What Scripture says
Scripture is God’s word (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV), but it doesn’t name any one translation. The New Testament writers themselves often quoted the Old Testament from the Greek translation, the Septuagint, not only from the Hebrew (for example, Hebrews 10:5 quoting Psalm 40:6). They treated a translation as God’s word.
What the evidence says
History
How the King James Version came to be
King James I of England commissioned a new translation in 1604, and it was published in 1611. Around 50 scholars worked on it in six companies, at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge. It was a revision, not a fresh translation: it built heavily on William Tyndale’s translation (1526) and the Bishops’ Bible (1568).
It became the most influential English book in history, and its phrases are woven into English: “the salt of the earth”, “a law unto themselves”, “the powers that be”.
What the translators said
The KJV’s original preface, The Translators to the Reader, is rarely printed today. In it, the translators:
- Defended translation itself: “the very meanest translation of the Bible in English… containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”
- Didn’t claim to be perfect: they hoped to make “a good one better”.
- Added marginal notes with alternative readings where the meaning was uncertain, around 8,000 of them, which most modern KJV editions omit.
Revisions of the KJV
The KJV most people read today isn’t exactly the 1611 text. It was revised several times, most significantly in 1769, which modernized spelling and fixed printing errors. The 1631 “Wicked Bible” infamously left out a word, printing “Thou shalt commit adultery”.
Textual Criticism
The manuscripts behind it
The KJV New Testament was based on the Textus Receptus (“received text”), a Greek text descending from editions by Erasmus (1516) and later editors. Erasmus worked from a handful of late medieval manuscripts, most from the 12th century. For the last six verses of Revelation, he lacked a Greek manuscript and translated from Latin back into Greek.
Since 1611, many older manuscripts have been found or studied:
| Manuscript | Date | Known to the KJV translators? |
|---|---|---|
| Codex Sinaiticus | 4th century | No; found in 1844 |
| Codex Vaticanus | 4th century | Not used |
| Early papyri (e.g., P46, P66, P75) | c. AD 200 | No; found in the 20th century |
| Dead Sea Scrolls | 3rd century BC to 1st century AD | No; found from 1947 |
Modern translations use these older manuscripts. That is why some verses in the KJV appear in brackets or footnotes in modern Bibles (see 4.3).
The Johannine Comma
The most famous difference is 1 John 5:7–8. The KJV reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” All of verse 7, along with the words “in earth” in verse 8, is missing from every Greek manuscript before the 14th century. Only a handful of manuscripts contain it at all. Erasmus left them out of his first editions and added them in his third (1522). The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t depend on this verse (see 8.1).
Context
Language change
English has changed since 1611. Some KJV words have shifted meaning, so readers think they understand them but don’t (Mark Ward calls these “false friends”):
- “Let” meant “hinder”: “he who now letteth will let” (2 Thessalonians 2:7, KJV).
- “Prevent” meant “go before”: “we… shall not prevent them which are asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4:15, KJV).
- “Conversation” meant “conduct” (Philippians 1:27, KJV).
- “Suffer” meant “allow”: “Suffer the little children” (Mark 10:14, KJV).
The KJV-only view
Some Christians hold that the KJV is the only reliable English Bible, either because they think its underlying Greek text is the preserved original, or because they believe the translation itself was inspired. Defenders argue that God promised to preserve his word and that the Textus Receptus, used by the church for centuries, represents that preservation. Most scholars, including many conservative ones, reply that preservation happened through the whole manuscript tradition, which includes the older manuscripts.
Where they meet
The KJV is a great translation, but not the only faithful one. Modern translations work from the same languages, often with access to older and better manuscripts, and in today’s English. The KJV translators themselves would likely have welcomed that.
What’s still open
Which modern translation philosophy (word-for-word or thought-for-thought) is best for different purposes.
Bottom line
No. Modern translations work from the same languages, plus older manuscripts found after 1611. This is rated Settled.