A Bible you can understand. And trust.
Perhaps someone has told you the King James Bible is outdated, or you have noticed a verse missing from another version. These are fair questions. God has preserved His Word, and the King James Bible is the Bible to trust and use in English. Examine the reasons.
Why use the King James when newer Bibles are easier to read?
The short answer: Ease of reading matters. So does faithfully carrying the meaning of Scripture. An unfamiliar word is a reason to seek an explanation; it does not by itself show that the translation is wrong.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, the KJV uses “letteth.” Here it means restraining or holding back, rather than giving permission. Help with older words makes the passage clearer. The broader case for the KJV must also consider how faithfully it conveys the biblical text.
Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:7 in both versions ↗
Next: Are all translations the same? →Aren’t all Bible translations basically saying the same thing?
The short answer: They share much, but they are not identical. Some differences come from English wording. Others concern which words belong in the underlying text. We need to examine the particular difference before deciding what it means.
In John 3:16, compare “only begotten Son” with “one and only Son,” and “everlasting life” with “eternal life.” Different English words do not automatically change a doctrine, but some choices deserve closer study.
Compare John 3:16 and its surrounding chapter ↗
Next: What did King James do? →Did King James change the Bible to suit himself?
The short answer: James commissioned the translation; teams of scholars did the translating. Its name does not mean he personally wrote its verses. The project did have royal and church oversight.
The translators’ instructions named the Bishops’ Bible as a starting point and retained church terminology such as “church” rather than “congregation.” We should acknowledge that constraint and examine the translation itself, rather than claim there was no institutional influence.
Read the translators’ instructions ↗ · Read Bridwell Library’s account ↗
Next: Why are verses missing? →Why are some verses missing from newer Bibles?
The short answer: In a case like Acts 8:37, the issue is a difference among surviving textual witnesses, not merely simpler English. Translators and editors disagree over which reading belongs in the main text.
The KJV prints the eunuch’s confession of Jesus Christ as God’s Son. The NIV places the exchange in a footnote. Irenaeus also records the confession long before the KJV. His testimony matters, though it does not by itself settle whether every word of the verse belonged to Luke’s original text. Was a reading lost, or added? We should examine the evidence for both explanations.
Compare Acts 8:36–38 and its footnote ↗ · Read Irenaeus III.12.8 ↗
Next: Can we still trust the Bible? →Has the Bible been changed too many times to trust?
The short answer: Bible history is not simply a chain of people translating somebody else’s translation. Translation, copying, and revision are different processes, each with evidence we can examine.
The KJV translators worked with original languages and earlier translations. Differences between surviving copies call for comparison of the witnesses. A later edition calls for a comparison of its actual changes. The case for the KJV draws on the translators’ work, its textual tradition, and God’s preservation of His Word. One quotation or disputed verse cannot establish the whole case.
Read the translators’ preface on other translations ↗ · Read Matthew 24:35 ↗
Continue into the evidence →These are starting answers, not the end of the investigation. Check the sources and follow the questions that matter to you.
Keep the original PDF guide ↓