” is a great big yawn. Such folks think they are being oh so clever and oh so convincing, but they will have to come up with something a bit more original and logical than this tired old chestnut. I not only discuss this very lame objection fully in my book, but I also deal with it here:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  17. Gay interpreters of Leviticus who speak of it as containing an “outdated moral code” should be disturbed to read the works of 20th-century bisexual prophet of occult mysticism and Neo-Paganism, Aleister Crowley. Crowley knew his views on and practice of sexual experimentation in the context of occult and Neo-Pagan spirituality had their roots in a revival of ancient Egyptian paganism, a religion whose tenets and practices are explicitly rejected in Leviticus 18:1-3 in the prologue to the laws which state which sexual practices are taboos for the people of Israel.
    John Wigg

  18. I don’t know if I feel sadder for those who’ll believe it or those who wrote it – both are going to be in A LOT of trouble on that day (and rightly so).

    Maxine Prosper

  19. Would our Queen Elizabeth be interested? I hope not and I don’t think so.
    Judith Bond

  20. I am surprised they didn’t call it the “Queer James Bible.”
    Roger Marks

  21. Aren’t they condemning themselves anyway with the fact that they translated one of the words as promiscuity?
    Ian Nairn

  22. Hey Bill,

    You said much in the beginning of this article with the stealer, killer, adulterer etc type bibles.

    There are several different gender neutral bibles out there already – these progressions are not won’t, but when?

    So this queen james bible is really not a new thing – is it a more blatant and irrevrent version of the above? Absolutley!!!

    If the hate crimes legislation becomes a bigger focus, the real bible could be labled a hate crimes book. This qjb could be the substitute because it would be hate crimes approved by the government

    we are a wicked and perverse generation . . .

    Bill Bannister

  23. If the Bible wanted to just call out temple prostitutes, then it simply could have used this Hebrew word, “qadesh”. The fact that didn’t bother to research the whole Bible means they have no scholarship credentials. There is a reason why we say the very words of the Bible are inspired and have a specific reason for their use.

    Ian Nairn

  24. Watch them pervert the translation even further.

    For example, in Genesis26, Let us make divers humans, gay or straight….Straight white males, not talking to you

    In Psalms like Psalm 1…..Oh the joys of those diverse gay or straight ones that do not walk in the council of the ungodly….(Straight white males, not talking to you)

    In Proverbs, you have Solomon addressing the diverse people there like: my diverse child, gay of straight, except straight white males….

    And in NT, Paul for example addressing the Christians: diverse sisters and brothers, gay or straight, straight white males, not talking to you.

    On and on, complete utter nonsense, as those perverted ones would suppose. And as far as sexual immorality, they would cut out those verses and make them part of the Apocrypha.

    They want a bible that would copy the perverted world. And the white man is their enemy. That is their sickness. They hate everything that we helped build in our societies.

  25. I am afraid Christianity is the hard way folks! You need to turn from your sins taking the truth from the bible, rather than change the bible so that it justifies them! Tough I know, but you either accept something or you don’t and refuse to take the easy way like this as some do.
    I for one have respect for people who are honest and accept what is clearly said, but refuse to accept their truth. That is honest and strong, but it is so weak to change things just because you don’t like them. That is so weak and is just an easy cop out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *