You only showed part of the argument there, show the whole argument;
I am not a fan of Chick Publications, but this writer makes a valid point. Scripture is being translated from the NIV all over the world. Where is the big protest? Shouldn't you anti KJVO folks insist that all translations be made from the original Hebrew and Greek texts? Of course, the next question would be, "Which one?"
People get all bent out of shape when the KJB is translated into another language, but they are fine when one of the MVs is used.
Jovert made an observation that is to me one of the most logical and brutal critiques of the anti KVJO position that in nearly 30 years of studying manuscripts I never thought of. If the KJVO critics are CERTAIN that the KJV is full of "errors", then there must be an absolute standard in which to compare such errors to. But yet these same critics also criticize the underlying texts of the KJV and frankly ALL modern versions and claim that there are no absolute reliable manuscripts that are perfectly preserved without error. If therefore there is no certainty about the underlying manuscripts, it is illogical and self-defeating to claim for certain that there are errors in the KJV.
No of course the critics will throw that right back in our faces by claiming that works both ways. Actually, no it doesn't, because we don't begin with the premise that there are mistakes. Yes, there is an element of faith involved, but isn't that what is required of believers in the first place? How many here have actually SEEN ANY manuscripts? Not pictures of them, not what someone wrote about them, but actually SEEN THE REAL THING? When the KJV translators were faced with the issue of 1 John 2:23, they did not have that verse in any of their manuscripts, but included it in italics. The verse was later found in it's entirety and validated the usage of the translators rendering. James White criticizes the lack of Greek evidence for Revelation 15:3 before it was included in Stephanus and Beza's Greek texts. Yet several early church writers quoted "King of saints" (Victorinus-Pettau, AD 270, Tyconius AD 370, Apringius 6th Century, Cassiodorus AD 485) so OBVIOUSLY there were Greek and Latin texts that support this before Stephanus, Erasmus or Beza's texts were made.
KJV critics are no different than the atheists who tell you to PROVE the existence of God by the rules of science that prevent any kind of evidence that would hint at faith to believe it. The Creationist does not rely on blind faith to believe in the existence of God anymore than a KJV believer does in the assurance that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God. It is the KJV critic that lacks any assurance that there is ANY absolute standard in ANY language, and the KJV critics that uses "false balances and divers measures" to slander the Bible based on humanistic forms of textual criticism developed by Catholic humanistic Mary worshiping heretics that sought (and continue to seek) the destruction of faith in ANY Bible that is not conveyed to them through the authority of the papacy.
