History and Theology: Kg Jam was Gay

Contents:

• KG LIL JAY SLAMS GAY MORS AFTER VIO OF MAT KISSG PROMPTS TROLLS’ RPONSE
• 5 GAY BRISH KGS AND QUEENS OM HISTORY
• BIBLE VERS ABOUT GAY
• BIBLE VERS ABOUT BEG GAY

KG LIL JAY SLAMS GAY MORS AFTER VIO OF MAT KISSG PROMPTS TROLLS’ RPONSE

When 2 Samuel 1:25-27 says, “Your love to me was more wonrful than the love of women, ” is claimed that this prov Jonathan and David were gay. Fally, jt bee Scripture stat that two men loved each other, do not mean that they engaged sexual activy wh each other—homosexual activy.

Further, sce the Bible overwhelmgly refers to homosexualy as a s and wants to not engage this s (Genis 19:1-26; Levic 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:22-28; 1 Corthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10), why would God select David to bee the kg of Israel?

5 GAY BRISH KGS AND QUEENS OM HISTORY

Those who would exclu homosexuals om God’s kgdom choose to ignore J, turng stead to the Old Ttament – most particularly to Genis 19, the stctn of the ci of Sodom and Gomorrah. Levic 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexualy” as we now unrstand – as the rg, lovg and sexual relatnship between people of the same sex.

We will return to this associatn between his grandmother’s readg of the KJV and her love for him our ncludg three ma purpos of this article are (1) to prent ntemporary arguments that the qutn whether Kg Jam had homosexual tennci has enormo signifince for how one views the Kg Jam Bible and petg translatns; (2) to review recent historil rearch that prents Kg Jam as havg had homosexual tennci; and (3) to prent our own nclns ncerng the signifince of this historil rearch for how the Kg Jam Bible may be viewed by Bible rears ntemporary discsnThe Kg Jam Bible has been gag creasg scholarly attentn recent years (see, for example, Daniell 2003; Katz 2004; McGrath 2001; Moynahan 2002; Nilson 2003). This view is sometim lled the “Kg Jam Only” (KJO) not all of the attentn pleas those cled to support the KJO posn, bee a nsirable amount of this attentn is due to discsn of Kg Jam’s own sexualy, particularly ncerng the qutn whether he had homosexual translatn and homosexualyIn The Facts on the Kg Jam Only Debate, Ankenberg and Weldon (1996) discs homosexualy and translatn mte. “Proponents of the KJO, ” they wre, “often claim that unbelievers, heretics, occultists, and/or homosexuals have been members of the edorial or translatn mte of the morn versns” (p.

If a homosexual person is on the translatn mtee, so the argument go, then that translatn is obvly not of God, th nfirmg the superry of the Kg Jam Bible (as is also assumed that no one on the translatn mte of the Kg Jam Versn uld possibly have been homosexual). )If Riplger nmns the NIV on the grounds that remov referenc to sodomy, others have attacked the Kg Jam Versn on the grounds that Kg Jam was gay. The pot we want to lift up here, though, is that both of the thors attack the character of Kg Jam to suggt that the Kg Jam Bible is self ’s rebuttalNot surprisgly, the claim that Kg Jam had homosexual tennci has stirred up que a b of ntroversy among many supporters of the Kg Jam Bible.

BIBLE VERS ABOUT GAY

Gee Sweetg now Chancellor, and himself as the current Print of Moody that Kg Jam was fact a homosexual, and that such reportg was “reliable data and spirual nourishment for God’s people” (p. In his view, Kg Jam has been acced of homosexualy, and he vot a whole chapter to “Law & History, ” which he ntends that what we have the historgraphy of Kg Jam is a se of famatn of character. He intifi those who argue that Kg Jam had homoerotic tennci or leangs as proponents of the “cril” view bee anyone who thks that Kg Jam was gay or bisexual is necsarily cricizg both the Kg and the Bible that bears his name.

Although Coston is not a profsnal historian, he attempts to show that the claims that Kg Jam had homosexual tennci are not ground what he lls “classil historil methodology” (p. Even as his weak jaw and enlarged tongue explas his droolg that uld have been mistaken for French kissg, his general physil weakns acunts for his hab of hangg on other, light of the fact that the bedchamber is often ced as evince for Jam’s homosexual tennci, Coston claims that Kg Jam’s bedchamber practic were nothg out of the ordary—pecially given his physil disabili—as the practic helped protect the Kg agast plots agast his life.

82), as will be noted greater tail below, several historians have poted to the tranged relatnship between Jam and his wife and have ed this evince support of their view that he had homosexual tennci. 93), while others, pecially Bergeron (1999) have examed Jam’s letters ntext and intified the theme of homoeroticism them, Coston is not imprsed by the studi bee, on the basis of his own readg of the letters, he has nclud that “Jam ed was sentimental, but far om homosexual/bisexual” (Coston 1996, p.

BIBLE VERS ABOUT BEG GAY

75) short, Coston argu that there is ltle evince to suggt that Kg Jam was a homosexual person, and the evince that we seem to have needs to be terpreted light of the historil ntext. E., Jam was a godly man, godly men are not homosexual, therefore Jam uld not be homosexual) as follows: (1) ntemporari of Jam who acced him of homosexualy were his polil adversari and guilty of anti-Sttish bigotry; and (2) when our own ntemporari “acce” Jam of homosexualy, they are misreadg the evince. We were also put off by the homophobia—here a leral fear of homosexualy—that seems to be drivg his arguments: “The most Jam’ statements n prove is that he had a close personal attachment to his iends and fay—and if this nvicts one of homosexualy we are all BIG trouble” (p.

But he nclus om this lack of certaty about particular acts that Jam therefore did not have homosexual we will see, the se for or agast Jam’s homosexual tennci nnot, fally, be settled on such clear-cut behavral grounds. In this regard, is rather ironic that Coston himself provis a great al of evince suggtg that Jam did fact have homoerotic feelgs toward several men the urse of his adult life. Fally, notg that some have argued that David and Jonathan and J and John “were all probabily homosexual lovers, ” he argu that “simply bee Biblil characters kissed, profsed their love, scribed their relatnship as a unn or bond, and the like, this nnot prove homosexual tennci.

But if a man like Kg Jam fds another man handsome, keeps a picture of this man close by his heart, kiss him and profs his love public, and shar his bed wh him, are we prohibed om classifyg this behavr as maniftg “homosexual tennci” merely bee we do not have evince of anal terurse?