Are you a KJV-ER only beholder?
If so, what are your thoughts on this gentleman's observation?
"Many have the conception that God inspired the King James “Bible.” Not long since a “professor” wrote me saying that the King James version was ninetynine and fourfifths per cent pure! It is passing strange that men, claiming to be informed, will indulge in such loose statements. Let it be remembered that God inspired the original documents of the Scriptures, but He did not inspire versions made of them by men.
It is a rather appalling condition that so many are ignorant of the fact that there were many versions of the Scriptures made before the King James “Bible.”
Keeping in mind that God inspired the sacred originals in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, we now give our attention to versions made from them. The ancient versions or translations of the Scriptures into the language of the early saints, shows us the “Bible” as used by men, some of whose parents might easily have seen the apostles themselves. They are of great value in determining the original in some instances.
When King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, there were three versions of the Scriptures in use. The “Great Bible,” “Geneva Bible,” and the “Bishop’s Bible.” The king, a man of fair abilities, but vain and cherishing to the fullest extent a belief in the “divine right of kings,” resolved to exercise his authority as God’s anointed. So, in order that his dutiful subjects should have a uniform version of the Scriptures, by his kingly power he set aside all three of the versions then in use, and authorized a new revision of the entire Scriptures to be made, which should bear the name of himself–the King James Version.
The next few years saw stirring times in England. The king was twice in peril of his life. The Catholics hatched the infamous “GunPowder Plot” to blow up the king and Parliament and pave the way for the restoration of Romanism. The plan was narrowly frustrated. But amid the internal and external turmoil, the people of the united kingdom–Scotland and England–awoke one morning in 1611, to the fact that the one great act of King James’ reign was complete and accomplished–the King James “Bible” had arrived.
It is little known, yet it is an incontrovertible fact, that the Authorized Version of King James was not a translation, but simply a revision of the “Bishop’s Bible.” The translators say in their preface, “Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, . . . but to make a good one better.”
The scholars of King James’ day did not have access to the treasuries of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations which present day scholars possess; they did not have the science of textual criticism which teaches the value and the best methods of dealing with the ancient documents, all of which has sprung up since; neither did they possess the wide and thorough acquaintance with the sacred languages and the ability to distinguish and express the delicate shades of meaning that scholars of today are capable of doing. They were also circumscribed by fourteen rules devised by King James, as to how they should proceed. Some withdrew and refused to serve when the rules were submitted. They had no system by which to effect a true version, but simply trusted to their own judgment in the matter, and when not certain, they simply arrived at an agreement among themselves on their “opinions” and put it in!
When issued, Dr. Broughton, one of the foremost Hebrew scholars of that era, wrote King James. “I would rather suffer my body to be rent in pieces by wild horses than to have such a version forced upon the church.” He also said, “In fifteen verses of Luke 3 (verses 24-38), the translators have fifteen score of idle words to account for in the Day of Judgment.” The italicized words of this chapter are not to be found in the original."