For those that are looking into KJV revisions, that are having trouble reading Middle English, and who are looking for a newer and better translation; we don't believe it necessary to leave the KJV for any newer English alternative, but realize some may be struggling with the King James version.​​

  Below is a list of thoughts and warnings on translations and revisions. These are not established rules, but rather our thoughts on the subject.

​

1.  Definitions:

   • A translation is an attempt to rewrite a work of literature into a different language, and an edit (or revision) is an adjustment of a translation. In the case of the English Bible, the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) would be translated to the target language of English. Translations are new works created from an existing work, because of this, the translators are usually familiar with the original works and their languages, and the target language. A revision is an edited or revised translation, so it is based on an earlier translation. A revision is usually done to correct errors or to adjust wording. If the translating is of high quality, the revisions should be minimal. For example, a low quality translation would need serious revisions in order to be made into a quality translation. Some revisions can are created  in order to focus the Bible or to provide the reader with a more clear or or specific understanding -- giving up some general usability to gain a specialized usability.​

2. Warnings for Translators and Updaters: 

   1. Translated/updated by Christians.

      • The world has no business translating the Bible.

   2. If updated by an individual, there must be a method of quality control and a way of standardization.

      • An accurate update can be made by an individual, but it will not become the people's standard without outside help.

      • These Bibles more often than not end up being stepping stones to something bigger.

   3. The translation/update is not done by or for a single denomination.

      • All denominations have inaccurate views of the Bible and doctrine, these will influence their translating.

      • The King James Version is partially at fault here, as it was made by Anglicans. The KJV competed with and beat the other English versions to win the hearts and minds of English-speaking Europe, this means other denominations adopted and accepted the KJV over their own version.

   4. The update is not relying on computers.

      • Computers can be used for good, but were originally created for evil purposes. They should not be relied upon too heavily for handling the Word. The best handlers are men who are being led by the Holy Spirit, not an invention of man.

   5. The update should not be based on Westcott and Hort's Revised Standard Edition.

      • The Wescott and Hort versions change too much to be considered a revision of the English Bible. This is because it uses newly found manuscripts, which are of questionable authenticity, and uses new methods of translating. Because of this, they do not resemble their parent translation (the KJV) and needs to be seen as something different. This warning is mainly for the New Testament.

      • Almost all modern Bibles are based off of this new work done by Westcott and Hort.

3. Tests for possible KJV successors:

   1. The successor must be easily accessible and distributed. It has to be created with the common man in mind, and must have both affordable versions and a free way to access it.

   2. The successor must not be overly simplified. The Bible raises us to a higher level, it should not lower itself to ours.

   3. The successor must not be overly complex. The Bible needs to be understood at face value, it should not require a genius-level intellect.

   4. The successor must not be created for profit, as the Bible should not be used as a method to generate filthy lucre.

   5. The successor has staying power and passes the test of time. The versions that come out today have trouble surviving a few years, they should last at least a century. The KJV is over four centuries old.

   6. The successor is proven by widespread use. This goes with the point above. The KJV replacement should slowly replace the KJV over time, across all English-speaking Christianity. This is what happened with all earlier English revisions.

4. Thoughts on the method used by the Translators:

   1. The translation must have power, this is the Sword of the Lord and it must be razor-sharp.

      • Most Bibles versions are good enough to get the job done, but if it is in your power to obtain a sharper sword, you should.​

   2. The translation should not be marketed (targeted) to certain groups, it has to have the potential to be standardized across true Christianity. The Bible is for all mankind and should not be changed into a specialized book for specific groups.

   3. The translation has to be perfect - it cannot be reliant on revisions.

      • This is the old way of translating, the way of high standards. The Bible is perfect and should be translated as perfectly as possible. New bibles are revised too often, this is evidence of the Bible not being created for the right reasons. The translators/updaters should respect the warnings given in Scripture about accuracy.

      • Translations are sometimes harder to understand, as they are trying to give you a full picture of the source material; revisions are focusing the translation to be more understandable, but risk losing  something in the process. The trick is to make a translation that does not require a revision.

      • Revisions are not always "bad", as even the King James Version has the 1769 revision and the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition.

   4. The translation was not translated using the liberal mindset. The Bible is a steadfast and sure anchor, it does not drift with the changing opinion of mankind.

   5. English translations must have italics, and the italics must be used correctly. Italics are necessary for a proper English translation, as the structure of the English language requires them to better translate both Hebrew and Greek.

   6. The translators should not assume all old words need to be replaced.

      • Old English words are not always obsolete English words, some words should be modernized and others should not. If in doubt, do not replace.

      • The King James Bible was written with Middle English, even though the period's English was Early Modern English, this means the KJV was "outdated" on the day of release.

   7. The translators must create flow in the revision, the translation must have aspects of poetry and rhythm, both to assist the preacher's preaching and congregation's memory. In other words, it needs to be skillfully written.

      • A technically perfect translation will never become the standard, as the Bible is meant to be preached. The update must not be a linguistic challenge.

      • The King James Bible was written in the same period as Shakespeare, some believe this period had the most beautiful English. This is interesting because of point #6, this means the KJV was written in a time of transition for the English language where influence from the old and the new created a unique environment for the translators and the readers.

5. Conclusion:

   1. After some preliminary research, my current consensus is the following: The King James Version has not been effectively replaced as the main English language Bible translation. All current replacements have issues as shown by the testing done above.  If you still desire a different version, we recommend with reservations a modern King James revision, or a modern Textus Receptus Bible. Please come to your own conclusions. I hope this page is helpful in assisting you in your search; and remember, it is not designed to be authoritative.

      • Updated:

        • Webster's Bible 1833: Daniel Webster; Americanized English, removes any word that have picked up a "dirty" insinuation through the years. Very few changes from KJV, seems like Webster had a personal agenda to a degree, but seems like a good Bible. This version is old enough to not be influenced by modern mentalities.

        • King James 21st Century version (KJ21): Deuel ​Enterprise. Tries to do the bare minimum update to 21st century English. This Bible did not catch on and is pretty hard to find. Can be read on Bible Gateway.

        • Modern King James Version (MKJV): Jay P. Greene; easy to read revision to KJV. Not bad, but not enough reason to switch. Superseded by KJ3.

        • King James Version Easy Read (KJVER): Claims to be the same 1611 KJV, but has underlined words with footnotes to aid in understanding old words. This one is newer, I have yet to checked this version.

      • Retranslated, but done in the style of the King James:​

        • New King James Version: Thomas Nelson; USA; 1982 (completed), 1984 (revision); retranslation based off and compared to the KJV.​ Too many changes, this is like a halfway point between the King James Version and modern Westcott-Hort versions.​

      • Revised:

        • KJ3 Version: Jay P. Greene; update to KJV; combines the easy-reading MKJV with the literal LITV to create a new hybrid translation. Interesting, but has a Calvinist slant to certain passages.

        • KJV 2016: Updated and made politically correct -- not recommended.

        • Voice in the Wilderness Version (VW): Uses the King James as a baseline and chooses more correct passages for any perceived problems. Corrected passages are selected from either Greene's versions or the NKJV. Done by an individual, it is a derivative work. Interesting, but not convincing enough to warrant a change; this version never gained traction.

      • English Textus Receptus Bibles:​

        • Modern English Version: Military Bible Association; 2014. Seems like this is trying to be the new NKJV Bible.

        • English Majority Text Version: I did not check this one, it looks like it is made for the eastern denominations.​

        • Young's Literal: Literal Bibles are not good for daily reading and are designed for study.

        • Greene's Literal (LITV): Literal Bibles are not good for daily reading and are designed for study.

6. A few reasons to consider the KJV Bible:

   1. Study aids: the KJV has been around a long time, and because of this, the study aids are established, standardized, affordable, and accurate. These aids can easily be accessed by all Christians, which is excellent for study, as you can discern the right meaning of the Bible with your congregation.

   2. Locked in time: Latin is used by doctors and lawyers because it is a dead language, it can no longer change and Latin's meanings are forever locked in time giving it's readers the exact message. The KJV creates a similar situation for the English-speaking Church without being "elitist" like Latin. The "middle-English" is archaic, but a little struggle on our part gives us an unchanging message, we understand the same way the 1611 Christian would understand, and the future Christian will understand the same way you understand. This means sermons are preserved in time as well.

   3. Known "limitations": When you are familiar with the translation's supposed limitations, they merely become quirks and can even be used to assist in creating memorable sermons and discourses.

   4. Easy access: The most published English book, available on practically every device, free copies available from churches, most memorable audio book in existence, you probably already own one, your parents probably own one, on the internet, free braille version available, Morse code version available, probably the most stolen book of all time (thank you Gideons International), most talked about, the Bible of the missionaries. 

   5. Never outdated: Survived four centuries and has not been effectively replaced by countless "successors".

   6. No copyright: Print your own if you want (don't do this in the UK!).

   7. Has a history: You know how it came into being and the parties involved, this gives credibility to the translation.

   8. Has a purpose: The KJV came into being to unite the English Christians with a common Bible translation, it succeeded. Before the KJV  there were competing developing English translations in the Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Douay-Rheims Bible.

   9. Famous/Infamous: A KJV Bible is a statement in and of itself.

   10. Translated by Anglicans; Anglicans were at the center of the Catholic/Protestant divide.  

   11. Translated by the subjects of the new United Kingdom; these English, Irish and Scottish were at the center of the Catholic/National/Free Church divide.

​​​​