Translations of the Bible are not unBiblical, and are, in fact, commanded.

I'll deal with your points first, then return to my own. 1. KJV is flawed, but so is every translation of the Bible. Flaws due to human weakness are not a sign that a translation is inspired or not. I'm trying to present that every translation with reasonable scholarship or care for the Word is inspired, based partially on the necessity for the Teaching actions of the Church but also because "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." (Mt. 18:20) I know that this will make Protestants uncomfortable because it means the Holy Spirit acts to aid the Church definitively, but you've said far more Catholic things in this debate, so that's of little concern. What is of concern is the fact that you seem to think the Catholic Church had any hand in the King James Bible. King James was a hardcore Protestant who commissioned the KJV for the purpose of galvanising England's Christians against Catholicism by offering the liturgy in the vernacular. Anyone with the remotest sense of British History would know that it's impossible the Catholic Church had anything to do with what the King James Bible says. Also, Jesus actually probably did speak Koine Greek. It was the Lingua Franca of the East, Judea had been under the control of Greek speakers for several hundred years before Jesus was born, and Jesus himself preaches in the Greek speaking cities of the Decapolis. 2. There are a ton of idioms in the bible that only make sense after a ton of Scholarship and in the original languages. The Seat of Moses in Matthew and the Eye of the Needle (a gate in Jerusalem, not a literal sewing device) as well as rhetorical devices and historical allusions abound in the Scriptures. If using language of a certain time and place is a fault, it is a fault of Scripture itself, and I doubt you want to go there. My points: I. This is dangerous territory for you, and I'm surprised you went here. If it's necessary scripture has a preacher, where does that preacher need to get what they preach from? It seems there are two options: a. They get it from Scripture, which means you created a distinction without a difference and the preachers incur the same problems that any faithful reader does. b. They get the truth from the preachers who preached to them, and so on until you reach Jesus and the Apostles, a line of descent going back 2000 years, protected by the Holy Spirit, and preaching truths independent of Scripture. But then you have a problem. That is word for word what Catholics believe about the Bishops and the Teaching Authority of the Church. As a Baptist, it's impossible for you to believe this version, because then there is no reason not to be a Catholic. If you want to be a Catholic, that's really cool, but I doubt you're in RCIA right now. Further, I think you misunderstand my advocacy. I think the KJV is inspired along with all the others, not that the KJV is inspired to the exclusion of the others. As much grace is imparted from the KJV as it is from the NIV, New Jerusalem, NAB, or any other responsible translation. God inspires his word in many forms so that many can hear it. II. I think there's a major problem with your interpretation of scripture, so I'm going to ask you a question under this point - How do you know that everything you believe to be scripture is scripture, and how do you know that everything you don't believe to be scripture isn't? The Gospel of Judas, for instance, claims divine inspiration, but it isn't in the KJV. Is it scripture? How do you know? I ask because it seems that "The book says the book is special" is self-referential and not something that a God of Wisdom would be happy with. I don't understand how any of what you say about Protestant churches being stagnant (the effect of being rife with schism and not having Councils to shake things up periodically) is relevant to the debate. III. Oh, wait, you didn't respond to points three or four. I hope you will in future rounds.