KJV Only

GotQuestions.org is a wonderful resource. The brother who runs the site attempts to answer people's questions about the faith and usually does a great job. Each week, he answers a new question. 

I unfortunately take issue with the a question answered some time ago. This one was on King James Only-ism. Some statements made are either logically weak, unsound, or just plain wrong.

So here's the statements which which I have problem:

GotQuestions Point One

1.  The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors

 Uh, no.  Talk about missing the boat!  The Textus Receptus is also known as the "Majority Text."  It is called thus because the majority of the existent copies (like 95% of them) read the same.  It is not about picking a collection of manuscripts to venerate!  Erasmus doesn't even enter into the discussion.

Until the late 1800's, there wasn't much debate as to which manuscripts to use.  If 95% of the 5,000+ manuscripts supported one reading, that was the reading that was used.

Then two fellows named Wescott and Hort decided that the 95% wasn't good enough.  They were convinced that all manuscripts were corrupted, and that they had to become detectives in order to determine what the originals really said.  They came up with several guidelines for wading through all copies and piecing together a version that they felt was closest to the original readings.  Their guidelines were as follows:

1. Older is better.
2. Shorter is better.
3. More confusing is better

The truth is that there never was a manuscript that read like modern versions.  They were constructed out of whole-cloth from various manuscripts like a patch-work quilt.  There are, however, two manuscripts which modern translators hold with deep veneration.  They are the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus.  Both are old and both are corrupt.

The old lie is that since these manuscripts where found after the KJV translators did their work, their readings couldn't be considered and thus the KJV is less accurate.  While the manuscripts were discovered after the KJV translation in 1611, the readings contained therein were available and discounted.

GotQuestions Point Two

2.  Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it.

Be loyal to the original manuscript?  What are they talking about?  This line is both illogical and dishonest.  The "original manuscripts" have turned to dust, along with the first copies of them.  All we have left are copies of copies. How can we be loyal to what doesn't exist?  We can't, and that's the point.

By that same logic, since only the original manuscripts were inspired, and since those manuscripts do not exist, then none of the Word of God today is inspired, and thus the logical conclusion is that the Word of God doesn't exist.

If they believed that the Word of God exists only in the original languages, then why support any translation?  Isn't that just encouraging people to replace the scriptures with a second-rate commentary?

Furthermore,  implied in their comment is the supposition that God, who was powerful enough to create the universe, took the time to inspire his word,  was somehow  too weak to preserve it.

GotQuestions Point Three

3.  The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

First, I've already discussed the Textus Receptus line above.  So what about the NKJV?  After all, it is only a updating of the obsolete language of the  KJV, right?  Plain and simple, the NKJV it is NOT an updating of language. It is a complete retranslation of the Textus Receptus, informed by the Wescott and Hort Greek.

Here are my problems with the New Kings James:

1. Despite the glowing praise of the accuracy of the KJV, the New Kings James translators felt the need to retranslate the Bible instead of just updating the existing translation.  If the translation was as accurate as they stated in the preface, then why bother?  Simple answer is that they must feel that the former translation was lacking somehow.  
2. The NKJV is markerted as an "updated"  KJV with the "thee's and thou's" and other archaic words replaced.  This is quite false.  Here are three examples with refute that proposition.  Note that none of these words are archaic, obsolete, or hard to understand.
1. John 1:3 (KJV) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
   
   John 1:3 (NKJV) All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
2. Acts 17:22(KJV)  Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
   
   Acts 17:22(NKJV)  Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;
3. 2 Cor 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
   
   2 Cor 2:17 (NKJV) For we are not, as so many,[a] peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
   

These are but a few of the thousands of such changes in the NKJV.  Oh, and by the way, several of the translators of the NKJV worked on the NIV, and it shows.


I admit that I have read other versions. I am so familiar with the KJV that reading a different version can sometimes reveal something that's right there in the text that I've glossed a hundred times.  I read several, but I trust only one, and that's the King James. Why?


The King James is a literal translation.  
This means that the translators translated word for word, as closely as they could to the original. Most, if not all, modern translations are dynamic translations (meaning 'thought for thought'). While this results in an easier-to-read text, I find it the highest form of arrogance for the translators to assume that they can possibly know the mind of God with enough clarity to do a 'thought per thought' translation. All this means is that the text is being filtered through the fallible translators mind.


The King James translation is an honest translation.
The translators made it plain whenever the translators added words (which the modern versions don't even attempt.) Even the sentence structure of the original languages wormed its way into the English translation. The goal of the translators was to convey the Word of God from source languages to English, and they did so with a careful hand, full of respect for the Word of God.

The King James is translated from a reliable source.
The modern versions are based upon different source material. Some opponents would have you to believe that there is only one original manuscript in the original languages. In all actuality, there are several families of manuscripts. The newer versions are based upon, what I believe, are less pure manuscripts than the King James. The same readings were available to the translators in 1611, and rejected.


The King James translators believed in God's Word.
Most newer translations rely upon the work of textual criticism, which is itself predicated on the fact that God's Word (His true Word) cannot be known. The logic is that since God's Word was only perfect and inspired in the original manuscript, and such manuscripts are now dust, then everything is a matter of opinion. The King James translators believed they had the very words of God in their hands and acted accordingly.