S
The KJV Only position is mainly about tradition in my opinion. I will say, though, that not all modern translations are equal in terms of quality. A lot of times those who criticize modern translations compare them to the NIV rather than a better more literal translation like the ESV or NASB.
One must keep in mind that the standard are the original writings, and not the KJV. God chose to use the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and those original words are what are inspired, not the translations.
We have manuscript evidence, which are copies of the original writings. These manuscripts were copied over and over again, and copying errors were made during this process. We don't have the original writings, so we rely on manuscript evidence to derive a reasonable estimate of what the original writings were.
Earlier manuscript evidence is typically less polluted with copying errors, as the copying process itself lends to errors.
The Textus Receptus is the underlying Greek manuscript for the KJV. We have much more manuscript evidence available to us than Erasmus had when he created the Textus Receptus Greek version, and those manuscripts are much older than their manuscript evidence. The Nestle Aland 27/UBS is the most commonly used Greek manuscript for the modern translations (by the way some claim the Wescott Hort Greek text is the basis for modern translations, but the basis is the Nestle Aland 27/UBS...it has went through revisions since Wescott Hort had anything to do with it). The NA 27/UBS incorporates the older manuscript evidence which was discovered since the Textus Receptus was created. Some changes/omissions were made between the Textus Receptus and the NA 27/UBS because the older manuscript evidence didn't reflect the differences (copying errors), but none of those differences affected major doctrines.
Besides having an underlying Greek translation with more manuscript evidence, translators of the modern versions understand more about Greek grammar than KJV translators did. For instance, they now understand the Granville Sharp rule which has enabled them to clarify certain passages and accentuate the teachings of Scripture on the deity of Christ better. There is a very handy chart on this site for doing comparisons on the key verses regarding the deity of Christ in regards to KJV versus modern translations:
Defending the Deity of Jesus Christ With Modern Bible Translations
Archaic words are another big issue with the KJV. The modern reader does not need to be burdened with such arcane language:
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_1.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_2.html
Here's just a few examples of bad renderings that the KJV has:
I Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
We know that this is not a good translation, because there are heinous sins that have nothing to do with money, including rape or child molestation. The modern translations render this much better:
I Tim 6:10 [SUP]10 [/SUP]For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
These are just a few problems associated with the KJV translation. You can read the book KJV Only Controversy by James White to research this topic in detail if you wish. There are other problems and inconsistencies which were fixed in the modern versions.
The KJV was a great translation for many years, but there is no reason for modern readers to be burdened with archaic language. In addition, there were numerous mistranslations that needed correcting, and additional manuscript evidence needs to be considered. The KJV translators and the KJV should not be disrespected as it served a purpose and many have been brought to faith while hearing or reading its words.
The need for some newer translations is very apparent. The archaic nature of the language of the translation simply demanded it. There is no reason to make it nearly impossible for today's reader to comprehend the gospel message by such archaic language.
The worst part of the modern translation argument is the accusations of a demonic plot behind the translators and their motives to water down the word of God. I am not really surprised, though. It seems like there are always some gullible Christians who fall for conspiracy theories of every type.
Credibility of the spokespeople for the KJV Only camp is also a big issue. Gail Replinger, one of the main critics, has no academic credentials in original languages or theology. She has degrees in home economics and interior design, if I'm not mistaken. Peter Ruckman, another KJV Only person, is a well known purveyor of bad teachings, and claims that the government is operating alien breeding facilities and implanting brain transmitters in black people, youths, and the elderly. Steven Anderson, another KJV Only advocate, prayed that God would kill all gay people and that Obama would get brain cancer. He also claims that you cannot be saved without hearing words from the KJV. The credibility of such individuals speaks for itself.
One must keep in mind that the standard are the original writings, and not the KJV. God chose to use the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and those original words are what are inspired, not the translations.
We have manuscript evidence, which are copies of the original writings. These manuscripts were copied over and over again, and copying errors were made during this process. We don't have the original writings, so we rely on manuscript evidence to derive a reasonable estimate of what the original writings were.
Earlier manuscript evidence is typically less polluted with copying errors, as the copying process itself lends to errors.
The Textus Receptus is the underlying Greek manuscript for the KJV. We have much more manuscript evidence available to us than Erasmus had when he created the Textus Receptus Greek version, and those manuscripts are much older than their manuscript evidence. The Nestle Aland 27/UBS is the most commonly used Greek manuscript for the modern translations (by the way some claim the Wescott Hort Greek text is the basis for modern translations, but the basis is the Nestle Aland 27/UBS...it has went through revisions since Wescott Hort had anything to do with it). The NA 27/UBS incorporates the older manuscript evidence which was discovered since the Textus Receptus was created. Some changes/omissions were made between the Textus Receptus and the NA 27/UBS because the older manuscript evidence didn't reflect the differences (copying errors), but none of those differences affected major doctrines.
Besides having an underlying Greek translation with more manuscript evidence, translators of the modern versions understand more about Greek grammar than KJV translators did. For instance, they now understand the Granville Sharp rule which has enabled them to clarify certain passages and accentuate the teachings of Scripture on the deity of Christ better. There is a very handy chart on this site for doing comparisons on the key verses regarding the deity of Christ in regards to KJV versus modern translations:
Defending the Deity of Jesus Christ With Modern Bible Translations
Archaic words are another big issue with the KJV. The modern reader does not need to be burdened with such arcane language:
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_1.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_2.html
Here's just a few examples of bad renderings that the KJV has:
I Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
We know that this is not a good translation, because there are heinous sins that have nothing to do with money, including rape or child molestation. The modern translations render this much better:
I Tim 6:10 [SUP]10 [/SUP]For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
These are just a few problems associated with the KJV translation. You can read the book KJV Only Controversy by James White to research this topic in detail if you wish. There are other problems and inconsistencies which were fixed in the modern versions.
The KJV was a great translation for many years, but there is no reason for modern readers to be burdened with archaic language. In addition, there were numerous mistranslations that needed correcting, and additional manuscript evidence needs to be considered. The KJV translators and the KJV should not be disrespected as it served a purpose and many have been brought to faith while hearing or reading its words.
The need for some newer translations is very apparent. The archaic nature of the language of the translation simply demanded it. There is no reason to make it nearly impossible for today's reader to comprehend the gospel message by such archaic language.
The worst part of the modern translation argument is the accusations of a demonic plot behind the translators and their motives to water down the word of God. I am not really surprised, though. It seems like there are always some gullible Christians who fall for conspiracy theories of every type.
Credibility of the spokespeople for the KJV Only camp is also a big issue. Gail Replinger, one of the main critics, has no academic credentials in original languages or theology. She has degrees in home economics and interior design, if I'm not mistaken. Peter Ruckman, another KJV Only person, is a well known purveyor of bad teachings, and claims that the government is operating alien breeding facilities and implanting brain transmitters in black people, youths, and the elderly. Steven Anderson, another KJV Only advocate, prayed that God would kill all gay people and that Obama would get brain cancer. He also claims that you cannot be saved without hearing words from the KJV. The credibility of such individuals speaks for itself.
