Thank you for the question on the translation of the Hebrew and Greek text, “People told me the Dead Sea Scrolls are a joke and were made by the powerful elites to throw us off track of the 100% real word of the Bible, King James version, how are they so sure? And aren’t the Dead Sea Scrolls 100% authentic?”
As one listens to Christians who only subscribed to the King James Version as being the “real” word of the Bible, one needs to be sympathetic toward them. As one reads the many modern translations, there is less and less of a literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek text to a more contemporary wording of the Bible. These newer translations are not necessarily better although the attempt is to help the modern reader to understand the Bible easier.
Personally, I would not base a critical study based on modern translations but relying on a parallel translation from Hebrew or Greek. One may consider like an older parallel or literal translation as “Analytical Key to the Old Testament” by Owens or “The NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English” by Marshall. However with today’s internet, one can look online in Hebrew and Greek.
As one already knows, English is not the original language of the Bible. It was translated by scholars for the English speaking people just as the Bible was translated the Bible into German. Is the KJ Versions a very good translation? I would say so for the most part depending on one’s language skills. To insist that one translation be read only or studied from would not help believers in China or Russia who may not be literate in English. Translating the Bible into their language would help them understand the Bible better.
Bible scholars have contested a few passages as the conclusion of Mark 16 or the woman caught in adultery. There are pros and cons for including or excluding those verses as being part of the original text. Does those passages change the theological or biblical beliefs? In my opinion, it does not. Should it be in the text? I believe that the contested words should be in the text with a parenthesis, not deleted. The danger if scholars begin doing that, then they can delete the Sermon on the Mount or even some other text because they think it is not “authentic.” That is a grave danger.
As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the words of the Old Testament has been shown to be preserved very accurately with the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are not huge gaps or new texts that is not found in the Bible when it is compared together. Yes, there are spelling errors as inversion of letters or missing letters, but that does not change the text for the most part. For example, one may spell church and misspelled it with churck or shurch as copyist even with their mistakes prefer not to take a new scroll and start again. Can one imagine copying the scroll of Isaiah with any erasers? As diligent as one may attempt to be, there will be some spelling errors or missing strokes in Hebrew. Copyist wrote what the reader said or copied the text themselves. As one compares the various scrolls of that biblical book, one may well arrive at the correct spelling or likely phrase. Thus in my opinion, most translations including the KJ is a good translation. Is there a better literal translation than the KJV? That is a matter of personal preference and belief. I prefer a parallel translation that has the Hebrew-Greek along side the English translation of the Hebrew-Greek word.
SUMMARY: The Dead Sea Scroll allows the dating of Old Testaments scrolls back to the first century BCE or CE. It shows the well preserved Word of God through the centuries.
For more perspectives: