How accurate is King James' Bible? [duplicate]

Question

Proponent of King James bible themselves points the differences between King James and modern standard. If we assume the modern translation is accurate, that means KJV must be quite wrong then.

The doctrines that they complain about are significant:

Let the heathen rage, God is still on His throne! To those who love the Lord Jesus Christ enough to protect the Doctrine of Christ (2nd John 1:9), the King James Bible is unquestionably the ONLY Bible standing true to that purpose. ALL modern versions attack the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the blood of Jesus, the Godhead, the reality of Hellfire, and the sinlessness of Christ. Don't believe it? Hundreds of words, phrases, and even entire Bible verses were removed from the Word of God by the NIV butchers. Take a look at all the words REMOVED just from the New International version alone...

Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV either. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, et cetera. One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the "only BEGOTTEN Son of God."

Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of truth and justice could any professed Christian use the New International Version? Yet, it's the most popular bible version sold on the market today. If I had a billion dollars, I'd make an offer to churches all across America. I'd exchange brand new King James Bibles for their perverted NIVs. I'd give them new Bibles for their old corrupt bibles. They would first have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM! I'd burn every NIV I could find.

That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. The word "sodomite" is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit. I'm not kidding, go check for yourself! All these words in the King James Bible have been stricken from the New International Version. We ought to call it the H.I.V., because it's more deadly than the AIDS virus.

Atheists have their own complain about KJV bible

The King James Version of the New Testament

The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.

There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.

The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

That’s not faith. That’s insanity.

References: http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z, http://bit.ly/Mymb9J

This is what atheists claim. If the most popular version of the bible in history is so messed up, can we believe that God take care of gospels?

I've also heard that King James are actually homosexuals and many verses are heavily influenced by political interests at that time. Also many important christian doctrines, like shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness of sin (which is nowhere mentioned in the bible explicitly) is added. In fact, that's why we have King James only movement. Namely that they defend doctrines only relevant if your bible is king james.

Sample claims: http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html

Answer 1

There is much misinformation in the article you cite.

The King James Version

First of all, there were not merely eight people who translated the KJV, but 47, as Wikipedia attests.

Manuscript Variance

It is true, too, that no two original language manuscripts are identical. However, the differences are, in the vast number of cases, meaningless or minute. In only a few cases is there really any question of meaning, but none of these brings into questions any doctrine of Christianity.

The differences largely consist of spelling variances, oftentimes in proper names like Moses or Capernaum. This is akin to the variant spelling of color and colour. Another major difference is word order, but in Greek this has not impact on meaning or translation. This is akin to saying either "I am going to the store" or "To the store I am going". So, again, are there differences? Yes. But is the meaning changed at all? No. See this question for more examples.

Indeed, the fact that scholarship continued to unearth new manuscripts shows the seriousness with which translation is done. There are codexes that date back to the 400s not discovered until the 1800s, and of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls unearthed in 1957 that weren't available to the translators of the KJV - and they prove how good that translation is.

The Invention of the KJV

The King James Version is, indeed, the most used translation of all time. However, the assertion that this is some invention of 16th Century religious fanatics with a message of their own to propagate is absolutely absurd.

The KJV is not the first translation of the Bible at all. It isn't even the first translation into English. Prior to that was the Wycliffe translation, Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and others. All of these versions are extremely similar, and the differences have to do with either difficulties in translating a particular word or phrase or in the selection of close synonyms in English.

These also conform to the previous Latin translations, so the KJV is an accurate translation of a preponderance of evidence that supports the original readings. The Textus Recptus on which it was based literally means "the received text" because it was so widely used and translated.

Finally, even if the King James Version isn't the best available today, there are lots of other translations available. That they differ so little is testament to how ridiculous it is to assert that there was any form of collusion. Indeed, there are even questions on this site about how to judge the accuracy of the text yourself and published tools you can consult see how the various manuscripts came together to give us what we have today.

Conclusion

Thus, the article you cite might be amusing to the unlearned who are hostile to Christianity, but it is factually wrong on many points and dishonest about historical realities.

Even if all that were true, it would be pretty amazing that such a book would be banned by so many countries, attacked by so many secular philosophers, and hated by so many atheists.

Some have predicted the death of both God and His Word, yet its pulse today is stronger than ever, and its message continues to reach into the most remote and most hostile places of the world.

Many who have tried to disprove its message have convinced themselves, against their own will, of its truthfulness, and have come to faith in Christ (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf and others).

Many others who have been prisoners of depravity, in the depths of corruption, or on the brink of suicide, have found hope and peace and fulfillment in its pages.

That is not a bad record for a book that is supposedly a man-made invention.