Use the King James Version to Determine Sexual Ethics
- Thread starter Jon777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
People who define morality by some source other than God's word will not care what it calls "immoral". Using an unfamiliar transliteration like "fornication" won't enlighten them either.
While "fornication" does have a specific meaning, the Greek word behind it does not. While it is unfortunate that modern teens don't have a clear grasp of biblical morality, their ignorance has nothing to do with Bible translations. Did the researcher ask them if they knew what "fornication" is? Probably not. So your anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
Like it or not, "sexual immorality" is the better translation of the Greek.
We shouldn't quibble over the exact words or phrases used.
We can infer from the context what God meant/means and what He intended/intends.
And that's what really matters.
We can infer from the context what God meant/means and what He intended/intends.
And that's what really matters.
Words matter to God. Every word matters to God. I'd rather please God than man. Yes?
Jeremiah 26:
1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word from the Lord, saying,
2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
Jeremiah could have altered God's word, toned it down a bit, changed some of the words to please his audience, but God would not have been pleased.
....yes love the KJV and others its wise to have a Org Greek to English translation. Could have done better by saying
"Use the Word of GOD to Determine Sexual Ethics". As if God and His word.. yeah that there is huge.. His word as if all the others are ..well kinda of Him .. He looked at it but mans hands are all over it. Lol.. yes my brother its been awhile.
But thinking I'm 64 walked with Him for ever 50+ years and He gave me verse I never read before and He quoted His word....just saying never once told me what translation to stay away from.. or only read. Yeah its odd how HE GOD can get around this. For me when He quotes something He said? Never once did I have to wonder what bible is that from? haha sorry I believe the OP means well
"Use the Word of GOD to Determine Sexual Ethics". As if God and His word.. yeah that there is huge.. His word as if all the others are ..well kinda of Him .. He looked at it but mans hands are all over it. Lol.. yes my brother its been awhile.
But thinking I'm 64 walked with Him for ever 50+ years and He gave me verse I never read before and He quoted His word....just saying never once told me what translation to stay away from.. or only read. Yeah its odd how HE GOD can get around this. For me when He quotes something He said? Never once did I have to wonder what bible is that from? haha sorry I believe the OP means well
God has NEVER endorsed any English translation.
If you are going to go down that road then the only translation God has endorsed is the Hebrew Translation or possibly the Septuagint translation. (Which Stephen, the first martyr used)
KJV never made the list.
William Tyndale didn't actually translate the New Testament....he did sections of the Old Testament. Erasmus did the New Testament which sections were used in the Psalter and Book of prayers.
The Bible wasn't actually used in church services until the protestants began to do so regularly.
The Book of Prayers was mostly used even in most protestant churches. The Puritans were the pioneers of using scriptures in services if I am remembering correctly. The KJV you are so proud of is translated with a decidedly Church of England bend. It wasn't ever really accepted when the two universities translated it. The Revised Standard Version however was. Typeset matters.
However towards the end of WW1.....the printing industry, desperate for work, held a massive marketing campaign for the KJV....
It worked due to the lack of copyright protection and royalties and nobody remembered the truth.
Not quite accurate, brother — here’s a little clarification for context:
William Tyndale did translate the New Testament (first published in 1526), directly from the Greek, not from the Latin Vulgate. He also completed portions of the Old Testament before his arrest and execution in 1536. About 83–90% of Tyndale’s wording carried directly into the King James Bible of 1611.
Erasmus, on the other hand, never translated the Bible — he compiled and edited the Greek New Testament text (the Textus Receptus) that later translators like Tyndale used.
The KJV translators themselves acknowledged their heavy debt to earlier English versions: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible — not the Book of Common Prayer.
As for the claim about WWI marketing, the KJV had been the dominant English Bible for centuries by that time — long before the printing revival of the early 1900s. It became standard not by advertising, but because of its literary excellence and its deep influence on English-speaking Christianity.
The historical record is quite clear: the King James Version didn’t “succeed” through marketing, but through faithful translation lineage and enduring accuracy.
Grace and peace.
Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament Is Historically Verified
- First English translation of the New Testament directly from Greek, not Latin.
- Printed in Worms (Germany) in 1526, smuggled into England in barrels of flour and cloth.
- Surviving copies are held in the British Library and the Wren Library, Cambridge.
- Even the British Library catalog officially describes it as “the first printed English New Testament translated from the Greek.”
- British Library, C.26.a.13 — Tyndale, William (1526). The New Testament.
- David Daniell, “William Tyndale: A Biography” (Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 112–130.
2. Direct Influence on the King James Bible (1611)
- About 83% of the New Testament and 76% of the Old Testament in the KJV come directly from Tyndale’s phrasing.
- The KJV translators explicitly stated they built upon earlier English translations, especially Tyndale’s.
- The 1611 KJV preface (“The Translators to the Reader”) says:
“We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation… but to make a good one better.”
- Daniell, “The Bible in English: Its History and Influence” (Yale, 2003), pp. 135–142.
- Alister McGrath, “In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation” (Anchor Books, 2002), pp. 177–185.
- Erasmus (1466–1536) never translated Scripture into English or any vernacular.
- He produced the Greek New Testament text (the Textus Receptus) published in 1516.
- Tyndale used Erasmus’s Greek edition to create his English translation — so Erasmus provided the source text, not the translation.
- Bruce Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament” (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 100–107.
- F.F. Bruce, “History of the Bible in English” (Oxford, 1961), pp. 42–46.
- By the mid-1500s, Tyndale’s work influenced nearly all English Bibles: Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great Bible (1539), Geneva (1560), and Bishops’ Bible (1568) — all stepping-stones to the 1611 KJV.
- The idea that the KJV wasn’t used in churches until WWI is demonstrably false:
- It was officially authorized for use in Anglican worship in 1611.
- The Book of Common Prayer (1662) later cited it in Scripture readings.
- By the 1700s, it was the de facto English Bible worldwide.
- Gordon Campbell, “Bible: The Story of the King James Version” (Oxford, 2010), pp. 34–52.
- Adam Nicolson, “God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible” (HarperCollins, 2003).
William Tyndale absolutely translated the New Testament — his 1526 edition was the first English translation made directly from the Greek (not the Latin Vulgate). Several original copies survive in the British Library and Cambridge, and historians like David Daniell and F.F. Bruce have thoroughly documented it.
Erasmus never translated the Bible — he published the Greek New Testament text (the Textus Receptus) that Tyndale later used as his source. Tyndale also translated parts of the Old Testament before his execution in 1536.
The KJV translators themselves openly acknowledged they built on earlier English versions — especially Tyndale’s. Scholars estimate that 83% of the New Testament and over 75% of the Old Testament in the 1611 KJV came directly from Tyndale’s wording. (See: Daniell, The Bible in English, Yale University Press, 2003.)
As for the WWI claim, the KJV had already been the standard English Bible for over three centuries — officially authorized in 1611 and used in Anglican and Protestant churches long before the 20th century.
The historical record is overwhelming: the King James Bible didn’t rise by marketing, but by the faithful translation lineage that began with William Tyndale.
Grace and peace.
I actually cited every one of those sources in Post #90 — they’re not my opinions but the work of respected historians: David Daniell (The Bible in English), F.F. Bruce (History of the Bible in English), and Alister McGrath (In the Beginning).
Instead of dismissing what you haven’t checked, try reading the record for yourself. The facts are easily verified in academic works and archives — you’ll find Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament preserved in both the British Library and Cambridge.
It’s not “lazy” to cite real scholarship; it’s lazy to ignore it.
Grace and peace.
John, every claim I made is fully documented by recognized scholars — not speculation or “facts to throw away.”
- David Daniell, The Bible in English (Yale, 2003), pp. 140–145: confirms that Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament was translated directly from the Greek and that roughly 83% of the KJV New Testament draws from his wording.
- F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (Cambridge University Press): likewise details that the Tyndale line, not Erasmus’s Latin, shaped the Authorized Version.
- Surviving 1526 and 1534 Tyndale editions are housed today in the British Library and Cambridge University, so the record is verifiable.
If any of that is wrong, please show contrary documentation from equivalent sources. Otherwise, we’re dealing with history, not opinion. Stop being lazy and stubborn when you've been proven to be posting inaccurate information.
I don't care about your "opinions, feelings, or whatever." I just care about you showing contrary documentation from equivalent sources. Prove it wrong, other than that, just be quiet. Start citing.... that's all we care about...
Grace and peace.
Both "Authors" have serious flaws in ideology and theology that are anything but mainstream.
When any Author promotes any theological system of beliefs (Calvinism) it's an automatic "no go" for any serious scholar.
That's because EVERY denomination has serious flaws within their theological stance. Mostly through poor hermeneutics.
These two "scholars" are not much more than school janitors in their theological positions. Unable to use the sciences or the literary arts to accurately determine what the scriptures say....even when obviously copied incorrectly. (There are at least 4 parent Latin Vulgate....despite Jerome's best efforts)
These two modern treatises are full of errors on many fronts due to their obvious ideological fervor. Complete eisogis and not exegesis.
Look, when searching for source material and information you need to first find out about the author.. Do they have an ideological bent? What are they looking to gain? There's no end of authors out there promoting every theological bent ever created including one for the Holy Hamster.
Let's review some axioms of truth....
Three can keep a secret so long as two are dead.
Occams Razor....
The majority are usually wrong.
The truth is always highly nuanced and extremely limited but lies are designed to persuade and have no limit.
The Truth is that Tyndale assembled the complete Bible from Erasmus's work (and others) and some of his own....which Miles Coverdale then took, Named it the Great Bible, and had Published under the authority of King Henry 8th (yes, that one) who declared himself Pope over the Anglican Church. King Henry later had Tyndale killed (after an extensive search) who refused to agree that scriptures were in favor of local control of churches. Under Queen Bloody Mary the Catholic church once again had control over England and had Tyndale's bones exhumed and burned as a heretic for his efforts. However she caused the Calvinists to escape to Switzerland to a small and isolated town called Geneva....which leadership there began collecting money with one purpose....to publish a translation of scriptures that everyone in the UK could afford. The Geneva bible had "glosses" similar in nature as to what modern study bibles contain today with notes to assist in understanding what the scriptures said. These notes were definitely Calvinistic in nature.
However, because of the proliferation of the Geneva Bible it was THE MOST INFLUENTIAL Bible in English speaking history. Shakespeare's plays to this day contain direct quotes from the Geneva Bible. Sir Francis Drake carried this during his raids and explorations. It was used extensively in Scotland and endorsed by the Lords and Barrons there.
Look,
You don't care about anything other than YOUR desires.
You have cited poor sources. They fail EVERY test for a fully vetted reliable source ever issued.
If you were sincere in your search for knowledge and truth you would never have used these two sources. They fail just about EVERY test as a reliable source ever thought about.
These two even go so far as to claim obvious logical fallacies to prove their points and their citations which they base their conclusions upon are concocted as well.
They are written for confirmation biased people....which has a market in publication. So they were paid to write these books to sell to a niche, special interest group who already believe something untrue about the KJV. Not real learners looking for the truth.
And you are the happy promoter of falsehood for whatever reason.
You don't care about anything other than YOUR desires.
You have cited poor sources. They fail EVERY test for a fully vetted reliable source ever issued.
If you were sincere in your search for knowledge and truth you would never have used these two sources. They fail just about EVERY test as a reliable source ever thought about.
These two even go so far as to claim obvious logical fallacies to prove their points and their citations which they base their conclusions upon are concocted as well.
They are written for confirmation biased people....which has a market in publication. So they were paid to write these books to sell to a niche, special interest group who already believe something untrue about the KJV. Not real learners looking for the truth.
And you are the happy promoter of falsehood for whatever reason.
To continue with the three words in question in the modern Bibles on 1 Cor. 6:9, the original 1611 Edition of the KJV reads identically with the KJV Bibles of today. You can read the verse in the 1611 KJV at the following link, but wait a while as it loads - https://archive.org/details/KJV1611/page/n1401/mode/2up
The KJV “fornicators” has been modernized to “sexually immoral”, but why make a broad translation there when you have two other classes of sex sin in the same verse, “adulterers” and “sodomites”? Paul does give the reader an opportunity to expand on the stereotyped vice lists, such as in Gal. 5:21 “they which do such things” but here in 1 Cor. 6:9 to make “fornicator” so fully open to interpretation, where do you draw the line? Are you going to let the Church of England or our American Episcopal Church tell us what is sexually immoral? Maybe the United Church of Christ can give us a list that it covers. I’m not going to allow either the extreme liberal or extreme conservatives to tell me what is sexually immoral, I’ll stay with a strict reading of God’s word.
The next problem words are in the KJV “effeminate” and “abusers…”; but those are modernized into one meaning as the top & bottom roles in homosexual intercourse, as if all gays practice that. The two Greek words in question are malakos & arsenokoites. The Greek malakos has traditionally been translated at “effeminate” with some translations using “voluptuous ones” or “self-indulgent”. Is there any way to read that word as sexual in any manner? It is used twice in Matt 11:8 and once in Lk 7:25, both times referring to luxurious soft clothing and the LXX used the word twice and neither occurrence is in any way sexual. Why would Paul use a non-sexual word to refer to sex when other places in biblical writings do not? The Greek-English Lexicon of Classical Greek, the Liddell-Scott-Jones defines malakos (μαλακός) in expanded definitions and NONE are sexual and you can read it for yourself online:
https://perseids-project.github.io/lsj-js/μαλακός
Try putting the Greek word κίναιδος into that lexicon and you find that is the exact word for the “catamite”, the “bottom” in homosexuality –
https://perseids-project.github.io/lsj-js/κίναιδος
The Greek had the exact word for the passive partner in homosexual conduct that Paul could have used, but he did not, and he was Holy Spirit inspired. Would Paul change the meaning of malakos so drastically from other biblical uses, and not found in secular Greek lexicons, and make it sexual in this one place alone? That is just not reasonable!
The word the KJV translates as “abusers…”, is the compound Greek word arsen (male) koites (bed). Usually going by etymology gives only history, not definition itself; but Paul is the one who coined the compound word so we can see what he means by koites in the other 3 times he uses it: In Hebrew 13:4 it means the marriage bed, In Rom 9:10 it means conception, conceiving; and these are legitimate or moral in meaning. But, Paul uses the word in a negative sense in a vice list and we can get an idea what Paul means when using it in a context of sins –
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering/ koites and wantonness, not in strife and envying. (Rom 13:13, KJV) Here we see the word means promiscuity, womanizers. Now, Paul uses the word arsenokoites a second time in 1 Tim. 1:9-10 and here the sins are listed in organized form as types –
Lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners, unholy, profane
Murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers
Whoremongers, arsenokoites, menstealers
Liars, perjured persons
We found that Paul uses the sexual part of the word for promiscuity in Rom. 13:13, and here we find the full word of arsenokoites used in association with whoremongers/fornicators and menstealers or slave traders. So, promiscuity plus abusiveness or violence are the context of arsenokoites, hence the correct definition for abusers in the 1828 Websters:
ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.
I researched the history of our Protestant Bibles translated primarily from the Hebrew and Greek rather than from the Latin Vulgate, focusing on the verse in question in the OP.
1525 Tyndale(i) 9 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde
1535 Coverdale(i) 9 Knowe ye not that ye vnrighteous shal not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not disceaued. Nether whoremongers, ner worshippers off ymages, ner breakers off wedlocke, ner weaklinges, nether abusers of them selues with mankynde,
1537 Matthew(i) 9 Do ye not remembre, howe that the vnrightuous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceyued. For neither fornicatours, neither worshipers of ymages, neither whormongers, neyther weaklinges, neither abusers of them selues wyth the mankynde,
1539 Great(i) 9 Do ye not knowe, how that the vnryghteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaued. For nether fornicatours, nether worshyppers of ymages, nether aduoutrers, nether weaklynges, nether abusers of them selues wyth mankynde,
1557 Geneva(i) 9 Knowe yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,
1568 Bishops(i) 9 Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceaued: neither fornicatours, nor idolatours, nor adulterers, nor weaklinges, nor abusers of them selues with mankind
1611 KJV(i) 9 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,
The Oxford Standard Text (OST) is the scholarly edition of the King James Version (KJV) that was formally adopted by Oxford University Press in 1769. It serves as the “official” textual base for virtually every modern re‑print of the KJV, including the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, the 1900 “American” KJV, and most contemporary study‑Bible editions.
The purpose of the 1769 was to give the standard edition of the 1611 King James Version, and was primarily to standardize spelling, update typography, and correct printer errors without altering the meaning of the text. This aimed to make the Bible more readable and consistent in its presentation, reflecting changes in English spelling and printing practices over the 150 years since the original 1611 edition. The wording and doctrinal content remained essentially unchanged, preserving the original translation's integrity while improving clarity and uniformity for readers.
The original 1611 KJV Bible can be read online, including the apocrypha with margin notes including the apocrypha.
https://archive.org/details/KJV1611/mode/2up
1525 Tyndale(i) 9 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde
1535 Coverdale(i) 9 Knowe ye not that ye vnrighteous shal not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not disceaued. Nether whoremongers, ner worshippers off ymages, ner breakers off wedlocke, ner weaklinges, nether abusers of them selues with mankynde,
1537 Matthew(i) 9 Do ye not remembre, howe that the vnrightuous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceyued. For neither fornicatours, neither worshipers of ymages, neither whormongers, neyther weaklinges, neither abusers of them selues wyth the mankynde,
1539 Great(i) 9 Do ye not knowe, how that the vnryghteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaued. For nether fornicatours, nether worshyppers of ymages, nether aduoutrers, nether weaklynges, nether abusers of them selues wyth mankynde,
1557 Geneva(i) 9 Knowe yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,
1568 Bishops(i) 9 Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceaued: neither fornicatours, nor idolatours, nor adulterers, nor weaklinges, nor abusers of them selues with mankind
1611 KJV(i) 9 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,
The Oxford Standard Text (OST) is the scholarly edition of the King James Version (KJV) that was formally adopted by Oxford University Press in 1769. It serves as the “official” textual base for virtually every modern re‑print of the KJV, including the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, the 1900 “American” KJV, and most contemporary study‑Bible editions.
The purpose of the 1769 was to give the standard edition of the 1611 King James Version, and was primarily to standardize spelling, update typography, and correct printer errors without altering the meaning of the text. This aimed to make the Bible more readable and consistent in its presentation, reflecting changes in English spelling and printing practices over the 150 years since the original 1611 edition. The wording and doctrinal content remained essentially unchanged, preserving the original translation's integrity while improving clarity and uniformity for readers.
The original 1611 KJV Bible can be read online, including the apocrypha with margin notes including the apocrypha.
https://archive.org/details/KJV1611/mode/2up
More of importance about the 1611 KJV. The Title Page reads:
“Newly Translated out of the Original tongues & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesties Special Commandment”
It is of utmost importance in understanding the KJV to read "Translators to the Reader" where you can find the following statements in clear, modern English:
“…the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.”
The Translators to the Reader
The KJV was very close to the Bishop's Bible. The same Bishop of Canterbury proofread the KJV text & changed a few things to meet his "preferences", such as using the word "bishop", instead of "overseer" which was proper.
He did so because he wanted more authority in the church.
Notice how many state & nat'l "overseers" today changed their titles to "bishop" for the same reason. Yes, even the pentecostals have done it.
We're now at a time that "reverend", though not biblical, isn't enough, now it has to be "doctor" or "bishop".
Now the ministry has went from 'servants' to 'managers'.
He did so because he wanted more authority in the church.
Notice how many state & nat'l "overseers" today changed their titles to "bishop" for the same reason. Yes, even the pentecostals have done it.
We're now at a time that "reverend", though not biblical, isn't enough, now it has to be "doctor" or "bishop".
Now the ministry has went from 'servants' to 'managers'.