Use the King James Version to Determine Sexual Ethics

[Dino246]

The 1611 KJV was rendered from the Received Text by men steeped in Greek, Hebrew, and classical usage

The KJV translators did very little translating. They largely adopted Tyndale’s work from a century earlier.

— 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 entire English language did not exist in Paul’s vocabulary. Your argument is empty.

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

How is “homosexuals” less clear than “abusers of themselves with mankind”? It’s about as precise as language gets, and rightly addresses females as well as males. A female who is effeminate is not doing anything wrong.

The reality is that words are nothing more than collections of symbols (or sounds). The meaning a word conveys is ALWAYS a cultural consensus rather than an absolute truth. Words have meaning because they are given meaning through usage.

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

Your beesom and your wimples are contentious. Again, you have no argument.

 

[LightBearer316]

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.

Now you are shifting the discussion from logic to history of language evolution and trying to frame my position as emotional or uninformed (“you’re using a fallacy and don’t know it”).

Brother, I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m actually saying.
I’ve never claimed the KJV created God’s Word or that English alone holds perfection. God’s Word existed long before 1611 — preserved through the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek manuscripts of the believing church.

The KJV translators didn’t invent new truth; they faithfully transmitted it into the common tongue of their day. That’s the pattern God has always used — His Word preserved and carried forward through faithful hands and languages (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV; Isaiah 59:21 KJV).

When I speak of the KJV as “perfect,” I mean it in the sense of complete and trustworthy — a purified form of the same preserved Word, not a brand-new revelation. It represents the culmination of that providential line, not a replacement of it.

So no circular reasoning, no claim of English exclusivity — simply confidence that God has kept His promise to preserve His Word, and history bears witness that the KJV stands at the end of that faithful stream.

Grace and peace.

 

[NightTwister]

Now you are shifting the discussion from logic to history of language evolution and trying to frame my position as emotional or uninformed (“you’re using a fallacy and don’t know it”).

Brother, I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m actually saying.
I’ve never claimed the KJV created God’s Word or that English alone holds perfection. God’s Word existed long before 1611 — preserved through the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek manuscripts of the believing church.

The KJV translators didn’t invent new truth; they faithfully transmitted it into the common tongue of their day. That’s the pattern God has always used — His Word preserved and carried forward through faithful hands and languages (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV; Isaiah 59:21 KJV).

When I speak of the KJV as “perfect,” I mean it in the sense of complete and trustworthy — a purified form of the same preserved Word, not a brand-new revelation. It represents the culmination of that providential line, not a replacement of it.

So no circular reasoning, no claim of English exclusivity — simply confidence that God has kept His promise to preserve His Word, and history bears witness that the KJV stands at the end of that faithful stream.

Grace and peace.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Dino246]

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.

There are serious questions about the lineage of the Masoretic text.

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.”

Actually, you are exactly wrong on this point. The meaning of words in 1611 is irrelevant except where they hold the same meaning today… and many don’t, or have dropped from use almost entirely.

The meaning of Paul’s words in Greek is what matters. A translation that conveys that meaning today today’s readers is needed.

 

[LightBearer316]

The KJV translators did very little translating. They largely adopted Tyndale’s work from a century earlier.


The entire English language did not exist in Paul’s vocabulary. Your argument is empty.


How is “homosexuals” less clear than “abusers of themselves with mankind”? It’s about as precise as language gets, and rightly addresses females as well as males. A female who is effeminate is not doing anything wrong.

The reality is that words are nothing more than collections of symbols (or sounds). The meaning a word conveys is ALWAYS a cultural consensus rather than an absolute truth. Words have meaning because they are given meaning through usage.


Your beesom and your wimples are contentious. Again, you have no argument.

Dino’s approach here mixes some historical truth (the KJV building on Tyndale) with relativism (“words are just cultural consensus”).

Brother, you’re right that the KJV translators stood on the shoulders of earlier English Bibles like Tyndale and Geneva — that’s part of what made their work so strong. They refined rather than reinvented, comparing the Received Text against those prior efforts to bring the wording into one consistent, faithful standard.

But the idea that “words are just cultural consensus” isn’t how Scripture treats language.
Jesus built entire arguments on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32 KJV) and said “the Scripture cannot be broken.” Paul grounded doctrine on the number of a noun (Galatians 3:16 KJV). That shows the Holy Spirit views the specific words as divinely chosen, not culturally flexible.

As for “homosexuals” vs. “abusers of themselves with mankind,” the question isn’t which sounds clearer to modern ears — it’s which one preserves the range of meaning Paul intended in ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai). The KJV phrase mirrors the compound literally: arsēn = male, koitē = bed. The modern rendering collapses that nuance into a 19th-century category Paul never used.

So yes, language evolves — but truth doesn’t. The task isn’t to modernize Scripture to fit current understanding, but to hold fast to what was once delivered (Jude 1:3 KJV).

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

There are serious questions about the lineage of the Masoretic text.



Actually, you are exactly wrong on this point. The meaning of words in 1611 is irrelevant except where they hold the same meaning today… and many don’t, or have dropped from use almost entirely.

The meaning of Paul’s words in Greek is what matters. A translation that conveys that meaning today today’s readers is needed.

You’re missing the point entirely. The 1611 definitions aren’t about preserving “old English” — they’re about preserving how the translators of that era captured the Greek and Hebrew sense in their own linguistic framework.

The meaning of Paul’s Greek words hasn’t changed, but how those meanings were conveyed in English has. That’s why the 1611 usage matters: it reflects how those scholars — fluent in the original tongues — rendered the thought into precise English expressions rooted in their time. If you redefine those English words by 2025 usage, you distort the intent they carried when written.

So no, it’s not irrelevant. The fidelity of the translation depends on understanding how those words functioned in 1611, not how modern readers reinterpret them today.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
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.

 

[Dino246]

You’re missing the point entirely. The 1611 definitions aren’t about preserving “old English” — they’re about preserving how the translators of that era captured the Greek and Hebrew sense in their own linguistic framework.

Yes... historically interesting but of questionable value today.

The meaning of Paul’s Greek words hasn’t changed, but how those meanings were conveyed in English has. That’s why the 1611 usage matters: it reflects how those scholars — fluent in the original tongues — rendered the thought into precise English expressions rooted in their time. If you redefine those English words by 2025 usage, you distort the intent they carried when written.

Wrong. Using words that have specific meanings in the 21st century conveys meaning to people who live and learn English in the 21st century.

So no, it’s not irrelevant. The fidelity of the translation depends on understanding how those words functioned in 1611, not how modern readers reinterpret them today.

You are actually undermining your own argument here, because you must reinterpret the archaic terminology of 1611 into 21st-century English for contemporary readers to understand. If a team translates the Greek to 21st century English, the result is not inherently less precise than it was in 1611.

 

[Dino246]

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
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.

Perfect example. Does "quick" relate to speed?

No. Not in 16th century English.

 

[LightBearer316]

Perfect example. Does "quick" relate to speed?

No. Not in 16th century English.

Exactly — and that’s the point I’ve been making. In 1611, “quick” didn’t mean “fast,” but “alive.”

The translators used the term consistent with its biblical usage, like in 1 Peter 4:5 (KJV):

“Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.”​

So “the word of God is quick” means it is living — not static, not dead text, but a living, active voice of God that pierces the heart and discerns the spirit.

That’s why we can’t modernize those definitions carelessly. When we replace “quick” with “fast,” we lose the depth of what the translators intended — that the Word itself is alive and powerful.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Yes... historically interesting but of questionable value today.


Wrong. Using words that have specific meanings in the 21st century conveys meaning to people who live and learn English in the 21st century.


You are actually undermining your own argument here, because you must reinterpret the archaic terminology of 1611 into 21st-century English for contemporary readers to understand. If a team translates the Greek to 21st century English, the result is not inherently less precise than it was in 1611.

You’re confusing translation accuracy with semantic drift. Translating the Greek into modern English is fine — but only if the translator first understands what those English words meant when they were chosen to represent the original text.

If we reinterpret 1611 words by today’s definitions before understanding their historical sense, we’re not translating the Greek — we’re translating our own culture back into Scripture. That’s exactly how meaning gets lost.

The issue isn’t language modernization; it’s fidelity. Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5 KJV), and preserving purity requires knowing what those words originally conveyed, not what they happen to mean in casual modern usage.

That’s why serious study always starts with the original context — whether Greek, Hebrew, or 1611 English — before updating the phrasing. Anything else risks bending the text to fit today rather than letting it speak timeless truth.

Grace and Peace
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.”

 

[Dino246]

But the idea that “words are just cultural consensus” isn’t how Scripture treats language. Jesus built entire arguments on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32 KJV) and said “the Scripture cannot be broken.” Paul grounded doctrine on the number of a noun (Galatians 3:16 KJV). That shows the Holy Spirit views the specific words as divinely chosen, not culturally flexible.

Jesus would not have made an argument based on tense if it were not widely accepted that certain words convey a specific tense. Truth is truth, but it needs words to be conveyed, and words have meaning only by broad consensus, rather than inherently.

As for “homosexuals” vs. “abusers of themselves with mankind,” the question isn’t which sounds clearer to modern ears — it’s which one preserves the range of meaning Paul intended in ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai). The KJV phrase mirrors the compound literally: arsēn = male, koitē = bed. The modern rendering collapses that nuance into a 19th-century category Paul never used.

Then "male-bedders" would be the most precise, wouldn't it? "Homosexuals" captures both genders ... and rightly so. You aren't going to win this point, so let it go.

So yes, language evolves — but truth doesn’t. The task isn’t to modernize Scripture to fit current understanding, but to hold fast to what was once delivered (Jude 1:3 KJV).

And what was "once delivered" was delivered (in this case) in Greek, not 16th-century English.

Why did Wycliffe want a Bible in English? Wasn't Latin good enough? No; it wasn't! He wanted a Bible "that fit the modern understanding" and he died for that mission.

 

[Dino246]

You’re confusing translation accuracy with semantic drift. Translating the Greek into modern English is fine — but only if the translator first understands what those English words meant when they were chosen to represent the original text.

"Meant" when? In 1611? A modern translator need not know anything about 16th-century English or even the KJV to render the Greek into modern English.

If we reinterpret 1611 words by today’s definitions before understanding their historical sense, we’re not translating the Greek — we’re translating our own culture back into Scripture. That’s exactly how meaning gets lost.

Which is why we should not bother with updating the KJV but rather with capturing the meaning of the Greek in modern English.

That’s why serious study always starts with the original context — whether Greek, Hebrew, or 1611 English

You aren't seriously arguing that the KJV is "original context" are you?

You seem to be basing your argument on the fallacious idea that the 1611 KJV is "perfect". I sure hope not; that's very easy to disprove.

 

[LightBearer316]

Jesus would not have made an argument based on tense if it were not widely accepted that certain words convey a specific tense. Truth is truth, but it needs words to be conveyed, and words have meaning only by broad consensus, rather than inherently.


Then "male-bedders" would be the most precise, wouldn't it? "Homosexuals" captures both genders ... and rightly so. You aren't going to win this point, so let it go.


And what was "once delivered" was delivered (in this case) in Greek, not 16th-century English.

Why did Wycliffe want a Bible in English? Wasn't Latin good enough? No; it wasn't! He wanted a Bible "that fit the modern understanding" and he died for that mission.

Wycliffe didn’t “modernize” Scripture — he translated it so that English speakers could read what God said, not reinterpret what God meant. There’s a difference.

The faith “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3 KJV) wasn’t delivered in the language of man’s preference, but in inspired words chosen by the Spirit (2 Peter 1:21 KJV). Translators serve that revelation — they don’t reshape it to fit cultural comfort.

That’s why Jesus and Paul grounded arguments on single words and tenses (Matthew 22:32 KJV; Galatians 3:16 KJV). If words can shift meaning by consensus, truth itself becomes negotiable. But if God superintended those words, our task isn’t to update them — it’s to understand them as He intended.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

"Meant" when? In 1611? A modern translator need not know anything about 16th-century English or even the KJV to render the Greek into modern English.


Which is why we should not bother with updating the KJV but rather with capturing the meaning of the Greek in modern English.


You aren't seriously arguing that the KJV is "original context" are you?

You seem to be basing your argument on the fallacious idea that the 1611 KJV is "perfect". I sure hope not; that's very easy to disprove.

No, I’ve never said the KJV is the “original context” or that it’s “perfect.” What I’m saying is that the KJV translators worked from the original context — Greek and Hebrew — and rendered those meanings into precise English as it was understood in 1611.

If we ignore what their English words meant when they chose them, we risk distorting their translation choices and, by extension, the text they were conveying. Understanding 1611 usage isn’t idolizing the KJV — it’s recognizing how those scholars expressed the original sense of Scripture in their own language.

Modern translators should absolutely render the Greek into modern English — but faithfully, not by redefining older terms through 21st-century filters. The standard is truth, not trend (John 17:17 KJV).

Grace and Peace

 

[NightTwister]

You aren't seriously arguing that the KJV is "original context" are you?

Well, it is the Bible Jesus used...

 

[John146]

Fee… “sexually immoral” isn’t clear enough?

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

 

[John146]

Personally I prefer a translation in my own language.

If English is your language, then the KJV contains the precise words in English.

 

[John146]

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?

 

[Dino246]

Modern translators should absolutely render the Greek into modern English — but faithfully, not by redefining older terms through 21st-century filters. The standard is truth, not trend (John 17:17 KJV).

“Not by redefining older terms”; exactly. By finding current terms that accurately represent the sense of the original Greek without reference to older English translations.