What the Fuck is the Gay Bible?
The new Bible “Queen James Version” is a controversial book claiming to be the world’s first homosexual friendly bible which has recently been published to coincide with the debate on same-sex marriage. The “Queen James Bible” purports to be based on the King James Bible version and is being touted as the “first-ever gay Bible in the world,” reports the Daily Mail. [9] At first glance, it’s difficult to discern who is behind the publication (the publisher of the book on Amazon is listed as “Queen James”), as there is no organization overtly mentioned on the web site advertising the alternative Bible. The homosexual news outlet Pink News has identified Reverend J. Pearson of San Francisco’s Holy Innocents Episcopal church as the mastermind behind the rainbow-themed Bible. [8] The editors are bold in explaining their intriguing project. 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.” [1] To accomplish this goal, the publishers printed a sanitized 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 sales pitch on the website says: ‘You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too’ [1] [9] This self-described “Gay Bible” comes over 400 years after King James I of England commissioned 54 of the world’s most renowned scholars and clergymen to create an English translation of the Bible from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. [7]
Who the Hell is Queen James?
Queen James?
The publishers of the Queen James Bible chose the name “Queen James” as a take-off on the “King James” Version. The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. [1] The brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read, it has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. [1] The editors of the Gay Bible argue that King James I was a well-known bisexual and that this “fact” was commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians. [1] [7] [8] Though he did marry a woman, they say, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as “Queen James.” [1] [5] [7] They conclude saying: “It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.” [1] The truth is that this is pure speculation. To this day, historians and biographers, however, continue to debate whether King James ever engaged in homosexual behavior. Some historians say yes, others say no. It is an unsettled question. [7]
Homosexuality in The Bible
The main postulate of this new LGBT friendly christianity is that the homophobic verses of the Bible are the result of a misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures themselves. The authors of the new Gay Bible make the point that Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version [1] and that there is “no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this – only interpretations have been made.” [1] They assert, “anti-LGBT Bible interpretations” arose, based on a faulty translation in the RSV of eight verses. They argue that Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite “only eight verses in the Bible” that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin. From there they go on to say that this represent only “eight verses in a book of thousands!” [1] 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 somehow they are the only ones who have got it right. The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.
While it is true that the word “homosexual” did not appear in Bible translations until recent times, there is a good reason for that: The word did not exist in the English language prior to 1890. That does not, however, mean that the subject was not broached in earlier translations. [10] As Wheaton College professor and professional Bible translator Douglas J. Moo told the Christian Post:
Few, if any English translations use the actual words “homosexuality” or “homosexual.” But the history of English translation shows that versions have consistently used other language to refer to what we would call homosexual relationships. For instance, the King James Version of Romans 1:27 refers to “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.” It would be very difficult to deny that this language, and the language found in many other places in both the [Old Testament] and the [New Testament], refers to homosexuality. [6] [9]
Yet that is exactly what the editors of the QJV do. The editors of the QJV also boast that they “side with most Bible scholars” — left unnamed — “who understand the story … to be about bullying strangers.” Thus, they changed verse five to read: “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 rape and humiliate them.” [10] There is no textual support for the changes they have made to these eight Scriptures.
Sanitized Bible Verse #1
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. [5]
Sanitized Bible Verse #2
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.” [7] From this they assert that a biblical “abomination” would be understood by today’s standards to be something “scandalous.” [7] 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. [5]
Sanitized Bible Verse #3
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 in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up 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.
Sanitized Bible Verse #4
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 for homosexuality was 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, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous” (QJV, emphasis added).
Sanitized Bible Verse #5
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 that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (QJV, emphasis added).
Sanitized Bible Verse #6
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.
A Bible that Sucks…
It’s not the first time that falsifiers and historical revisionists try to rewrite the all times classics in order tu suit their misguided agendas. In 1807 an English physician named Thomas Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare (sic), an edition of Shakespeare’s works edited to remove some of the more objectionable content and phrases. Bowdler’s work was designed to provide a more “appropriate” version of the classic texts for 19th-century women and children. In the preface to his work Bowdler announced his desire to make Shakespeare accessible “without incurring the danger of falling unawares among words and expressions which are of such a nature as to raise a blush on the cheek of modesty.” [15] His name later became a verb, bowdlerize, and synonymous with expurgation of literature. Among other “sanitizations” of the Holy Scripture, we remeber that a Bible translation praised by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in 2004 had been “updated” in various ways, including a passage in which St. Paul urged his followers to have a “regular partner.” [8] Another “sanitization” appeared when Thomas Jefferson famously compiled a condensed New Testament that excluded any mention of miracles or supernatural events, including Jesus’ resurrection. [8] But this time I think that we reached the top. It is incredible to see how times have changed. In our politically correct age, texts are bowlderized not because they contain works and expressions “which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family” but rather because they offend the sensibilities of those who wish to engage in and apologize for what regular christians considers as “immoral behavior” and “sexual depravity.” [10] Considering that multiple translations over many centuries, using a variety of sources, have translated these verses similarly to the KJV, it is obvious who is “erroneously” changing the clear words of Scripture “to support their own agenda.” [10]
According to the Website, The QJB is “a big, fabulous Bible.” [1] It is printed and bound in the United States on thick, high-quality paper in a beautiful, readable typeface. It is the perfect Bible for ceremony, study, sermon, gift-giving, or simply to put on display in the home or Church. The book is on sale online but does not advertise its origins, with no specific publisher, editor or translator listed by name on it’s offical website. ‘God’ is listed as the author and ‘Jesus Christ’ a contributor. [9] It is not expected that this book will catch on anytime soon, even in the homosexual community. [13] The QJV isn’t the first attempt to rewrite Scripture to make it say what some want it to say; and if the editors get their druthers, it won’t be the last. The QJV “resolves any homophobic interpretations of the Bible,” they write, “but the Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction that we have not addressed.” The Almighty is surely waiting with bated breath to see how mere mortals can once more “improve” upon His Word. [10] That being said, we can’t wait to read the “Gay Quran,” which would be a logical “next step” in this endeavor if only we can find someone in the LGBT community with balls big enough to go on with this risky philological task.
