Queen James

Make no bones about it; as sexual perverts have succeeded in redefining marriage in the civil law, they will seek the acceptance of their wicked ways as "normal" in every facet of life. Their last obstacles are the remnant of the One True Church and the sects who still believe the basics of Christian morality. They know that their sin (along with oppression of the poor, defrauding laborers of their just wages, and murder) is one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. Undeterred, the sodomites and their allies have re-written the Bible. Taking the Protestant King James version, they have changed it into a sin-affirming text meant to have conservative Protestant sects weaken or change their stance against homosexuality. 

Entitled The Queen James Version, this "bible" sports a blasphemous rainbow cross on the cover, thereby combining  the "gay flag rainbow colors" with the sign of the cross. It is not the first attempt of "LGBTQIA++"  to rewrite Scripture. The original was called Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context, which was published in 2007. "Queens James" (hereinafter "QJ") was published in 2012 and is available on Amazon. The publishers state the reason on Amazon for producing such a so-called "bible:"

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.

Some preliminary considerations:

•  The word "homosexual" wasn't even used until 1892 in the English language

• That the word "homosexual" may not be used in any Bible prior to 1946, does not mean that the words in the Bible were not properly understood as referring to acts of homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, or sexual deviance

• According to the anonymous publishers, one reason that the King James version was chosen to be "homosexualized" is because of  The obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as “Queen James” because of his many gay lovers. King James was the head of the Anglican sect, and commissioned a translation of the Bible into English in 1604. He had homosexual tendencies. There is some evidence he may have been a bisexual pervert. 

• The same publishers opine that "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."(Emphasis mine). The irony is incredible. 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”?

• They invoke "clean sources." What are these alleged "clean sources"? This post will expose this as a lie; the so-called "sources" are as dirty as the sexual practices of the deviants they support. Moreover, the scholarly credentials of the publishers is unknown. They are completely anonymous and the author of this pseudo-bible is listed, most blasphemously, as "God." 

(Citations to the anonymous publishers can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20140116205229/http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/). 

This post will demonstrate that the QJ "bible" is a fabrication intended to make "gay OK" and encourage the acceptance of sodomites (and all other sexual perverts) by those who reject them based on Biblical authority. 

Distorting God's Word

The following is the list of  biblical verses twisted by the publishers to push acceptance of homosexuality and sexual perversion. I will present (a) how the verse is actually written; (b) how QJ renders it; (c) the reason given for the change; (d) the teaching of the Church on the true meaning. 

Even though it's a Protestant translation, I will use the original King James version (KJ) so the change in verbiage will be clear.

Genesis 19:5

KJ: 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.

QJ: 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 rape and humiliate them. (Emphasis mine)

Publisher's reason: We side with most Bible scholars who understand the story of Sodom and Gomorra to be about bullying strangers. Strangers were not well-treated or well-regarded at the time of Bible (hence so much of the Word urging the love and acceptance of others).

We know Lot asks that the men do not “know” the angel visitors “wickedly,” (Genesis 19:7), in other words “brutally,” which we understand to mean “rape.” We know from Leviticus that one is not allowed to have sex with a beast, and angels are not human. Plus, the passage mentions the men of the city; Obviously women and children aren’t going to be invited to a dominating and public rape, but we know there were women and children in Sodom because Lot had daughters. Rapes such as this one are common between men in prison; they aren’t sexual acts, they are power-dominating acts.

Church Teaching: Notice that they never cite who comprises "most Bible scholars." Not even one name. The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn. 

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)

According to the publisher's logic (or rather the lack thereof), are we going to conclude that had the men wanted to “know”(i.e., "have sex with") 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?  The change from "know them" to "rape and humiliate them" is based on the false idea that male-on-male rape is not a sexual act. Physical rape - sodomy - was what the sinners of Sodom had in mind; the very vice is named after the city, hardly something you would expect if it applied only to rape. Theologian Haydock explains Genesis 19: 

In verse 4: Together. The whole city was corrupt; even the children were taught iniquity, as soon as they came to the years of discretion.  In verse 5: Know them. They boldly proclaim their infamous design. Verse 8: Known man. They were neglected, while men were inflamed with desires of each other.

(See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/genesis-19.html).

Leviticus 20:13 

KJ: 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.

QJ: 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; their blood shall be upon them. (Emphasis mine)

Leviticus 18:22

KJ: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

QJ: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.(Emphasis mine). 

Publisher's reason: Leviticus is a very strict holy code designed to prevent acts associated with pre-Jewish idol worship. Many of the rules concern sexual acts, as most pagan rituals were sexual in nature. One notable and highly condemnable act was having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes...We assert that Leviticus 18:21 refers to “lying” with these pagan male prostitutes as a form of pagan idolatry. This fits in with the story order of Leviticus, and with the other offenses punishments punishable by death within Leviticus. We therefore change Levticus 18:21 and 20:13...(Emphasis mine)

Church Teaching: The publishers 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.” The Hebrew text does not include the phrase "in the temple of Molech." The QJV editors borrowed the word "Molech" from Leviticus 18:21 and added "in the temple."

The QJV revisionists assert, that it is "abominable" for a man have sex with another man if they are "in the temple of Molech," but it is not "abominable" for a man to have sex with another man if it has nothing to do with Molech worship.

Does Leviticus 18:23 condemn bestiality/incest/orgies "in the temple of Molech," but justify it outside the temple? This is special pleading for their chosen sins. Theologian Haydock has this to say about Leviticus 18:22:

Abomination, punished so severely in the Sodomites, Genesis xix. Yet, even the philosophers of Greece were not at all ashamed of it. Bardesanes assures us, that the eastern nations punished it with death, and would not allow the guilty the honours of burial. Those beyond the Euphrates were so shocked at it, that they would kill themselves if they were only accused of such a crime. (Ap. Eusebius, præp. vi. 10.)---(Emphasis mine). 

Romans 1:26-27

KJ: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their 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 recompense of their error which was meet. 

QJ: Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Publisher's reason: We know [St.] Paul was a Jew and steeped in the purity tradition of Leviticus. Leviticus, as we know, is intended to condemn ritual impurities associated with pagan idol worship. It would not be unreasonable to assume a connection, especially since Romans 1:24 mentions “uncleanness.” We know sex, both heterosexual and homosexual sex (not distinguished from each other at the time), was an extremely major component of pagan ritual. 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.

Church Teaching: "Most scholars (us included)..." Again, not one name of a scholar is given, and the publishers would have us consider them "scholars" on their own ipse dixit.  Please be advised that I 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.”

Note the removal of "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections."

Furthermore, note the addition of "And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another." Note the addition of the phrases "is pagan" and "For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections," and compare with additions of the "in the temple of Molech" in Leviticus. 

Notice that the phrase "ritual lust" is not in the Greek text. The original KJV has no occurrence of the word "ritual" in the entire Bible. This addition alters the meaning of the text to make it to say that homosexuality is only sinful when it is practiced in some sort of religious ritual, such as temple prostitution. Since we are now discussing the New Testament, I will show Church teaching in more detail further on.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

KJ: 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.

QJ: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine).

Publisher's reason: One of the most famous homosexual Bible ambiguous interpretations is the line “Abusers of themselves with mankind,” which can be linked to the Greek word “Arsenokoitais.” The meaning of arsenokoitais has been famously debated, but in fact, “arsenokoitais” translates to “the male who has many beds,” and wherever else “kotais” is used in the Greek translations, it implies what we would use “promiscuity” for in modern English. (“Arsenokoitais” is likely referring to men who “abuse themselves” with the child-aged male prostitutes common in pagan temples at the time). Furthermore, Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in arsenokoitais’s place.

Church Teaching: This is an out-and-out falsehood. A simple glance at secular sources on the Greek language proves these self-anointed "scholars" wrong.  Two different Greek words are used here for homosexual relationships: malakos and arsenokoites.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Walter Baur, et al., defines malakos as "soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually." It's used to describe "male prostitutes"and those that are the more passive (receptive) partner in a homosexual relationship.

The Greek word arsenokoites is defined as "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite," and "homosexual offenders" (or "sodomites" in some translations) to the more active partner in a homosexual relationship. Both parties in the relationship are vile sinners before God.

1 Timothy 1:10

KJ: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

QJ: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Publisher's reason: Given the context and theme of all our edits, we have changed “defile themselves with mankind” to simply “defile themselves.”

Church Teaching: The QJV omits the phrase "with mankind," as it implies a homosexual relationship.

The Greek word used here is arsenokoitas, so what was said above about 1 Corinthians applies here.  

St. Jude 1:7

KJ: 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.

QJ: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Publisher's reason: Given our clarification of the story of Sodom, we chose to highlight the fact that the male mob in Sodom raped angels, which is “strange” in that it is nonhuman.

Church Teaching: In regard to the historical revisionism, here is the teaching of the Church in regards to Sodom and sound exegesis:

The "LGBTQIA++" perverts assert that in the Epistle of Jude, it refers to "nonhuman" flesh since the guests of Lot were "angels."

However, the men of Sodom did not know Lot's guests were angels. The Sodomites in Genesis 19:5 say, "Where are the men [not angels] who came to you tonight?" (Emphasis mine). The Douay-Rheims correctly translates the verse as, "As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." It is not "non-human." 

Jesus Christ condemns homosexuality:

Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city of Sodom, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

• St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)

• St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

• St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."

• St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "going after other flesh" (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it?

"Queen James" Shows Sola Scriptura Untenable

The publishers of the QJ "bible" explain another reason they wrote it:

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.” 

There is no "interpretive ambiguity" because Christ established His One True Church with an infallible Magisterium to correctly give the true interpretation to both the Bible and Sacred Tradition, which together make up the Deposit of Divine Revelation. Protestant sects have been multiplying ever since arch-heretic Martin Luther unleashed private interpretation of the Scriptures. The result is a "bible" that condones sexual perversion that would even make Luther and Calvin shudder. 

The teachings of selected Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Saint John Chrysostom (347-407)

But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell...Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! . . . For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. (Homily IV Romans 1:26-27; Emphasis mine).

Saint Augustine (354-430)

Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust. (Book III, Chap. 8, no. 15; Emphasis mine). 

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man's animal nature. (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Cap. 1, Lec. 8; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

The "Queen James" sodomite "bible" serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist"(R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe types. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Homosexuality and all manner of sexual "LGBTQIAA" wickedness will get more acceptance even among those claiming the title "Christian." 

Here are but two examples of  what "Fr." James Martin of the Vatican II sect has said to prove my point:

•  In 2017, when an openly homosexual man said that he and his partner don't kiss during the "Sign of Peace" during the Novus Bogus "mass," Fr. Martin said he hopes that "in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband." (See https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/eight-extreme-things-fr.-james-martin-just-said-about-catholics-and) 

• In 2017, at Fordham University, Martin stated, "I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend [in a same-sex "marriage"] and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but that I have to reverence." (See https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham-category/lectures-and-events/building-bridge-catholic-church-lgbt-community/)

Martin says all this with the full knowledge and implicit approval of Bergoglio. Why shouldn't he approve? Francis told practicing sodomite Juan Carlos Cruz, "It doesn't matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this."  So don't be surprised if a friend who attends the Vatican II sect Novus Bogus "mass" tells you that the scantily clad female "lector" begins "the Reading" thus---"A reading from the Book of Leviticus---Queen James Version."