I recently took some heat over my criticism of David Bruce on such posts as Hollywood Jesus, Church at Louie’s Bar, and this post. My discernment told me long ago that this man was a wolf and, of course, I was subsequently accused of judging him by those who should know better themselves.
Well, now I will let you read a quote for yourself from David Bruce on his recommendation of The Source New Testament. This particular quote was found under the endorsement of the new Gay & Lesbian Bible.
“The Source is a bridge over troubled waters. It is real, relevant and astonishingly faithful to the Greek texts. It connects with Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered people as no other translation ever has done. Pick it up, settle back in a comfortable chair, and be prepared to be enraptured by the radical love that God has for all people. It is my translation of choice.” – David Bruce.
He also said in another endorsement that he gives it his “highest recommendation.” And in another endorsement he says “It has become my personal favorite and I take pleasure in making it the translation of choice for HollywoodJesus.com.”
Now I pose the question for those who judged me for discerning him; was I wrong?
Christ Alone Wyoming 
As a person who was defending Mr. Bruce earlier, I’ll admit that this troubles me, that he would take such a lukewarm position on something that is so Biblically obvious. It troubles me even more that someone would publish a translation that has apparently been sanitized to omit Biblical calls for holiness in the realm of sexuality.
However, I still stand that the invitation he wrote to people from various walks of life is still a valid invitation to put out there. But, if he’s not telling folks the truth of the Gospel when they come, that part of following Christ involves repenting from sins (including homosexuality, but also including heterosexual lust and infidelities and the like), then I’m very sorry. And it reminds me of Isaiah 30, where people only want to “hear pleasant things… prophecy illusions… stop talking to us about the Holy One..”
And I don’t think that you throw out the baby with the bathwater, either. I still see Hollywood as a mission field, especially including people in the entertainment industry, and the fault of the American church is not being more intentional about reaching that unreached people group.
LikeLike
Dear Nathan,
Thanks for writing. In this case it’s not a matter of babies and bath water, it’s a matter of leaven and truth. How much leaven do you allow? That’s the question. We are to reach people but not at the expense of compromise.
In regards to your comment “this troubles me, that he would take such a lukewarm position on something that is so Biblically obvious.” Be mindful, this is not a lukewarm position. It is a heretical position. He’s affirming these people to believe that their sin (or any sin for that matter) is acceptable. If someone goes to hell because they trusted that he was telling them the truth, their blood will be on his hands. He has not taken a lukewarm stance, but an apostate one.
Sometimes you have to call a duck a duck, and some of us can spot a duck a mile away while others need to have feathers in their mouth before they’ll finally admit, “It’s a duck!”
LikeLike
Homosexual is better translated “anal penetrator” as in the “pro gay Bible”
Before ya all judge me here is what the “pro-gay” study Bible says:
–The word arsenokoites, in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been assumed to mean “homosexual”. However, the word does not mean “homosexual”, and its range of meaning includes one who anally penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer, or an extortionist. When used in the meaning “anal penetrator”, it does not apply exclusively to males as the receptors, as it was also used for women receptors. The word does not appear in any Greek literary source until the poets of the Imperial period. This late occurrence is most significant as the Greeks wrote at length on male-male sexual relationships.–
1. Personally, I think it is good thing to translate this word correctly. If the Bible means “anal penetrator” then so be it. If that applies to both homosexual and heterosexual behavior, so be it. If it especially applies to a rapist, a murderer, or an extortionist, then let the word of God be so translated.
2. Further the Source is one of the most honest translations out there.
3. Why can’t the Bible be for gays as well as for atheists and agnostics, believers and non-believers etc? How about a ” Study Bible for Non-Believers”? I would certainly be for it, as I am this one.
4. Let’s stop the gay bashing, and begin to hold hands with everyone around us regardless of who they are!
5. The word of God never returns void.
LikeLike
David Bruce,
That was an excellent parody! I mean, nobody could be that delusional about the whole “all roads lead to heaven” and “the Bible doesn’t talk about homosexuality” nonsense being spread like dung through the apostate churches like Metropolitan, etc. And point #4, about “holding hands with everyone around us” was priceless! You sounded just like someone who has never even picked up a Bible! And “The Source” being one of the most honest translations–hilarious!!
But, actually, the Bible is for atheists, agnostics, etc. It talks about them in quite vivid imagery. They will be cast into the lake of fire, the worms will never die and the fire will never be quenched. And there’s a special place for those who lead people into abominations–their place will be even worse than the ones they lead to eternal destruction.
LikeLike
Dear David Bruce,
If I gather what you’re saying correctly, the word “arsenokoites” (commonly translated as homosexual) in your pro-gay preferred translation really means one who anally penetrates another. So this must then mean that same-sex intercourse is okee dokee as long as this one act is carefully avoided.
So how do you explain the condemnation of same-sex intercourse when the word “arsenokoites,” or “homosexual,” or “anal-penetrator” isn’t used in the selected text?
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:26-28
Sounds pretty black and white to me.
LikeLike