A homosexual is demanding $70,000,000 in damages from Bible publishers for printing a book which dares to condemn homosexuality as a sin.
The man, unsurprisingly an American, claims two Bible publishers “manipulated” their translations from an ambiguous condemnation of “abusers of themselves with mankind” to an explicit condemnation of “homosexuals.”
The King James Version of the bible, to many English-speaking Christians “The Bible,” exerted considerable influence over the English language as a literary masterpiece. However, its admonitions are frequently ambiguous, and its translation politically motivated or disputed.
For example, the King James Version renders a condemnation of sexual deviancy in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 obliquely as:
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… shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Modern editions tend to favour much less ambiguous wording of the same passage:
New International Version:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…
New American Standard Bible:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals….
New King James Version:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…
English Standard Version:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…
The man claims that the publishers of such Bibles caused him “demoralization, chaos and bewilderment,” by deliberately publishing “homophobic” versions of the Bible, entitling him to huge damages.
One publisher has denounced his claims as “ridiculous,” pointing out that they neither translated nor own the rights to the version they publish.
Most major religious texts take a dim view of homosexuality, so it seems he may have a very long string of lawsuits ahead of him.
Via Carnal Nation.
“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… shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
You know, fornacators and effeminate should had give the guy some warning…
even though im Catholic i really dont have anything against homosexuals. But all I can to this gay guy is… SCREW YOU! STOP WHINING LIKE A BITCH THE BIBLE HAS ALWAYS CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALITY, WITCHCRAFT AND b♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥y (animal fuckers, not furries)
…………………./´¯/)
……………….,/¯..//
………………/…./ /
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`¸
………./’/../…../…../¨¯\
……..(‘(..´(..´……,~/’..’)
………\…………….\/…/
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
………….\…………..\
This is why you should not take the words of a religious text literally esp a translation that may or may not have been altered on purpose.
The original passage was very vague.
This is what I hate gay people…for them, everything is homofobic.
I think a lot of you are mis-interperating the legal standing behind the suit. As a publisher, to alter the the translation of the bible, just as it would be illegal to alter the wording of the constitution is not their legal right. If given a disclaimer stating that their translation, was an adaptation of the intent of the original author rather than a direct quote is subject to lible as is anything else. A publisher does not have the right to alter text to suit their own needs, neither for good or bad reasons. Simply the responsibility of the publisher is to write the text as direct translation, neither approving, nor condmening homosexuality as it not not explicitly condemmed in the original text. It is equally as offensive as if they had stated that Jesus had not literally returned from the dead, but it was instead a metephor.