King James Only

Christsfreeservant · May 27, 2026

FYI: To all who are on here who are “King James Bible” only people: The Scriptures did not originate with King James, who commissioned the translation to take place, and who, from what I have read, was not a man of God. The King James Bible was a translation mostly based off earlier translations. It is not the original inspired word of God. The original manuscripts, from what I understand, no longer exist. So what we have are copies of copies and multiple layers of translations by human beings who are not infallible.

Therefore, the King James Bible is not the “only” acceptable English translation of the holy Scriptures. And it is not written in American English of the 21st century. So for me, for instance, who grew up reading that translation, but who started college reading on a 4th grade level, I do not understand the King James Bible. I need something written in my language that I can understand. There are other good translations out there, as well as some that are bad. We should test them all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So don’t judge other Christians by whether or not they read the King James Bible only. Judge them based upon what they are teaching and how they are living and whether or not they are true servants of the Lord Jesus doing his work. That is true to Scripture. Thank you!

Christsfreeservant · May 27, 2026

Christsfreeservant said:
FYI: To all who are on here who are “King James Bible” only people: The Scriptures did not originate with King James, who commissioned the translation to take place, and who, from what I have read, was not a man of God. The King James Bible was a translation mostly based off earlier translations. It is not the original inspired word of God. The original manuscripts, from what I understand, no longer exist. So what we have are copies of copies and multiple layers of translations by human beings who are not infallible.

Therefore, the King James Bible is not the “only” acceptable English translation of the holy Scriptures. And it is not written in American English of the 21st century. So for me, for instance, who grew up reading that translation, but who started college reading on a 4th grade level, I do not understand the King James Bible. I need something written in my language that I can understand. There are other good translations out there, as well as some that are bad. We should test them all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So don’t judge other Christians by whether or not they read the King James Bible only. Judge them based upon what they are teaching and how they are living and whether or not they are true servants of the Lord Jesus doing his work. That is true to Scripture. Thank you!

P.S. I just recently started using the New King James Bible translation because it is written in the language that I speak, which is 21st century American English. I like it so far, but I test it to make sure it is on point. I do pray earnestly that what I share here will always be the truth of God's word if what I am sharing is the Scriptures. I take the Word of God very seriously. And I pray for the Lord to lead me in what to write, and this is the first thing he put on my heart this morning to share with all of you.

Dave G. · Thursday at 5:40 AM

Christsfreeservant said:
P.S. I just recently started using the New King James Bible translation because it is written in the language that I speak, which is 21st century American English. I like it so far, but I test it to make sure it is on point. I do pray earnestly that what I share here will always be the truth of God's word if what I am sharing is the Scriptures. I take the Word of God very seriously. And I pray for the Lord to lead me in what to write, and this is the first thing he put on my heart this morning to share with all of you.

The KJV I can read and absorb well enough, but I don't orate it well. So I've for years used a combo of translations for oration, pulpit readings etc. NKJV, MKJV and ESV being among several I've used. Also single passages from the Amplified for clarity

Christsfreeservant · Thursday at 7:20 AM

Dave G. said:
The KJV I can read and absorb well enough, but I don't orate it well. So I've for years used a combo of translations for oration, pulpit readings etc. NKJV, MKJV and ESV being among several I've used. Also single passages from the Amplified for clarity

What is the MKJV? I am not familiar with that one. The ESV is good, but not too long ago they have updated it and I noticed as I was reading it that some things had changed. So I searched it out, and yes, they had updated it. Then I went back to the NASB1995, but then I decided to try the NKJV, and so far so good. But I also like the NIV, the NASB, and the ESV. I do alternate them sometimes if I believe one is more accurate than another to the original language. The Amplified was good, too, the last time I read that one, but that has been some time ago.

Dave G. · Thursday at 9:15 AM

Watch out for later publications of the NIV, they got gender sensitive among other things. I feel safe with versions prior to 1985, In fact we had a 1978 version around here that my daughter grabbed onto years ago and still depends on to this day, now living many states away from here ! Just look into the NIV like you have with ESV.

As to the MKJV ( Modern King James Version). The writers of this one tried to keep as close as they could to the KJV, you get a similar feel of the KJV in modern English, theoretically and in terms of theology.. It's pretty smooth reading. Reading it has just a bit different feel from the NKJV.

mourningdove~ · Thursday at 12:17 PM

Dave G. said:
Watch out for later publications of the NIV, they got gender sensitive among other things.

A helpful caution. ^

When I came into the faith, it was on the NIV Bible that I learned and grew. I still like it. But only versions 1984, or earlier. It's getting harder to find the early NIV, but can still be purchased 'used'.

Christsfreeservant · Friday at 12:42 AM

Dave G. said:
Watch out for later publications of the NIV, they got gender sensitive among other things. I feel safe with versions prior to 1985, In fact we had a 1978 version around here that my daughter grabbed onto years ago and still depends on to this day, now living many states away from here ! Just look into the NIV like you have with ESV.

As to the MKJV ( Modern King James Version). The writers of this one tried to keep as close as they could to the KJV, you get a similar feel of the KJV in modern English, theoretically and in terms of theology.. It's pretty smooth reading. Reading it has just a bit different feel from the NKJV.

I used the NIV 1978 from probably the year it was first published until they took it off the internet in exchange for the more updated version. It was my favorite until I could no longer find it on the internet. And it is what I use here at home in paper. The ESV seemed the closest I could get to it on the internet, so I used that for a few years before they updated that one, too. Thank you for answering my question about the MKJV.

Dave G. · Friday at 4:26 AM

mourningdove~ said:
A helpful caution. ^

When I came into the faith, it was on the NIV Bible that I learned and grew. I still like it. But only versions 1984, or earlier. It's getting harder to find the early NIV, but can still be purchased 'used'.

I also first read the NIV, then in a short time switched to NKJV for years. All my studies ( MBC & S audit classes), my bible school classes, local bible studies and eventually zoom bible studies were done with the NKJV. Meanwhile through Bible Gateway I searched out other authoritative sounding versions to add in some flavor, but never fully leaving the NKJV as the main platform, it was my main read and main bible to both participate in or to eventually lead bible study with.

mourningdove~ · Friday at 10:27 AM

Dave G. said:
I also first read the NIV, then in a short time switched to NKJV for years. All my studies ( MBC & S audit classes), my bible school classes, local bible studies and eventually zoom bible studies were done with the NKJV. Meanwhile through Bible Gateway I searched out other authoritative sounding versions to add in some flavor, but never fully leaving the NKJV as the main platform, it was my main read and main bible to both participate in or to eventually lead bible study with.

I understand there are some 'errors' within it, but because I 'started' with the 1984 NIV I tend to always go back to it. Were I to switch permanently to another version, it would be to the NKJV. Over the years, I've grown to appreciate the KJV, but the NKJV is easier for me to read and understand.

Christsfreeservant · Friday at 10:52 PM

Dave G. said:
I also first read the NIV, then in a short time switched to NKJV for years. All my studies ( MBC & S audit classes), my bible school classes, local bible studies and eventually zoom bible studies were done with the NKJV. Meanwhile through Bible Gateway I searched out other authoritative sounding versions to add in some flavor, but never fully leaving the NKJV as the main platform, it was my main read and main bible to both participate in or to eventually lead bible study with.

Thank you, Dave, for sharing that. I just recently started using the NKJV. It is a little different, but it has been good so far. The 1978 version of the NIV was my favorite and what I used for many years, and it is still my favorite and what I have here at home in paper. I began with the KJV, then went to the NASB, then to the 1978 NIV, then to the ESV, then back to the NASB, and now I am trying out the NKJV.

Aussie52 · Saturday at 12:57 AM

The real issue with Bible translations is the 'Text' from which they have been translated from.
As you may know, there are two current texts is use for translation.
The Critical Text formed in the 19th century and amended many times, comes basically from two early manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, there may be a third, I not sure.
The backers of these 'early manuscripts' maintain that as they are nearer in time to the original manuscripts, they are more accurate. Opponents say that they lasted in time because they had errors and were not used and handled as others and thus not worn out.
The other problem is that they disagree with one another hundreds of times. To many scholars this is of grave concern and casts a cloud on their veracity.
Nearly all the modern translations of the New Testament are based on this Critical Text.

The other Text is commonly called the 'Received Text'. Erasmus put this together, several hundreds of years ago from younger manuscripts and also early translations of the New Testament.eg. Old Latin version.
Many scholars believe that this is a superior text while others would vehemently disagree.
This is the text that the KJV, NKJB, and a few others are translated from.

When comparing the two texts, I am concerned of the many verses missing or changed in the Critical Text as thus modern translations, from the Received Text and the translations that come from this text.

Anyway, one should study all the issues as best they can and decide on a translation that fits the evidence.

Confession: I am not a KJV only person. I use the NKJB.

Dave G. · Saturday at 5:25 AM

Here is an Ai overview, but it isn't wrong in terms of what I've been taught, and not too deep. To me though, it isn't even the origin differences but specific wording man chose in writing a bible. Not to mention choices taken to omit portions.
Anyway:
AI Overview

The Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") is a printed edition of the Greek New Testament originally compiled in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus. It served as the primary source for historical Bible translations like the King James Version (KJV) and the Geneva Bible. [1, 2]
Modern biblical scholars typically compare the Textus Receptus against two other primary manuscript families when translating the New Testament: [1, 2]

1. The Alexandrian Text (The Critical Text)

What it is: A collection of the oldest and most complete surviving ancient manuscripts and papyri. [1]
Famous Examples: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (dating back to the 4th century). [1, 2]
How it differs: These texts often feature shorter readings and distinct wording compared to the Textus Receptus. Because they are closer to the dates of the original writings, most modern Bible scholars and translators consider them highly accurate. [1, 2]
Bibles that use it: The New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and most modern translations. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Byzantine Text (The Majority Text)

What it is: A grouping of over \(5,000\) late-medieval Greek manuscripts that represent the text-type most widely used and preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church over the centuries. [1, 2]
How it differs: It favors longer, more complete readings, attempting to harmonize parallel passages in the Gospels. It often acts as a middle ground between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text. [1, 2]
Bibles that use it: While few modern translations rely entirely on this text, it is frequently used by scholars to cross-check verses.

What about the Old Testament?
When people refer to "scrolls" in relation to the Bible, they are almost always referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Discovered in the mid-20th century, these ancient Hebrew and Aramaic documents contain portions of nearly every Old Testament book. They date back to as early as the 3rd century BCE, proving the historical reliability and preservation of the Old Testament text

Christsfreeservant · Saturday at 6:10 AM

Jeff Carr said:
The real issue with Bible translations is the 'Text' from which they have been translated from.
As you may know, there are two current texts is use for translation.
The Critical Text formed in the 19th century and amended many times, comes basically from two early manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, there may be a third, I not sure.
The backers of these 'early manuscripts' maintain that as they are nearer in time to the original manuscripts, they are more accurate. Opponents say that they lasted in time because they had errors and were not used and handled as others and thus not worn out.
The other problem is that they disagree with one another hundreds of times. To many scholars this is of grave concern and casts a cloud on their veracity.
Nearly all the modern translations of the New Testament are based on this Critical Text.

The other Text is commonly called the 'Received Text'. Erasmus put this together, several hundreds of years ago from younger manuscripts and also early translations of the New Testament.eg. Old Latin version.
Many scholars believe that this is a superior text while others would vehemently disagree.
This is the text that the KJV, NKJB, and a few others are translated from.

When comparing the two texts, I am concerned of the many verses missing or changed in the Critical Text as thus modern translations, from the Received Text and the translations that come from this text.

Anyway, one should study all the issues as best they can and decide on a translation that fits the evidence.

Confession: I am not a KJV only person. I use the NKJB.

Jeff, thank you for sharing all of that. My husband knows all this kind of stuff because he studied it in Bible college. I study the Scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Lord lets me know if something is in error, and so I do the research on it so that, as best as I know, I am not sharing what is not truth. It is critical to me that I am a speaker and a teacher of truth and not of lies, so I am diligent on this subject, but I am still human. And I won't always use the same translation if I believe one is more accurate to the other in a particular situation. And I do look at the interlinear, because I want to stay true to the word of God. I have no serious issues with the KJV, the NKJV, or the original NIV, ESV, or NASB. But some of the newer translations or updates on the older translations are of concern, and some of the newer translations are blasphemous.

Dave G. · Saturday at 10:58 AM

Christsfreeservant said:
Thank you, Dave, for sharing that. I just recently started using the NKJV. It is a little different, but it has been good so far. The 1978 version of the NIV was my favorite and what I used for many years, and it is still my favorite and what I have here at home in paper. I began with the KJV, then went to the NASB, then to the 1978 NIV, then to the ESV, then back to the NASB, and now I am trying out the NKJV.

That 1978 NIV is a very smooth reading version indeed.

I love your comment below stating how you let the Holy Spirit lead as well !!

Christsfreeservant · Saturday at 11:03 AM

Dave G. said:
That 1978 NIV is a very smooth reading version indeed.

I love your comment below stating how you let the Holy Spirit lead as well !!

Thank you. And thank you for the encouragement, too. Glory to God.

HIM · Saturday at 11:13 AM

Christsfreeservant said:
P.S. I just recently started using the New King James Bible translation because it is written in the language that I speak, which is 21st century American English. I like it so far, but I test it to make sure it is on point. I do pray earnestly that what I share here will always be the truth of God's word if what I am sharing is the Scriptures. I take the Word of God very seriously. And I pray for the Lord to lead me in what to write, and this is the first thing he put on my heart this morning to share with all of you.

What do you test NKJV against?

Christsfreeservant · Saturday at 11:40 AM

HIM said:
What do you test NKJV against?

Well, I am 76 years old, and I started teaching the Scriptures at age 16, and I have taught the Scriptures 50+ years, and daily for the past 21 years, so I test it by what I already have studied and taught over the years, and I test it against the Hebrew or Greek interlinear, and in prayer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I test it against other translations and commentaries - all prayerfully, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and I test it against the Scriptures themselves and what they teach repeatedly and consistently to see if what is being taught fits with the overall teachings, especially with regard to the message of the gospel.

HIM · Saturday at 11:46 AM

Christsfreeservant said:
Well, I am 76 years old, and I started teaching the Scriptures at age 16, and I have taught the Scriptures 50+ years, and daily for the past 21 years, so I test it by what I already have studied and taught over the years, and I test it against the Hebrew or Greek interlinear, and in prayer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I test it against other translations and commentaries - all prayerfully, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and I test it against the Scriptures themselves and what they teach repeatedly and consistently to see if what is being taught fits with the overall teachings, especially with regard to the message of the gospel.

I commend you in everything other than the time you have been teaching and what you might think you know. Both can be a stumbling block.

I don't mean that to be harsh, though I can see it being taken that way. The reason I say it is, I find I can cause me a lot of problems in respect to Spiritual things.

HIM · Saturday at 11:49 AM

Christsfreeservant said:
Well, I am 76 years old, and I started teaching the Scriptures at age 16, and I have taught the Scriptures 50+ years, and daily for the past 21 years, so I test it by what I already have studied and taught over the years, and I test it against the Hebrew or Greek interlinear, and in prayer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I test it against other translations and commentaries - all prayerfully, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit - and I test it against the Scriptures themselves and what they teach repeatedly and consistently to see if what is being taught fits with the overall teachings, especially with regard to the message of the gospel.

When looking at your Interlinear do you look the words up in lexicons. Have you noticed that it is not enough to just look at an interlinear. It does help but at the end of the day an interlinear is another translation just placed in line with the original.

And if you have looked the words up do you see how important is to also look at the grammar?

Christsfreeservant · Saturday at 11:54 AM

HIM said:
I commend you in everything other than the time you have been teaching and what you might think you know. Both can be a stumbling block.

I don't mean that to be harsh, though I can see it being taken that way. The reason I say it is, I find I can cause me a lot of problems in respect to Spiritual things.

HIM, I make it my practice to test the spirits, to pray for spiritual discernment, and to have an open mind and heart to hear from the Lord and to be taught by him and to learn from him what is truth. And over my lifetime I have changed my beliefs on several things that I realized I was taught wrong and that I learned wrongly. So this is not just about time spent teaching, but this is about being open to change beliefs if I am presented with something I had wrong, and then to correct it. This is about a long process of learning and growing in the knowledge of the Lord and in what his word teaches. And my dependency is on the Lord and not on human beings.

King James Only

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Romans 10:17

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Romans 10:17

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Friend

Senior Veteran

Friend

Friend

Senior Veteran

Similar threads