KJV

Unlike strict KJV onliers, I encourage studying the original Greek and Hebrew texts, the Masoretic for the Hebrew and Textus Receptus for the Greek.

The Strongs Concordance is helpful but does have it's flaws, sometimes what it says a word means is influenced by tradition.  And occasionally it slips distinguishing between similar word or different forms of words.

StrongsKJV
StrongsDictionary
StrongsConcordance
StrongsHebrewAlphabet

This is a good Website for help studying the the very Unique Hebrew Language and it's Alphabet.
AncientHebrew

A Translation of the Hebrew Bible into English made by Jews. It can be interesting to compare.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Besides things changed to make it's Hebrew identity obvious (and reject Christian interpretations of key Prophecies) it seems to align a lot with the KJV.  

It certainly like all Jews (Rabbinic and Karaite anyway, and all Jewish Christians I'm aware of) uses the same Masoretic source text as the KJV.  As does the Greens Inter-Lineal translation.  The Greens NT isn't Alexandrian but does break from the Textus Receptus occasionally, and Greens himself questioned the canonocity of certain key passages.  It's a useful study help but be cautious.

The Young's Literal Translation (YLT) used the same source texts as the KJV, so it doesn't belong in the same category as other modern translations.

I wish people that are radically KJV only would learn to acknowledge at least two things.

1. Some words have changed meaning since 1611, and they're not always at first glance obvious, like Fornication.

2. Many English words have more then one meaning, context often makes what meaning clear, but not always, and sometimes the original Greek or Hebrew doesn't share all the meanings that KJV word has had.

So in such contexts it helps to go back to the Greek and Hebrew (provided you use the KJV source texts, Masoritic and Textus Receptus, not the Alexandrian manuscripts or the Septuagint or the Vulgate) to help clarify which equally valid reading of the English is correct.

One such example is the English word "man".  We use that word with at least two meanings, man as in the male gender/sex, and Man as in the Human race, or Homo-Sapien.

Biblical Hebrew had no word with both of those meanings.

It had two for Human, Adam after the first Human, and Enosh which literally means mortal and was the son of Adam's grandson and Noah's ancestor born at the end of Genesis 4.  Enosh is used in Genesis 19.

And two for the male Gender, Ish which means man but also Husband.  And Zakar, Zakar is sometimes translated man (or really misleadingly mankind), but it's usually treated as the Hebrew counterpart for Male, like in Genesis 1 "male and female created he them".  But Male in English has come to be treated as the most technical term for the gender (you can degrade someone by saying they're male but not a "real man").  The Hebrew Zakar did carry a ceremonial and spiritual significance to it demonstrated particularly by it's usage in Leviticus.  I feel like a more fitting stand in for Zakar would be a noun form of masculine.  Same with it's Female counterpart used in Genesis 1 and feminine.

Greek is ultimately the same but maybe a bit more ambiguous because it's word for Human Anthropos, does share an etymological connection to some words for the Masculine Gender, like Andros and Anner which means Husband.  But the main NT word for the Masculine gender is Arsen (which has some variant spellings) which is unrelated.

The NT used Anthropos every time Jesus is called Son of Man, in the OT that term always used Adam or Enosh.

In many places no one is confused that a KJV usage of "man" is not meant to exclude women, like in Jesus's version of the Golden Rule.  But sometimes they are.  Like Revelation 14 where the 144,000 are called "men".  The word used there is Anthropos, yet I've seen commentators insist there are no women in the group.  Even though the 144,000 are connected via the 6th Seal to Joel 2:28-32 which says "your Sons and your Daughters shall Prophecy".

And sometimes it's not even about a specific word but nuances of the Grammar.

Take Genesis chapter 3, the 1st and 14th verses are as they read in the KJV and other English versions ambiguous or whether the Serpent (Nahash) is a "Beast of the Field" is being distinguished from them.  Actually some fringe people with an agenda will insist these verse can only be read as distinguishing it, but that's twisting the text, the KJV rendering can go either way.

So it is not questioning the validity of the KJV rendering ti simply inquire if the Hebrew is less ambiguous.  And according to the people I've asked, the Hebrew is clearly saying the Nahash is a "Beast of The Field".

P.S.

The KJV uses "they" and "them" of a singular individual in Deuteronomy 17:5.  So if you're one fo those who think the KJV is just as God Breathed as the original Greek and Hebrew then you can't claim the singular "they" is wrong.