Debates about which Bible version is best generally focus on peripheral concepts: archaic language, the age of certain Greek manuscripts, or theological clarity. The primary evidence is often overlooked: the consistency of the Majority Text proves it’s the most reliable — random copying errors don’t account for it, as KJV critics claim.
To illustrate, suppose 127 college students transmit a 1000-word short story, where the 1st student makes 2 hand copies from the original and gives the copies to 2 more students; those 2 students each make 2 more hand copies of their copy and pass those 4 copies on to 4 more students, who each make 2 more copies, etc. Seven copy generations yields 254 new manuscripts to compare with the original.
Assuming unintentional, random copying errors, one may easily note that the earlier in the transcription process a mistake is made the more prevalent the error will be in the total set of manuscripts. Additionally, it’s virtually impossible for any particular error to occur in more than half the manuscripts; the only probable way for any single error to be prevalent in the majority is for the very first student to deliberately introduce the same error into both of their copies, violating randomness.
This fact proves the Majority text, which is generally consistent within itself concerning supposed errors, has a single original source: the general consistency of the manuscripts can only be rightly accounted for in this way.
Carefully consider: there are only two possible sources for the Majority text — the autographs themselves, or another set of manuscripts deliberately constructed to supplant the autographs. This fact forced the revisers of 1881 to propose the myth of the Syrian Recension to justify their preference for the Alexandrian Text.
The patent absurdity of the Syrian Recension proves the Majority Text represents the autographs, and therefore that most modern translations are based on a corrupt manuscript witness. This is the only proper foundation for a KJV debate.
Arguments focused on archaisms in the KJV miss the forest for the trees. After a 3-minute tutorial on thee, thou and basic verb tenses, only a very small percentage (0.16%, or 1-2 per 1000) of the words in the KJV are archaic. Learning new words from time to time is a given for anyone pursuing truth; it’s why we have dictionaries.
Debating which version better supports orthodox theology is irrational: theology depends upon scripture, not vice versa — we may not rightly argue for the validity of scripture based on how it supports our beliefs. This debate is about which words were in the autographs, not the doctrines implied by them.
And diminishing the value of the KJV by claiming certain verses are incorrectly translated, when the reasoning of its translators is no longer available, is subjective at best and does more harm than good. No imperfection in the KJV causes us to believe or act improperly as we trust and obey it (unlike most newer translations – e.g. His Virgin). This should be the whole of the matter … it’s the very reason we have the Word of God. What’s left to discuss?
God inspired His Word in written form to accomplish a purpose, which is unfulfilled merely by the autographs: to enable His elect, in many ages and nations and languages, to be mature and complete, thoroughly and completely equipped unto all good works. (2Ti 3:16-17)
God didn’t inspire His Word in vain: He says the scripture cannot be broken. (Jn 10:35) We can be sure He has preserved His Word across time, and across languages, sufficiently to achieve His purpose. That’s exactly what God does — faithfully keep His promises. So, find His Word in a language you can understand today; trust it, memorize it, and obey it as the very Word of God.