Ask Doug: Why the King James Version

In this Ask Doug segment, Pastor Wilson responds to a question regarding his choice of the KJV bible in his preaching. This will likely be a multi-part answer, so consider this just an introduction to the issue and Pastor Wilson’s thoughts on the subject.



  1. Davdi says:

    I guess I am compromising. I share your convictions, but I have much enjoyed the NKJV. I stands in the English translation tradition, uses the more reliable Greek, and the formal equivalence philosophy. The only shortcoming is the copyright issue. I have to admit, however, I do have a preference for the old Coverdell translation of the Psalter.

  2. Jon Sedlak says:

    There is a Modern King James version by Jay P Green which is good, and I think his son is finally releasing the entire version of the KJV III (old and new testaments) this year (2010) in print. It’ll be worth checking out.

  3. bean says:

    Hey, I was going to ask this!

  4. Evan says:

    So what’s the difference between a King James-sponsored bible and an Academy-sponsored bible?

  5. John Warren says:

    What about the 1599 Geneva Bible, by Tolle Lege Press? It’s the Geneva Bible with the spelling updated such that it sounds exactly the same as the original, but, for example, instead of ‘vp’ it has ‘up’ and instead of ‘Iesus’ it has ‘Jesus’. Comes off more accessible than the KJV.

  6. Kirk Blankenship says:

    Where can I find a good churchmen’s defense of the textus receptus tradition over against the other textual traditions? And a few follow-up questions:
    1) Is it improper to think of the manuscripts to which we have access as part of general revelation since we do not have the autographa? [or to put it another way] Can we consider the words of the manuscripts representing special revelation whereas the textual transmission/evidence more along the lines of general revelation?
    2) If we can consider the manuscripts we have on hand as part of general revelation, what are the dangers of elevating one particular tradition above the others rather than levelling the textual playing field?
    3) How does the protestant church begin an effort to have an ecclesiastically sanctioned translation so as to help break the big-business stranglehold on Bible-profiteering (insert image of Big Dan from Oh Brother Where Art Thou? comes to mind)?

  7. don jones says:

    I echo Kirk’s initial question: What are a good reference works on the textual traditions? The only references I have been able to find supporting textus receptus have been from the fundamentalist Baptist tradition and to my mind were sadly lacking in intellectual rigor.

    I use the NJKV as a compromise. It employs the textus receptus and equivalence translation approach, yet is in modern English. The only thing I dislike is the loss of singular/plural (you/ye), but of course modern English has also dropped that. And one thing I especially like is that the marginal notes contain both the NA and Majority text readings. Nice to see what the variations are when studying without having to resort to my Greek testament.

  8. Fr. chris Larimer says:

    @Kirk Blankenship: sorry to come to this so late, but I don’t think you could get a better churchman than Dean Burgon of Oxford, who was a very competent text critic in the days before the Germans dominated English scholarship. His defense of the textus receptus is now on Google books!

Leave a Comment