The King James Version is stupid

I would like to note that your links for 1 and 2 do not work. C1: Archaic. Of course it is archaic. All translations of the Bible comes from ancient near-original manuscripts. However, to dismiss it as inferior due to the manuscript from which it was translated having typographical errors, is simply incorrect. I agree that typographical errors exist, however, they do so in all manuscripts that have been copied by hand, although in some cases antiquity does not determine originality, as in the older a text is, the closer it is to the original. That is generally, but not always, so. Luke contains errors, such as an extra "Cainan" in its genealogy, which was not present in the earliest manuscripts. [1] This is present in almost all translations. The New Testament has so many ancient manuscripts (over 24,000) that it is hard to determine which has the most "originality." Hard to read archaic English. The level of difficulty in reading does not determine the number of errors in a book. What is modern may not necessarily be right. Ussher"s "Annals of the World" [2] had citations to manuscripts that have since been lost. All knowledge we have of them comes from Annals. C2: Wrong about Deuterocanon. If the books were inspired, the KJV did not err in putting it separately. The Bible consists of over 60 individual books bound together. The arrangement of St. Paul"s letters are in the order of longest to shortest, roughly, but not in order of it"s writing date. The arrangement of the books is merely for reading convenience, including when it is arranged chronologically. If the books were not inspired, and were profitable to read, it would definitely have been written by a scholar versed in theology. Therefore, my opponent"s opposition to this idea, comparing it to "random musings" of his own, when he/myself is not a scholar, fails thoroughly. As the apocrypha lays between the OT and the NT, it marks clearly that it is not of either of the testaments. It even includes maps, something which most modern translations have. It was not some random marketing gimmick (not my opponent"s words), but an actual attempt to help the mostly ignorant target readers to better understand the context of the Bible. Not everyone knows instantly where "BeerSheba" is. C3: Flaws. I searched up quite a few "modern" translation, and these same "flaws" are found in there as well. E(error)1:If one were not to add any words, one must use a literal translation of the Hebrew/Greek texts. This does not suit well to an average English reader. I do have such a Bible, although it is only a part of the whole. I"m not claiming to be fluent in Hebrew, by the way. E2: Jesus" name is a transliteration from Yeshua. Different forms of the same name, not a flaw. E3: I do not see how this implies my opponent"s assertion. We are all "before the Lord" in one way or another, and this is a theological matter, not a textual matter. E4: That"s what Jesus said. It is not an error of the KJV, hence it is a theological, rather than textual, matter. E5: I do not know if my opponent realizes, but in every single translation, including those so called "modern," I have found that only the phrasing has changed, and little at that. Once again, theological, not textual. E6: Unicorn fetish. Reem is the animal, and it is translated into wild ox, buffalo, rhinoceros, unicorn. The depiction is that of an animal with horns on its head. It is not that they had a fetish, but that they followed the manuscript, LXX and vulgate uses variation of "unicorn." Furthermore, there is no negating evidence against unicorns. All arguments for/againsts are mostly from silence with a lot of differing data interpretations. For all Bible comparisons, see http://bible.cc... References 1. http://creation.com... 2. http://www.amazon.com...