Has God Said? The New “Queen James Bible”

By Tony Palacio

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said…?” (Genesis 3:1 NASB)

In yet another “Has God said?” challenge over a controversial issue, an anonymous group known only as “The Editors” has released a new bible “translation” called The Queen James Bible to “prevent homophobic misinterpretation of God’s word.” They erroneously claim the following:

“[H]omosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this – only interpretations have been made.” (queenjamesbible.com – Web archive from Jan. 3, 2014)

The “Editors” based their new bible on the 1769 version of the King James Bible because, “everyone knows the King James Bible; it is arguably the most popular Bible in history and the basis of many other translations.” On their website, on the “Editor’s Notes” page, listed as reason number 3 as to why they chose the King James Bible, they cite a most ironic reason for using this version to “translate” from:

“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.” (queenjamesbible.com – Web archive from Jan. 3, 2014), Emphasis added)

Do they not see the irony in that statement? Are they not doing exactly what they are accusing others of doing by “adapt[ing] its (the Bible’s) words to support their own agenda”? And then in an almost laughable pious declaration, they claim to be returning “to the clean source” and starting there. Really?

While there are many more troubling statements and declarations made on their website, in this article, I’d like to focus on who or what these supposed “clean sources” are for which “The Editors” use to justify changing God’s word.

On their “Editor’s Notes” page, the “Editors” list eight verses for which they’ve changed: Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26, Romans 27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7 (for anyone keeping track, that’s actually nine verses).

We begin with Genesis 19:5, for which the Editor’s “clean source” is apparently …most Bible scholars who understand the story of Sodom and Gomorra to be about bullying strangers.” (Ibid., Sic., Emphasis added) They then proceed to set up their straw man argument by playing some word games with Genesis 19:7 for which they then base their support for changing the text.

They write, “We know Lot asks that the men do not ‘know’ the angel visitors ‘wickedly’ (Genesis 19:7).”

So are we to determine from this (faulty) reasoning that had the men wanted to “know” the angel visitors in a “nice” manner that this would have been okay? But since they wished to “know” the angels “wickedly” that this somehow changes the moral law of God? It’s wrong either way!

In Genesis 19, this is what we 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 know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.” (Genesis 19:5-7 KJV)

These verses clearly speak for themselves. The men at Lot’s door wanted to have sex with the angel visitors, whom they knew only to be common men and not angels. The Editor’s reworking of the text by claiming that Lot asks the men “do not ‘know’ the angel visitors ‘wickedly'” is not even accurate and changes the scripture before even moving on to their argument.

It is worth noting that the word “know” is also used as a sexual euphemism earlier in the book of Genesis with reference to Adam having sexual relations with Eve. Therefore it is rather ridiculous to claim that God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah simply for a lack of hospitality (with reference to The Editor’s “bullying strangers” assertion above).

The book of Jude confirms the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

“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.” (Jude 1:7 KJV)

The Greek word for “strange” is “heteros,” which can be translated “of uncertain affinity,” “different,” “other” or “another.” The New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines “heteros” in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Wesley Perschbacher ed., 1990, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Henry Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (Henry Alford, 1875, Greek Testament, 4:533, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Even the self-described “liberal evangelical,” William Barclay (1907-1978), a theologian and Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, who held very controversial and often unbiblical positions, wrote the following concerning Jude 1:7:

“What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated.” (William Barclay, 1958, “The Letters of John and Jude,” p. 218, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster)

So who/what are the Editor’s “clean source” for their justification and conclusion for re-translating Genesis 19:5-7? That’s not entirely clear, other than the mention of “most scholars,” whoever they may be. (They could simply be referring to each other, as we will see later.)

Next they explain (away) Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. They start by exclaiming, “Leviticus is outdated as a moral code…” They call those of us who believe what the bible has to say on this issue “anti-LGBT religious activists.” (No explanation or response needed for this label.)

The bible teaches that God’s moral law never changes, but civil and ceremonial laws are another matter (a subject which is too much to get into in this article). So while we would agree that we wouldn’t put homosexuals to death (the reasons for which they did in Old Testament times is an entirely different topic of discussion), we would not agree with changing God’s moral standard, which never changes. However, for this discussion, we’re looking for the “clean sources” they are using to justify the changing of God’s word.

While we would agree that going to the original Hebrew is a good source, they proceed to improperly assign a definition to the word “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22, stating that it “simply means something that is ‘ritually unclean,’ or a ‘taboo’.” (This definition makes it rather convenient in justifying the changing of this verse.) However, any serious study of this word in the Hebrew, which is “tow’ebah,” would reveal its meaning to be “something disgusting (morally).” It is a feminine noun meaning an abomination, and while it is commonly used in the context of idolatry, child sacrifice, religious activities of the wicked, etc., it is also defined in the context of homosexuality. Additionally, this Hebrew word is actually the feminine active participle of the Hebrew variation of the word (“ta’ab”) which means “to loathe, ie. (morally) detest.” It is clear that God has a moral standard which never changes or becomes “taboo.”

Compounding the problem with the “Editors” seemingly “clean source” is how they justify their changing of these verses in Leviticus. They seem to cite themselves as a source by stating, we suggest that by today’s standards, a biblical abomination would be understood to be ‘scandalous’.” (Emphasis added.) Really? So what happened to the Hebrew definitions given? It appears they have simply ditched it for a definition of their own. They go on to state:

“To simply replace ‘abomination’ with ‘taboo’ would only address [Leviticus] 18:22, and not the death penalty proposed in [Leviticus] 20:13. Furthermore, we do not believe homosexual relations to be taboo, so that solution would have been unsatisfactory.” (queenjamesbible.com – Web archive from Jan. 3, 2014)

A more accurate statement would have been to simply state the obvious: “we do not believe homosexual relations to be a sin.” So how do they deal with this? They simply state that they were led “to believe that there was translative error at some point:” They conveniently neglect to mention their source for coming to this convenient conclusion. They curiously then declare, “If having sex with a man is punishable by death, it wouldn’t be called an abomination.” (Confused yet? You’re not alone.) So what did they decide to do? “…we left the word abomination as is, and found a much more elegant and logically clear solution to this interpretive ambiguity…” What is their “more elegant and logically clear solution”? They declare the following:

We assert that Leviticus 18:21 refers to “lying” with these pagan male prostitutes as a form of pagan idolatry.” (Ibid., Emphasis added)

They assert that these verses in Leviticus actually have to do with a pagan ritual of worship to Molech by having sex with male prostitutes in pagan temples. However, Leviticus 18:21 says nothing about this. It only states, “Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech…” It says nothing about “lying with these pagan male prostitutes.” This is what is commonly known as eisegesis (the interpretation of a text by reading into it one’s own idea). Based on this false interpretation of Leviticus 18:21, they decide to alter the next verse in Leviticus 18:22, which clearly states:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

There is no mention of “prostitutes” or “pagan idol worship.” In fact, Leviticus chapter 18 is a long list of God’s law on immoral relations. Verse 22 is simply one amongst that long list. It also doesn’t stand to reason that this verse falls on the heels of verse 21 (and is therefore somehow connected, as The Editors assert), since they are both two entirely different laws being given, again with no mention of male prostitutes.

In fact, if we are to apply the same set of standards to “The Editor’s” reasoning, then we must also conclude that they believe Leviticus 18:23 only refers to having sex with animals as part of pagan worship to Molech in a pagan temple to be an abomination. In other circumstances it must be perfectly acceptable to have sex with animals, as this is the same standard they have placed on verse 22 to justify homosexuality as being acceptable. Obviously this reasoning doesn’t make any sense for verse 23, so why is it acceptable to make this argument for verse 22? Simple: because they are attempting to justify their sin.

Next up is Romans 1:26-27:

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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 recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:24-27 KJV)

What “clean source” did they use for their justification of changing these verses? That’s easy, they simply declared:

“Romans is written in some of the most obtuse language in the entire Bible making it very difficult to interpret and translate. As such, its translations are usually some of the most incredibly stretched to support homophobic agendas.” (Ibid.)

I don’t know about you, but when I read these verses they seem awfully clear and unambiguous to me. But I digress…

The “Editors” go on to explain what Romans really means, using convenient phrases such as “we know that…”, “it is much more likely that…”, “we can be pretty sure…”, “it would not be unreasonable to assume…”. So…what happened to their “clean sources”?

Their final determination is the following:

“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.” (Ibid., Emphasis added)

We have no idea who “most scholars” are here, but apparently since the Editors declare themselves as scholars, they only need cite themselves as their “clean source.” And given that Romans appears to give them the most trouble (for obvious reasons), they emphatically declare the following regarding their “translation” of these verses:

“Romans is our most major editing, but also one of our most powerfully free of interpretive ambiguity; it has been made very clear, yet retains all of the content of the original.” (Ibid.)

Next we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

“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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV, Emphasis added)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB, Emphasis added)

The word from which is translated “homosexual” (NASB) or “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV) is taken from the Greek word “arsenokoitais.” The “Editors” of The Queen James Bible state that they “specifically…went to the Greek translations, where the subject of interpretation is most famous with Corinthians.” In doing so, they conclude that the Greek word “arsenokoitais” actually means “the male who has many beds,” and “wherever else ‘koitais’ is used in the Greek translations, it implies what we would use as ‘promiscuity’ for in modern English.”

While it is true that this Greek word is heavily debated, further study reveals that “Arsenokoites” is also translated, “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual” (Greek Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar). Thayer’s New Testament Greek-English Lexicon translates this word as “a sodomite:––abuser of (that defile) self with mankind” (G0730 & G2845). Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament also lists this word as “a sodomite.”

The “Editors” conveniently dismiss these other translations in favor of “promiscuity” as their final translation. So while they claim to use the “clean source” of the Greek (which we have no problem with), they fail to exhaust a complete study of the word which is in keeping with the context and consistency of God’s entire Word and moral law.

As we come to the “Editor’s” final two verses, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Jude 1:7, we find that there are no sources given at all. They simply state that they have stayed within “the context and theme of all our edits” and “given our clarification of the story of Sodom” (for each verse respectively) for the justification of altering these two final verses.

In their closing, they lob a loaded accusation about scripture, stating, “the bible is filled with inequality and even contradiction that we have not addressed.” Their only honest statement made is, “we wanted to make a book…that nobody could use to…condemn God’s LGBT children…” I’ll admit, I used ellipses here to remove some words in this last quote, because I do not believe they have “a book filled with the word of God,” neither do bible-believing Christians “incorrectly” condemn homosexuality (although methodology can certainly be questioned), nor do I believe that the Editors “succeeded” with their new “translation.” By questioning God’s word, they feel empowered to do with it what they please, and make it suitable for their own sinful desires.

I realize I did not get into long theological rebuttals to their many assertions about the scriptures they altered, that was not the point of this piece (though I couldn’t resist commenting on a few). Rather, it is to show what passes as “clean sources” to those who attempt to thwart the word of God in exchange for justifying what God deems as sin. It shows the lengths to which people will go to please self, please man, and refuse what God clearly states in His word. Sadly, too many people formulate or shape a god to suit the benefit of their own sin. After all, if it’s God’s word that is getting in the way of someone’s sin, then it is His word that must be attacked.

It’s the oldest ploy by the enemy to get us to doubt what God actually says, which dates all the way back to the Garden of Eden: “Has God said…?” (Genesis 3:1)


  1. This is a terrible thing they have done by adding to God’s word. He clearly warns the believer about this very thing.

    Romans 1 V:19-23

    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things

    Revelation 22 V: 18-21

    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

    20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

    21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.[f] Amen.

  2. chudney mcnair

    My God did they not read in the very first pages of the Bible about altering God’s word?? Did they not read the last Scriptures in Revelations about changing God’s Word??? this upsets me that they take His Holy Word and are leading people straight to hell. their minds are reprobated so they are only doing what God’s word says in Romans 1

  3. Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Only one single comment? How very disappointing…

  4. Joe,

    I was a little confused in regards to the Romans passage. Are the QJV translators claiming that the extant manuscripts themselves contained ‘obtuse’ language, or that the translation itself uses obtuse language?

    Having visited their site I see that they have added/inserted[?] words into their translations of Romans 1:26, 27 such as “ritual lusts” (vs. 26) and “pagan and unseemly”, “idolators” (vs. 27) suggesting that it is homosexual practices committed in this sense (I’m assuming that is what they are arguing) that makes it bad and not simply the forsaking of the “natural use” (an idea that remains even in their translation). Is there ANY justification for them apparently inserting these words? Are they implied at all in the extant manuscripts or are they complete fabrications? Even Darby’s Literal Translation (which I know little about) shows no signs of these words.

    I deal with this topic all the time and am frequently called a hater, bigot, religious fanatic, backwards, stupid, ignorant, self-loathing closeted homosexual, and of course, judgmental, for not endorsing homosexual behavior, so I am always looking for more clarification and a better understanding of the arguments and the whole TRUTH.

    I am also looking for historical references. The history and practices of civilizations/cultures throughout history which have embraced homosexuality, such as Rome, Greece, Egypt, even the Nazi’s (correct?). What were the ramifications of this? Is it not correct to say that sexual depravity is often the final rung on the ladder for great nations in decline?

    Any insights, information, or corrections in my thinking would be greatly appreciated.


    Jesse D. Bryant

    • WickedSmaatGuy

      Hi Jesse,

      You’re last paragraph is interesting. If we think about the civilizations that you mentioned, the practice of magic and occult rituals were a big part of those cultures too. Sexual perversion has a huge role in a lot of these rituals. The darkness that these rituals call upon eventually end up polluting the air and influencing society.

      When you have evil megalomaniacs practicing black ritual magic in charge of a society, they tend to want to reshape it into their own image. So you see them promoting things like sex, drugs, rebellion, hatred, or whatever. Society eventually ends up accepting these things, while the culture creators know full well that they’ve just sold an oblivious populous what pretty well amounts to a sorcerer’s tool kit. At this point the spell has been cast over said populous and nobody even notices how messed up things have gotten.

      I guess I don’t see sexual depravity as the reason for reaching that final rung so much as an indication that the power behind the society/ culture has turned very dark and arrogant, and the people have become diseased by that power. Nineveh was saved because it repented of its shame. Sodom had lost its shame by embracing it (having pride in it?).

      Competition between the various cultures around the world has always sort-of kept those cancerous societies isolated from the rest of the world. It kept the governments on their toes too. They had to promote marriage so that the population could grow. They had to keep internal conflict low and their populous relatively healthy and strong so they could have a decent army. Without those cultures to contain the spread of infection we’re doomed. I feel like that was why God chose to handle the Tower of Babel situation the way he did.

      The fact that the Bible would even need to be changed today (instead of thrown in the garbage) kind of makes me feel like there is still a spark of shame left somewhere inside our culture. Although, imagine how fast things will unravel when the ‘Spirit of Truth’ has been called back home.