It’s a strange question to ask since the “original autographs” were in Greek, not English. Certainly, the English is nowhere near to the first century. We assume he is talking about the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript that underlies the KJV (and several other translations, by the way!)

His first point is that the KJV has lasted from 1611 to 1977 (the year of this pamphlet) and therefore is to be honored. Granted. But does he mean the versions of the KJV that included the apocrypha all the way to 1880? Probably not. Now, from 1880 to 1977 is not even one hundred years. And surely there are other translations that have a larger life span and are equally honorable, yes? Like the Genevan?

His next idea is that, if a Bible has any errors in it, “we worship a God who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure through the ages.” The KJV, said Fuller and many others, has no such errors!

His entire philosophy would fall apart if someone could come along and show even one mistake in the KJV. Was it God’s intention that His people be so bound to a translation? No.

Did not the KJV translators admit that the Bible they were correcting was the Word of God before their KJV? Was not the Septuagint, which most scholars today charge with numerous errors, sufficient for the apostle Paul and other first-century readers, to find the way of Life in Christ? Yes, to both.

Mr. Fuller then goes on to anticipate the response that will come to his statement by drawing a line between changes and errors. He says that “changes” need to be made, but these are not “errors.” Interesting. And who, Mr. Fuller, will be guided to tell us what is the line we must draw between these two classes? It is clear to me that every time I find a bona fide error, and I have found them, the KJVO person will simply call it a needed change.

Fuller is convinced that the Holy Spirit brought together the learned men who gave us the KJV. Does he therefore mean to imply that the Holy Spirit did not bring together others to complete their work, and perfect the Scriptures even more? Sounds like it:

“These men,” he says, “were the greatest scholars of their day or any day, so erudite and learned that the scholarship of today pales in comparison.” He gives two illustrations of the incredible intelligence and spirituality of two of these men.

He is also forced to admit that some of the men were “High Churchmen” with whom we (Baptists) might disagree on minor points of doctrine. But all believed the Bible was the verbally inspired Word of God. Again, his implication is that many in the groups of translators of other versions were not of that persuasion. I believe that is a false assumption, that demands of the writer solid evidence and documentation.

Erasmus.

The author now paints for his readers a picture of Erasmus, whose work, he argues, resulted in the Received Text, or Textus Receptus. He praises Erasmus to the skies, and understandably so. He was a scholar without peer in his day.

Strangely enough, Erasmus was considered a humanist, which by modern definitions eliminates all possibility of religious beliefs, the supernatural etc. The human is to be the measure of all things, the center of the universe. But Erasmus

“embraced the humanistic belief in an individual's capacity for self-improvement and the fundamental role of education in raising human beings above the level of brute animals. The thrust of Erasmus' educational programme was the promotion of docta pietas, learned piety, or what he termed the “philosophy of Christ”. (Wikipedia)

He was therefore a leading figure in the Renaissance, and only secondarily in the Reformation. Also from Wikipedia: “Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation.”

His approach to Scripture was intellectual. Human. Keep that thought in mind.

And, he was a Catholic.

What? Oh yes. A Catholic priest.

He “was critical of the abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, but he nonetheless kept his distance from Luther… and John Calvin, and continued to recognise the authority of the pope,” (Wikipedia)

He remained a Catholic all his life, while the Reformation stormed around him, and was offered various honors by Papa, partly to keep him from his reforming ways and his dangerous literary work.

Doctrinally, Erasmus rejected the idea of “faith alone” for salvation. He believed that man cooperates with God in that saving process. In other words, faith plus works.

That was Erasmus.

Fast forward. 2020. Imaginary scenario. The IFB churches, well known for their stance on the elevated place of the King James Bible, are all getting together for a Bible conference. Whom shall they choose to be the main speaker? Got it! Let’s call in a Catholic priest, one honored by the Pope, respected worldwide for his humanistic views, one who approaches the texts of Scripture as the texts of all books, from a human perspective. One who rejects salvation by faith and preaches a works salvation. But of course, one who believes in the Textus Receptus. That fact alone will help us blur out those other secondary issues.

Absurd? Yes. But it was such a man who was responsible for the Greek text that indirectly produced the King James Bible.

They honor Erasmus. But will they honor Catholic Scholarship today?

I mean not to take away from Erasmus. What a light he was. But like all of us, he was seriously flawed. As were all the translators, then and now. And even the apostles (not their writings but their lives.)