Now It Is the "Queen James Bible"? by Ken Ham A pro-homosexual group (which to my knowledge has remained anonymous) recently released a Bible "translation" that they say they've "edited to make homophobic interpretations impossible." This new "Bible" is based on the 1769 King James Bible. Now, the editors have called their new translation the Queen James Bible (QueenJamesBible.com) because they claim that King James's alleged homosexual acts led people in his time to refer to him as "Queen James." Whether or not that claim is true, this group has made a mockery of a beloved Bible translation and mutilated the Word of God to support their own anti-God agenda.Now, the editors make the claim that "the Bible says nothing about homosexuality"-which is absolutely false and contradicts their own "translation" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. We have articles available on our website that deal with this issue. I encourage you to visit www.AnswersinGenesis.org and read them for yourself.So, how do the editors get around the clear strictures against homosexual behavior in Scripture? Well, they claim, "the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call 'interpretive ambiguity.'" Basically, they believe that we can never understand the true meaning of anything in the Bible because it was written so long ago-except that these editors seem to believe they've found the most accurate translation of the passages on homosexuality. This is totally inconsistent with their view of hermeneutics!Of course, hermeneutics is the technical term for Bible interpretation. The hermeneutic we use at AiG is the historical-grammatical method, which really means we read the Bible "naturally," according to the genre of the passage. For example, the creation account of Genesis is historical narrative, so we read it as history. For more on the historical-grammatical approach, read Tim Chaffey's series "How Should We Interpret the Bible?" Part 1 and Part 2.Based on their faulty method of interpretation, these editors changed some key verses to try to claim that homosexual behavior is not a sin. I won't discuss every single change, but I think it's important to highlight one of the major flaws in how they approach God's Word.You see, the editors' primary tactic is to paint many of the passages that condemn homosexual behavior as being written in the context of idolatry. For example, in the KJV, two passages in Leviticus are clear on this issue:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)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. (Leviticus 20:13)

Now, these two verses are in chapters that list many condemned behaviors, such as bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice. But you see, the editors already believe that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Even though there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support their "translation," they changed these two verses as follows (I've bolded the additions):

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22, Queen James Version)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. (Leviticus 20:13, QJV)

I should point out that not only is it wrong to make these verses solely about idolatry, but it's also important to know that God had already forbidden idolatry in the strictest terms (Exodus 20:3–6). But if they are going to be consistent, then these editors have to apply this method of interpretation to every behavior listed in these chapters. If homosexual behavior is acceptable outside of ritual pagan worship, then that would mean that incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, and a number of other behaviors are perfectly acceptable as long as idolatry is not involved! The editors make a similar claim with Romans 1-which is very clear on the sin of homesexual behavior.Of course, the above are just a few in a whole series of issues with the Queen James Bible's translations. And the editors conclude their list of changes by writing, "The Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction . . . No Bible is perfect, including this one." Basically, the editors show that they don't believe the Word of God is inerrant in its original manuscripts or is understandable today. And what they've done is more than just editing-they've rewritten the Bible!You know, this isn't the first attempt sinful man has made at "editing" the Bible. In fact, the very first example of "rewriting" God's Word is in Genesis 3, where the devil tempted Eve with "Did God really say . . . ?" Sadly, Adam and Eve really "rewrote" God's Word-and look what happened as a result!These people who have mutilated God's Word for their own anti-God agenda will have to answer to God for that one day-and there will be a day of reckoning! I couldn't imagine standing before the Creator God and saying, "I hope you liked how we rewrote your holy Word. We just felt like those verses about homosexual behavior were unfair and outdated. We knew better than you did, and you obviously didn't want us to trust you in this area."I encourage you to read our Pocket Guide to Social Issues for the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality and other issues.Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,Ken