contrasts the King James Version of the Bible with earlier Reformation era translations such as the Bishops and Geneva and modern versions such as the ESV and NIV. Almost 1,200 verses are examined, not to contend that the KJV is always right or always the best, but to explain the possible rationale of its translators in cases where it reads differently. For the Old Testament, the commentaries of classical Jewish exegetes, such as Kimchi, Abarbanal and Ibn Ezra, are considered. For the New Testament, traditional Christian commentaries such as Poole, Ellicott and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown are reviewed. In both cases, we see that the KJV translators made informed decisions, departing from earlier versions more often than is commonly appreciated and varying from modern versions for reasons that are, if not always incontrovertibly correct, well-founded and reasonable. This isn't a study of trivialities; of thee and thine versus you and yours. Many of the entries have theological or historical implications, in some cases touching on contemporary political and social issues. Subtle and easily overlooked variations are identified along with possible explanations. In addition to the verse comparisons, which make up almost all of volume 1 and part of volume 2, a series of essays and appendices are included to provide additional background material. will primarily appeal to readers who prefer the King James Version, and also to those who would in general like a deeper understanding of Scripture, especially the textual and interpretive issues with which earlier Jewish and Christian commentators wrestled.