A young twerpish fellow from “needgod.net” made a video against the King James Bible. His attacks on the KJV did not start from Scripture, but from modernist talking points.

1.

In his first attack was that KJVO means you use the KJV only. This is fake, as the Scripture was first written in Hebrew and Greek, and there are many forms of Scripture in other languages, including English Bibles which came before the KJV.

Furthermore, he does not believe that God providentially can have a right translation made, but rather acts like the modernists do, in seeing errors everywhere, and translation subject to error.

He also mistakenly puts emphasis on the absolute correctness of Hebrew and Greek, but the problem is that there is no perfect text in those languages today.

2.

He then asks, rhetorically, why the KJV is better than former translations, or why not choose a version or translation that came after the KJV?

His question is based on the absolute doubt intrinsic to modernism: where is authority? The answer is something he never even engages with. Start from the Scripture, then look at providence, then also look at internal and specific factors with the KJV itself. Since he never bothers starting from scripture prophecies, promises or statements, he is never even making any valid point to consider.

3.

He then brings up the different editions of the KJV. Well, that can easily be answered. First, the progress of editorial work in the old editions to 1769. He wrongly thinks we use the 1769 today.

For example, in Ruth 3:15, the first printing in 1611 says that “he went” but editions down the line from the second 1611 one to today say “she went”. Is that really a problem, or just a typo that was fixed within mere months in 1611?

There are no real version or translation changes in the editions, and the KJV is still the same and correct.

4.

He ridiculously brands the KJV’s language as “old English”, when in fact it is early modern English. He says that many struggle to read it today. But the reality is that the way the KJV is is the way the language has to be to present the concepts of Scripture accurately.

We are dealing with the ability of the Holy Ghost to give comprehension, not the hard-hearted, lazy, propagandistic view that makes the KJV “hard”.

He mockingly looks at one verse, which he claims he can’t understand, and while it is in a style of writing that is not usual, it still obviously makes sense (especially by easily guessing from context).

The real question is, is it really impossible to learn what Genesis 43:25 means. (He is plucking out an obscure-ish passage by the way.)

The other example he uses is the usual mocking one also of enemies of the KJV, which is by pretending that they cannot understand what 2 Corinthians 6:12 means. Or as if he couldn’t possibly learn what it means.

That kind of toothy gloating does not ring sincere.

What he argues is that the translation should be dumbed down rather than believers come up in understanding. It is wrong to try to demote God’s words.

5.

He wrongly says that the KJV is built upon about 6 manuscripts. This is simply nonsense and misinformation.

He also wrongly makes out that today’s translations and versions are based upon over 5,400 manuscripts.

While it is true that manuscripts may be discovered through time, the less manuscripts of the past is in no way an impediment to the fact that the scripture existed in the past. In one way manuscript amounts don’t matter, because having more information is not actually going to change the truth that came out of the past.

Modernism wants more information because it uses this to be able to move away from truth.

6.

He then talks about the false Granville Sharp Rules, which he mistakenly calls a rule. The rules are all about Granville Sharp trying to change the Bible to say something the way he wanted to say it, rather than letting the Bible say what it says truthfully.

7.

He finally goes to the Translators to the Reader preface, and misinterprets it. The translators talked about how they were improving upon former translations, but this modernist, like many others, obviously misapplies the translators’ words as if they are speaking against their own work.

Nowhere do the KJV men say that their work is imperfect or that it needs to be improved. No, this is wishful thinking from modernists, who think that their own favourites like ESV are imperfect and need to be improved.

Laughably, he says that the KJV is 84% the same as the Tyndale, which is actually proof that the KJV did improve former translations to get them right, and has nothing to do with modern translations which do not build off the KJV.

The NKJV is a new translation on the same text as the KJV used, but is not really an update of the KJV’s translation so much as being a new translation. But this does apply to all the modern translations that the modernists promote and use, which are based upon an entirely different textual basis and are entirely separate translations to the KJV.

In a different video, the twerpish fellow says that people give up on reading the Bible because the KJV is hard to understand (in fact, the same people would give up on any translation because they are just not in a spiritual condition to want to read the Scripture). And he then quite wrongly says that people can’t understand half the KJV’s words and it’s like Latin to them. This is obviously a lie. The fact that he even goes out “evangelising” to people not to read the KJV shows he is a propegandist.