The Queen James Bible, also known as the Gay Bible, is a new assault on biblical orthodoxy and sexual purity.  This is to be expected in a world of moral relativism.  In it, the 1769 King James Bible has been reproduced with only a very few select verses altered–the ones that relate to homosexuality.  Those verses are listed below and analyzed.  I hope you will see that the Queen James Bible is a perversion of the original text and is the result of obvious prejudices against the original Hebrew and Greek texts in order to make homosexual practices appear acceptable.

The interlinear citations are taken from two sources.  An interlinear is a listing of the original languages that is reproduced from the most ancient and best manuscripts with English translations under it.  This way, the reader can see for himself what the original says.

1. Hebrew Interlinear Quotations are from van der Merwe, Christo. The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. Logos Bible Software, 2004.
2. Greek Interlinear Quotations are from the Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993, c1979). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (410). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.

The editors of the “Queen James Bible” have stated the following:

“Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there.”¹http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/

I’m glad they acknowledge that most translations condemn homosexuality.  But, the anonymous editors of the QJV changed the translations, reinterpreted them, and made them say the opposite of what the original languages state. It says on page one of the QJV:  “The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.”  Edit they did; translate they did not.

Are they really going to maintain that basically all translators have gotten it wrong throughout the centuries and that they, the anonymous editors²I emailed them on 12/25/2012, via the contact link on the qeenjamesbible.com website asking for a list of their editors., got it right?  It is easy to make assertions while you hide behind anonymity.  What are they afraid of if their edits are the right ones?

Let’s take a look at the verses that deal with homosexuality but comparing the KJV and the QJV and providing the original text for your examination.

Verse	King James Version	Queen James Version Green is altered text. Green with strikethrough is removed text Red is addition of words not found in original text
Gen. 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)	“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.” (QJV)
	הוֹצִיאֵם   אֵלֵינוּ   וְנֵדְעָה   אֹתָם׃ bring out  them   to us   and  know    them As you can see, there is nothing in the original text that says “rape and humiliate.”  The word often translated as “rape” in English Bibles is the Hebrew yawdah which means “to know”:  “know” 645 times, “known” 105 times, “knowledge” 19 times, “perceive” 18 times, “shew” 17 times, “tell” eight times, “wist” seven times, “understand” seven times, “certainly” seven times, “acknowledge” six times, “acquaintance” six times, “consider” six times, “declare” six times, “teach” five times, and translated miscellaneously 85 times.3 Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (H3045). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.  So the word “know” is there which can be translated as “rape,” but “and humiliate” is a complete fabrication. The KJV never uses the word “humiliate” in the O.T.  It occurs once in Acts 8:33, but that is the Greek.  However, in the NASB “humiliate” occurs in the Old Testament (Judges 18:7; Ezra 9:5; Psa. 35:26, etc.).  The word is kawlawm and means “ashamed 12, confounded 11, shame 7, blush 3, hurt 2, reproach 2, confusion 1″4.ibid. Adding the words “rape and humiliate” is not justified and alters the meaning of the text.  Moses knew what he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Essentially, the QJV editors are saying that Moses didn’t get it right and that they had to add words – which are not there – to “correctly” get it to say what they think it needs to say.
Lev. 18:22	“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” (KJV)	“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.” (QJV)
	וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא׃ and  with  a male not you shall lie with the lying with of a woman [is] a detestable thing that As you can see, “in the temple of Molech” is not in the original text.  Their modification is not justified. In the previous verse (Lev. 18:21) it says, “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.” (KJV)  The editors of the gay Bible have borrowed the topic of Molech from the previous verse and inserted it into v. 22.  But is that justified?  Not at all.  In verse 20 it says “…thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her (Lev. 18:20).”  Is this also only referring to “in the temple of Molech”?  Or the verse after 22 — Lev. 18:23 says, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”  Does v. 23 condemn bestiality “in the temple of Molech” but it is okay outside the temple?  Why the selective inconsistency?  The QJV editors are not justified in their text modification.  They altered it to make it fit their sexual preference.
Lev. 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)	“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)
	וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ and man who sleep with  male lying with woman detestable thing do As you can see, there is nothing in the text that says “in the temple of Molech.” Molech is mentioned earlier in Lev. 20:2,3,4,5.  However, the topic then shifts in Lev. 20:9 where Moses forbids cursing your mother and father (Lev. 20:9), condems adultery (Lev. 20:10), lying with one’s father’s wife (Lev. 20:11), and lying with one’s daughter-in-law (Lev. 20:12).  Then after verse 13 it says not to marry a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14), to not lie with animals (Lev. 20:15), etc. If the Gay Bible editors want to borrow a topic from several verses earlier and insert it into only one particular verse, why just that one?  Why do the editors of the Queen James Bible feel justified in picking out only a single verse among a host of sexually descriptive prohibitions and modify only that one verse?  Why?  It’s because that is the verse that disagrees with their pro-homosexual bias, so they altered it.  Perhaps later we might see a pro-bestiality Bible that inserts the words “in the temple of Molech” into Lev. 20:15, just as the pro-homosexual editors did in verse 13. This is an obvious case of prejudicial translation and alteration to suit a particular sexual behavior.
Rom. 1:26	“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections or even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.”5The printed book form of this verse is identical to the text above. The website, queenjamesbible.com, has the word “their” added to it so it reads, “…into that which is against their nature.” (KJV)	“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections  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.” (QJV)
	διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας αἵ τε Through this gave over them the God into passions of dishonor the indeed γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν for females of them changed across the natural use to the beyond nature You will notice that there is a significant alteration in this verse. The editors not only removed several words (crossed out), but also added many more (in red).  They also moved words from the next verse (v. 27) into this one. The reason was to change what Rom. 1:26 actually says. On their website at queenjamesbible.com the editors provide an explanation for this drastic change. “We know Paul was a Jew and steeped in the purity tradition of Leviticus. Leviticus, as we know, is intended to condemn ritual impurities associated with pagan idol worship. It would not be unreasonable to assume a connection, especially since Romans 1:24 mentions “uncleanness.” We know sex, both heterosexual and homosexual sex (not distinguished from each other at the time), was an extremely major component of pagan ritual. Most scholars (us included), agree that the sin in Romans 1 isn’t being gay or lesbian or having gay sex. The sin was worshiping pagan idols instead of God, as it was in Leviticus, as it is everywhere in the Bible. To reflect our more examined understanding of what is ‘natural’ and to clarify the subject matter of Romans 1, we have changed the verses to the following:”6http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/ The QJV editors rewrote what Paul actually said.  Notice that “ritual lust” is not there in the Greek.  The inclusion of “ritual lust” alters the meaning of the text to get it to say that that homosexuality is bad when it is practiced in some sort of religious ritual, as temple prostitution.  But, this is not what it says. The original KJV has no occurrence of the word “ritual” in the entire Bible.  It occurs in the NKJV in Deut 23:17; 2 Kings 23:7; Ezek. 20:26; Hos. 4:14.  But, none of these are in the New Testament, so there is no justification for changing the text to “ritual lust.”
Rom. 1:27	“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 recompence of their error which was meet.	“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 recompence of their error which was meet.” (QJV)
	ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν likewise indeed also the males having sent off the natural use of the female were burned thoroughly in τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν the lust of them to one another males in males the shameless ness working thoroughly and the ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες return wage which it was necessary of the deceit of them in themselves receiving back This verse is linked to the one immediately above it so you can see the notes on its alteration imposed by the editors. They have added the words pagan, idolators, and vile affections.  That is not justified for this text.  Those words are just not there in the Greek.
1 Cor. 6:9	“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV)	“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, (QJV)
	οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται nor adulterers nor soft ones nor male bed partners Let’s look at the Greek word that the QJV renders as “morally weak.”  The Greek is ἀρσενοκοίται, arsenokoitai.  What does it mean? Arsenokoitais comes from two words, “ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual”7Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000. “ἄρσην (arsēn), εν (en): adj.; ≡ DBLHebr 2351; Str 730—1. LN 79.102 human male”8Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. “κοίτη (koitē), ης (ēs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 2845—1. LN 6.108 bed (Lk 11:7+); 2. LN 23.62 sexual life, marriage bed”9.ibid. ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’10Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996. “ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ arsenokoitēs male homosexual”11Balz, Horst Robert, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990-. But, on the queenjamesbible.com site, the editors say the following about arsenokoitas. “Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in arsenokoitais’s place. We changed the phrase “Abusers of themselves with mankind” to “promiscuous” as one who is promiscuous risks their own health and that of others, sexually and otherwise, as they disrespect their God-given body.”12http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/. If what they say is true, then let’s see some documentation that there were other words for ‘homosexual’. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.  Also, it doesn’t change the fact that the word ‘arsenekoitas’ says what it says as is documented above by several Greek lexicons.
1 Cor. 6:10	“Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (KJV)	“Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (QJV)   (No Change)
	On queenjamesbible.com they included this verse for context. I have, too. There is no change in the KJV text as represented in the QJV.
1 Tim. 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)	“For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, with mankind (text is removed in QJV) for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (QJV)
	πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις sexually immoral ones male bed partners man-trappers liars perjurers The QJV removes “with mankind.”  Why?  Because it implies teaching against homosexuality.  The word in the Greek is ἀρσενοκοίταις, arsenokoitas.  This word occurs only two times in the entire Bible, here and 1 Cor. 6:9.  See above at 1 Cor. 6:9 for an analysis of the word arsenokoitas – which the QJV mistranslates.
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)	“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)
	καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας and having gone off after flesh other The word “other” in Greek is heteros.  It means “another of a different kind.”  This verse alteration is possibly sound since the context of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the sodomites sought to have relations with the angels who they thought were men. Still, the point is that the men Sodom of Sodom and Gomorrah did not know that the men were angels.  They thought they were men and wanted to have homosexual relations with them.