Did you know modern versions of the Bible are deliberately mistranslated to make you think homosexuality is totally ok, when in reality, if you read the 1611 KJV, you'd know it's an abomination? Also, did you know modern versions of the Bible are deliberately mistranslated to make you think homosexuality is an abomination, when in reality, if you read the 1611 KJV, you'd know it's totally ok? If these two statements sound contradictory, it's because they are, yet they are both genuine charges against modern Bibles by two very different extremist groups.
On the one hand, there are Liberals who claim to be Christian, but in reality, their lives and beliefs so closely mirror the world that it can only be assumed they are enemies of God (James 4:1-10). That includes the desire to expunge all condemnations of homosexuality from Scripture. To do this, they claim the word "homosexual" was never in the Bible, but rather was added in 1946, replacing the word "pedophile".
This claim is very easily refuted by going to the KJV, which was initially translated in 1611, and revised in 1617. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the KJV says "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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
This is a very strong condemnation of homosexuality, in more ways than one. For starters, fornication and adultery are both sexual sins that take place outside of marriage, which, Biblically speaking, is when a man shall "...leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24, reaffirmed by Christ in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8). Thus, since homosexuality can never fall within the pure and undefiled marriage bed, it must always be considered a form of adultery and fornication.
But Paul gets even more specific in highlighting "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind". "Effeminate", here, is the word "malakós" (μαλακός), which is the word Liberals claim actually translates to pedophile. There is a degree of truth to this, as shown in this screenshot of the Outline of Biblical Usage from Blue Letter Bible, however unless you want to say the victim of pedophilia is barred from the Kingdom of Heaven, which hardly seems like a sensible conclusion, it makes more sense to apply the meaning of the... "passive role" in homosexual conduct.
The other word, which the KJV renders "...abusers of themselves with mankind..." is arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), which is actually a combination of two Greek words: "arrēn" (ἄρρην), meaning male, and "koitē" (κοίτη), meaning bed. In other words, arsenokoitēs would seem to translate as "men who take other men to bed". This seems to be a word Paul himself made up, but could as easily be a common word that he just happens to be the only extant source of.
Nevertheless, as an educated, zealous Jew living in a Greek speaking culture, Paul would have been quite familiar with the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which, while it does not combine these words, nevertheless uses them together in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, both of which were interpreted as clear condemnations of homosexuality in ancient Jewish culture long before the English language even existed, but are also clear condemnations of homosexuality in English. In the KJV, Leviticus 18:22 reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." And Leviticus 20:13 reads "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
So, clearly, long before 1946, English translations were quite firmly against homosexuality, and it doesn't seem to single out pedophilia in these verses (though pedophilia is still aggressively condemned elsewhere in Scripture). This would explain why both Jews and Christians have always been opposed to the practice, no matter what language they spoke.
On the flip side of this, one criticism KJVOnlyists lodge against modern Bible translations is that they apparently seem too permissive of homosexuality. In particular, they condemn the NIV as the "gay translation", as it apparently doesn't condemn homosexuality enough.
Now, first things first, I actually don't care how clearly my Bible supports a given doctrine, as long as it is an accurate translation of what the original text actually says. I am a Creationist, that doesn't mean I want to constantly add the word "literal" every time the Bible says "in six days". I am a Trinitarian, that doesn't mean I want John 1:1 to read "in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus is the Lord God Almighty". I don't want the Bible to be changed in order to more strongly support even the truth, because that, ironically, would be lying. Furthermore, God Himself has forbidden us from changing His words, and frankly, it would be strange to think we could do a better job of translating Scripture than He can do of inspiring it in the first place. Therefore, even if it was true that the NIV seemed to support homosexuality, but the KJV opposed it, I wouldn't care as long as the NIV was a more accurate translation, or at the very least was equal.
That being said, a truly accurate translation of Scripture, as we have just established, will condemn homosexuality. Does the NIV do this? Let me get personal for a moment: When I came to faith, my first Bible was an NIV, and I was also in the process of coming out as gay. I had already confessed my feelings to some close friends, I had joined gay dating sites, I was actively seeking a boyfriend. But as you can see, Bible Brain is clearly not a pro-gay ministry.
So, what changed? Why did I not complete the process of coming out? Why am I no longer registered with any gay dating sites? Why, around the time of my baptism, did I pray, regarding my homomsexuality, "can I stop now?" Well of course, more than a decade after my conversion to Christianity, I have used a fair few translations, including a brief time when I, myself, was KJVOnly. But between the time I was pro-gay and the time I repented of homosexuality, I only had an NIV.
This fact alone is enough to show that the NIV is very much not a gay translation. In fact, when you look at the verses we already looked at when we discussed Liberalism, you'll see they are still as "homophobic" as in any other Bible. In fact, ironically, it's clearer. An English speaking new convert might look at the KJV and think "ok, I can't abuse myself with men", but they'll see the NIV using terms like "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman..." and "Do not be deceived: Neither (...) men who have sex with men (...) will inherit the kingdom of God" and think, as I did, that homosexuality is a grievous sin that God can only cover with the blood of Jesus Christ.
With all of this in mind, it's clear that this is a heart issue, not a book issue. If you're a Liberal who wants to support, and even practice homosexuality, you're going to do that, whether you twist the Bible, or accuse it of being poorly translated. You can do that with the KJV as easily as any translation. If you're a homophobe, you're going to use any Bible as an excuse to do that. If you're a sincere KJVOnlyist who believes homosexuality is wrong, and the KJV just happens to be the "best" Bible that shows that, then that is what you will say.
But if any single one of these criticisms was true, the other would not exist. If modern versions were translated to be intentionally homophobic, KJVOnlyists wouldn't be claiming they're too permissive of homosexuality. If modern translations were intentionally permissive of homosexuality, Liberals would be using them and bashing the KJV (and apparently any Bible version prior to 1946). But in truth, if you study any reputable Bible translation with the intention of finding out what God wants you to know, you will come away from the KJV, the NIV, the HCSB, the NKJV, and multiple others, with the same views on just about any issue.
There isn't some grand conspiracy to make God say what any particular group wants Him to say. There are small conspiracies to do that, but what you'll find is scholars of all backgrounds shred those in seconds. The NWT? We all know it's intentionally mistranslated for the Watchtower's evil ends. The Passion Translation? The only people who take that seriously are gullible fools who take teachers who tickle their ears. But reputable translations are made by those with something on the line: Their reputations. They're not going to sacrifice that by producing intentionally biased translations in order to support sins they probably don't support in the first place.
Therefore, if you want to study the KJV, I practically beg you to do so. It's the Bible, which is why I always cite it in orange, which is Bible Brain color code for "this is the Bible". But you're not in a special, unique, privileged class of Christians who have a greater access to God's word than any other. Nor are you somehow more faithful to that word. You certainly are not, as the most extreme fringe KJVOnlyist would say, saved while the rest of the Church are going to Hell. Ultimately, your heart, not your Bible translation, will determine your faith, and your confession thereof.