I use mostly the 1611 KJV. One of the reasons is because Dr. James Strong in his Strong's Concordance numbered each word in the Old and New Testament manuscripts and gave a definition for each manuscript word. (I prefer a pre-1991 edition of the Strong's also, because later editions are not true to the original).

Another reason is because The New Testament translation did come from the Textus Receptus manuscripts, instead of the older Alexandrian manuscripts. The Textus Receptus has the early western Church link, not the Alexandrian from Alexandria, Egypt. The school at Alexandria, Egypt was tainted by mixing some of the old pagan philosophy influence in their interpretation.

So just because the Alexandrian manuscripts from Egypt are older, and later English Bible translations use it, that still does not mean it's more accurate than the Textus Receptus which is what the Christian Churches in Asia Minor used that originated with the Church at Antioch.

Paraphrasing is also another reason I use the 1611 KJV. There appears to be a lot less paraphrasing in its translation than later English versions, especially versions like The Living Bible, etc. A paraphrase is a summary put into the author's own wording. It most often doesn't follow the original order flow of subject and object. There's a reason why in the KJV Bible a subject and object flow is given, and then that same exact verse is repeated within the same chapter, sometimes more than twice. That's done for emphasis within the original manuscripts, to point out the strength of a matter, an order of alteration, a marking by The Holy Spirit. It's bad enough that some of that can be lost even through one translation, but the 1611 KJV seems to keep that to a minimum, while later versions like The Living Bible really takes license in getting away from that manuscript structure (but not in all places).

Really? The 1611 version?

To the original what? Is Dr. Strong infallible?

Many people would be surprised to read a Catholic bible, such as the Jerusalem Bible, and find little to argue about as a translation.

It is those  "explanatory notes" that gets into doctrinal issues.

To Thayer's (& Gesenius') lexicons.  The lexicon included with Strong's Concordance is an abridged version of Thayer's lexicon in the older editions.

In the newer ones the editors have made some changes in places where they consider old Thayer to be outside orthodoxy with his definitions (notably as pertains to passages dealing with the trinity).

I John 5:7 For there are three who testify{Only a few recent manuscripts add "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth"}: 
 


Interesting.  I would like to hear more about this.

There really is only one word for the argument that the KJV is an inerrant translation. Heiferdust!

And like I have said before.. I you want an Anglican centric version of the bible.. the all means us the KJV.

But if you aren't Anglican, I can see no logical reason to use the KJV because of its bias.