WHY WE USE THE KING JAMES VERSION

I had a conversation with a preacher friend who, like me, is KJV-only. We were talking about why we stick with the King James Version, and the very first thing he said was, “The KJV is so poetic, so beautiful—better than anything Shakespeare ever wrote.” I laughed and said, “Yeah, it is pretty fancy and awesome.” But let’s be real here—that’s not why I’m KJV-only. Honestly, I get a little frustrated when people use the KJV’s beauty and poetic style as a main reason to stick with it, because that misses the real, serious reasons behind it.

Many people say the KJV’s language is archaic or old English, like it’s just outdated and hard to understand. But the truth is, even when the KJV was first translated in 1611, it was written in the most formal, high English of the day. This wasn’t some casual or whimsical style; it was the language of reverence, chosen because these are the very Words of God. The Bible deserves that kind of respect—honoring God’s Word with dignified and weighty language, not something watered down or everyday.

I don’t use the King James Bible because it sounds whimsical or poetic. I’m KJV-only because it’s the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people. It’s about the integrity of the text, the manuscripts it’s based on, and God’s promise to keep His Word pure. The language is great, but that’s just icing on the cake.

Let me explain why the KJV-only position is serious business, not just about beautiful words, but about truth you can stake your life on.

When it comes to the Bible, not all versions are built on the same foundation. The King James Bible and most modern versions like the ESV, NIV, or NLT come from two very different streams of manuscripts.

The New Testament in the King James Bible comes from what’s called the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. This Greek text lines up with the overwhelming majority of ancient manuscripts, often called the Byzantine text or Majority Text. Over 95% of all Greek manuscripts back this text. These manuscripts are consistent, were copied faithfully over centuries, and were the ones used by God’s people all throughout church history. That matters. God’s people have been using these texts for nearly 2,000 years.

Now, here’s the big shift: most modern Bible translations are based on what’s called the “Critical Text,” versions like Nestle-Aland or the UBS Greek text. These texts rely heavily on just a handful of manuscripts, mainly Codex Vaticanus (housed in the Vatican) and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in a monastery in the 1800s). These manuscripts disagree with each other thousands of times, and they also omit whole verses you’ll find in the KJV. So why would we build our Bible on such a shaky foundation?

This isn’t just an old-versus-new debate. It’s about what God said He would do. The Bible promises word-for-word preservation. Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

God didn’t just promise to preserve ideas or themes; He promised to preserve His actual words. That means we can’t afford to treat them casually or rewrite them just to make them easier to read.

So, where are those words preserved? If God preserved His Word, then somewhere today, we must have it. It’s not in dozens of versions that say different things. It’s not in texts that were lost and then “rediscovered” in the 1800s. It is in the manuscripts that God’s people used, preached, copied, and died for century after century. That’s the stream the KJV comes from, and that’s why we hold tightly to our King James Bibles.

Another important point is how the Bible was translated. The KJV was translated using a formal equivalence method—that means a word-for-word approach rather than thought-for-thought. This is a big deal because formal equivalence respects the original text, letting the Bible speak for itself instead of letting the translator decide what God meant to say.

That’s how the KJV was done: carefully, reverently, and as literally as possible. That way, God’s actual words are preserved in English.

Many modern Bibles use what’s called “dynamic equivalence.” They try to capture the idea rather than the exact words. That opens the door to personal bias, doctrinal blur, and the translator becoming the interpreter. That’s risky because God didn’t inspire thoughts—He inspired words. As Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.”

We don’t need man’s interpretation. We need the pure, uncut Word of God—and the KJV delivers that.

It’s not just about manuscripts or translation philosophy, either. It’s about what these new versions do to doctrine. Modern Bibles often remove or bracket entire verses, some of which are clear on key doctrines. For example, Matthew 18:11, which says, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost,” is missing in many versions. Acts 8:37, where the Ethiopian eunuch professes faith before baptism, is often removed. And the ending of Mark 16:9-20, which contains the resurrection appearances and the Great Commission, is sometimes footnoted as “doubtful.”

These are not minor details—they are doctrinal truths.

Even more concerning, some newer versions subtly weaken the Bible’s testimony about the deity of Christ. For instance, 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV reads, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.” Many modern Bibles render it as, “He appeared in a body,” which is vague and takes away the clear claim of Jesus’ deity. These are major doctrinal issues, and we don’t take them lightly.

The King James Bible has a legacy that speaks volumes. It has been the foundation for countless powerful movements and works of God throughout history. It was the Bible preached, memorized, and trusted by men and women who changed the world for Christ.

What about the new versions? We’ve had dozens in the last century alone. Has this led to stronger Biblical grounding? More sound doctrine? A deeper seriousness about the faith? Sadly, no. Fewer people memorize Scripture. Churches flip between versions. Biblical authority has been watered down.

God’s Word isn’t just supposed to be easy—it’s meant to be unchanging, powerful, and sharp. And here’s the thing: if we’re saved, we have the Holy Spirit living inside us, helping us understand and interpret Scripture. So, dumbing the words down or watering them out doesn’t have to be the answer—we have divine help to grasp the truth, even when we feel like the language is challenging.

So why do we draw the line and say KJV-only? Because we believe God kept His promise to preserve His Word. That Word has been passed down through the Majority Text, not through a few shaky manuscripts dug up in the last 200 years. The KJV translators were serious, skilled, and deeply respectful of the Word they were handling. New versions change and remove things they have no right to. And the fruit of the KJV is clear: it’s lasted, it’s powerful, and it’s trusted.

This isn’t about clinging to tradition for tradition’s sake. It’s about standing on truth. We don’t need a new Bible every few years. We already have one that God’s hand has been on for over 400 years.