Like A (King James) Version

I grew up attending a decently-sized evangelical Protestant church in Michigan in the early 2000's. Not just grew up, mind you, but spent most of my formative years there. My grandparents were active in the church, my grandfather playing organ and my grandmother playing piano and serving as a de facto minister of music within the church.

And one thing I remember very well is reading from a King James Bible. The King James Version, (known acronymically as the KJV) is a 1611 English translation of the Bible authorized by then King of England, James I. Translated in a time when words like "forsooth" and "thee" and "thou" were commonplace among native English speakers, and folks wore buckles on their shoes. It was truly a work of theological prowess, where some of the best minds in theology gathered and crafted a new, faithful, high-fidelity translation of the Word of God.

Now, this article's purpose isn't to dunk on, or otherwise disparage, the KJV. The KJV is a perfectly fine, worthwhile translation of the Bible. In fact, that's more or less my entire point. The KJV is fine. And so is the NIV. And so is the ESV. And the NASB. And the Geneva bible. They're all good translations from capable authorities on matters theological- teams of theologians, pastors, bishops, and experts in Greek and Latin worked on each of these translations.

But, while widespread, this opinion is not unanimous, not even close. In fact, many Christians believe the King James Bible is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible, and won't even entertain a more contemporary translation. This movement, known colloquially as "KJV-Onlyism" posits that every single translation after the King James Version is flawed or wrong, and in some cases even posits that these translational efforts are part of a grander conspiracy to undermine the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, some of the KJV-Only Movement's more extreme adherents have maintained that God has divinely protected the King James Bible as a divine, superior translation. Its most extreme members even contend the King James Bible is actually a new revelation, imbued by God with several uniquely divine qualities.

This, likely, isn't the case.

The King James Bible is far from the first translation of the Bible into English (the Geneva Bible predates it by a few decades and is nearly identical, save for some older words being used) and simply has enjoyed favor due to being in use for several hundred years before more recent attempts to "modernize" the English being used within. Had the King James Version been a new revelation from God (a revelation, mind you, that didn't involve changing the meaning of the original texts from Latin and Greek, only the language said texts were being conveyed in) surely a new translation that simply updates the wording of said revelation wouldn't lose any of its divine power,

The core attempts of modernizing the English translations of Scripture are primarily for readability and understandability. From 1611-1971 (the publication date of the New International Version, or NIV) English had changed dramatically, as most things tend to over a period of 300+ years. Gone was Shakespeare's English, replaced by more casual and utilitarian vernaculars over time. As language evolves, and changes, so does the method in which ideas are conveyed. Nobody in 2026, save for medieval re-enactors at a local Renaissance Faire, unironically uses the term "betroth" despite the phrase being common in American English as recently as the 1780's.

Ideas change in their methods of communication- should the most important ideas the world's ever known also not be adapted in their methods of communication?

Additionally, a more contemporary translation, updated for maximum understanding, is helpful in an evangelism standpoint. Many people are not adapted to the ways of speaking of 17th Century England, therefore it stands to reason explaining the Bible's ideas and core thesis to a new believer or a prospective adherent to the Christian faith being complicated by outdated vernaculars when it doesn't have to be seems counterintuitive to the execution of our Lord's Great Commission.

Finally, I think the KJV-only argument is asking the wrong question. It's a lot like the debate over Jesus' skin color or if Christmas is really Jesus' actual date of birth (which it likely was)- it's not really relevant. What matters more than the translational date or the translation team is the content within. The Bible, no matter the amount of "thees" and "thous" within, is God's Word, to be disseminated and preached to the "corners of the Earth." Its contemporary translators haven't changed the Bible's message, thus preserving its power and its truth.

That's what matters.