Rewriting History: New "Gay Friendly" Bible Published

Katie Pavlich

12/14/2012 7:40:00 AM - Katie Pavlich

The King James version of the Bible has been hijacked by gay activists who want to rewrite history. Anonymous editors have published a Bible "friendly to gays," and have edited eight major verses to fit their narrative. The "Queen James Bible" is available on Amazon and is described as, "A Gay Bible. The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation." The description and reasoning for the changes is below.

Why We Chose the King James Version

We chose the 1769 form of the King James Bible for our revision for the following reasons:
1. The obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as “Queen James” because of his many gay lovers.

2. No Bible is perfect, but everyone knows the King James Bible; It is arguably the most popular Bible in history and the basis of many other translations.

3. 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.

4. Some claim the language of the KJV is antiquated, but we believe it is poetic, traditional, and ceremonial. Christianity is an ancient tradition, and the King James and resultant Queen James versions remind us and keep us connected to that tradition.
What We Changed

The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. However, there might be no other argument in contemporary faith as heated as what the Bible is interpreted to say about homosexuality.

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.

There are problems with removal of verses:
• It doesn’t address the problem of interpretive ambiguity, it only brushes it under the rug.
• It renders an incomplete Bible.
• Revelation says not to “edit the book,” and people often extend that to mean the entire Bible, not just the book of Revelation.

We also refused to just say “that’s outdated” and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them. We wanted our Bible bulletproof from the ones shooting the bullets.

There are also problems with editing verses:

• The context, idiom, and grammar from the time are almost impossible to recreate. • Changes could further create interpretive ambiguity.

Many versions of the Bible translated and published since the King James Bible have changed the language, so the precedent had been set for editing. Furthermore, both problems with editing are easily addressed by deciding to make the edits as simple as possible.

We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations.

Although these editors are correct when they say the Bible is for interpretation, it is important to understand that interpretation isn't the same thing as rewriting history or changing scripture.