Yes, I am aware and in agreement. Thanks.
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.
Yes, I am aware and in agreement. Thanks.
Soon, people will desire a Bible written in memes. And there will be those who will jump at the opportunity for the love of money.
The KJV is currently the 2nd most owned English translation. The main reason its second is due to historical use and lack of copyright. Otherwise it would be much further down the list. (Gideons)
1.NIV
2.KJV
3.ESV
4.NLT
5.NKJV
These round out the top 5 with the CSB taking number 6. (Formerly known as the HCSB)
However....the CSB is likely number 5 due to KJV lack of use in most churches and by most of the membership. (A translation with options I happen to like but dont use very often....I tend to use a messianic Jewish bible most often)
Bible Apps are the most common way people use and read scriptures. Actual physical books are fading away except by the most studious or those virtue signaling. And they report a similar usage with the modern translations as pre-eminent over KJV.
1.NIV
2.KJV
3.ESV
4.NLT
5.NKJV
These round out the top 5 with the CSB taking number 6. (Formerly known as the HCSB)
However....the CSB is likely number 5 due to KJV lack of use in most churches and by most of the membership. (A translation with options I happen to like but dont use very often....I tend to use a messianic Jewish bible most often)
Bible Apps are the most common way people use and read scriptures. Actual physical books are fading away except by the most studious or those virtue signaling. And they report a similar usage with the modern translations as pre-eminent over KJV.
You can believe what you like....
However, in many of the college and post, post secondary educated people we have something of a revival taking place. They are heavily interested in God and Christianity on a wholesale level. Many professing a beginning faith.
The death of Charlie Kirk and an uprising of Turning Point assemblies having a major affect here. We are talking about thousands and tens of thousands at a whack here...adding up to millions.
They arent ones for tradition....they want the information without the heavyweight of history burdening them down.
Would you deny them?
When a person becomes fluent in biblical Hebrew or koine Greek one of the things they discover is that the scriptures were not designed to be read only by scholars but by the common man on the street. And reading/deciphering 17th century English is something done only by scholars who have no social skills at a party. Kinda like medieval French poetry....unique but unusable in daily life.
There are four positions on God's word:
1. God's word was only inspired in the originals, and no translation can be infallible, therefore, not 100% trustworthy. We don't have access to God's word today.
2. All reliable bible versions are considered to be God's word. They are all close enough, yet all are fallible.
3. God's word has been preserved in the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts and is impossible to translate with accuracy into any one given language.
4. The King James Bible is God's complete, infallible, preserved words in the English language today.
1. God's word was only inspired in the originals, and no translation can be infallible, therefore, not 100% trustworthy. We don't have access to God's word today.
2. All reliable bible versions are considered to be God's word. They are all close enough, yet all are fallible.
3. God's word has been preserved in the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts and is impossible to translate with accuracy into any one given language.
4. The King James Bible is God's complete, infallible, preserved words in the English language today.
We should never deny a true profession of faith. I hope this turning is not an emotional response. I'm hoping it is the Lord moving towards the fullness of the Gentiles as he gets ready to return.
Too many people in this thread are reading into what I posted, what is not there! In my very first sentence, I mentioned about the KJV, "translated by fallible men." That strongly indicates I am NOT teaching KJV only! In addition, the OP topic is about "sexual ethics", not the broad spectrum of biblical theology. Too many people are just bullheaded and spout off without reading a post carefully.
How many visit these Christian forums who do not use computer software so that they can access the Revised Version of 1885; the American Standard Version of 1901; or even the Young's Literal Translation. These are excellent translations as well, but who can walk into a bookstore and find any of those translations on the shelf? They can find many editions of the KJV Bibles in bookstores and most homes will have a KJV, though maybe covered in dust. The era of modern translations heavily influenced by culture, both liberal and conservative, began with the 1946 RSV.
About the claims of better manuscripts found since the TR of the KJV, the only variation of the Greek in 1 Cor. 6:9 is whether it reads "kingdom of God", or "God's kingdom".
For those interested in more information about the KJV, it is best to read the FULL "To the Readers" Preface of many pages, not found in most KJV Bibles of today. It is quite informative and undercuts the KJV Only idea.
How many visit these Christian forums who do not use computer software so that they can access the Revised Version of 1885; the American Standard Version of 1901; or even the Young's Literal Translation. These are excellent translations as well, but who can walk into a bookstore and find any of those translations on the shelf? They can find many editions of the KJV Bibles in bookstores and most homes will have a KJV, though maybe covered in dust. The era of modern translations heavily influenced by culture, both liberal and conservative, began with the 1946 RSV.
About the claims of better manuscripts found since the TR of the KJV, the only variation of the Greek in 1 Cor. 6:9 is whether it reads "kingdom of God", or "God's kingdom".
For those interested in more information about the KJV, it is best to read the FULL "To the Readers" Preface of many pages, not found in most KJV Bibles of today. It is quite informative and undercuts the KJV Only idea.
That’s an interesting list, and I don’t doubt the ownership stats — the KJV’s prominence has definitely shifted with time and technology. But usage trends don’t necessarily measure textual reliability or spiritual impact.
If the metric is downloads or casual reading, then yes, modern versions will naturally top the list — they’re simpler, newer, and widely marketed. But the KJV’s enduring presence after 400+ years, without marketing departments or constant rebranding, speaks for itself. It remains the only major translation drawn from the Received Text / Byzantine manuscript tradition, rather than the Critical Text base that underlies the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc.
So while I respect that many believers read other versions (and God’s Word won’t return void in any faithful translation), the question isn’t “what’s most popular?” but “what’s most precise and consistent with the manuscripts historically recognized by the church?”
Use what helps you grow, absolutely — but let’s not confuse majority use with divine endorsement.
Grace and peace.
Well said, Jon — and I think your clarification is fair. You made it clear from the start that you weren’t claiming KJV perfection, only acknowledging God’s blessing on its preservation and influence.
Your observation about the older translations is spot on. Versions like the Revised Version (1885), ASV (1901), and Young’s Literal were built on the same general manuscript base or close derivatives, and it’s true that few believers today even know they exist. They represent a time when translation still leaned toward faithful rendering over cultural smoothing.
I also agree — the discussion began with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the question of sexual ethics, where vocabulary and translation philosophy directly affect interpretation. Whether “kingdom of God” or “God’s kingdom,” the meaning remains identical — but the larger issue is how modern versions often condense or reframe multiple Greek terms into one umbrella phrase, sometimes losing the nuance Paul wrote under inspiration.
Your reminder about careful reading is well taken. Many of these translation debates miss that the concern isn’t loyalty to a single English version — it’s fidelity to the Word as God gave it.
Grace and peace.
I’m glad to hear about young people taking renewed interest in Scripture — that’s always something to thank God for. Every genuine awakening starts with people hungry for truth.
But accessibility and accuracy shouldn’t be set against each other. The Bible was written to be understood by the common believer in their own language — yet always with reverence for the exact words God inspired. That’s why careful translation matters.
The English of the KJV isn’t a secret code for scholars; it’s simply the standard English of its time, built on the cadence of the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles — both made for the common man, not for academics. Anyone who spends time in it finds that it reads more like timeless prose than “medieval French.”
We can celebrate modern interest in God’s Word while still holding to precision, not popularity, as the measure of a faithful translation.
That’s actually one of the ironies of history — the KJV wasn’t written in “high” or academic English at all. Its language is largely drawn from William Tyndale’s earlier translation, which was deliberately crafted for plowmen and common folk to read and understand.
In fact, more than 80% of the New Testament wording in the KJV comes directly from Tyndale’s work. The translators’ goal wasn’t to elevate the text above the people, but to give the people God’s Word in clear, dignified English.
So while the phrasing feels older now, it was once the plain speech of the English-speaking church. The difference isn’t that the KJV is too complex — it’s that our culture has drifted further from the linguistic and biblical literacy that once made it accessible.
Grace and peace.
LightBearer, it is frustrating to see how people will join a thread with replies that go off on a tangent with their own personal peeves instead of staying on the topic of the thread. I believe it is often because they want to make comments but are unable to reply to the topic intelligently, so they go off on other subjects, which they are equally ill-equipped to discuss profitably.
I get what you’re saying, John — the issue usually isn’t that the KJV is unintelligible, but that modern readers aren’t used to reading language with that level of precision and formality anymore.
It’s not about laziness as much as literary conditioning. People read soundbites now, not sentences that build thought on thought like the KJV does. But anyone who takes the time to read it regularly finds that it’s not “hard” — it’s just different, and actually very rich once your ear adjusts to the rhythm of it.
The KJV rewards careful reading, and that’s probably part of why it’s endured so long.
Grace and peace.
Fornication vs Sexual Immorality
From a friend of a friend:
I have gone out into the streets and talked to teenagers and asked them to give me some examples of what sin is. Usually they say things like stealing, beating up on girls, and murder. I then ask them if having sex before marriage is a sin. Invariably, I have been told, "No", or "Not as long as no one gets hurt." or "Not if they love one another." This is the world's standard. It is the morality of the natural man.
The word "morality" comes from the Latin meaning "usage or custom". Morals are relative, very flexible; they vary from one person or nation to the next. Morals are not absolute and unchanging. The word fornication, on the other hand has a definite meaning describing a particular act, and this act is forbidden by God and called a sin.
I recommend the Defined King James Bible for anyone just starting out with the KJV. Unfamiliar or archaic words are printed in bold and defined at the bottom of each page, making it much easier to follow without losing the accuracy and beauty of the original text.
https://brotherbrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/the-defined-king-james-bible/
https://www.thekjvstore.com/the-defined-king-james-bible-large-print/
https://brotherbrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/the-defined-king-james-bible/
https://www.thekjvstore.com/the-defined-king-james-bible-large-print/
That’s a great illustration, John — it really shows how the wording we use shapes how people think about sin.
“Fornication” names a specific act that God forbids; “sexual immorality” sounds broader and more subjective — almost like a sociological category rather than a moral one. When Scripture uses precise terms, it defines boundaries clearly. When translators opt for looser or more modernized terms, those boundaries start to blur.
That’s the heart of why translation accuracy matters — not for the sake of tradition, but for the sake of truth. Words carry moral weight, and when that weight gets diluted, so does conviction.
Grace and peace.
Scripture makes it perfectly clear that "sexual immorality" is sin. For example:
"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." 1 Corinthians 6:18 (ESV)
Ok, then what is immoral? "I can have sex outside of marriage and be moral while doing it, therefore, it wouldn't be considered sexual immorality. I'm not going to do something immoral with my partner." Morality is subjective.