I have written about this topic in the past. For example, Me, a hater of the King James Bible? Who in the world told you that?! I showed that the stricter King James Only people such as Samuel Gipp argue that if you don’t use it exclusively, you are on your way to spiritual disaster. Also Thou Shalt Not Bully Those who use a Different Bible Translation!
I am just as offended by anti-King James people who rip into King James and/or King James Only users. This title certainly grabbed my attention: “5 Reasons The King James Version Only Movement Is Completely Nuts”. The title is a spoiler, by the way!
There is a reason why almost NO seminary grads use the KJV. It’s because any amount of time reading the original languages of scripture will lead one to realize that it’s not a good translation. … Go to school. Learn Greek and Hebrew. Learn your history and culture. Learn how to do a proper exegesis. Learn how to use original sources and not have to reference opinion pieces. Then YOU can finally study properly and show yourself approved.
I wrote the following in the comment section (lighly edited here), feeling that I should break my normal rule and include some of my bio:
Hi brother! I believe you are the author of the piece [very oddly, the author was anonymous, not giving any name!], but it was this comment – “Go to school!” – that caught my attention.
I am a seminary grad, and have my PhD in New Testament exegesis from one of the old British universities, Aberdeen. I teach Greek, exegesis, textual criticism. My students and I read and decipher Greek manuscripts. I also read – just not as rapidly! – Hebrew. A bit of reading Dead Sea Scroll biblical manuscripts. I took a course in Aramaic and can wade through some of that. I recently studied Vulgate Latin for two years. I have been a seminary prof, commentator, etc. for decades. I regularly blog – in English, but even more in Spanish, my “ministry language” – on textual criticism and translation. I regularly give conferences on why the Reina-Valera version in Spanish (the NT is based on the Textus receptus) is not the only inspired Bible or the only profitable one to use. Ah, and I am the final editor of a new Bible to be put out by Wycliffe Associates, for which I regularly draw on the Hebrew and Greek texts for illumination.
I think this gives me a solid platform for qualifying a statement of yours, viz., “There is a reason why almost NO seminary grads use the KJV. It’s because any amount of time reading the original languages of scripture will lead one to realize that it’s not a good translation.”
#1 – it was/is an excellent translation, astounding, and if you can handle the Jacobean idioms, still completely usable and very reliable (as is the earlier Tyndale/Coverdale Bible, which I use as well). The King James is not the best today, but still. My version of choice in English is the NRSV, but I use about 25 in English and 10 in Spanish, plus other European languages.
#2 – the main reason for #1 is not translation as such – although the discovery of the papyri has helped the lexicography of koiné – but the Greek text on which the NT is based. An edition of the Textus receptus was the basis for the KJV. For the past century or so, the critical text has heen the approach almost all scholars us: it is based on the 5000+ manuscripts and manuscript fragments, in the Greek alone, let alone the other ancient versions and the quotations in the patristics. Hence: very good versus even better.
I regularly use the New KJV with much enjoyment and blessing. It is hardly a poor translation.
So then, my point:
I cannot imagine ever saying to another Christian, whether a novice or a veteran, “Go to school. Learn Greek and Hebrew. Learn your history and culture. Learn how to do a proper exegesis. Learn how to use original sources and not have to reference opinion pieces. Then YOU can finally study properly and show yourself approved.” I never tell my own students anything so chocante (Spanish for “what a slap in the face!”). Yes, there are people trying to show off their pseudo-erudition, but that’s no cause to hyperbolize. Most of the Corinthians, e.g., did not know any Hebrew, but they did just fine listening to Scripture in a translation. Luke wrote 26% of the New Testament, and there is no evidence that he could read the Bible in the original. Same with Augustine, who couldn’t master Greek. Same with the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages. One, because only a tiny sliver of the population have the ability to study the languages. Second, because only a minority of the “Greek readers” I meet, frankly, know the language really well. They too should lean heavily on translations produced by true experts.
Those who can read directly from the original languages, in a way that is superior to what they would get from translations or the original supplemented by translations, is a tiny fraction of the 1% of believers.
On the other hand, I have met plenty of believers, who did not know the languages, whose knowledge of the Bible outshines my own.
Perhaps you know the original languages better than I do – that is not a farfetched possibility! – but I wonder if you can surpass me at spending “any amount of time reading the original languages.” And I supplement that reading with the translations produced by world-class scholars.
All to say that, one doesn’t have to be KJVO [King James Version Only] – which in some groups has sectarian tendencies, but doesn’t make people “nuts” – to love and respect the King James, among other versions.
Thanks for hearing me out!
PS. It should’t make any difference, but the OP will not publish his name to claim ownership for his opinions. His comments were full of vulgarities and abuse, and he twice suggested I seek psychological therapy to get straightened out.
ALSO – here is a more moderated but just as ill-informed video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvS737yxRts
“How do we talk with others about Bible versions?” by Gary S. Shogren, Professor of New Testament, Seminario ESEPA, San José, Costa Rica
Open Our Eyes, Lord! 
Most important, the King James uses the wrong name ‘Jesus’ for the Messiah. It’s a 400-500 year old name. The original birth name was Yehoshua. It simply needs to be changed
With all respect, I suggest you are mistaken. Iesous was the name that is consistently used in the NT, to refer to the Messiah. Also to his ancestor in Luke 3:29, Jesus Justus in Col 4:11, Joshua ben Nun throughout the NT. There are no manuscripts – zero! – of the New Testament that use any name other than Iesous/Ιησους for the Lord or for any of these other three individuals.
Iesous and Jesus are simply two forms of the same name. The reason why Jesus now has a J is because the form was from Germany, where the J has a Y sound – as in “Ja wohl” (yah VOL). There is no conspiracy here. Jesus in German is the rhyme of the Greek Iesous.
There are hundreds of forms of the name of Iesous around the world today, all of which are legitimate representations of his Name in their languages.
I invite you to look up my article on the topic. I have studied every instance of the first 1000 uses of the name Iesous, beginning centuries BC, all spelled the same way. The apostles in Acts 4 say Iesous is the name you should confess, the only name given under heaven by which we might be saved.
Many thanks, Gary
“Anonymous” has not chosen to respond to my answer, which was based on hundreds of hours of research on my part, let alone the work of hundreds of scholars. I am open at any time to dialogue!
“God’s Word now, always, and forever.”
Thank you for this very helpful post, Dr Shogren! I greatly appreciate your expertise and humility. An all too rare combination these days, it seems! Is there somewhere one can go to find out more about the forthcoming Wycliffe Associates’ Bible you mentioned? I’m very interested in learning more about this project.
Hi there, and thanks very much! It is always a spiritual battle to fight down pride, so whatever you see is due to the Spirit.
You can read about the Bible here and also read it online! Blessings, Gary
https://bibleineverylanguage.org/processes/sun/
That’s incredible! Thank you so much for the information! May this project be blessed beyond our wildest dreams for the glory and praise of the Lord!
Thanks, and many blessings to you in God’s Word! Gary
Aloha! Are you really telling us in your article that the CT are based on 5000+ mss??? Since when? Not even close! Not to mention “far better,” (Sinaticus CT is a proven fraud, ).And we wonder why so much misinformation surrounds the topic. LOL
Blessings in the Lord today!
With respect, you are factually mistaken about Sinaiticus. First, the Critical Text is not based on Sinaiticus as such. Second, it is a myth that it is a fraud, it is hardly “proven”. Sure, Brian Shepherd goes around writing about it and denouncing it, without have ever examined it with his own eyes, and without even the basic training for analyzing it. His approach is the conspiracy-theory type as espoused by the Dean Burgon Society or Peter Ruckman, not to mention Chick comics. It is the same kind of rewriting of history that Dan Brown took in another direction in The Da Vinci Code, etc.
David Daniels takes the approach that if the colors of the manuscript pages differ slightly in shade in photographs, there must be a hoax. Even though he is only comparing photos taken at different times by different photographers. Even though he himself has never examined the pages’ colors with scientific instruments, not even by the human eye! He is simply taking yet one more route of saying, “the Textus receptus and the KJV are letter-perfect infallible, so stomp on all contradictory evidence, by whatever means necessary.” If one knows what the conclusion “must be” before examining the evidence, all reasonable research now goes out the window.
All of the misinformation that I ever come across – apart from Bart Ehrman’s liberal revisionism – comes from Textus receptus and/or King James Only sector. People like Gail Riplinger, who never read any Greek text in her life. People who claim expertise that they do not have, hence breaking the commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor (KJV).
5800 plus is the correct figure, yes. Take a look at the Introduction of the critical text, they list all their data. And 5800 plus is just the Greek ones, not including early translations and quotations in the early church fathers. Here is the edition (the Intro is in German and in English – https://archive.org/details/ntg-28-nestle-aland-institute-for-new-testament-textual-research/page/n25/mode/2up). Like any credible researchers, they tell you precisely what their data are. And the early manuscripts are now available to read online. This as opposed to the conspiracy theory model, that “cherry picks” data that backs their predetermined dogma.
You can look up all of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_New_Testament_manuscripts
I do not think the Critical Text is infallible, of course, I just believe it is by a long shot the best available today. And if it most closely reflects what the apostles actually wrote – and that’s what the bulk of historical evidence shows! – then most definitely, give me the Critical Text every time!
If you wish to demonstrate – and I ask in all sincerity – how, let’s say, 3-4 verses in the Critical Text are incorrect, feel free to suggest a text and we can dialogue. This will be better than an LOL as constructive proof.
Many blessings in God’s Word today!
Brother Kelekolio has so far not responded to my answer, which is based on known data, not (if I may say so) innuendo such as “proven fraud”, “?????”, “since when? not even close!”, “misinformation” (with no proof), and finally, concluding with an LOL. I am open to hearing from you!
“God’s Word now, always, forever.”