The Queen James Bible (QJV), also called the “Gay Bible,” is an edit of the biblical text done in the name of preventing “homophobic interpretations.” To accomplish this goal, the publishers printed a Bible in which all negative references to homosexuality have been removed. The Queen James Bible was published in 2012 and is based on the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.
The publishers of the Queen James Bible chose the name “Queen James” as an obvious take-off on the “King James” Version, as the Authorized Version of 1611 is commonly called. The publishers of the Gay Bible also claim that King James was bisexual, so their choice of title capitalizes on the slang meaning of the termqueen.
The editors of the Queen James Bible, who chose to be anonymous, claim that there was no reference to homosexuality in any Bible translation prior to the 1946 Revised Standard Version. Then, they assert, “anti-LGBT Bible interpretations” arose, based on a faulty translation in the RSV of eight verses.
The unidentified “scholars”—their scholastic credentials are unknown—who produced the Queen James Bible suggest that all Bible translations of these eight verses are wrong and that they are the only ones who have got it right. Below are the eight verses. The King James Version is shown first, followed by the Queen James Version and some comments concerning each change:
Genesis 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). (The expression “to know” (in this context) means to have sexual intercourse.)
“And they called out 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, emphasis added).
The change from “know them” to “rape and humiliate them” is based on the idea that male-on-male rape is not really a sexual act but is an expression of power and domination. It is clear that physical rape was what the men of Sodom had in mind, but nowhere in the Hebrew text is the word humiliate used.
Leviticus 18:22:“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (KJV).Leviticus 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).
The editors of the Queen James Version reckon that Leviticus is outdated as a moral code. They say the Hebrew word translated “abomination” is something that was “ritually unclean” or a “taboo.” From this they assert that a biblical “abomination” would be understood by today’s standards to be something “scandalous.” Because they do not consider homosexual relations to be taboo (and because not all abominable offenses were punishable by death), the publishers of the QJV conclude that, at some point in time, there must have been an error in translation. Whereas Leviticus 20:13 clearly says that men lying together is an “abomination,” punishable by death, the editors of the Queen James Bible claim that, if having sex with a man was punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination. However, it is clear that to lie with a person does not mean simply to be prone and go to sleep. The biblical expression “to lie with” means to have sexual relations (see Genesis 39:12).
The editors of the Queen James Version want us to believe that Leviticus 18:12 and 20:13 are all about pagan worship of the god Molech. They have therefore taken the liberty of adding to the Word of God. This is how they have rendered these two passages:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination” (QJV, emphasis added).
“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, emphasis added).
So, according to the editors of the QJV, it is “abominable” for a man have sex with a man if they’re in the temple of Molech, but it’s not “abominable” for a man to have sex with a man if it has nothing to do with Molech worship.
Romans 1:26–27:“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet” (KJV).
The plain reading of this passage indicates that lesbianism and homosexuality are unnatural. The Greek words for “against nature” mean “monstrous, abnormal and perverse; that which is contrary to nature’s laws.”
But the editors of the Queen James Bible assert that verse 26 is not talking about women engaging in lesbian sex. Neither do they accept that lesbianism is “unnatural.” While acknowledging that they really have no idea what is meant by women engaging in the “unnatural” use of their bodies, they suggest it could mean pagan dancing. As for the men, we are to believe the “unseemly” behavior is sexual activity linked to idolatry. The Queen James Bible reads thus:
“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 inrituallust, one toward another; Men with men working that which ispagan andunseemly. For this cause God gavethe idolatorsup unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (QJV, emphasis added). Note how they have again added to the Word of God to conform it to their thinking.
The editors of the Queen James Bible claim that most scholars believe the sin in Romans 1 isn’t being gay or lesbian or having gay sex. The sin, they say, is pagan worship. Interestingly, there is no evidence to back up their claim that “most scholars” agree with them.
1 Corinthians 6:9:“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV).
The Greek word for “soft” is translated as “effeminate”; that is, a “soft, womanly man.” But the Queen James Bible editors claim that the word effeminate is unrelated to how the word is used today; rather, it means “morally weak.” The Greek word arsenokoites translated here as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” refers to sodomites, males engaging in same-gender sexual activity. However, the QJV editors claim this means “the male who has many beds,” an expression referring to men who are promiscuous. They say that, since no specific Greek word forhomosexualitywas used, they are justified in “translating” it as “promiscuous.” The phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind” has simply been replaced in the QJV:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, normorally weak, norpromiscuous” (QJV, emphasis added).
1 Timothy 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).
The editors of the Queen James Bible objected to the expression “defile themselves with mankind,” so they simply deleted “with mankind”:
“For whoremongers, for them thatdefile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (QJV, emphasis added).
Jude 1:7:“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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). “Strange flesh” here refers to illicit use of the human body.
The editors of the Queen James Bible felt that this recount of the story of Sodom needed clarification. So, the “strange flesh” the mob of Sodom was seeking was “angelic flesh”; that is, it was only “strange” because it was nonhuman. Thus, the sexual violence the men of Sodom wanted to perform on Lot’s guests cannot be truly called a homosexual act:
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (QJV, emphasis added). However, the men of Sodom didn’t know Lot’s guests were angels! For all they knew, the guests were men, just like they. The implication is that Jude is denouncing men having sex with men, not men lusting after angels.
Jesus warned against altering one jot or tittle from God’s Word (Matthew 5:18). Yet the unidentified editors of the Queen James Bible have seen fit to boldly remove anything they dislike and add words that have no right to be there—all to try to make God say what they want said. They are trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, linguistically speaking, and it will never work. What are their scholastic credentials? Where can seekers of truth go to verify their claims? Are we to believe that all other Bible translators succumbed to “interpretive ambiguity,” while only the editors of the QJV have seen the truth of the text?
There is no textual support for the changes they have made to these eight Scriptures. The only reason for making such changes is to accomplish their stated goal of making “homophobic interpretations impossible.” In other words, they are twisting the Word of God to suit their agenda.