I don't find that summary convincing because it smuggles in a bunch of modern scholarly assumptions that I just don't accept. Right from the start, it defines "accuracy" almost entirely in terms of translation philosophy and what current academics think, while treating the underlying Greek and Hebrew text like it's some settled question that just got better over time. But that's exactly what we're arguing about.
For someone who holds to the Textus Receptus, accuracy isn't primarily about formal versus dynamic equivalence. It's about which text you're translating from. A word-for-word translation of a corrupted or selectively reconstructed Greek text isn't more accurate just because it's literal. Sure, the NASB, ESV, and NRSVue aim for formal equivalence, but they're translating an eclectic Critical Text that differs from the historic Textus Receptus in thousands of places. Being literal with an unstable base text doesn't give you greater fidelity. It just gives you a consistent reproduction of modern editorial choices.
The claim that the KJV was based on "less complete ancient manuscripts" also assumes that older automatically means better. That's a product of nineteenth-century textual theory, not something that comes from Scripture or church history. The TR represents the preserved text that was received, copied, preached, and defended by believing Christians for centuries. The Critical Text, by contrast, leans heavily on a small handful of manuscripts that were largely unknown, unused, or even rejected throughout church history, and they often contradict each other in significant ways.
Bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't really help the case either. Those scrolls mainly affect the Old Testament, and even there they demonstrate that the Masoretic tradition behind the KJV was already remarkably stable. They don't justify the widespread New Testament omissions and changes in modern versions.
And then there's the suggestion that readers should use multiple translations for a "holistic understanding." That assumes no single Bible can be fully trusted. Maybe that fits with modern scholarship, which openly teaches that all Bibles contain errors and only the lost originals were perfect. But it doesn't fit with the biblical doctrine of preservation. If God has preserved His words, then believers don't need to sift through competing versions trying to reconstruct what He meant. They can receive, believe, and live by the words He's given them.
So while the AI summary accurately reflects what most academics think today, it doesn't actually engage with the real issue. This debate isn't about readability or finding some balanced middle ground. It's about textual authority, preservation, and whether God has actually kept His words available and trustworthy for us today. On that question, I remain convinced that the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible rest on much firmer ground than the constantly shifting conclusions of modern textual criticism.
In the beginning, the Received Text is based on what the church actually used throughout history. The Critical Text (the Westcott and Hort text, the Nestle-Aland) was an artificially constructed text.
Here's what really happened: Westcott and Hort were supposed to do a simple KJV update. They lied. They used their own 1881 Greek text as the underlying Greek instead of the Beza 1598 Greek that the KJV translators primarily used. The Westcott and Hort 1881 Greek text is an artificially constructed Greek text based on smashing together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. So this whole modern Bible movement is founded on a lie, or at least a massive deception.
Don't take my word for it. Go to Archive.org and look up the English Revised Version. Look at the beginning of it. It says it's the version "set forth in 1611," but it's not that version at all. They claimed they were revising the KJV while secretly replacing the entire Greek text underneath it. That's where all of this started.
Do you think God is going to endorse a text where men had to lie to get it out there? Do you think He was pleased that they had Unitarians working on it during its formation and early development, at a time when the Christian world considered Unitarianism heretical?
Side Note:
As for it listing the NKJV:
This is where Google Ai yet again misses the point.
It lumps together the NKJV with the other Critical Text Modern Bibles trying to convince you they are all saying the same thing on a Greek and Hebrew manuscript level. They are not based on the same manuscripts and on a manuscript level they teach different doctrines and truths. That's what your not getting.
The NKJV is also a deception even though it is primarily based on the TR.
#1. When it first came out in New Testament form only the editors said they were not going to expose you to Westcott and Hort's Critical Text. But when the full version came out, the editors change their tune and said you can now add or delete from the Received Text based on the Revisers (i.e., Westcott and Hort). Hence, why it has all all the NU footnotes in it. The NU-Text refers to the Nestle–Aland / United Bible Societies Critical Text (Which is the Greek text underlying the Modern Bibles and not the Greek text underlying the KJV). So it's a bridge Bible trying to get you to move away from the KJV.
#2. There are readings in the NKJV that shows it does not always follow the Textus Receptus that the KJV translators used. 1 John 3:16, the NKJV removes "of God," which is in the Greek Textus Receptus. This is an attack upon the deity of Jesus Christ. The verse talks about Christ laying down His life for us as a part of his love and removing the "of God" part attacks or waters down his deity. There are other examples of this but this is the most glaring or big one.
#3. The NKJV pushes critical text Bible readings in its translation choices. Meaning, readings that show up in the Critical Text Bible that radically say something different in the Modern Bibles appears in the NKJV in many places. This again is why it is a bridge Bible. It gets you comfortable to certain Modern Bible changes without even telling you about them to get you to move to a Critical Text Bible later.
#4. None of the NKJV translators were Textus Receptus advocates. They were all Critical Text advocates. They were for the Westcott and Hort text. Granted, the ones who spearheaded the project were for the Majority Text (which is not really a Majority), but most of them for the Critical Text.
#5. Calling it the NKJV when its not a real KJV in any sense. The creators put Critical Text readings in it, and did not always follow the TR (Textus Receptus Greek of the Beza 1598). In short it would be like a guy trying to sell you a Ford when he knows you are a Ford fan, but when you get to his house, you see that he has a Chevy Corvette with Ford symbols plastered all over it. You may say to him, "This is not a Ford!!!!" He replies, "Yes, it is! Don't you see all the Ford symbols on it". Like the RV, the NKJV is just another deception. However, your average Bible reader is oblivious to all of these facts. They don't know about the things that I speak of regarding it. They will eventually be brainwashed to think that is is normal to add or delete from the Bible and by then, it's too late because they think that is how one needs to get the Bible (because they believe the Roman Catholic scholar lie by Richard Simon who first pushed "Originals Onlyism"). They fell for the advertising by Modern scholars today that you can chop up God's word like a piece meat at a butcher shop.
....
