Clash of worldviews
50,000 Foot Level
The debate over Bible translations is rarely solved by simply trading historical facts or Greek words. Why? Because the translation issue is ultimately a collision of worldviews. Your foundational beliefs concerning the doctrine of preservation will inevitably dictate your logic regarding textual criticism, manuscript evidence, the role of modern scholarship, and the very definition of accuracy.
The late theologian and apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen provided a masterful definition of a worldview:
“A network of presuppositions (which are not tested by natural science) in terms of which all of experience is related and interpreted.”
Applying Bahnsen’s principle to the King James vs. Modern versions conflict brings incredible clarity. The translation debate is a clash of starting points. Your network of presuppositions regarding how God promised to preserve His word serves as your ultimate interpretive lens—filtering and defining your conclusions about all biblical manuscript evidence.
The Dividing Line
This passage, I believe, draws the line in the sand for Christians. Your approach to the words of God are either predicated upon the belief that the Bible you hold in your hand is the result of men reconstructing it, or the result of God preserving it.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Which worldview informs your convictions about modern translations?