I think it will depend on who you ask. The AV folks are likely not going to argue as much with the method of translation but the selection of manuscripts.
I'm torn between agreeing with them on one principle and disagreeing with them on another hand.
On the one hand, I do find it troubling that committees of mostly secular scholars make the decisions on what manuscripts contain additions or subtractions from the Word of God. If this enterprise simply contained men who were self-professed Christians who believed in the Providence of God and prayed with the Church for the wisdom for the task I wouldn't be so uncomfortable. As it is, though, all the arguments (even from men I respect) are "...well you have to understand the science of this stuff and, look, science makes it plain that this manuscript has this addition and this one doesn't. We
know that this is something a scribe added to make the Gospels match...."
In my estimation, the Scriptures are something that is recognized by the Church because she hears the voice of her Bridegroom. It ought to be the enterprise of the Church to select manuscripts and I simply am not comfortable with a pagan "scholar" telling us all what our Bridegroom said.
That said, I don't necessarily buy the idea either that the scholars that met to write the King James were under Divine Inspiration when they collected their manuscripts for the purpose of translation. The Textus Receptus is not
a manuscript but those that they chose. I'm willing to grant the idea that the Church could gather together again and potentially choose manuscripts that might be different than those chosen.
In the end, though, the TR has going for it that it was the work of the Church. That can't be completely dismissed. I guess I'm of the opinion that the Church could theoretically meet and choose a different set of texts and profound injury wouldn't be done to the Body of Christ by their selection. I guess I've never bought completely into the doomsday scenarios that are sometimes painted.
Finally, I'm not a big fan of the English in the AV. I know, I know - what else has such a majestic style? Maybe I'll be persuaded otherwise someday but it's just too "foreign" for me. I know that's even sort of an argument that we should use it because it was sort of a "transcendent" style even in its own day. I'm still working through whether I buy into that completely and whether or not I even believe I should pray that way.
I'm usually sort of a hard nose on certain topics but I guess I'm being politically correct on this one.
Enjoy your can of worms.
