Use the King James Version to Determine Sexual Ethics

[LightBearer316]

The Manuscript Issue: Age vs. Quantity
One of the biggest issues often raised is that the Alexandrian manuscripts — the basis for most modern Bible versions — are few in number compared to the Byzantine / Majority Text tradition used for the KJV.

Manuscript Quantity Comparison

Byzantine / Majority Text (KJV base):

• Represents roughly 90–95% of all surviving Greek manuscripts.
• Thousands of copies (over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts total, most are Byzantine).
• These span across centuries, showing remarkable textual consistency within that tradition.

Alexandrian Text (Modern Versions’ base):

• Represents only about 1–5% of manuscripts.
• The main representatives are Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), both from the 4th century.
• A few others like Codex Alexandrinus (A) or Papyrus 75 support this same text-type.

Most modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB, etc.) are translated from a Greek text based on the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies (NA/UBS) editions, which rely heavily on these earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

However, the Alexandrian tradition is:

• A minority of the manuscript record.
• Known to contain textual inconsistencies and omissions (for example, Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11).
• Geographically limited to Egypt — where the dry climate preserved older copies, but that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.

The Key Debate: Age vs. Quantity

Modern textual critics argue:

“Earlier manuscripts are closer to the original — even if they’re few.”​

KJV / Byzantine defenders argue:

“The majority of manuscripts reflect what the whole church used and preserved — not just what happened to survive in one region’s desert climate.”​

It ultimately comes down to what you consider more reliable:

• A few older manuscripts that may have survived by accident,
  or
• Thousands of later copies reflecting the text the church actually read, preached, and copied for centuries.

Older ≠ Automatically Better

Age shows when a manuscript was written — not how faithfully it preserves the text.
A manuscript can be early yet corrupt or later yet accurate depending on the quality of its copying line.

• Texts that were copied and used constantly in worship wore out over time — which explains why surviving Byzantine copies are often later.
• Texts that were not trusted or widely used might sit untouched in a monastery or desert shelf for centuries, surviving mainly by neglect, not accuracy.

Why the Minority (Alexandrian) Text Survived

• Egypt’s dry climate preserved old papyri and parchments that would’ve decayed elsewhere.
• The Alexandrian school was known for its philosophical and allegorical leanings — and sometimes for textual experimentation.
• Many church fathers outside Egypt (in Antioch, Byzantium, and Asia Minor) didn’t favor those readings, which is why the Alexandrian form wasn’t widely copied or circulated.

The Church’s Endorsement by Use

The Byzantine text became the dominant form across Christendom for good reason:

It was the text the church read, preached, memorized, copied, and transmitted for over a thousand years.​

That isn’t coincidence — it’s historical validation through consistent use.

So basically....

• The Alexandrian evidence is older but numerically small — hence called the Minority Text.
• The Byzantine / Majority Text, underlying the KJV, dominates both in count and historical use.
• Older doesn’t always mean better; sometimes a manuscript survived precisely because it wasn’t used.

In short, the “older” Alexandrian manuscripts may have survived not because they were more accurate, but because they weren’t copied or circulated as the trusted text of the believing church.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Has God preserved his words for us today?
If not the KJV, then where?
Is God's word completely trustworthy and precise?
Are we to ever change, alter, add to, take away, any of God's word?

Post #41 will give you the back story....

 

[Gideon300]

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.

I love the King James. It has great entertainment value. You can find gems such as "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh". Who needs laxatives when your boyfriend has a similar effect.

Any unbeliever trying to navigate the KJV is doomed to fail.

The concept of same sex relationships has been around for thousands of years. The word "homosexuality" was coined in 1868. Anyone with the some knowledge of ancient history would know about the practice. It was common in Greek society. It's easier to say than
"abusers of themselves with mankind." And people these days know exactly what is meant by homosexuality. What the KJV means by
"abusers of themselves with mankind" is open to interpretation.

KJV has its place. In a museum.

 

[LightBearer316]

I love the King James. It has great entertainment value. You can find gems such as "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh". Who needs laxatives when your boyfriend has a similar effect.

Any unbeliever trying to navigate the KJV is doomed to fail.

The concept of same sex relationships has been around for thousands of years. The word "homosexuality" was coined in 1868. Anyone with the some knowledge of ancient history would know about the practice. It was common in Greek society. It's easier to say than
"abusers of themselves with mankind." And people these days know exactly what is meant by homosexuality. What the KJV means by
"abusers of themselves with mankind" is open to interpretation.

KJV has its place. In a museum.

Gideon, you’ve mistaken ridicule for reason.
The KJV isn’t “museum language” — it’s the product of translators who understood both the source languages and the moral worldview of Scripture far better than most modern committees driven by cultural trends.

The Issue Isn’t “Old English” — It’s Fidelity
Jon777’s point stands: “fornicators,” “effeminate,” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” are not confusing to anyone willing to look at how those terms were understood in 1611 or in the 1828 Webster’s. They reflect real Greek distinctions — pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai — describing different categories of sexual sin, including male prostitution, effeminacy, and homosexual practice.

The modern ESV collapses those distinctions into one vague, clinical term — “men who practice homosexuality.” That’s not “clarity,” it’s flattening the text to match modern categories that didn’t even exist when Paul wrote.

“Homosexuality” Is a Modern Word — Not a Modern Sin
You’re right that the word “homosexuality” was coined in the late 1800s — but the practice has existed since Genesis. The Bible doesn’t need Freud’s vocabulary to condemn what’s been condemned for millennia. Paul wasn’t lacking a term; translators were trying to express in English what arsenokoitai literally means — male-with-male coitus, a compound directly drawn from Leviticus 18:22 in the Septuagint.

So yes, ancient history knew the behavior well — but the issue is how modern translators choose to frame it. The KJV translators preserved the original moral force; modern committees often sanitize or generalize it.

Mockery Doesn’t Strengthen an Argument
Quoting Song of Solomon as if it’s comedic isn’t “proof” — it’s just disrespect toward Scripture. The same poetic language you mock has been revered for centuries as sacred allegory describing Christ’s love for His church.
That verse isn’t crude — it’s tender, emotional Hebrew poetry.

If you read it carnally, the problem isn’t the translation — it’s the reader.

The Real Test of a Translation
A translation’s value isn’t in how trendy its language is, but in how faithfully it conveys what God said, not what modern ears prefer to hear. The KJV translators weren’t influenced by post-Victorian psychology or modern revisionism. They rendered the text from manuscripts that the church had preserved, using a linguistic precision shaped by prayer and reverence.

Modern versions aren’t “evil,” but many have been flattened by cultural accommodation — softening sin, simplifying doctrine, and re-wording moral clarity.

Basically....

• The KJV preserves clear distinctions in Greek moral terms modern versions blur.
• The word “homosexuality” is modern, but the sin it describes is ancient.
• Language change doesn’t excuse truth change.
• Mockery of Scripture reveals bias, not insight.

You don’t need a museum to find truth — just an honest heart before the God who inspired His Word.

Grace and Peace

 

[Dino246]

Example: Homosexuals will and have claimed they are not being immoral with their sexual behavior.

Such ridiculous claims can be dismissed out of hand. That you give any credence to them says more about your bias than their delusion.

 

[Dino246]

The Manuscript Issue: Age vs. Quantity
One of the biggest issues often raised is that the Alexandrian manuscripts — the basis for most modern Bible versions — are few in number compared to the Byzantine / Majority Text tradition used for the KJV.

Manuscript Quantity Comparison

Byzantine / Majority Text (KJV base):

• Represents roughly 90–95% of all surviving Greek manuscripts.
• Thousands of copies (over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts total, most are Byzantine).
• These span across centuries, showing remarkable textual consistency within that tradition.

Alexandrian Text (Modern Versions’ base):

• Represents only about 1–5% of manuscripts.
• The main representatives are Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ), both from the 4th century.
• A few others like Codex Alexandrinus (A) or Papyrus 75 support this same text-type.

Most modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB, etc.) are translated from a Greek text based on the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies (NA/UBS) editions, which rely heavily on these earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

However, the Alexandrian tradition is:

• A minority of the manuscript record.
• Known to contain textual inconsistencies and omissions (for example, Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11).
• Geographically limited to Egypt — where the dry climate preserved older copies, but that doesn’t automatically make them more accurate.

The Key Debate: Age vs. Quantity

Modern textual critics argue:

“Earlier manuscripts are closer to the original — even if they’re few.”​

KJV / Byzantine defenders argue:

“The majority of manuscripts reflect what the whole church used and preserved — not just what happened to survive in one region’s desert climate.”​

It ultimately comes down to what you consider more reliable:

• A few older manuscripts that may have survived by accident,
  or
• Thousands of later copies reflecting the text the church actually read, preached, and copied for centuries.

Older ≠ Automatically Better

Age shows when a manuscript was written — not how faithfully it preserves the text.
A manuscript can be early yet corrupt or later yet accurate depending on the quality of its copying line.

• Texts that were copied and used constantly in worship wore out over time — which explains why surviving Byzantine copies are often later.
• Texts that were not trusted or widely used might sit untouched in a monastery or desert shelf for centuries, surviving mainly by neglect, not accuracy.

Why the Minority (Alexandrian) Text Survived

• Egypt’s dry climate preserved old papyri and parchments that would’ve decayed elsewhere.
• The Alexandrian school was known for its philosophical and allegorical leanings — and sometimes for textual experimentation.
• Many church fathers outside Egypt (in Antioch, Byzantium, and Asia Minor) didn’t favor those readings, which is why the Alexandrian form wasn’t widely copied or circulated.

The Church’s Endorsement by Use

The Byzantine text became the dominant form across Christendom for good reason:

It was the text the church read, preached, memorized, copied, and transmitted for over a thousand years.​

That isn’t coincidence — it’s historical validation through consistent use.

So basically....

• The Alexandrian evidence is older but numerically small — hence called the Minority Text.
• The Byzantine / Majority Text, underlying the KJV, dominates both in count and historical use.
• Older doesn’t always mean better; sometimes a manuscript survived precisely because it wasn’t used.

In short, the “older” Alexandrian manuscripts may have survived not because they were more accurate, but because they weren’t copied or circulated as the trusted text of the believing church.

Grace and Peace

This looks a lot like surrender on the title topic.

 

[Dino246]

Basically....

• The KJV preserves clear distinctions in Greek moral terms modern versions blur.
• The word “homosexuality” is modern, but the sin it describes is ancient.
• Language change doesn’t excuse truth change.
• Mockery of Scripture reveals bias, not insight.

Mocking the archaic language of the KJV is not mocking Scripture.

There is no "truth change" at issue here; the problem is purely bias.

Modern version are clear where the KJV is obtuse.

 

[LightBearer316]

Mocking the archaic language of the KJV is not mocking Scripture.

There is no "truth change" at issue here; the problem is purely bias.

Modern version are clear where the KJV is obtuse.

@Dino246 is trying to shift the discussion from textual accuracy to tone — implying that mocking the language of the KJV isn’t the same as mocking Scripture itself, and that modern versions are simply “clearer.” I understand the distinction you’re making, but clarity and reverence aren’t opposites. Mocking how Scripture speaks — even its phrasing — still cheapens the message it carries. Language evolves, but truth doesn’t.

The translators of 1611 weren’t writing in “code”; they used the best English of their day to express inspired meaning from the Greek and Hebrew. When modern readers find the KJV “obtuse,” it usually says more about the reader’s distance from older English than about any flaw in the translation itself.

Modern versions can be helpful for readability, but their “clarity” sometimes comes at the cost of precision. The KJV’s phrasing often preserves distinctions that newer renderings smooth over. I’m not against modern English — I’m against losing nuance that Scripture actually contains.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

This looks a lot like surrender on the title topic.

That’s a dismissive jab — not a substantive rebuttal. You are trying to frame my thorough explanation as a “retreat,” hoping to steer the discussion away from facts and into optics (“who’s winning”). If by “surrender” you mean laying out evidence in detail, I’ll gladly plead guilty. The post wasn’t retreat — it was foundation. The manuscript issue is the root of the translation question. You can’t discuss which version is faithful without first knowing what text each one comes from.

The point stands:

• The Alexandrian text family is smaller, regionally confined, and historically less used.
• The Byzantine text family is broader, more consistent, and endorsed through centuries of church use.

That’s not “surrender”; that’s context — something often missing when people jump straight to “modern is better because it’s newer.”

I’m not defending tradition for tradition’s sake; I’m defending the principle that God preserved His Word through the text actually used by His people.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

John146 said:
Example: Homosexuals will and have claimed they are not being immoral with their sexual behavior.

Such ridiculous claims can be dismissed out of hand. That you give any credence to them says more about your bias than their delusion.

Your response there isn’t engaging with the point at all — it’s just an ad hominem meant to discredit John146 rather than the argument itself. You label it “ridiculous” and shift to “your bias” instead of explaining why the claim is supposedly wrong. That kind of dismissal doesn’t actually refute anything; it just signals disagreement. The question isn’t whether someone feels their conduct is moral — it’s what Scripture defines as moral. Truth isn’t determined by majority opinion or emotion.

When Paul wrote “Be not deceived” (1 Cor 6:9 KJV), he was warning exactly about that—people justifying what God has already condemned. The standard isn’t cultural bias; it’s God’s Word.

Grace and peace.

 

[Dino246]

@Dino246 is trying to shift the discussion from textual accuracy to tone — implying that mocking the language of the KJV isn’t the same as mocking Scripture itself, and that modern versions are simply “clearer.”

Why do you address me in the third person? Does having a direct conversation disturb you?

I understand the distinction you’re making, but clarity and reverence aren’t opposites. Mocking how Scripture speaks — even its phrasing — still cheapens the message it carries. Language evolves, but truth doesn’t.

So your mocking of modern translations passes muster, but Gideon's mockery of archaic language doesn't? How utterly hypocritical of you. Your argument is empty because the truth of Scripture is not restricted to Elizabethan English (thank God!).

The translators of 1611 weren’t writing in “code”; they used the best English of their day to express inspired meaning from the Greek and Hebrew. When modern readers find the KJV “obtuse,” it usually says more about the reader’s distance from older English than about any flaw in the translation itself.

Which is my point. It is silly to expect modern readers to understand the older English without referring to secondary references. It makes far more sense to convey God's word in modern language (which is precise to modern readers) than to force people to learn another dialect in order to grasp God's truth.

Modern versions can be helpful for readability, but their “clarity” sometimes comes at the cost of precision. The KJV’s phrasing often preserves distinctions that newer renderings smooth over. I’m not against modern English — I’m against losing nuance that Scripture actually contains.

You haven't proven your point. I suggest you surrender it rather than arguing ad nauseam.

 

[LightBearer316]

LightBearer316 said:
@Dino246 is trying to shift the discussion from textual accuracy to tone — implying that mocking the language of the KJV isn’t the same as mocking Scripture itself, and that modern versions are simply “clearer.”

Why do you address me in the third person? Does having a direct conversation disturb you?

Sometimes I feel like directing my observations towards the forum... dissect your tactics..

 

[Dino246]

Your response there isn’t engaging with the point at all — it’s just an ad hominem meant to discredit John146 rather than the argument itself.

It's not an ad hominem argument, because I said nothing to attack John146 personally. Calling an argument by any adjective is not calling the person who used it anything. Arguments are fair game for criticism because they are merely ideas which don't have feelings because they are not made in God's image.

You label it “ridiculous” and shift to “your bias” instead of explaining why the claim is supposedly wrong. That kind of dismissal doesn’t actually refute anything; it just signals disagreement.

His argument is ridiculous because it attempts to use as evidence the arguments of sinners who have already rejected God's truth. Showing reprobates the same concepts in 16th-century English (which they may not understand!) isn't any more likely to convince them.

The question isn’t whether someone feels their conduct is moral — it’s what Scripture defines as moral. Truth isn’t determined by majority opinion or emotion.

What Scripture defines as moral (or immoral for that matter) is just as clear from modern translations as from the KJV. More so, in this case.

When Paul wrote “Be not deceived” (1 Cor 6:9 KJV), he was warning exactly about that—people justifying what God has already condemned. The standard isn’t cultural bias; it’s God’s Word.

Cultural bias toward the archaic KJV terminology is just as much of a problem as any modern language differences. Again, the KJV is one translation of God's word. The moment you claim it and only it is God's word in English, you've lost the plot and joined a cult.

 

[LightBearer316]

Why do you address me in the third person? Does having a direct conversation disturb you?

So your mocking of modern translations passes muster, but Gideon's mockery of archaic language doesn't? How utterly hypocritical of you. Your argument is empty because the truth of Scripture is not restricted to Elizabethan English (thank God!).

Which is my point. It is silly to expect modern readers to understand the older English without referring to secondary references. It makes far more sense to convey God's word in modern language (which is precise to modern readers) than to force people to learn another dialect in order to grasp God's truth.

You haven't proven your point. I suggest you surrender it rather than arguing ad nauseam.

You haven't addressed my evidence about textual precision, Greek nuance, or semantic flattening.
No hypocrisy here — my concern isn’t which century’s English is used, but whether a translation preserves the original meaning. The issue isn’t the language of Scripture but the handling of it.

Mocking the KJV’s English isn’t the same as analyzing translation accuracy; one is about tone, the other about truth. My point all along has been that some modern renderings achieve readability by simplifying or merging distinct Greek terms — and that’s not about nostalgia, it’s about fidelity to the inspired text.

I’ve never claimed Elizabethan English is sacred — only that the KJV translators conveyed certain nuances modern committees sometimes flatten. If newer versions can maintain that same precision in modern English, I’ll celebrate that. But “clarity” that blurs distinctions isn’t improvement; it’s dilution.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

It's not an ad hominem argument, because I said nothing to attack John146 personally. Calling an argument by any adjective is not calling the person who used it anything. Arguments are fair game for criticism because they are merely ideas which don't have feelings because they are not made in God's image.


His argument is ridiculous because it attempts to use as evidence the arguments of sinners who have already rejected God's truth. Showing reprobates the same concepts in 16th-century English (which they may not understand!) isn't any more likely to convince them.


What Scripture defines as moral (or immoral for that matter) is just as clear from modern translations as from the KJV. More so, in this case.


Cultural bias toward the archaic KJV terminology is just as much of a problem as any modern language differences. Again, the KJV is one translation of God's word. The moment you claim it and only it is God's word in English, you've lost the plot and joined a cult.

That’s a sharp escalation by you — it seems you've moved from discussing textual issues to framing KJV defense as “cult-like.” hmmm.
That’s quite a leap, Dino — no one here claimed the KJV is the only valid Bible or that salvation depends on reading Elizabethan English. What I’ve said, and still maintain, is that the KJV preserves certain textual distinctions that modern renderings sometimes compress or paraphrase. That’s not cultic; it’s a textual observation backed by manuscript history and lexical study.

Recognizing that one translation may preserve the sense of the Greek more precisely in some passages doesn’t mean rejecting all others — it simply means not assuming “modern” always equals “better.”

As for cultural bias, it cuts both ways: the modern reader can be just as biased by contemporary language and assumptions as a 17th-century translator was by theirs. That’s why accuracy, not era, has to remain the standard.

Grace and peace.

 

[Dino246]

You haven't addressed my evidence about textual precision, Greek nuance, or semantic flattening.

Your claims are not evidence. You also have not acknowledge the points I have made against your claims (that I recall).

"Fornication" is actually a transliteration, not a translation. The word has meaning because someone assigned it meaning (just like "baptize"). Many non-Christians today wouldn't know what it meant at all unless they saw it in context, and even then might not understand. Many people don't even have a moral sense there is anything wrong with it, so the unfamiliar concept would have to be explained.

"Homosexual" is about as precise as it gets. It is well-understood in modern English-speaking cultures.

"Adulterer" is also well understood, and is still considered wrong even in secular culture. It remains a legitimate basis for divorce.

"Abuser" has a range of meanings today which only includes "sexual" where that word is included to form a compound noun.

While there may be "nuances" in the Greek that don't come through modern translations, they don't come through the KJV either, and the archaic language in this case is far more likely to obscure than to enlighten.

 

[Dino246]

That’s a sharp escalation by you — it seems you've moved from discussing textual issues to framing KJV defense as “cult-like.” hmmm.

No. I clearly distinguish between preference for the KJV and even historical textual lineage arguments on one hand and the beliefs that it is "perfect" or that it is the only example of God's word in English on the other. The latter two are cultic, and I'm not accusing you of holding either view.

 

[LightBearer316]

Your claims are not evidence. You also have not acknowledge the points I have made against your claims (that I recall).

"Fornication" is actually a transliteration, not a translation. The word has meaning because someone assigned it meaning (just like "baptize"). Many non-Christians today wouldn't know what it meant at all unless they saw it in context, and even then might not understand. Many people don't even have a moral sense there is anything wrong with it, so the unfamiliar concept would have to be explained.

"Homosexual" is about as precise as it gets. It is well-understood in modern English-speaking cultures.

"Adulterer" is also well understood, and is still considered wrong even in secular culture. It remains a legitimate basis for divorce.

"Abuser" has a range of meanings today which only includes "sexual" where that word is included to form a compound noun.

While there may be "nuances" in the Greek that don't come through modern translations, they don't come through the KJV either, and the archaic language in this case is far more likely to obscure than to enlighten.

Brother, I’m not appealing to nostalgia or “archaic” wording — I’m pointing to the lexical distinctions the KJV preserves that are rooted in the original Greek, not in English tradition.

Take 1 Cor 6:9 KJV for example. The KJV distinguishes fornicators (pornoi), effeminate (malakoi), and abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai). Those are three different Greek terms, not one. Modern versions collapse them into two or even one category, usually summarized as “the sexually immoral” or “men who practice homosexuality.” That might sound clearer to modern ears, but it blurs three separate concepts Paul identified — promiscuity in general, moral softness or effeminacy, and male-with-male intercourse.

That’s what I mean by semantic flattening: clarity gained in English can mean precision lost in translation.

“Fornication” may be a transliteration, but it’s a useful one — it preserves a moral category Scripture recognizes even when culture doesn’t. The issue isn’t whether modern readers find the term familiar; it’s whether the translator preserves what the Greek text actually distinguishes.

Modern renderings certainly have value, but “readability” should never replace accuracy. If the original text makes a three-fold distinction, the translation ought to reflect it — even if that means readers have to learn a word or two along the way.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

No. I clearly distinguish between preference for the KJV and even historical textual lineage arguments on one hand and the beliefs that it is "perfect" or that it is the only example of God's word in English on the other. The latter two are cultic, and I'm not accusing you of holding either view.

I appreciate the clarification — that’s an important distinction. My argument isn’t that the KJV is flawless, but that its underlying text reflects a different lineage and translation philosophy than most modern editions. That difference is worth serious discussion, not caricature.

My only aim is to highlight how textual precision can be lost when readability becomes the main goal. The issue isn’t “which version is holier,” but “which text most faithfully represents what the apostles actually wrote.

Grace and peace.

 

[PAC-fit]

Personally I prefer a translation in my own language. I favor the NASB1995 for my daily read.

That one and others for me. Times past, the time exerted on proving accuracy was actually robbing my personal edification time by words of understanding.. I say labor in the word, but redeem the time and pray for the translators.