The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

I stated in the opening round that I think the KJV is best because of the manuscripts they use. This debate took a slightly different approach and is now regarding comprehension and practicality. My approach to the debate so far is to show that the reasons you give to prove that the KJV is inferior to the modern versions is to highlight that these new versions are guilty of the same accusations you make against the KJV and is thus not better in respect of comprehension and practicality and therefore the KJV is not inferior. By doing this it will be shown that practicality and comprehension issues are actually private opinion and therefore cannot be used as a general principle to cast judgement between different versions. What is good for you might not be good for me and visa versa. To illustrate my point: Some students have difficulty comprehending math and many students do not bother to continue studying math in later years because it is not practical to study math when the career they chose do not require it. Does this make math incomprehensible and impractical? No it does not and the reason is because it is not a universal principle that applies to everyone. It is illogical to use personal opinion as the guiding factor to establish some rule. I am of the opinion that comprehension and practicality is not a good reason to make a universal judgement to classify Bible Versions of any kind and therefore a modern version might be better for YOU but not for ALL. At this point I will encourage the readers to vote for you in the debate. I debate to test what I believe and to expose myself to different opinions to verify what I test. The purpose for debating topics, for me, is not to win. It is easy to create a debate where I will win every time like using a topic about whether you beat your wife or not. The main question will be: Have you beaten your wife lately? To rebut your arguments: "As a reminder for those who don't necessarily know the technical aspects of the debate, in order for me to win, I need to prove that my opponent is wrong. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that he is right." The KJV1611 was proven to require a lower education level to be able to read it based on the Flesch-Kincaid method. This method takes into account the number of syllables in a word and how many times low syllable words are used (http://www.av1611.org...). On a technical level that should settle the topic between us with the KJV161 winning. Unfortunately it is not that simple because the use of a one or two syllable word does not mean much if the meaning is not known. Archaic Language: Pointing out the word "begotten" as not familiar and then explaining the meaning reinforce my point that with a little studying comprehension can be gained and therefore studying nullifies and argument against a text based on comprehension and practicality. You actually contradict your own opinion by referring to the "original" Greek. Koine Greek used in the Bible manuscripts is different from Modern Greek . Yet you have no problem studying words in an archaic language but have a problem with archaic words in the KJV1611. Again, to be consistent with your argument you should also avoid the Greek because it is archaic. The apparent contradiction in your preference of using an archaic Greek text but arguing that archaic English is inferior can only be viewed as your opinion. It is not the same situation with everyone who is presented with the same material. Translating as You Read: "It's exhausting to translate as you read." I understand your argument, but once again this is your opinion and preference. All people reading the KJV do not necessarily have to translate while they read. They understand what they read based on familiarity etc. "Even still, my opponent specifically attacked the NIV, a translation that was written in 1978 [2]. " I have not specifically attacked the NIV. I chose scriptures from the NIV, ESV, Living Bible and Living Translation. In your response you actually regard the MEV as superior to other modern versions by denouncing what other translations have to say about the rebellious woman. By doing that you yourself denounce modern versions and their lack of agreement although they all claim to use the same Greek base text that can be traced to the Wescott & Hort Greek text (which is replicated in the Nestle Aland NT). Modern Inaccuracy: "It doesn't really matter honestly. How many of us call God "Father"?" It does matter. The Bible says all believers are "adopted" children of God. God did not begat any believer in the same way Jesus was begotten. The Bible clearly makes distinctions because it matters. The sinful nature is passed down by Adam to all humanity. If Joseph was the father of Jesus then He was not sinless and could not be the sacrifice "without spot or blemish" and therefore could not have died which in turn means no one can be saved. That is the significance a small change like that makes. In fact, when Jesus was a small child he was lost and when Joseph and Mary found Him, He told them that He was busy with the things of His Father, which was not Joseph. So, you have a version claiming God is the Father of Jesus and also that says Joseph was the father of Jesus. That is a contradiction that cannot be excused or explained away as insignificant. If it is true you might as well stop being a Christian. In this respect the KJV1611 uses the Textus Receptus that do not make these kinds of silly mistakes and are careful to make proper distinctions. Hence, my reason for stating the KJV is the best based on manuscripts used. Early Church: "What early church are we talking about? " Forgive me for not being more specific. I refer to the Church found in the first few centuries after Jesus died. The problem with the different manuscripts usually start in the forth century. "And what are the specific differences in belief that makes Mounce less accurate than KJV1611." Mounce uses the Nestle Aland text that is an eclectic text based on about 5 manuscripts as opposed to the more than 5000 NT Greek manuscripts available today. The two main manuscripts used are called Vaticanus and Sinaiticanus and disagree over 3000 times with each other in the four Gospels alone. The two texts also show words crossed out, new ones inserted which means it was edited. In short, they make a Bible from texts that have obvious signs of corruption (Codex B and Its Allies " Hoskier". If you are an engineer and want to build a bridge, will you use a handbook that are lacking or missing information because it was changed? Wording: "We don't consider The Living Translation a translation of the Bible. It's a paraphrase, like the Message version. " Who exactly are the we? Again this highlights your opinion. It was sold as a Bible and still being sold as such to use for studying and understanding God"s word. Loving the KJV1611: "These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says they love the KJV1611." Again, you echo an opinion that does not reflect universal facts. I love the KJV and English is not even my mother tongue! I am familiar with it"s terminology to the point that I do not have to translate while reading. Familiarity was achieved by reading it daily.