‘Fabulous’ Queen James Bible removes all anti-gay references


KING James I, who authorised a committee to biblical scholars more than 400 years ago to prepare a revision of earlier English translations of the Bible, was:

A well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James’.

King James I was really a 'queen'

King James I was really a ‘queen’

With this in mind, a publishing company in the US has launched the Queen James Bible, declaring:

You can’t choose your sexuality, but you can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.

It goes on to explain that:

Homosexuality 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. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

It adds:

It is in his [James] great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.

The QJB is a big, fabulous Bible. It is printed and bound in the United States on thick, high-quality paper in a beautiful, readable typeface. It is the perfect Bible for ceremony, study, sermon, gift-giving, or simply to put on display in the home or Church.

Christian News points out:

Instead of God’s law in Leviticus 18:21 reading ‘Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination’, it now reads, ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination’, insinuating that homosexuality began as a pagan practice, and is only prohibited when the sexual acts are done in the name of paganism.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Queen James Bible removes the word ‘effeminate’ and replaces it with the phrase ‘morally weak’.

The publishers says that The Queen James Bible resolves any homophobic interpretations of the Bible,  but:

The Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction that we have not addressed. No Bible is perfect, including this one. We wanted to make a book filled with the word of God that nobody could use to incorrectly condemn God’s LGBT children, and we succeeded.

Among the first to express outrage over the Queen James Bible was William “Bill” Muehlenberg, of the Australian Family Association. Reviewing it yesterday on Amazon under the heading “A sick and pathetic joke”, he wrote:

William "Bill" Muehlenberg

William “Bill” Muehlenberg

The theological revisionists are at it again, with this utterly ludicrous attempt to justify their lifestyle. What these folks do not tell you, or are too clueless to even be aware of, is that the English word “homosexuality” was never even used until a hundred years ago. So of course no Bible had the term – it never existed until last century!

This is simply the most lame and most foolish argument yet coming from the theological revisionists. They just do not have a leg to stand on, and are clutching at straws big time.

He concluded:

But those who hate God, who hate his word, and hate his morality, will continue to trot out utterly ridiculous and disingenuous ploys like this. I can’t wait for the Adultery Bible or the Fornication Bible to appear.

Breaking News: Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” Bill is kicked into the long grass.


23 responses to “‘Fabulous’ Queen James Bible removes all anti-gay references”

  1. remigius says:

    Muehlenberg should be aware that an Adultery Bible already exists. In 1631 a print run of the KJV omitted the word not from the commandment concerning adultery. The publishers were fined £300 and had their licence revoked,

  2. barriejohn says:

    This is pure eyewash. So what if homosexuality is only mentioned in eight verses out of thousands – we all know what the Bible has to say about it. How many times does it proscribe murder – generally considered to be the most serious offence? Is it condemned in every single chapter? In reality there is only a need to mention it once, but go ahead, write your own Bible and prove what a crock of shit the whole thing is!

  3. Tom Morris says:

    The fundamentalists have a point. Leave them to their Bible and stand up to their bullying by leaving their churches. Every person who stays in religion props up the hatred and bigotry by giving money and support to institutions that will, however meek and mild they claim to be, sell gay people out at every opportunity. (See: the Church of England, which everyone thought was this wishy-washy happy-clappy institution. Well, this year, we’ve had them strongly opposing gay rights and women’s rights.)

    One of the best things about being an atheist is that I have never had to try and harmonize ridiculous beliefs from ancient books with being gay.

  4. Angela_K says:

    “A sick and pathetic joke” That would be all religion then.

    I agree with Tom Morris, leave their bible as is because it is a stick we can turn around and beat the fundies with.

  5. Stonyground says:

    The Bible supposedly forbids murder and adultery/fornication. However, the stories in the Bible depict characters that murder, commit adultery rape and incest, with either the full encouragement of God, or very little censure, especially if you happen to be one of his little favourites. Isn’t it strongly hinted that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship? I’m presuming that William “Bill” Muehlenberg will have read at least some of it, so when he says “I can’t wait for the Adultery Bible or the Fornication Bible to appear”, leaving aside the one with a typo in it, he should be aware that he has no need to wait for it.

  6. brian says:

    dear Mr. Muehlenberg,
    first off, EVERY version of the bible was written by revisionists, including the king james bible. every time the bible is translated or updated to the latest vernacular, it’s revised. in fact, if you go back to earlier translations, the verse mentioned above actually refers to fertility rights in temples of moloch, and having sex with the equivalent of altar boys. seeing as how the verse before it has to do with sacrificing children to moloch, doesn’t that make more sense? second, as to the word homosexual, it is derived from ancient greek and latin…two of the earliest languages that the bible was written in. what’s more, it was first used in the 1890s. that would be the 19th century, we are currently in the 21st century. now, to quote your own words, you don’t have a leg to stand on, so please stop clutching at straws.

  7. Matt Westwood says:

    Let there be a bible that does not condemn homosexuality as a sin. If there has to be religion in the world (and it appears there does, because people seem to need whatever-it-is that religion gives them) then let there be one which is openly tolerant. And let there be a serious schism in the various sects of that religion, further fragmenting the whole shebang into smaller and smaller, less and less viable fragments.

    Good work, guys.

  8. Robster says:

    Where is this temple of Molech? Best avoided. I don’t remember the baby jEsus, the bloke who spent his (alleged) life hanging around with a dozen other blokes (and no women it would seem) ever mentioning homosexuality either by name or indirectly, no matter what “interpretation” you choose. Even if the bible did, it was fabricated in the Bronze-age by tribal goat herders. They weren’t a travelling bunch of Einsteins, they were primitive goat herders with way too much time on their hands.

  9. barriejohn says:

    Robster: It was all rewritten anyway during the Babylonian Captivity (around 600BCE), by a group of homophobic Jewish elders. As Stonyground says, David and Jonathan obviously had a homosexual relationship, and Ruth and Naomi probably did as well. And the fable of Sodom and Gomorrha, which originally taught the importance of showing hospitality to stramngers, was crudely rewritten to show God’s displeasure at homosexual behaviour. As for all this Moloch business, that was either a fabrication or a gross exaggeration. Ancient Hebrews never sacrificed children in their thousnads to “heathen” deities!

    Nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century archaeology found almost no evidence of a god called Moloch or Molech.[13] They also characterized Rabbinical traditions about other gods mentioned in the Tanach as simply legends, and regarded them as raising doubt about what was said about Moloch. They suggested that such descriptions of Moloch might be simply taken from accounts of the sacrifice to Cronus and from the tale of the Minotaur; They found no evidence of a bull-headed Phoenician god. Some identified Moloch with Milcom, with the Tyrian god Melqart, with Ba‘al Hammon to whom children were purportedly sacrificed, and with other gods called “Lord” (Ba?al) or (Bel). These various suggested equations combined with the popular solar theory hypotheses of the day generated a single theoretical sun god: Baal.

  10. barriejohn says:

    What is “The Bible” anyway? Just a collection of writings made at different times by different people and more or less arbitrarily put together by religious leaders – and, in the case of what we would term the Old Testament, rewritten as well. The criterion for inclusion in the so-called “Canon of Scripture” is that the writings should support the religious views of the ruling party! Here, for instance, is a list of gospels known to have existed:

  11. Thomas says:

    @Barriejohn “and prove what a crock of shit the whole thing is!” That’s for sure. They all were written by a bunch of rich old men looking to control anyone they could.

  12. Larry says:

    Some of your comments above are really sickening. So David and Jonathan can now be interpreted as being gay just because they were the best of buddies huh? Get a grip! I might as well conclude that the UK Prime Minister David Cameron is in a gay relationship with his deputy Nick Clegg just because they are in a male-male coalition.

    And imagine Naomi sleeping with her daughter in-law Ruth? You forget that in those days it was more common for people of the same sex to associate more closely with one another than with the opposite sex… women learned family skills from each other while men learned battle skills from each other. If David was gay, why did he commit adultery with Bathsheba and then marry other wives as well. Why did Ruth remarry Boaz after the death of her former husband? Just because I have more male friends than female friends doesn’t make me gay.

    You may dismiss the Bible as a bunch of old fables, but it has given me and lots of other people more direction in life than any other book I have ever read. It has survived destruction over the centuries and will continue to do so, no matter how many attempts are made to rewrite it by sick minded people.

  13. barriejohn says:

    Larry Lamb: You have obviously never read your Bible properly, and are equally obviously ignorant of the original meanings of some of the passages in Samuel, Kings and Ruth. And as for your assumption that a person could not enjoy homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones, your ignorance beggars belief!

  14. Matt Westwood says:

    @Larry: are you frightened of your own gay impulses? Does the fact that you secretly lust after your male friends give you the shudders? Yep, thought so. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so rabidly anti-gay. Why don’t you just come out and admit it, and throw all that poisonous religion away and become liberated? Come on, you know it makes sense. It’s better outside.

  15. Larry says:

    Now I know for sure that Satan is determined to destroy God’s word. The Bible rightly predicted that in these last days these things would happen so I am not surprised at all:

    “For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4 NLT

    “… In this way they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. and because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.” 2 Peter 2: 1b-2 NLT

    @Barriejohn: It is obvious from the scriptures about David and Jonathan that Saul was more worried about David taking over his position as King (instead of his own son Jonathan), than a gay relationship between them. Jonathan, being more spiritually minded than Saul, understood that God has rejected his father Saul and his lineage and had chosen a new lineage in David and was willing to submit to God’s will.

    Go on then, claim also that Jesus was gay because he had a “disciple whom he loved” or agree with Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code that he was married to Mary Magdalene. People will always want to see what they want to see.

    In this present corrupt and perverse generation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand how possible it is for 2 men or 2 women to love each other without equating that to a sexual union. I love my father and mother and brothers and sisters very much, but that does not mean I am having sexual relations with them?

    @Mat Westwood: If I prefer working with men than women for the simple reason that (1) they are easier to work with. (2) there are less arguments and hormonal-induced tantrums in the workplace, does that make me gay? Well Matt, your pervert mind can think whatever it wants to think but that will not change the fact that I was born straight and will always be. When it comes to sexuality, I love women and have chosen the right one for me. And for your information, I am getting married to my girlfriend soon… would you like a wedding invitation?

    I have nothing against those who have chosen to be gay. Its a lifestyle choice just like smoking is and I respect that but please stop trying to thwart the scriptures to suit your beliefs. I’ll make no further comments on this matter.

  16. Stephen Mynett says:

    Larry, every religionist uses their own book, bible, koran etc to push their own particular view of the world, however, good or bad that may be. The bible is nothing more than an ancient book cobbled together by those who wanted to control society.

  17. AgentCormac says:


    “People will always want to see what they want to see.” You being an excellent example. Your brain has been rotted by religion and you can see no further than the indoctrination that has been pumped into the vacuum where your most important organ used to be.

  18. Angela_K says:

    Larry, your arguments from authority and fiction are meaningless. Try thinking for yourself and not recycle your bible bullshit or listen to the ranting of Priests because you come across as a brain dead homophobe and misogynist.

    “…chose to be Gay” dear oh dear, biology not your strong point is it?

  19. barriejohn says:

    It is obvious from the scriptures about David and Jonathan that Saul was more worried about David taking over his position as King (instead of his own son Jonathan), than a gay relationship between them.

    “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?” (I Sam.20:30)

  20. Matt Westwood says:

    “Now I know for sure that Satan is determined to destroy God’s word.”

    And I think I’m doing a bloody good job of it, on the whole. A little applause wouldn’t go amiss sometimes, you know …

  21. Matt Westwood says:

    @Larry: Oh, and you’re the fucking pervert for your obsession with where men put their pricks. Up your arse.

  22. […] ‘Fabulous’ Queen James Bible removes all anti-gay references ( […]