Why did you spend so much time in apparent flaws in the King James Version and no time in showing the flaws in modern translations? Are you not showing a clear bias?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘Documentary Evidence, Textual Criticism and Translation’ (2007).

Thank you for that question. Even as I spoke¹ was thinking that people will run away with the idea that I am against the AV and haven't pointed to the mistakes and flaws in modern translations. It allows me now to put the matter right.

I respect the Authorised Version with all my heart and soul. It is a glorious and wonderful translation and its English is superb. I simply use it as a basis for comparison because I thought to myself (rightly or wrongly) that there would be some people here today who have used the Authorised Version all their lives. So I thought I would use a translation that they knew to point out why changes have to be made.

In my experience it is people who have used the Authorised all their lives who get a little bit upset sometimes by the modern translations. If you would like me to come and point out the weakness in modern translations, and dissatisfactions I have with some modern translations that aren't translations at all, you would need to organise two days to give me enough time, and even then I shouldn't be able to complete it. Some are virtually re-writings of the New Testament.

So I am far from saying that the Authorised Version is bad and I hope I am not biased. It was merely a practical thing; if I wanted to speak to the over sixty-fives I had to ask what version would they have been brought up on. I wasn't quite sure, so that is why I chose the Authorised as a basis for comparison.

¹ See full talk: ‘Documentary Evidence, Textual Criticism and Translation’.