59 of 102 people found the following review helpful
Woefully Poor Academia,
This review is from: Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context (Paperback)
I am intimately familiar with the TNIV version and its many strengths and flaws, but I must say this perspective receives no support from the text. The TNIV, although easier to understand and more poetic, is an inferior translation to the NASB as proven by intense scholarship and comparisons between the earliest preserved records of the textus receptus and the Talmud. Against the Dead Sea scrolls, the NASB stands as the most accurate text.
That said, the TNIV is still highly reliable on most scriptural cases, although the final authority would go the the NASB. The TNIV would never support a homosexual-friendly reading of the Bible. It is only severe contextualization on the part of the authors that makes it somewhat palatable. To put it bluntly, they're painting over the brick of scripturally incoherent theology with a sugary posthumous shellacking of icing and begging you to take a bite.
Expect stories of how David and Jonathan were lovers (A testably false claim as the Bible goes to great length to describe their relationship as foster-brothers rather than lovers. It's only a healthy dose of implications and inferences coming from the 21st century applied to this story that could ever turn it into a gay-friendly tale.
Also, expect the argument that explicit verses condemning homosexuality such as Leviticus 18:22 as simply dealing with neighboring nations who used underage boys as sexual oracles in temples. Expect the same for Paul's upholding of this law in his letter to Corinth.
Failing to promote this understanding, the authors may attempt to circumvent by claiming this law is one of the many discarded when God declares all of the unclean clean, however this is wrong. God forbode homosexuality to all humans, not just the Isralites. God's declaration silenced all of the Israel-specific laws such as shellfish and pork. The ten commandments and other universal laws still held.
National GLBTQ scholars have declared Paul's writings incompatible with homosexuality. I wish that people could get over this need to white-wash the truth and create a religion that couldn't possibly insult anybody. If that's what you're after, be a Buddhist, or possibly a Unitarian. On second thought, you could probably be both.
There is one circumstance where I would grant this book a high rating. If you are a professor of religious studies, assign this text to your students and challenge them to dismantle it scripturally. Then maybe we will have a generation of ministers with some backbone and Biblical scholarship under their belts so they don't get swayed by every new age philosophy that appears.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 17, 2011 5:11:05 PM PST
Amazon Customer says:
This is a New Testiment study. Last time I checked, Leviticus and Jonathan and David were in the old Testiment. Did you even look at this book before reviewing it?!
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2011 5:39:03 PM PST
Soren K. says:
All Bible is self-referencing, it is certain that OT coverage will appear in the book. They cannot avoid these instances and all work that attempts to justify a homosexually-accepting version of the Bible must confront these issues. If you're suggesting some sort of address of these and other passages doesn't occur in this work, then it's even further discredited for A: failing to provide contextual basis for scripture as part of a greater work and B: ignoring some of the largest objections to the very perspective the book takes.
Posted on Aug 15, 2012 10:12:53 PM PDT
Charles R. Courtnay says:
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 19, 2012 11:42:52 AM PDT
Hans Kronbck says:
Did you READ the book?! It's not ok to review a book that you haven't read. It's against Amazon's guidelines.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 19, 2012 12:06:35 PM PDT
Soren K. says:
Why yes, sir. I have in fact read the Bible. I even read a few excerpts of the cliff-notes on this particular edition and found them laughably insufficient for such a radical re-imagining of the Gospel. I'm starting to wonder if the AUTHOR read the Bible. She makes claims which turn out to be bold-faced lies in the face of even mild scholarship. The "Papyri Inscriptions" which she bases the lions-share of her claims about translations, context, and incorrect Biblical interpretation all come from one study by Gustav Adolf Deissmann and Alexander James Grieve which was never peer reviewed much less received any scholastic or critical attention at the time.
In other hilarious instances, the author mourns the burning of Wycliffe Bibles in the 15th century while the Wycliffe Bible clearly condemned homosexual activity and was based on the Vulgate, less authoritative and authentic than the Novum Testamentum Graece that the New American Standard and English Standard Bible are based on which was vetted and authenticated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In short, people will go to extreme lengths to validate their inherently dissonant views on the world. This author has concocted a ridiculous version of the NT in an effort not only to delude herself, but gain validity from deluding others as well.
But to answer your question, yes I've read enough to review this book.
Posted on Sep 19, 2014 7:58:53 PM PDT
"It's only a healthy dose of implications and inferences coming from the 21st century"
Actually that interpretation dates back to at least the 12th century. Roger of Hoveden drew this exact comparison to the relationship between Philip Augustus and Richard the Lionheart.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›