At over 400 years old, The KJV is unquestionably the most influential English Bible to date. Part of the reason is that it reigned as the only available English Bible for 250 years (with no competitors), and continues to appeal to a significant number of people even today. The top five translations in order are (1) NIV, (2) ESV, (3) NLT, (4) CSB and (5) KJV. That fact that a translation more than 400 years old is still in the top five is a testimony to its quality and appeal. There is no doubt that the KJV has secured a well-deserved place in history having “withstood the test of time and continues to have a solid reader base.” However, the dominance of a single English translation was a novelty; today’s abundance of English translations is regarded as a return to life before 1611. The diction of today’s English Bibles, to include the KJV, rely heavily on Tyndale and his first use of such words as anathema, godly, unbeliever, zealous, Jehovah, and atonement. While estimates vary, one study concludes that as much as 80% of Tyndale’s words were preserved by the KJV translators. Tyndale’s English translation is noted for its simplicity of style, and yet it significantly influenced the KJV which is noted for its regal, elevated style—an important reminder that language changes through time.

The number of English translations that preceded the KJV is striking, similar to the prevalence of English translations today. The Geneva Bible, which preceded the KJV was the Bible for John Bunyan and the pilgrims settling America. The 1602 revision of the Bishops Bible was the basis for the KJV. The guidance given to the translators was to base their work on the Bishops Bible and when alteration was needed to follow Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles. In fact, much of the praise for the KJV rightfully belongs to its predecessors; Tyndale deserves the greatest credit, Coverdale for melody and harmony, and Geneva for scholarship and accuracy. As the Preface to the Reader in the King James Version explains, the translators had no intention of improving a bad translation. Their goal was simply “to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”

History records that there were many errors in the early editions of original KJV; in fact, in the first two printings, the text differs in hundreds of places. This leads to the question—which version of KJV is the “correct” one? Ironically, despite several scholarly attempts to do just that, no standard text of the KJV has ever been established or agreed upon. The most influential version, and the one that is usually reprinted today, is the one produced by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. In other words, the KJV that one reads today is not the original 1611 version, but almost always the revision from 1769.

The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus because it represented the best available sources at the time, consisting of later Greek manuscripts and some Latin manuscripts. The assertion that the Textus Receptus readings are “doctrinally superior” contradicts virtually every contemporary scholar in Biblical manuscripts. Had earlier sources been available to the KJV translators at the time, there is no doubt the translators would have availed themselves of them.

This brings up an important point . . . two things work together to force continual updating of all translations: (1) new (and earlier) Biblical manuscripts are constantly found, and (2) language changes. Even KJV advocates recognized this as they revised the KJV with the Revised Version, giving impetus to a new era of English Bible translations. Some obvious examples of how language changes, ask yourself how a young person in today’s culture would understand this passage from the KJV: James 2:3 in the KJV which refers to “gay clothing.”

Yes, the KJV is essentially a literal translation and there are many other literal translations (i.e, NASB, ESV, etc.). However, dynamic-equivalent translations are also useful to better convey meaning sometimes. To better understand, try using google translate (which uses literal translation) and see how the translation often is stilted and does not make sense. Personally, I tend to use both a literal translation (ESV) and dynamic-equivalent (NIV) together to try and more accurately flesh out the meaning. The CSB seeks to strike a balance between dynamic-equivalence and literal translation. In summary, the KJV is still a useful and powerful English translation (I have a version on my iPad for reference.) The best translation is the one that is used; if you enjoy the KJV, go for it!