I've been studying it for a while. Problem is, I have a very short memory. I often forget the beginning of a book, before I get to the end.
I thought I would begin the Study with some common misconceptions about the Bible. For starters, the KJV is not the Bible, in the sense that it was the original inspired Word of God. I've heard people say, "If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."
Other misconceptions: Whether or not they actually own a 1611 (they probably don't even own an original 1769), KJV was not translated from the Textus Receptus (as it was not completed until 1633), the KJV was not the 1st English Translation (Wycliffe's hand written version in 1382 and then Tyndale's 1st printed version in 1585, then the Great Bible in 1539 and then the Geneva in 1557... all of which supersede the KJV).
So why is the KJV considered God's Word and no other version? The main argument against modern translations is that they changed the Word of God. But this is only true if you view the KJV as the inspired Word.
When modern translations don't contain a word or verse that the KJV contains, they are viewed as having removed Scripture. Which is a misconception. In most cases, it is more likely that the KJV added to the Scripture, than the Modern translations took away.
But some view that such a point defies the infallibility of God's Word. Again it's circular reasoning. That's only true if you view the KJV as God's inspired Word.
I do believe in the infallible inherent Word of God. But I believe it was inspired and inherent when it left the hand of Paul and that original document was inspired and preserved by God. We have sense translated it into many different languages by God's divine providence.
But what documents in today's world constitute God's inspired Word? Is it the KJV Bible and none other? If so, by who's authority do we make this interjection?
Is it not more likely that God's Word has been preserved thru the overwhelming agreement of an amazing amount of manuscripts and various translations...? And if you look at all the material as a whole and compare them with each other, you can clearly see distinct picture of God's Holy Word.
That seems to be the viewpoint of modern translations, which derive from modern scholars and theologians from all denominations (conservative as well as liberal). And to be honest, that was the viewpoint of the translators of the KJV as well.
It amazes me, how throughout history, every time someone does something amazing for God, there are always naysayers. Some who will even go so far as to both verbally and physically assault men and women of God for doing His work. There will be those that mock and scorn and ridicule God's work. And amazingly enough, they usually come from within God's Own House! I do recall how they treated a Man named Jesus. And who it was that verbally and physically assaulted Him.
They say hindsight is 20/20. We always see so clearly later on, what we can't see right before our very eyes. In 2010 Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. But in 33 A.D. He was labeled a heretic. Just as was Wycliffe, Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and even the translators of modern Bibles and those who dare to read them.
Just a few years ago, I was one of the ones persecuting these men. I was Saul of Tarsus. But then one day, I had a Damascus road experience (a real eye opener). I realized that I had been blindly following the doctrines of men, never once letting God speak for Himself. When I did, I found out that all men are liars and only God is true. By religious tradition, I had been calling unclean, what God was giving to clean us up. It's hard to admit when you're wrong. It's even harder to do something about it. And so for starters, I will no longer be one of the naysayers. But even more so, I want to repair some of the damage I have done.
So I wish to educate people on the fallacies of KJV Onlyism. To help free them from man-made shackles and open up a whole new way of understanding God's Word. I don't think all translations are equal. There are certainly differences that should be noted. I for one, prefer a more literal word for word translation (where possible) as opposed to a strictly dynamic equivalence. Books like the GNB or NLT or NIV (not nearly as dynamic) make for a good read, but I wouldn't quote from them as Scripture, because there is the potential for private interpretation in the dynamic translation style. However they may all be used as resource material.
Obviously, you see how it's easy to get carried away with this topic. I have a difficult time being brief. I feel like I just typed a short essay :type: and I haven't begun to scratch the surface...