Bradley Fowler is an openly homosexual man from Michigan who has filed a $60 million dollar federal lawsuit against Grand Rapids, Michigan Christian publishing company Zondervan for publishing the Bible which caused him emotional distress. Read about it below and see a photo.
Bradley Fowler
Bradley Fowler’s lawsuit centers on one passage in scripture — 1 Corinthians 6:9 — and how it reads in Bibles published by Zondervan.
Below are 3 revisions as written on his blog. I have not changed a word or corrected his spelling, as I don’t want to be on the receiving end of this money hungry troglodyte and his lawsuits.
In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-
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 sodimites.
In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.
Mr. Alleged Christian Fowler has a problem with revisions made by Zondervan’s. He is stunned stupid that the publishing company would have the audacity to use the word *homosexual*, thus causing him and countless others tremendous stress, heartache, and every day normal things most humans endure.
He wants an apology and $60 mil “To compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability.”
I want a bottle of good scotch to compensate me for the disgust I felt after hearing about this idiocy.
The homosexual agenda has to be dealt with, and soon or we will continue to see absurdities like this. What makes Fowler so special? What if I want the word *homosexual* in the Bible? What makes Bradley Fowler right and me, JoAnne Thomas, wrong ?
Fowler claims the company is misinterpreting the Bible by specifically using the word homosexuals. He admits that every Bible printed is a translation, interpreted in some way, but he says specifically using that word is not a translation but a change.
“These are opinions based on the publishers” he said. “And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life.”
And I sayeth that ex-con Bradley Fowler spent a lot of time in the prison library and is out to make a quick few million. I have no doubt he is banking on Zondervan’s to settle this out of court and I truly hope they don’t.
Isn’t it enough that homosexuals have desecrated marriage and family values? Do we have to let *them* tell us what should be in the Bible?
Enough already.
For the curious, Fowler’s criminal activity is detailed at http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2profile.asp?mdocNumber=184830
July 9th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Will he be suing cuz his thong hit him in the face too ?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
It’s a frivolous lawsuit designed to get him some publicity. Perhaps he’ll get his fifteen minutes of fame from it. What an idiot. I hope the lawsuit is thrown back in his face and he has to pay for wasting the court’s time. The folks who wrote the Bible are long gone. Perhaps he could research geneaology over in the mideast to find the descendents of Paul and the other writers of the New Testament - and file a lawsuit against them. Don’t you know his entitled idiocy would go over well there?
July 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am
He forgot Romans 1:27, which says, (KJV) “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Publication date: 1962.
Earlier and later passages basically said that the penalty was death, but God allowed them to do what they wanted - they would reap the results of their actions in the afterlife.
The passages also stated that the reason God was angry was because they gave up worship and service of God for service of the flesh (a problem many heterosexuals also face).
I don’t think Mr. Fowler is too concerned about the worship and service of God - then the passages would (should) be more of a problem for him…
July 9th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Amen! I love it when I see people standing up for OUR rights! And by OUR I mean those of us who aren’t allowed to be offended by anything. Those of us who have to sit back and listen to this kind of frivilous junk of lawsuits over something that has been in print for hundreds of years!!
Firstly, what does he think the 1970 version of “nor effiminate” means? In actuallity, the original writings speak of men sleeping with male prostitutes (and when you see the word prostitute in the Bible, unless otherwise noted, it is usually young boys who get paid to sleep with men…and that is clearly homosexual). All through the Bible, Old and New Testament alike, there are clear indications that God does not like the act of homosexuallity. Only He didn’t use that term, but instead terms like, men leaving the nature of women and seeking out men (paraphrasing). We can’t change what God doesn’t want changed just to suit your needs.
I for one, am sick and tired of hearing how this offends someone, or that offends someone! For goodness sake already! If you don’t like looking at something, DON’T look at it! If someone is having a festival that you are not into, DON’T go! I don’t care who you sleep with, it is not my businessbut between you, that person, and yes, God. It doesn’t mean I accept it, but I don’t dwell on it or try to change them, though I will tell them that God is not accepting of it if we get to talking about it. People are too offended over too many things, and what makes it even more wrong is that the lawyers have made billions on suing for it. They are the ones that are creating the hate in this world because they make it worth being offended.
I am a literalist Bible-believing Christian. It offends me when I walk in the mall and someone takes the Lord’s name in vain. But do I sue them for it? No. Even if I did, I wouldn’t get anywhere cuz I am not allowed to be offended. And this kind of junk is not just stupid, but offensive to me. Maybe I should sue Mr. Fowler for offending me for wanting to change the Word of God? On second thought, since God is going to be judging all of us soon, I will wait and let God handle him and others like him.
And as MBT said, heterosexuals have their own problems and sins in the Bible too. But I guess we straight folks shouldn’t be offended that if we commit adultery and don’t repent and come to Christ, that we will burn in the fires of hell just like a homosexual who doesn’t repent and come to Christ will too.
You are right. We need to do something about the homosexual agenda. They are destroying what globally was a sanctified union of man and woman. It isn’t just that God created Adam and Eve, all cultures (unless I have missed some) consider marriage between man and woman the norm, and have for thousands of years. If you want to be in a relationship, fine. But quit being offended when I don’t particularly like it!
Sorry this is so long, but I am getting fed up..and I guess I just vented. What kind of a world do we live in!?
July 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I have a question.
Can anyone write and publish the bible the way they see fit ?
I dont care about this guys lawsuit.
We all know its BS.
But the wording in the bible has clearly been changed.
How did what was written in the 70s get a pass to be what it became in the 2001 version ?
As far as Fowler goes, no matter what version he looks at it still condemns what hes doing.
Having the word “homosexual” shouldnt give him anymore stress than if it didnt say it.
It looks to me as if hes going to have to subpoena God to the stand if he wants to get anywhere.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
These is crazy. All one has to do is go to court against him with an Interlinear and good concordance! Then he will see that is exactly what it says - only more clearly! I wouldn’t be surprised if they settle out of court . . . How has our society become so blind and dull - oh yeah - think the answer to that is in the Bible too. Oh no! Another law suit! This guy may have spent his time in prison researching law and how to make money from suits, but he obviously didn’t do any research on the Bible or passage he is quoting.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Micky”, do your own research with and Interlinear and concordance. You will see that they haven’t really changed as you look at the words in the original text and their meanings. I recommend a NASB for the most accurate translation in that regard. I have a parallel Interlinear Bible with the NIV and NASB. Be a Berean! Never just accept what you read or what you are taught. Ask yourself “But what did God say in His Word”. Then research it to be sure you understand it by letting the Old and New Testament teach you together. You will gain so much insight into passages that too often pastors are misinterpreting as small pieces they study as ’stand alone’ sections.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I understand all that Melanie, and thank you for your advice.
If all that is so than why do we have so many different persuasions of Christianity and the bible ?
As you mentioned “the original text”
It only happened one way, right ?
It should be told one way. Why should there be any other text ?
But what I was actually getting at was the three different versions above.
What reason or purpose does the publisher have for making those changes ?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am
The issue really isn’t the use of the word “homosexual” although that is the correct translation. The issue is one of the fact he “loves darkness instead of light beacuse [his] deeds are evil” (John 3:19). Rather than embracing the light of God’s Word, he would rather continue to embrace the darkness of his sinful lifestyle, which God would readily deliver him from if he would simply be willing to repent, receive the Lord Jesus Christ by grace through faith, and live for Him. But, he seems to love darkness rather than light.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Any kind of sex is a sin outside of marriage! That would include homosexual and heterosexual. If this Fowler claims to be a Christian, then he wouldn’t practice any kind of sex outside of marriage, right????
July 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
How about some assistance from someone with a background in theology and some knowledge of the process of biblical translation — namely me.
First, there are two main methods of translation — dynamic equivalence and functional equivalence. The former seeks to give the sense of what the text says, while making the language more contemporary and readable. The latter seeks the most equivalent word and sentence structure, even if that sacrifices the readability. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation for the most part.
The second issue is why the changes over the years. The answer is simple — the NIV has undergone a constant process of revision in the nearly 40 years since it was originally published. based upon new scholarship and reconsideration of “best practices” in the field of biblical translation. Thus there have been several revisions of the text over time trying to improve the translation.
What Fowler is trying to do, however, is get a federal court to declare what the proper translation of a biblical translation — and, implicitly, proper Christian doctrine — should be. Am I the only one noting a major First Amendment issue here?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am
That is a very good point Laura.
A dear friend’s son had left Christianity due to his homosexuality and feeling of being judged by unloving Christians and God. It had affected her perspective too, and I once saw her walk out of a service because the pastor spoke on that subject - correctly and with grace. At her birthday party, I met that son for the first time, and for some reason he opened up to me discussing the judgmental nature of Christianity in that regard. At first I did not know how to respond. I feel God gave me this answer: “Sex outside of the marriage relationship is sin before God. No matter what your or my orientation is - we are single people. Therefore God calls us both to celibacy and not sin.” He could ‘hear’ that and seem to take it in, not getting upset. Hopefully it was a thought of understanding that God had planted in his mind and heart. A similar thing happened on an flight with a young man that, upon seeing my Bible, asked me why the Bible was so hateful in that regard. He also seemed to take that understanding in without feeling judged, and thanked as he got off.
So, as Laura says, the truth is that sex outside of marriage is sin, no matter how you practice it.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Oh, and Micky — please remember something about the Bible — we don’t have ANY original texts. What we have are copies made over centuries, made by scribes laboriously copying older texts in an attempt to preserve them. There are variations within those surviving texts — and they are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, not English. Like with any other translation of any other text, translators make choices about what the “best” translation of the words would be in order to convey what they understand as the proper understanding of the nuances. During my seminary career, we had an internationally renown biblical scholar on the faculty. When he preached at chapel services, he would actually use his own personal translation of the text — at times quite familiar, at others slightly jarring to the ear — in order to make an exposition of a text written in another tongue millennia ago. So it is fair to argue that there is no single “right” translation.
In the case of the choice of the word “homosexual” rather than “sodomite”, it is also important to remember that the sin of Sodom has traditionally been understood in Christian theology as the attempt to engage in homosexual relations with the angelic visitors to Lot in the city of Sodom. It therefore is not unreasonable to translate the same word as either “sodomite” or “homosexual”, depending upon philosophy of translation and stylistic choices.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Oh, I think we all understand that this is a flagrant violation of Christians’ First Amendment rights. But that is the standard now - as Donna basically said. It is okay to expect Christian’s to be tolerant of absolutely anything. At the same time, it is okay to take away any rights of, to offend Christians who do not have the right to be offended. ‘Don’t give it a second thought’.
Blindness is going on when America is so afraid of offending Muslims that they will take away the rights of all others if Muslims say they are offended in the smallest way - same thing with the homosexual agenda, or ’sexual freedom’. We are witnessing something big and dangerous gowning in the United States. We need to turn our eyes to what is happening in Britain and Canada and beware!!! America has turned away from God and is reaping the curses she is bringing down upon herself.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Re 1 Cor 5:6, my Comparative Bible published in 1984 lists 4 versions: KJ,Amplified (published 1954-1968), NAS (1960-1977, NIV (1973-1978. All except the KJ use the expressions homosexuality or homosexual. The KJ uses the equivalent euphemism: “nor abusers of themselves with mankind”. The 1971 Living Bible uses “adulterers and homosexuals”. Even the Catholic St Joseph’s ed (1970) uses “no sexual perverts”.
The Lamsa Bible (1933-1967) based on the Aramaic Peshitta version and relying on “Ancient Eastern Manuscripts” dating to “Bible times without any change or revision” according to an introductory comment written in 1957, states: “nor adulterers nor the corrupt nor men who lie with males”.
Similarly the 1962 Phillips translation in Modern English states for Roman 1;25: “.. disgraceful passions, their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another, men with men performed these shameful horrors receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity..”.
You cannot get much clearer what God wants us to call homosexuality and what has been a perversion or abomination for more than 2000 years in the NT and going back 4000 years to Moses’ times.
This is clearly a contrived frivolous suit without any merit.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
All you guys above who are trying to help explain this to me , I appreciate it.
And dont get me wrong, I believe in God and Jesus. But I like to hear the different answers I get to these questions
Still, theres a lot of truth to the old saying that a lot gets lost in translation.
And that is why we have all these different religions around the world that are doing terrible things in the name of God, Allah or whatever.
Its not only translation, its the cherry picking of context also that leads those to justify their BS.
This guys case to me is an example of how OC is a disease that is ruining our basic right to comminicate effectivly.
Had the version said “Gay” instead of “homosexual” would this guy be half as upset ?
I realize that a lot of the translations actually carry the same meaning and are designed for easier readabilty. But in our PC world it doesnt matter.
When we have to alter the language so much so as not to offend anyone the message will eventually get lost.
So screw this guy if he doesnt like the message or the wording.
( figurativley speaking)
July 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am
sorry, oc is pc
July 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think that’s what it exactly is. A First Amendment issue.
But we all know the First Amendment only applies to artists who stick Crucifixes in jars of urine or splatter dung on icons of the Virgin Mary. Free speech and free exercise of religion cannot apply to those pesky Christians unless their doctrine is politically correct and State Approved!
July 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Well, whatever it is, it is allowed to go on because Christian America in general, has turned it’s eye to such things and allows it. I for one am getting sick of defending myself because of being a Christian, and I am sick to death of people saying I am judging someone for what they do (not that anyone on here said anything of the sort), when really, I am doing what Christ commanded of us…(emphasis mine)
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2.” and also in Ephesians 5:11 where it states:
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them]. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. (13) But all things that are REPROVED are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” and lastly….
“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, AND CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16″
Note the words reprove and rebuke! According to Blue letter Bible and the shortened concordance (Strong’s), Let’s see what “Reprove and rebuke” mean in these two verses:
elegchÅ?
1) to convict, refute, confute
a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
2) to find fault with, correct
a) by word
1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
b) by deed
1) to chasten, to punish
We are not to tolerate such behavior (sodomy) when it is clear that God does not tolerate it either. We are commanded to reprove and rebuke such behaviors, yet some Christians would rather just mistranslate the “judge not lest ye be judged” verse. If they read that right, and with a concordance, they would know that it was Christ speaking to the hypocritical Pharisee who were guilty of sharing in the same sin that they were judging others for. Anotherwards, don’t ‘rebuke’ a drunk if you drink as well. Don’t rebuke a prostitute if you are committing adultery. I am not homosexual nor practice sodomy, therefore it is right for me to rebuke homosexuality. Because I call someone out on their unrighteous sin, does not mean I am judging them, but reproving them. God will judge, meaning He is going to hand out the punishment to meet the sin (if you haven’t repented and come to Christ), which I am not doing…I am not capable of giving out punishment, only God is.
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24:” ….. be not hypocritical in your reproving.
We should not be mean, or nasty, or even hate people for the sins they do. But we as Christians should also not stand in tolerance of so many things that God specifically abhored. How can we call ourselves Christians if we just tolerate the very things that God tells us to rebuke?! Those that preach tolerance will be the ones that Christ turns away for being lukewarm. He can’t stomach the lukewarm Christians and He Himself said, “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16)
I am a child of God. I follow Jesus Christ. It breaks my heart to know that people out there hate Him and all He stands for. Since He is after all, my Father, I should willingly stand up for Him in all things that are against Him. I would or my own father if someone trashed him…why should I treat God any less? I can’t. This doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t show the same love and mercy Christ showed, but He wasn’t tolerant of sin, and neither should we be.
Again, my venting rant. Ahh, in the end, all I can say is, Come Lord Jesus. Take us home for we are ready.
Amen.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Just another example of why losers should bear the costs of a lawsuit.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
oh my!! who can I sue this stupidness is causing me tremedous stress
July 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
This is just another ploy by satan to confuse God’s children…The only rights that homosexuals have is to get right with God…
The bible was written 2500 years ago by men inspired by the Holy Ghost,(God’s Spirit)…Man has been trying prove the bible wrong every since it was written…
The KJV of the bible was the first to be translated into the English language…King James put the men back then through a great deal to get the translations right so that we could the true meaning of the word of God…
However, since the beginning, there have been people defiling the word of God so that in most cases, does not mean or say the same things that the word of God meant for us to believe and have Faith in…
The homosexuals also have another thing that God hates, and that is a proud spirit and a lying tongue…Let the faggot have the $60 million, it will burn with him in the lake-of-fire…
Oh, and before someone charges me of hating this guy/girl?, God says, that He hates the sin and loves the sinner…I do not hate the person, but I do hate the sin…We are to love the things that God loves, and hate the things that God hates…
The things that we are going through throught the world today are written in the bible, just as the things past have happened…What we are going through today is testing the true Christians from the false Christians who claim Jesus name, but are not willing to live it…
It is also written in the bible in the book of Isaiah 5:14, that hell is enlarging herself, and opened her mouth without measure…Meaning that hell is getting ready for an unmeasurable amount of souls…While heaven is described in size,(Revelation 21:16,17)”foursquare”,(1500 sq. miles), many are called, but few are chosen…
Sorry Fowler, faggots won’t be going to the kingdom of God…
July 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Johnnie — The New Testament (including the passage in question) was written less than 2000 years ago.
THe King James Version was NOT the first translation of the Bible into English — indeed, the Catholic Douay-Rhiems version predates the KJV by 15-20 years, and it was not the first, either. Henry VIII authorized several earlier versions for use in the Church of England, and the Geneva Bible was in English translation during his reign as well. Several other English translations existed — though not in wide circulation nor in official church use.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
It’s a publicity stunt. The Bible is too old to change. People translate it the way they want to anyway…just tell the guy to translate it in a way that appeases himself.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“Sorry Fowler, faggots won’t be going to the kingdom of God…”
not your call …
and while i do not think this lawsuit has merit
i just don’t see that we should be necessarily basing our civil laws on customs that were invented before the wheel