The Queen James Bible (The Gay Bible)

Today, the homosexual community is crying out for acceptance in our society. The community accuses the Body of Christ, in particular, of practicing bigotry, stating that Jesus Christ loves all people and does not frown upon nor condemn another for seeking to have relations with the same sex. In order to show their case as factual, they leave out the passages that condemn homosexuality, and say such things as, “Jesus loves.” However, that was just the beginning of the twisting of the sacred Scripture.

Recently, there was an altered version of the 1769 King James that was released. This altered version, the Queen James Bible (Gay Bible), has changed eight verses (Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26; 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7). Of course, the text that was altered, removed, or replaced is done so to take out any form of homosexuality found within the passages of Scripture. The editors of the Queen James Bible say the following in regards to the alterations:

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. 

The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.[1] 

Matt Slick, from CARM.org, states the following about the Queen James 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.[2]

The words of Mr. Slick, “Edit they did; translated they did not,” ring true. There was no proper translation of the biblical languages from the editors of this altered text, but simply an alteration to fit their depraved desires. The editor’s assertion of seeking to return to the “clean” source is nothing more than a lie, seeking to cause both those within the Body of Christ and the unbeliever to believe that the manuscripts actually did not condemn homosexuality.

The following are some facts about both the Old and the New Testament manuscripts.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Up until 1947, the oldest manuscripts we had of the Old Testament text dated to A.D. 900. However, in 1947, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, which date back 1,000 years earlier than those manuscripts to 150 B.C., were discovered. The discovery of this text in Qumran demonstrates the accuracy of the text the Church had used throughout its history. What is astonishing is that the variation between the two texts was a mere five percent, and this variation does not compromise any sort of doctrine taught from the Old Testament text. They are simply variations in spelling. These manuscripts are dated 1,000 years apart, and there are no major alterations. 

 THE NEW TESTAMENT
 

The number of manuscripts for the New Testament is more than 24,000, both partial and complete. Moreover, there are 86,000 quotations of the New Testament text found within the Early Church Father’s writings and in thousands of lectionaries. Within the 24,000 manuscripts, there are over 150,000 variants. That seems to be a huge number! However, most of these variations, 99% to be exact, are of no significance. These variants include misspellings or the order of words being reversed. Of the remaining 1% (50 variants), doctrine and any moral commandment remain unaffected.[3]

Comparison of the New Testament text to other ancient text[4]:

Ancient Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Number of Copies	Accuracy of Copies
Caesar	1st cent. B.C.	A.D. 900	10	- -
Livy	1st cent. B.C.	- -	20	- -
Tacitus	c. A.D. 100	A.D. 1100	20	- -
Thucydides	5th cent. B.C.	A.D. 900	8	- -
Herodotus	5th cent. B.C.	A.D. 900	8	- -
Demosthenes	4th cent. B.C.	A.D. 1100	200	- -
Mahabharata	- -	- -	- -	90%
Homer	9th cent. B.C.	- -	643	95%
New Testament	1st cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100)	2nd cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130)	5,000	99+%

As shown in the above chart, the New Testament text is superior to other ancient texts. Compared to other ancient texts, the New Testament is the most reliable with its accuracy and multitude of manuscripts.

If the biblical manuscripts were altered and in need of being corrected, as the editors of the Queen James Bible say, then they must disprove the absolute accuracy of the text that is listed above. Because God is not the author of confusion but the author of the Scriptures, we can rely on modern translations, such as the King James Bible, and see that the Queen James Bible is nothing more than a perversion of God’s truth.

For a greater understanding of the Queen James Bible and its fallacies, please read Matt Slick’s article found on the CARM website: http://carm.org/queen-james-bible.

---

[1] “Editor's Notes,” The Queen James Bible, http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/ (accessed December 27, 2012).

[2] “The Queen James Bible, the Gay Bible,” CARM, http://carm.org/queen-james-bible (accessed December 27, 2012).

[3] Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), 165.

[4] Ibid., 167