The short answer is “no, not wholeheartedly” and here is why.
I was recently looking for a reliable, orthodox King James Study Bible, to deepen my understanding of God’s Word. So I went online to Amazon.com and looked up various options. Many Christians seemed to agree that the King James Study Bible by Thomas Nelson best fitted the bill. With commentary authored by “outstanding conservative scholars” including “important teachings of Scripture contained in doctrinal footnotes”, plus a rating of 4.5 stars from 217 reviewers, I thought I had hit the jackpot theologically speaking. I should have paid more attention to the few negative reviews that were present. Once I received the book, comments such as the below struck home to me:
In many places the commentary suggests other words/explanations that are not in agreement with the Majority Text (which is what the KJV was translated from).
Though I have not done an exhaustive search of the text, some doctrinal issues I have found so far are as follows:
The word ‘shew’ has been changed to ‘show.’ This may seem minor but when I saw this I immediately thought, what else has been changed?
The footnotes at the bottom of the page introduce doubt about this passage being included in the bible at all, which is a totally false thing to do. A very vague (and, therefore, for scholars such as these, inexcusable) reference is made to so called ancient manuscripts not including this passage. However, as per Jack Chick’s article (see http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/mark.asp), this passage should be included in the KJV bible, and in every other bible version.
Again, the footnotes at the bottom of the page cast doubt on the phrase “of them which are saved” being included in “the oldest” and “the majority of manuscripts”. Though the authors admit this clause “clearly expresses the sense of the passage”, the footnote serves to introduce doubt in the mind of the reader.
I was talking to a man at church last Sunday and he mentioned that even the King James bible, which has long been held to be a bastion of truth, is being corrupted today as per other modern bible versions. I now see what he meant. We are truly in the last days as per 2 Thessalonians 2:3:
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Given the above I think it best to recommend that the King James Study Bible by Thomas Nelson be avoided or, if you have already invested in it (as I have) that it be used warily. In particular, the footnotes on doctrine should be treated with the utmost caution. Though 95% of the notes may be accurate, some error is present which may yet spoil the lot and encourage doubt and deception.
As it is written:
A little leaven (ie. false doctrine) leaveneth the whole lump.