23rd September 2013
It has been announced in the media in such publications as the Huffington Post and the Christian Post, that a new bible has hit the shelves!
The recently released Bible translation based on the King James Bible boasts of being the first ever “Gay Bible” in the world.
In an effort to resolve “long-standing interpretive ambiguity in key Bible passages regarding homosexuality” a new version of the classic King James Bible — this one titled The Queen James Bible — claims to be the first ever gay friendly Bible to correctly translate the Christian scriptures.
Available on Amazon.com, the Bible, which is emblazoned with a large rainbow cross on the front cover, is described on its website as “big, fabulous Bible” that draws its name from King James I, who was behind the popular traditional version, and but was also allegedly “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.”
Blog Editors Note: If true then it is a sad fact, but he didn’t then get his panel of translators to edit and reshape the verses that spoke plainly against such perversion, and thus King James is to be commended for his efforts to stay true to the writings that speak out against such sin, not like these ‘translators’ of this new work of fiction!
This new version updates several passages from the original version that address homosexuality, including this passage from 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)
Blog Editors note: There is no change to the context here. Its’s like saying you can’t snort crack in a nightclub, but it’s ok at home? What’s the difference? Molech has nothing to do with it, yet perhaps EVERYTHING to do with our modern philosophy of living for unrestrained pleasure in whatever form it takes.
Part of temple prostitution or not! Without being too blatant, but a man goes to a brothel today and lies with a prostitute; does that make it any less of a sin, than him being seen caught up in orgies in the Temple of Diana as in centuries past. It is the SAME spirit. People who like to twist and add bits on like this, are blinded from the start! If a man even lusts in his heart toward a woman he has committed fornication or adultery. Such is the standard of God!
The website explains that “homosexuality was first overtly 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.” The new edits are only “for interpretive clarity. The edits all confirm that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and therefore renders such interpretations impossible.”
But not everyone is convinced the new interpretations are accurate.
The following list is of some bibles produced BEFORE the King James:
Wycliffe Bible – 1380
Coverdale’s Bible – 1535
Matthew’s Bible – 1537 (first authorized version)
Great Bible – 1539
Taverner’s Bible – 1539
Geneva Bible – 1560
Bishops’ Bible – 1568
Douay-Rheims Bible – 1610
King James Version – 1611
1Cor 6:9,10 from Wycliffe’s Translation, some six centuries ago, and then the English from the KJB.
“8 THE WYCLIFF BIBLE (1380):
Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God.
MODERN ENGLISH:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.
Letchery: offensive sexual desire; lustfulness
THE TYNDALE BIBLE (1530):
Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde, nether theves nether the coveteous nether dronkardes nether cursed speakers nether pillers shall inheret the kyngdome of God.
THE MATTHEWS BIBLE (1537):
Do ye not remember how that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived. For neither fornicators, neither worshippers of images, neither whoremongers, neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind, neither thieves, neither the covetous, neither drunkards, neither cursed speakers, neither pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
GENEVA BIBLE (1599):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (♣) wantons, nor (♠) buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.
(♣) Immoral or unchaste, lewd.
(♠) Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male.)
LATIN BIBLE (VULGATE): 405 A.D.
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt
TRANSLATION:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
GERMAN BIBLE (Luther 1534):
Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Let not seduce you! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers [of themselves with mankind], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor are revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9 (1611 King James Bible)
“Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,”
Here’s the verse in English, and the greek wording
BLB Lexicon
Results for G733 – arsenokoitēs
ἀρσενοκοίτης
Transliteration: arsenokoitēs
Pronunciation: är-se-no-koi’-tās
Part of Speech: masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from G730 and G2845
Outline of Biblical Usage:
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
KJV Translation Count:
2 Total abuser of (one’s) self with mankind 1, defile (one’s) self with mankind 1
1Cor 6:9
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, G733
1Ti 1:10
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, G733 for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
“Few, if any English translations use the actual words ‘homosexuality’ or ‘homosexual.’ But the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships,” Douglas J. Moo, Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College and a professional Bible translator, told The Christian Post.
Editors Note: This is more or less true, but what do they want to be called; abusers, effeminate, sodomites, buggers, or Homosexuals?
See this extensive chart of the use of words over time
Click to access paulchart1.pdf
Perhaps not surprisingly, Catholic Online also slammed the version as seeking “legitimize the homosexual equivalency movement” by changing the Bible’s language so that it reads “in a fashion different from their original intent.”
The Queen James Bible
The Queen James Bible, also known as the Gay Bible, is a new assault on biblical orthodoxy and sexual purity. This is to be expected in a world of moral relativism. In it, the 1769 King James Bible has been reproduced with only a very few select verses altered – the ones that relate to homosexuality. Those verses are listed below and analyzed.
I hope you will see that the Queen James Bible is a perversion of the original text and is the result of obvious prejudices against the original Hebrew and Greek texts in order to make homosexual practices appear acceptable.
The interlinear citations are taken from two sources. An interlinear is a listing of the original languages that is reproduced from the most ancient and best manuscripts, with English translations under it. This way, the reader can see for himself what the original says.
Hebrew Interlinear Quotations are from van der Merwe, Christo. The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. Logos Bible Software, 2004.
Greek Interlinear Quotations are from the Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993, c1979). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (410). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.
The editors of the Gay Bible have stated the following:
“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.”1
I’m glad they acknowledge that most translations condemn homosexuality. But, the annonymous editors of the QJV changed the translations, reinterpreted them, and made them say the opposite of what the original languages state. It says on page one of the QJV: “The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.” Edit they did; translate they did not.
Are they really going to maintain that basically all translators have gotten it wrong throughout the centuries and that they, the annonymous editors2, got it right? It is easy to make assertions while you hid behind anonymity. What are they afraid of if their edits are the right ones?
Let’s take a look at the verses that deal with homosexuality but comparing the KJV and the QJV and providing the original text for your examination.
Verse King James Version Queen James Version
Green is altered text.
Green with strike through is removed text
Red is addition of words not found in original text
(not able to show this)
Gen. 19:5
“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.” (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 rape and humiliate them.” (QJV)
הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם׃
bring out them to us and know them
As you can see, there is nothing in the original text that says “rape and humiliate.” The word often translated as “rape” in English Bibles is the Hebrew yawdah which means “to know”: “know” 645 times, “known” 105 times, “knowledge” 19 times, “perceive” 18 times, “shew” 17 times, “tell” eight times, “wist” seven times, “understand” seven times, “certainly” seven times, “acknowledge” six times, “acquaintance” six times, “consider” six times, “declare” six times, “teach” five times, and translated miscellaneously 85 times.3
So the word “know” is there which can be translated as “rape,” but “and humiliate” is a complete fabrication.
Editors note: Either way it is a gross crime against a life, and similar things have been evidenced in Syria on young Christian girls by Moslem men. Raped, humiliated and evetually die at the hands of their abusers!
The KJV never uses the word “humiliate” in the O.T. It occurs once in Acts 8:33, but that is the Greek. However, in the NASB “humiliate” occurs in the Old Testament (Judges 18:7; Ezra 9:5; Psa. 35:26, etc.). The word is kawlawm and means “ashamed 12, confounded 11, shame 7, blush 3, hurt 2, reproach 2, confusion 1″4
Adding the words “rape and humiliate” is not justified and alters the meaning of the text. Moses knew what he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, the QJV editors are saying that Moses didn’t get it right and that they had to add words – which are not there – to “correctly” get it to say what they think it needs to say.
Lev. 18:22
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” (KJV) “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.” (QJV)
וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא׃
and with a male not you shall lie with the lying with of a woman [is] a detestable thing that
As you can see, “in the temple of Molech” is not in the original text. Their modification is not justified.
In the previous verse (Lev. 18:21) it says, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through thefire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.” (KJV) The editors of the gay Bible have borrowed the topic of Molech from the previous verse and inserted it into v. 22. But is that justified? Not at all. In verse 20 it says “…thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her (Lev. 18:20).” Is this also only referring to “in the temple of Molech”? Or the verse after 22 — Lev. 18:23 says, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” Does v. 23 condemn bestiality “in the temple of Molech” but it is okay outside the temple? Why the selective inconsistency? The QJV editors are not justified in their text modification. They altered it to make it fit their sexual preference.
Lev. 20:13
“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.” (KJV) “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.” (QJV)
וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ
and man who sleep with male lying with woman detestable thing do
As you can see, there is nothing in the text that says “in the temple of Molech.”
Molech is mentioned earlier in Lev. 20:2,3,4,5. However, the topic then shifts in Lev. 20:9 where Moses forbids cursing your mother and father (Lev. 20:9), condems adultery (Lev. 20:10), lying with one’s father’s wife (Lev. 20:11), and lying with one’s daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12). Then after verse 13 it says not to marry a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14), to not lie with animals (Lev. 20:15), etc.
If the Gay Bible editors want to borrow a topic from several verses earlier and insert it into only one particular verse, why just that one? Why do the editors of the Queen James Bible feel justified in picking out only a single verse among a host of sexually descriptive prohibitions and modify only that one verse? Why? It’s because that is the verse that disagrees with their pro-homosexual bias, so they altered it. Perhaps later we might see a pro-bestiality Bible that inserts the words “in the temple of Molech” into Lev. 20:15, just as the pro-homosexual editors did in verse 13.
This is an obvious case of prejudicial translation and alteration to suit a particular sexual behavior.
Rom. 1:26
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections or even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.”5 (KJV)
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections 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; (QJV)
Greek:
διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας αἵ τε
Through this gave over them the God into passions of dishonor the indeed
γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν
for females of them changed across the natural use to the beyond nature
You will notice that there is a significant alteration in this verse. The editors not only removed several words (crossed out), but also added many more (in red). They also moved words from the next verse (v. 27) into this one. The reason was to change what Rom. 1:26 actually says.
On their website at queenjamesbible.com the editors provide an explanation for this drastic change.
“We know Paul was a Jew and steeped in the purity tradition of Leviticus. Leviticus, as we know, is intended to condemn ritual impurities associated with pagan idol worship. It would not be unreasonable to assume a connection, especially since Romans 1:24 mentions “uncleanness.” We know sex, both heterosexual and homosexual sex (not distinguished from each other at the time), was an extremely major component of pagan ritual. Most scholars (us included), agree that the sin in Romans 1 isn’t being gay or lesbian or having gay sex.
The sin was worshiping pagan idols instead of God, as it was in Leviticus, as it is everywhere in the Bible.
Editors note: Talk about shonky reasoning! God has always been against idolatry, and more often than not illicit and perverted sex of any kind was part of that idolatry! (see Ex 32:1-9)
To reflect our more examined understanding of what is ‘natural’ and to clarify the subject matter of Romans 1, we have changed the verses to the following:”6
The QJV editors rewrote what Paul actually said. Notice that “ritual lust” is not there in the Greek.
The inclusion of “ritual lust” alters the meaning of the text to get it to say that that homosexuality is bad when it is practiced in some sort of religious ritual, as temple prostitution. But, this is not what it says.
The original KJV has no occurrence of the word “ritual” in the entire Bible. It occurs in the NKJV in Deut 23:17; 2 Kings 23:7; Ezek. 20:26; Hos. 4:14. But, none of these are in the New Testament, so there is no justification for changing the text to “ritual lust.”
Rom. 1:27
“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.
“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.” (QJV)
Greek:
ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν
likewise indeed also the males having
sent off the natural use of the female were burned
thoroughly in
τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν
the lust of them to one
another males in males the shameless
ness working
thoroughly and the
ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες
return
wage which it was
necessary of the deceit of them in themselves receiving back
This verse is linked to the one immediately above it so you can see the notes on its alteration imposed by the editors.
They have added the words pagan, idolators, and vile affections. That is not justified for this text. Those words are just not there in the Greek.
Editors note: But surely the issue is still steering you in the face “men with men”. Adding pagan, idolators, vile affections, doesn’t change anything. Are they happy being identified as pagan idolators? The issue isn’t how the ancients lived, corrupted by pagan orgies, and worship of foreign gods, but rather the lifestyles of the many nations involved all sorts of sexual practices from sleeping with your mother, to bestiality, and lying with a man. Research Roman sexuality in the 1st and 2nd Centuries. All these acts are condemned in scripture.
1 Cor. 6:9
“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, (KJV)
“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, (QJV)
οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
nor adulterers nor soft ones nor male bed partners
Let’s look at the Greek word that the QJV renders as “morally weak.” The Greek is ἀρσενοκοίται, arsenokoitai. What does it mean?
Arsenokoitais comes from two words, “ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual”7
“ἄρσην (arsēn), εν (en): adj.; ≡ DBLHebr 2351; Str 730—1. LN 79.102 human male”8
“κοίτη (koitē), ης (ēs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 2845—1. LN 6.108 bed (Lk 11:7+); 2. LN 23.62 sexual life, marriage bed”9
ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’10
“ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ arsenokoitēs male homosexual”11
But, on the queenjamesbible.com site, the editors say the following about arsenokoitas.
“Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in arsenokoitais’s place. We changed the phrase “Abusers of themselves with mankind” to “promiscuous” as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”12.
If what they say is true, then let’s see some documentation that there were other words for ‘homosexual’. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Also, it doesn’t change the fact that the word ‘arsenekoitas’ says what it says as is documented above by several Greek lexicons.
1 Cor. 6:10
“Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (KJV)
“Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (QJV) (No Change)
On queenjamesbible.com they included this verse for context. I have, too. There is no change in the KJV text as represented in the QJV.
1 Tim. 1:10
“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; (KJV)
“For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, with mankind (text is removed in QJV) for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (QJV)
Greek:
πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις
sexually immoral ones male bed partners man-trappers liars perjurers
The QJV removes “with mankind.” Why?
Because it implies that the verse is against homosexuality. The word in the Greek is ἀρσενοκοίταις, arsenokoitas. This word occurs only two times in the entire Bible, here and 1 Cor. 6:9. See above at 1 Cor. 6:9 for an analysis of the word arsenokoitas – which the QJV mistranslates.
Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 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.” (KJV)
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after non- human flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (QJV)
καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας
and having gone off after flesh other
The word “other” in Greek is heteros, (as in Heterosexual). It means “another of a different kind.” This verse alteration is possibly sound since the context of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the sodomites sought to have relations with the angels who they thought were men.But it simply means they went after ‘different flesh’, than than that sanctioned by divine order.
Still, the point is that the men Sodom of Sodom and Gomorrah did not know that the men were angels.
They thought they were men and wanted to have homsexual relations with them.
From the Queen James Bible website it reads;
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.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Editors Note: You may not be able to choose your sexuality (many would disagree), but you can choose to live a moral, and upright life. You can choose to ignore this, but God is not mocked! What a man sows, that shall he reap!
Do we soon see the production of a “moslem friendly” bible, that makes no reference to Jesus as the Son of God, or chop out scriptures that instruct us to be the Husband of ONE wife. The idea is detestable, and so is this ‘gay bible’.
Rom. 1:27
“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.”
In the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS is much higher than other groups such as heterosexual people or children.
In the USA, it is estimated that 2 percent of the population are men who have sex with men (MSM); 61 percent of new HIV infections in 2010 were within this vulnerable group.1 In the UK, 44 percent of HIV infections during 2010 were a result of transmission within the MSM group.2
The grace of God is a FULL grace,not a FRACTURED grace.It’s not so that we can remain in our sin. Sin is not to be normalised…
Titus 2:11-14
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”
Sources:
http://carm.org/queen-james-bible
http://www.queenjamesbible.com
http://xtremechristian.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/exegeting-homosexuality-part-4.h
http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men-hiv.htm
Coercion Code - "Dark Times are upon us" 