Use the King James Version to Determine Sexual Ethics

[Jon777]

The KJV is clearly the translation people read most often, and the 400+ years since 1611 show the KJV to be mightily blessed by God as his perfect word, though translated by fallible men.

From the 1611 King James Version Bible
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, (1Cor 6:9)

1828 Webster’s English Dictionary - https://www.noahwebsterdictionary.com/
FORN'ICATOR, n.
An unmarried person, male or female, who has criminal conversation with the other sex
EFFEMINATE, a.
Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous. [voluptuous=given to the enjoyments of luxury and pleasure]
ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.

From today’s English Standard Version Bible
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (1Cor 6:9) [Margin note: The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.]

2025 Merriam-Webster English Dictionary
Sexually, adverb, having or involving sex
Immoral, adjective, conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Homosexuality, noun, sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex: the quality or state of being gay. The first known use of homosexuality was in 1892
[“passive and active partners” refers to the “top” and the “bottom” in gay-speak]

Matching the KJV with the closer timed dictionary of the 1828 Webster’s, and the ESV with the 2025 Merriam-Webster, which translation gives a clear statement for the meaning of the key words? We can see clearly what the KJV “fornicators”, “effeminate” and “abusers” are by looking at the appropriate dictionary. What does the ESV “sexually immoral” mean? The current society, culture or church traditions tell us what it means. I want to know what God meant, not what sinful mankind wishes it to mean. Next, the M-W says the first known use of the word homosexuality was 300 years after the KJV was translated, 1800 years after Paul wrote 1st Corinthians. So, Paul did not know what he wrote about at the time, and the church only learned of it in the 20th century translations, after psychology had come up with the concept of homosexuality?

Three words in this single verse alert me how to view the modern Bible translators' ideas on sexual ethics. I’ll stay with the translation blessed by God for 400+ years, and looking closely at this one verse increases my appreciation for the scholarship of the KJV men not distracted by cell phones, Internet, cable TV, etc. From childhood those KJV men studied, and I have newfound appreciation for that.

In the next few days, I’ll add a Reply to this OP I’m posting, showing why the KJV translation of the Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is more accurate than the modern translations.

 

[NightTwister]

It's been too long since we had a thread for KJVO...

 

[JohnDB]

It's been too long since we had a thread for KJVO...

Yeah....
This one don't seem to really know anything.

The 1611 KJV is different from the 1728 Oxford/Cambridge complilation translation given the name "KJV" even though James had been dead for decades. Oxford really didn't do their fair share of the work though. (If I'm remembering correctly)

And immediately after the translation that the OP reads was created they found new manuscripts and created the RSV.

All of which pay homage to Tyndale....ohhhh well.

 

[Dino246]

Fee… “sexually immoral” isn’t clear enough? Okay. This is clearly a KJV-only agenda disguised as a treatise on linguistic precision.

Here’s the flaw in the argument: it employs circular reasoning in that Webster defines many words according to their usage in the KJV. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it does mean that Webster does not provide independent verification for meanings.

 

[tablet123]

I use the KJV and have no problem with it.

But I will not say King James only.

I do not know about the other versions but the people that use them claim one God, and Jesus is Lord and Savior.

There is KJV people that also use the other versions.

If they are trying to deceive on purpose they would not be claiming the essentials.

Jesus said you will know them by their fruits.

The test would be who is adhering more to the morality of Jesus, holiness, and being Christlike.

I would give that one to KJV people for look at years ago when the KJV was very popular in the 1950's they were more well behaved.

I have noticed a lot of slack among people who claim the other versions.

Does the KJV appear to speak with more authority and conviction.

But the 1960's counter culture movement caused an increase in selfishness, and arrogance so that might be a big factor.

But ever since the movement and the slack in society more people have been clinging to the other versions.

Is there a connection.

Or is there not as much pressure to use KJV as in time past.

I do not understand why people have such a hard time with the KJV for to me it is plain.

Oh it said thou and threw me off.

Oh it said betrothed and threw me for a loop.

God used king Nebuchadnezzar who was a heathen king who believed in many gods, and the occult, to spread throughout his kingdom to acknowledge the God of Israel as the greatest God and not to say anything against Him.

Which Babylon rode on eagle's wings and referred to as gold with all kingdoms inferior that came after.

And America that claimed the God of Israel and was blessed and spreads the truth in their nation and the world like a big dog.

Even though they are a heathen nation that allows fleshy pleasures extravaganza, worldliness galore, and Satanism, the occult, and the new age that will deceive the world.

So I am sure God can have men put out His word because they claim the God of Israel even thou they are not perfect.

 

[LightBearer316]

The KJV is clearly the translation people read most often, and the 400+ years since 1611 show the KJV to be mightily blessed by God as his perfect word, though translated by fallible men.

From the 1611 King James Version Bible
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, (1Cor 6:9)

1828 Webster’s English Dictionary - https://www.noahwebsterdictionary.com/
FORN'ICATOR, n.
An unmarried person, male or female, who has criminal conversation with the other sex
EFFEMINATE, a.
Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous. [voluptuous=given to the enjoyments of luxury and pleasure]
ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.

From today’s English Standard Version Bible
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (1Cor 6:9) [Margin note: The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.]

2025 Merriam-Webster English Dictionary
Sexually, adverb, having or involving sex
Immoral, adjective, conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Homosexuality, noun, sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex: the quality or state of being gay. The first known use of homosexuality was in 1892
[“passive and active partners” refers to the “top” and the “bottom” in gay-speak]

Matching the KJV with the closer timed dictionary of the 1828 Webster’s, and the ESV with the 2025 Merriam-Webster, which translation gives a clear statement for the meaning of the key words? We can see clearly what the KJV “fornicators”, “effeminate” and “abusers” are by looking at the appropriate dictionary. What does the ESV “sexually immoral” mean? The current society, culture or church traditions tell us what it means. I want to know what God meant, not what sinful mankind wishes it to mean. Next, the M-W says the first known use of the word homosexuality was 300 years after the KJV was translated, 1800 years after Paul wrote 1st Corinthians. So, Paul did not know what he wrote about at the time, and the church only learned of it in the 20th century translations, after psychology had come up with the concept of homosexuality?

Three words in this single verse alert me how to view the modern Bible translators' ideas on sexual ethics. I’ll stay with the translation blessed by God for 400+ years, and looking closely at this one verse increases my appreciation for the scholarship of the KJV men not distracted by cell phones, Internet, cable TV, etc. From childhood those KJV men studied, and I have newfound appreciation for that.

In the next few days, I’ll add a Reply to this OP I’m posting, showing why the KJV translation of the Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is more accurate than the modern translations.

Why the KJV Accurately Reflects the Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
Brother, you’re right to notice how modern translations dilute the clarity of this verse. The King James translators rendered the Greek faithfully, not culturally.

The original Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV are:

• πόρνοι (pornoi) — fornicators, from porneia, referring broadly to sexual impurity of any kind outside lawful marriage.
  KJV: “fornicators.”
  Modern “sexually immoral” is vague and loses the moral and legal precision.
• μαλακοί (malakoi) — literally soft or effeminate. Used in moral context, it means men who live in luxury or moral softness — passive partners in perversion or those feminized in character and behavior.
  KJV: “effeminate.”
  The ESV’s phrase “men who practice homosexuality” merges malakoi and arsenokoitai, erasing their individual force.
• ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) — a compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed), literally “men-bedders.” Paul coined this directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Greek Septuagint (meta arsenos koitēn gynaikos), linking it to male-with-male acts.
  KJV: “abusers of themselves with mankind.”
  That phrasing keeps Paul’s deliberate moral severity, not mere “orientation” or “attraction.”

Theological Integrity
Paul’s warning isn’t sociological — it’s moral and covenantal.
He names behaviors that exclude from the kingdom of God, not identities that can be redefined by modern psychology.

When modern translators use terms like “sexually immoral” or “homosexual”, they import 20th-century categories foreign to Paul’s world.
The KJV, using English rooted in biblical law and moral absolutes, better preserves the original scope and gravity of sin.

God’s Word vs. Man’s Redefinitions
Scripture doesn’t evolve; language does.
When the church trades precision for political sensitivity, the result is confusion.
As Psalm 12:6–7 says:

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (KJV)​

The KJV translators understood that words carry eternal truths, not cultural moods.
That’s why, after four centuries, its moral vocabulary still convicts the conscience — while modern renderings blur distinctions God Himself made clear.

Grace and peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

 

[NightTwister]

That’s why, after four centuries, its moral vocabulary still convicts the conscience — while modern renderings blur distinctions God Himself made clear.

Only when you come to the question with a preconceived bias.

 

[LightBearer316]

Only when you come to the question with a preconceived bias.

Brother, it’s not bias to honor what God has already proven faithful for over four centuries. It’s discernment.

I’m not coming to the text with a preconceived agenda — I’m coming with a commitment to what the words actually meant when the Holy Spirit inspired them and when faithful men translated them into English.

Every translation reflects its time.
The 1611 KJV was rendered from the Received Text by men steeped in Greek, Hebrew, and classical usage — not modern psychology or cultural trends.
Modern versions, however, often interpret through today’s categories (“sexual orientation,” “gender identity”) that didn’t exist in Paul’s vocabulary or worldview.

The goal isn’t to defend an era or version — it’s to defend accuracy to the original meaning, not reinterpretation by modern sentiment.

When God preserves His Word, He also preserves its clarity.
If newer translations blur that clarity, the problem isn’t “bias” in those who hold to the old paths — it’s drift in those who think we’ve outgrown them.

“Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein…” — Jeremiah 6:16 KJV​

Grace and peace.

 

[Tall_Timbers]

The KJV is clearly the translation people read most often, and the 400+ years since 1611 show the KJV to be mightily blessed by God as his perfect word, though translated by fallible men.

In some circles, but not in others. Personally I prefer a translation in my own language. I favor the NASB1995 for my daily read. My church uses the ESV, of which I'm not as fond.

 

[LightBearer316]

In some circles, but not in others. Personally I prefer a translation in my own language. I favor the NASB1995 for my daily read. My church uses the ESV, of which I'm not as fond.

Brother, I respect that — the NASB 1995 is one of the more literal modern renderings, and I understand wanting clear, current English.
But when we speak of the KJV being “blessed by God,” the point isn’t that others can’t read or be saved through newer versions — it’s that the fruit, endurance, and purity of the KJV have shown a unique hand of providence behind it.

For four centuries it has shaped preaching, hymnals, revivals, and missionary work across the world. That’s not just popularity — that’s preservation.

Language does change, but truth doesn’t. The KJV translators didn’t invent their English; they built it from the original tongues and biblical cadence so it would elevate, not reduce, sacred meaning. Modern translations often simplify the language but, in doing so, sometimes flatten theological depth or import modern categories that didn’t exist in the first century.

It’s not about nostalgia — it’s about trusting the form of words God has preserved and used mightily to bring light to generations (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV).

So while I can appreciate your NASB preference, I hold that the KJV remains a tried, purified vessel of God’s Word — not outdated, but enduring.

Grace and peace, brother.

 

[LightBearer316]

Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

 

[Edward429451]

Matching the KJV with the closer timed dictionary of the 1828 Webster’s, and the ESV with the 2025 Merriam-Webster, which translation gives a clear statement for the meaning of the key words?

You don't need to use Websters Brother. That's what a Concordance is for. I have a Strongs Concordance, but I use the online one much more at https://www.blueletterbible.org/ and it takes you back to the original language of the scrolls it was from, so it's a bit more accurate that way. And easy, just, click click click. Go play around with it and see how easy it is. Look up a chapter then Tools on whichever verse has the word in it that you're doing your word study on, and it gives you all the definitions and sometimes you see a definition that makes more sense than how you were defining it before. Not in this case, lol., but sometimes.

 

[LightBearer316]

You don't need to use Websters Brother. That's what a Concordance is for. I have a Strongs Concordance, but I use the online one much more at https://www.blueletterbible.org/ and it takes you back to the original language of the scrolls it was from, so it's a bit more accurate that way. And easy, just, click click click. Go play around with it and see how easy it is. Look up a chapter then Tools on whichever verse has the word in it that you're doing your word study on, and it gives you all the definitions and sometimes you see a definition that makes more sense than how you were defining it before. Not in this case, lol., but sometimes.

Brother, that’s a good word — Strong’s Concordance and the Blue Letter Bible are excellent tools for tracing a word back to the original Hebrew or Greek. I use them often myself.

But where the 1828 Webster’s adds real value is in showing what those same English words meant when the KJV was written and understood by its readers.
The translators faithfully brought the original Greek and Hebrew into the best English of their time; Webster captured that same moral and linguistic framework two centuries later — before modern language drifted into ambiguity.

So, Strong’s helps us see what Paul or Moses meant in the original text, while Webster helps us see what the KJV translators meant when they chose the English words to express it.
Together, they give a fuller picture — one from the source language, the other from the historic receptor language.

It’s like looking through both lenses of the same pair of glasses — you need both clarity and focus.

Grace and peace, brother.

 

[NightTwister]

Brother, it’s not bias to honor what God has already proven faithful for over four centuries. It’s discernment.

Confirmation bias.

I’m not coming to the text with a preconceived agenda — I’m coming with a commitment to what the words actually meant when the Holy Spirit inspired them and when faithful men translated them into English.

Confirmation bias.

Every translation reflects its time. The 1611 KJV was rendered from the Received Text by men steeped in Greek, Hebrew, and classical usage — not modern psychology or cultural trends.
Modern versions, however, often interpret through today’s categories (“sexual orientation,” “gender identity”) that didn’t exist in Paul’s vocabulary or worldview.

Applying modern-day definitions to words used centuries ago is where you run into trouble. Also confirmation bias.

When God preserves His Word, He also preserves its clarity.

Circular reasoning.

If newer translations blur that clarity, the problem isn’t “bias” in those who hold to the old paths — it’s drift in those who think we’ve outgrown them.

Confirmation bias.

 

[LightBearer316]

Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias.

Applying modern-day definitions to words used centuries ago is where you run into trouble. Also confirmation bias.

Circular reasoning.

Confirmation bias.

You are trying to dismiss my reasoning as confirmation bias rather than engaging my actual argument.

Brother, I appreciate the interaction — but labeling every point as “confirmation bias” doesn’t actually engage what’s being said.

Bias is when someone starts with a conclusion and bends the evidence to fit it.
What I’ve shared isn’t that — it’s a conviction grounded in verifiable facts:

• The Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text used for the KJV have a demonstrable historical line through the believing church.
• The translators themselves were masters of the original languages, not simply traditionalists.
• The fruit of the translation over four centuries — revival, missions, and doctrinal clarity — speaks for itself.

You’re right that words shift meaning over time, but that’s exactly why we must preserve the definitions that reflected how English conveyed the Greek and Hebrew in 1611.
Once we start reinterpreting through today’s moral and linguistic filters, we lose the anchor that keeps interpretation steady.

That’s not circular reasoning — it’s textual preservation.
God promised to keep His Word pure (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV), and history shows He has.

Grace and peace, brother.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

 

[NightTwister]

You are trying to dismiss my reasoning as confirmation bias rather than engaging your actual argument.

Brother, I appreciate the interaction — but labeling every point as “confirmation bias” doesn’t actually engage what’s being said.


Bias is when someone starts with a conclusion and bends the evidence to fit it.
What I’ve shared isn’t that — it’s a conviction grounded in verifiable facts:

• The Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text used for the KJV have a demonstrable historical line through the believing church.
• The translators themselves were masters of the original languages, not simply traditionalists.
• The fruit of the translation over four centuries — revival, missions, and doctrinal clarity — speaks for itself.

You’re right that words shift meaning over time, but that’s exactly why we must preserve the definitions that reflected how English conveyed the Greek and Hebrew in 1611.
Once we start reinterpreting through today’s moral and linguistic filters, we lose the anchor that keeps interpretation steady.


That’s not circular reasoning — it’s textual preservation.
God promised to keep His Word pure (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV), and history shows He has.


Grace and peace, brother.

You use the KJV to prove the KJV is perfect. That's circular reasoning. I'm not engaging in logical fallacies. If you want to have a discussion without that, do let me know.

 

[LightBearer316]

You use the KJV to prove the KJV is perfect. That's circular reasoning. I'm not engaging in logical fallacies. If you want to have a discussion without that, do let me know.

Now you are trying to narrow the discussion to logic terms (“circular reasoning”) instead of engaging the substance of textual transmission and fruit.

Brother, I agree, circular reasoning would be using the KJV alone to prove the KJV.
That’s not what I’m doing.

My argument rests on historical continuity, textual reliability, and spiritual fruit, not self-reference.

1. Historical continuity – The manuscripts underlying the KJV (Masoretic for the OT, Textus Receptus for the NT) represent the same text family the church used and copied for over a millennium. That’s demonstrable history, not circular logic.
2. Textual reliability – The KJV translators cross-checked multiple manuscript traditions and earlier English Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops’), comparing Greek, Hebrew, and Latin witnesses. They weren’t creating a new text — they were consolidating a preserved one.
3. Spiritual fruit – The KJV’s global impact on preaching, literacy, and revival is unique. You can’t prove divine blessing with syllogisms, but fruit still matters. Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16 KJV)

I’m not saying other translations can’t be useful — only that the evidence for providential preservation through the KJV line stands stronger than through modern critical-text revisions that rely heavily on much later manuscripts.

So, no circular reasoning — just consistency with both Scripture’s promise of preservation and the historical record of how God has done it.

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

Brother, I notice the pattern — “bias, circular reasoning, bias, bias...” seems to be the only response so far.
Repeating labels isn’t an argument.

If there’s a specific point you’d like to challenge — the manuscript history, translation method, or theological implications — I’m happy to walk through it with Scripture and sources.
But dismissing everything with a word like bias doesn’t engage the facts, it just avoids them.

Truth doesn’t fear examination, and I’m not afraid to have that discussion — are you?

Grace and peace.

 

[NightTwister]

Now you are trying to narrow the discussion to logic terms (“circular reasoning”) instead of engaging the substance of textual transmission and fruit.

Brother, I agree, circular reasoning would be using the KJV alone to prove the KJV.
That’s not what I’m doing.

My argument rests on historical continuity, textual reliability, and spiritual fruit, not self-reference.

1. Historical continuity – The manuscripts underlying the KJV (Masoretic for the OT, Textus Receptus for the NT) represent the same text family the church used and copied for over a millennium. That’s demonstrable history, not circular logic.
2. Textual reliability – The KJV translators cross-checked multiple manuscript traditions and earlier English Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops’), comparing Greek, Hebrew, and Latin witnesses. They weren’t creating a new text — they were consolidating a preserved one.
3. Spiritual fruit – The KJV’s global impact on preaching, literacy, and revival is unique. You can’t prove divine blessing with syllogisms, but fruit still matters. Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16 KJV)

I’m not saying other translations can’t be useful — only that the evidence for providential preservation through the KJV line stands stronger than through modern critical-text revisions that rely heavily on much later manuscripts.

So, no circular reasoning — just consistency with both Scripture’s promise of preservation and the historical record of how God has done it.

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Grace and peace.

You're still using the end result of the KJV to prove the KJV is perfect. Why is it so important to have a "perfect" version in one of hundreds of languages when one didn't exist in any language for over a thousand years? And even that version was "re-perfected" several times.
The saddest part of people using logical fallacies is when they can't recognize they are using them.