The following are a series of questions about Bible versions adapted from http://www.biblediscernment.com/research.html

I have made some comments.

Have you done research on the KJB, modern versions and related controversies?

There is a fair degree of ignorance in the debate on modern versions, and the ignorance is on both sides of the KJB versus modern versions. Often, however, I find that the people against the KJB rely on extremely narrow sources, such as James White’s book against King James Bible Only, which often mischaracterises the debate and is heavily biased and non-analytical in its approach.

Are you aware of the philosophical and ideological position behind modern versions?

Often, the real reasons for Christians taking a decidedly anti-KJB stand is because of their own a priori commitment to rationalism and carnal reasoning. One of the central parts of the debate is whether there is providential preservation of the Scripture through time, or whether we are dealing with a purely naturalistic transmission of manuscript copies.

Are you aware that around 95% of Greek manuscripts agree in general with the KJB’s New Testament, while the remaining 5% are used to make modern versions? And that the minority has only been extensively looked at within the last 200 years?

As a basic premise, Scripture exists today, and its authority is in itself, so appealing to majorities of copies or to specifically Greek copies is only secondary. But in this it can be shown that many modern versions follow a preface for a few obviously corrupt Greek manuscripts rather than for the traditional majority copies.

Modern versions emphasise new discoveries, but new discoveries are not changing the actual reality of what has come to believers in time.

In the simple sense, the tradition and the Greek manuscripts easily support the KJB in comparison to modern versions.

Is the debate really about which Greek text is being used?

Actually no, the crux of the debate is about whether we can have an English text which is supersuccessionary to Greek printed editions. Modern versionists prohibit the idea that accuracy could exist in using English as a standard. However, there are many reasons why English is better, including that the whole Bible is together, that English is common, that English is exact and that the KJB has all the signs of being standard. Edward Hills recognised the KJB as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. It is actually the final form of the Received Text.

Is the theology and spiritual approach of translators important?

Theology is important, but translation can be done (in the case of the KJB) without reference to interpretation. For example, the KJB has been used by all major Protestant denominations. A number of them started on it. The KJB translators had a believing view.

As for modern versions, while some are made by people who are basically heretics of one sort or another, there are still genuine Christians who make and use them, who in the main are probably unaware of the flaws of reasoning behind them. As a generalisation, modern version makers are less spiritual than the KJB translators, and certainly are never more spiritual than they were.

Do you know that the German Bible Society is directly connected to the Greek text behind modern versions, which raises serious theological questions?

It is a fact that the texts methods and texts, translation techniques and interpretative methods of German Critics, Rationalists, Liberals and Modernists were at the foundation of the making and promoting of modern versions, and that many of the assumptions behind modern versions are unbelieving, e.g. that God who inspired could not preserve. Thus, there is no doubt that the German Bible Society carries forward that dubious spirit, which is manifest in all modern versions, including the New King James Version.