King James Bible bestFor Anne’s friend.

The King James Version of the Bible is a great translation and has helped countless thousands of people to find and know God, to receive his gift of salvation, and to effectively serve him and his people. The Bible was beautifully written by some of the best scholars of the day and its reputation as fine literature is deserved.

Some Christians today maintain that the KJV is the superior English translation. Some Christians and churches are so enamoured with the KJV that they refuse to use, or give credit to, any other translation. The stance of these Christians has been referred to as King-James-Onlyism.

The KJV is an excellent English Bible and if you can easily understand it there is no real reason to change to another translation. However, one of the biggest shortcomings for most people is its dated language.

The Language of the King James Bible

The KJV uses many archaic words: words such as jangling, subtil, privily, and holpen, etc. And it uses archaic expressions and phrases that are unfamiliar to modern readers. For instance, how many people readily understand “Charity vaunteth not itself”? Or these verses in Job?:

He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks” (Job 15:26-27 KJV).

Earlier editions of the KJV also used spelling that is outdated, which can be confusing for some readers (e.g., sunne for “sun”). Furthermore, the edition of the KJV that is still commonly used contains several words that have changed in meaning over time. Words such as flowers, suffer, vile, quit, conversation, draught (as in “draught house”), and bowels convey different meanings to modern readers than was intended by both the KJV translators and the original authors of the biblical texts. (See Lev. 15:24KJV; Matt. 19:14KJV; 1 Cor. 16:13KJV; Phil. 3:20-21KJV; 2 Kings 10:27: Song 5:4 KJV; etc.)

The fact that the KJV uses the word “unicorn” nine times (see here and here) and “satyr” twice (Isa. 13:21KJV; Isa. 34:14KJV) is also problematic, as unicorns and satyrs are regarded as mythological creatures rather than the real animals—wild oxen and goats—that are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and in many contemporary translations. (Note that the New King James Bible, commissioned in 1975, has replaced archaic and outdated words while retaining the basic text and style of the KJV, and it doesn’t contain the words “unicorn” or “satyr”.)

Apart from its dated language, there are a few other shortcomings that KJV-only people seem unaware of. Moreover, many accept incorrect statements that are frequently made about the KJV. The following paragraphs contain seven pieces of information that some KJV-only people may not be aware of.

(1) The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible. 

A few King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible was the first English translation of the Scriptures. This belief is incorrect. John Wycliffe’s Bible was translated from Latin into English and hand-copied in the 1400s. In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV was first published, William Tyndale’s English translation of the Greek New Testament was printed. A decade or so later, full English Bibles began to be printed. First came the Coverdale Bible (1535-1537) which used Tyndale’s NT, as did the Matthew Bible (1537). Then came Richard Taverner’s Bible (1539), closely followed by the Great Bible (1539-1541). The Geneva Bible (1556-1560) was published by and for Calvinist Puritans. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was based on the Great Bible and edited by Church of England bishops, partly, in response to the Geneva Bible. The Douay Rheims Bible (1582-1609) was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Hebrew and Greek, for the Roman Catholic Church.[1]

Much of the KJV, which was first published in 1611, borrows heavily from earlier English translations, especially Tyndale’s New Testament and the Bishop’s Bible.

(2) The KJV was not the first authorised English translation of the Bible

The KJV was not the first approved or first authorised English translation. The 1537 edition of the Coverdale Bible was officially approved by Henry VIII and bears the royal license on the title page, and the Great Bible (1539) was authorised by Henry VIII. Thomas Cromwell, Vicar General and Henry’s secretary, issued an injunction that a copy of the Great Bible “be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use.”[2]

(3) The KJV has been through several editions.

Some King-James-Only Christians believe that the King James Bible perfectly preserved the Scriptures for all time. If this is the case there would have been no need for further edits. The current edition of the KJV is different from the original 1611 translation and several other early editions. “The KJV Bible we use today is actually based primarily on the major revision completed in 1769, 158 years after the first edition.”[3]

Interestingly, the 1611 version, and all other editions of the KJV that were published for the next fifty years, contained the Apocrypha. Protestant Christians do not regard the apocryphal books as uniquely inspired and authoritative. The 1666 edition was the first edition of the KJV that did not include these extra books. (Article six of the Thirty-Nine Articles, ratified in 1562 before the KJV was first published, explains the Church of England’s position on the canonical and apocryphal books of the Bible.)

(4) King James authorised the new translation for political reasons.

King James believed that a single, authorised version was a political and social necessity. He hoped this book would hold together the warring factions of the Church of England and the Puritans that threatened to tear apart both church and country. Most of the translators were clergymen belonging to the Church of England, but at least some had Puritan sympathies.[4]

King James issued over a dozen rules that the translators had to follow. He disliked the Geneva Bible, the Bible used by the Puritans, because he believed that some of the comments in the margin notes were seditious and did not show enough respect for kings.[5] James’ new translation was to have no commentary in the margins.

King James favoured the hierarchical structure of the Church of England and wanted the new translation to use words that supported a bishop-led hierarchy. In keeping with his preferred views on church government, he specified, “The old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept; as the word church [is] not to be translated congregation.” (I personally believe “congregation” is a better translation of the Greek word ekklēsia in some verses.) King James also ruled that only his new Bible could be read in England’s churches. The political motives of King James had a direct influence on the translation of the KJV. (The translation rules of King James can be found here and here.)

(5) The translators of the KJV 1611 were relatively unfamiliar with Koine Greek. 

Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament, but the KJV translators of the New Testament, who were accomplished scholars of Classical Greek, were relatively unfamiliar with Koine Greek. Koine Greek was not well-understood. Some people suggested it was a “Judaic” or “Hebraic” Greek. Some even believed it was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect.[6] It was not until the 1800s and early 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyrus documents were discovered, many written in Koine, that we began to understand the language more fully.[7] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek. There are also some issues with the KJV translation of the Hebrew into English in the Old Testament.[8]

(6) The KJV translation of the NT is based on relatively recent Greek manuscripts.

As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on critically edited Greek texts that were “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts” (none earlier than the 12th century AD).”[9] These Greek texts included five printed editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus,[10] as well as Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore Beza’s edition (1598). Michael Holmes writes more about the Greek texts behind English Bibles here.

Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed the importance of women in the church.[11]

(7) The Textus Receptus, or Received Text, is basically Erasmus’ Greek Text.

Many KJV advocates claim that the New Testament in the King James Bible was translated from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. The term Textus Receptus was first coined in 1633, after the KJV was first published, and it basically refers to Erasmus’ critical text. The current version of the TR was produced in 1894 by Scrivener who preferred the Byzantine, or Majority, Text. (The Byzantine-Majority Text is similar but not identical to the Textus Receptus.)[12]

Most modern translations of the New Testament are based on critical Greek texts that take into account a larger collection of texts than was available to Erasmus when he was creating his critical texts. A few of these previously unavailable manuscripts date from as early as the third century, which makes them much closer to the date that the New Testament books and letters were written by the biblical authors.

Criticisms of Recent Bible Translations

One of the criticisms levelled at some modern English translations is that the New Testament was translated from the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament. However, more recent translations, such as the 2011 edition of the New International Version (NIV), are based on the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. This is a critical text that takes into consideration all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as New Testament quotations from early church fathers and from ancient lectionaries.[13] Any criticism of the Westcott and Hort text, or the men themselves—and much of the criticism has been misleading and outright slander—has no relevance whatsoever to the latest edition of the New International Version and other recent translations.

Another criticism of newer translations is that some words and phrases, and even a few passages, that are included in the KJV, are absent in newer translations. These are not omissions. Rather, these words and phrases are additions in the Textus Receptus and in the KJV. These additions are absent in some of the more ancient Greek manuscripts. Most modern translations still acknowledge the traditional additions in some way: in margin notes, in footnotes, or they are printed in a different font, etc. (More about the additional verses in the KJV here. See also the video below.)


The King James Version is an excellent translation, but many of the recent English translations are better. I mostly read the New Testament in Greek, but the English Bibles I use most often are the Christian Standard Bible (CSB), the Common English Bible (CEB), the New International Version (NIV 2011), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the King James Version (KJV). Most of the other, better-known English translations are fine too.

It is most important that we read a Bible that we can understand. The New Testament was originally written in common, everyday Greek—a language that almost everyone in the Roman Empire (the world of the New Testament) could easily understand. We need modern English translations of the Bible that modern audiences can easily understand.

7 things you may not know about the King James Bible


[1] There is more information about these English Bibles in Frederic G. Kenyon’s essay here and on Wikipedia.

[2] Frederic G. Kenyon, “English Bibles”, Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings (ed.) (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909) (Source)

[3] Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 39.

[4] This paragraph uses information from N.T. Wright, The Monarchs and the Message: Reflections on Bible Translation from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century, presented at SBL in 2011 (Source)

[5] “For example, a note in the margin beside Exodus 1 [in the Geneva Bible] said the Hebrew midwives in the time of baby Moses were right to disobey the Egyptian king’s order to kill newborn baby boys. And a note beside 2 Chronicles 15 criticized King Asa for not executing his idol-worshipping mother.” Stephen M. Miller and Robert V. Huber, The Bible: A History (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2003), 178.

[6] New Testament Greek scholar Bill Mounce writes, “For a long time Koine Greek confused many scholars. It was significantly different from Classical Greek. Some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Others attempted to explain it as a “Holy Ghost language”, meaning that God created a special language just for the Bible. But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past one hundred years have shown that this language was the language of the everyday people . . .” Mounce, The Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993, 2003), 1. See also George Milligan’s “General Introduction” in The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament linked to in the next footnote.

[7] Before the discoveries of numerous ancient documents in Egypt and elsewhere, there were very few Koine Greek writings available besides the New Testament and Septuagint. But now we have numerous letters, business receipts, census statements, novels, and other writings written in Koine. Today, we can compare the language of the New Testament with these other writings to see how words were used in and around the first century. Furthermore, among the discoveries were ancient manuscripts of biblical texts that were older than those used to create Erasmus Greek text that became the Textus Receptus.
George Milligan has written about the value of these papyri in his “General Introduction” to the dictionary he produced with J.H. Moulton. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929), vii-xx. This can be read here.

[8] Hebrew scholar Robert Alter notes,

… the seventeenth-century translators, for all their learning, had a rather imperfect grasp of biblical Hebrew. At times they get confused about the syntax, and they repeatedly miss the nuance, or even the actual meaning, of Hebrew words. Usually this is a matter of being slightly off or somewhat misleading, as when, following the Vulgate, they transpose concrete Hebrew terms into theologically fraught ones—“soul” for nefesh, which actually means “essential self,” “being,” or “salvation” for yeshuՙah, which means “rescue,” “getting out of a tight fix.” Sometimes, alas, there are real howlers. In the mysterious covenant between God and Abram in Genesis 15, the 1611 version reads “an horror of great darkness fell upon him,” because they have taken an adjective ḥasheikhah to be the noun it formally resembles. The Hebrew actually says “a great dark horror fell upon him,” with no suggestion that Abram our forefather was afraid of the dark. Still more egregiously, in Job 3:8 we encounter cursers of the day “who are ready to raise up their mourning.” The Hebrew in fact says “raise up Leviathan.” The King James translators misread the mythological beast lewayatan as the rabbinic word for “funeral,” lewayah, not distinguishing between biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, and overlooking the fact that the word as they incorrectly construed it would have an inappropriate feminine possessive suffix.
Alter, The Art of Bible Translation (Princeton and Oxford: New York: Princeton University Press, 2019), 7-8. (Google Books)

[9] Daniel Wallace, The Conspiracy Behind New Bible Translations at

[10] Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. He dedicated the first edition of his Greek New Testament to the Pope. I include this bit of information for those who wrongly claim that some newer English translations are influenced by Roman Catholicism. (See also endnote 13.)

[11] Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanas, based his text of the New Testament on the works of Erasmus, but he also used a Western text-type manuscript known as the Codex Bezae or Codex D. (This book is also known as Codex Cantabrigiensis as Beza later presented it to the University of Cambridge.) An anti-woman bias is apparent in this Codex.

“Several scholars have observed the apparent anti-feminist tendencies of the writer of the Codex Bezae. The reviser represents the western tradition dating back to the second century, and clearly reveals the trend of thought among his contemporaries by rephrasing the received text of Acts 17:12 to read: ‘and many of the Greeks and men and women of high standing believed.’ The smoother reading serves to lessen any importance given women in Luke’s account of the conversion at Berea, and proves to be a typical alteration of Bezae in Acts.”
Lesly Massey, Women and the New Testament: An Analysis of Scripture in the Light of New Testament Era Culture (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1989), 46-47.

Most Greek manuscripts and modern English translations have “honourable women” before “men” in Acts 17:12. Furthermore, Codex Bezae leaves out “a woman named Damaris” entirely in Acts 17:34, see here, but this omission, at least, did not affect the KJV. Stephanas and the KJV include Damaris. (Damaris was an elite Athenian woman who was converted to Christianity through Paul’s ministry.)

Acts 18:26 is another text that was altered by a scribe with “anti-feminist tendencies.” In Codex Bezae, Aquila’s name is first and Priscilla’s second. Stephanus adopted this reading in his Greek edition, and the KJV also has Aquila’s name first. More reliable Greek manuscripts have Priscilla’s name first in Acts 18:26.

Furthermore, in Acts 1:14, there is the addition of “and children” in Codex Bezae “so that women are no longer an independent group but are simply the wives of the apostles.” Ben Witherington, “Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’ Text in Acts” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 82-83, 82. Thankfully, the KJV translators rejected this addition.

Eldon Jay Epp, a noted text critic, has observed that the book of Acts in Codex Bezae is about 8% longer than in other ancient Greek manuscripts, and has observed both an anti-woman and an anti-Judaic (anti-Jewish) bias in the variants within the text.
See E.J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (SNTSMS 3: Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1966). And his newer work, “Anti-Judaic Tendencies in the D-Text of Acts: Forty Years of Conversation” in The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations, ed. Tobias Nicklas and Michael Till (BZNW 120; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2003), 111-146.

[12] Daniel Wallace explains the difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text here. Wallace also notes that there is no evidence for the existence of a Byzantine-Majority text-type before the end of the fourth century.

Barbara Aland editor

[13] The 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text was edited by eminent scholars Barbara Aland (Protestant), Kurt Aland (Protestant), Ioannes Karavidopoulos (Greek Orthodox), Carlo Martini (Roman Catholic), and Bruce Metzger (Protestant). [Update: There is now a 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.]


Page decorations are copied from the 1611 King James Bible. (Source: Wikimedia)

You can support my work for as little as $3 a month.
Become a Patron!

Further Reading

What are English Translations of the Bible Based on? by Michael W. Holmes on the Bible Odyssey website.
Bill Mounce explains how 1 John 5:7b-8a (the Johannine Comma) was added to the biblical text later, here.

Related Articles

Which Bible translation is best?
The Authority and Authenticity of New Testament Scripture
Gender Bias in the NLT
The ESV Bible’s Men-Only Club
Manhood and Masculinity in the ESV