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

I will respond as you have posted, point by point I. Definitely an excellent starting point for you to begin with, bringing salvation, as it should be, to the forefront of the discussion. I did not say that we were to learn Greek and Hebrew, though I most certainly will be taking at least Greek after I finish my Bachelor's Degree in Sign Language Interpretation. (I inserted that fact for a later point that I will show relevance of my degree in.) THe Bible says: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14) I would ask a question here. How can one understand the Bible WITHOUT a preacher? Some people say that people who read the Bible looking for salvation should know how to read that level. Statistics, on the other hand, have been clear. Baptist International Missions Incorporated released a study three years ago that searched for the age most Christians are saved at. The study revealed that over 75% of Christians were saved before the age of 15 and 80% before the age of 25 (Dr Rodney Kelley, seated on the board of BIMI). That is a vast majority of people that are saved. Santa Fe Community College teacher Mrs Judy Canova recorded that 50-60% of applicants to SFCC were required, based on their grades, to take remedial reading and/or writing courses at entrance. This would mean that their reading level is below that of a standard 4-year college applicant. The King James Version (alternately called the Authorized Version) has been evaluated as a post-college reading experience, meaning it requires knowledge of old British Literature. Where does that leave people in small towns in Arkansas (no offense to those from said state) where there might not be a church within driving distance and all they have is a Bible? They are left high and dry without the ability to comprehend what they are reading. If the KJV is THE inspired version of the Bible (and I am convinced by evidence that it is not), then if that version they have is not KJV, then they would be considered mislead. Would the God described in the Bible do something like that? Condemn a person because the only Bible they had access to was an NIV? Most certainly not, because the Bible says that he who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ SHALL BE SAVED. II. And I still state that there was not an inspired copy. In the Bible, it clearly states that the scriptures are "Theopnuestos," which, correct me if I am wrong, means, literally, "God-breathed." God was straightforward with identifying the autographs as inspired and put His stamp of approval in Paul's epistles to Timothy. In fact, God is behind everything that is claimed as true, as evidenced by the hundreds of times a variation of "Thus saith the Lord" is found in the Bible. This gives us a "psychological profile" of God, if you will. God signed off on everything He did or said. In the KJV, and every translation before and after it, there is not a single, non-translated part where God would, if He had inspired, put such a signature. In fact, the translators of the KJV went out of their way to say that translating would continue on further versions, as evidenced by the major revision of the KJV from old English into Middle English in 1769, and the later revision in the mid-1800s, known as the Revised Version. Father of modern translating, John Wycliffe had a motto. When he finished his first translation, did he stop? Absolutely not. Even after he was put in jail, he got paper and his old version, making change after change after change to the translation. He was never happy with the translation he had currently. He wanted more. That is a stark contrast to the church of today, which has creeped into more than translation. The church wants to keep to the status quo. We see it again and again. Churches don't want to change their music, and God forbid a visitor sits in your pew. Dr Rodney Coe, pastor of First Baptist Church of Starke, is tracking a 3 year study wherein a man has visited a different church every service to see how hospitable churches would be. At the latest report, he had visited 191 churches (in his report, they were KJV-only Baptist churches), and had only been spoken to once by someone other than an official greeter, and that was to move his seat. In contrast, you go into a church where they use different versions, or even multiple versions, AND they still teach biblical truths, it is found hard to keep from getting involved somewhere. FBC Starke is one of the hottest places to be as churches come, though they are also among the smaller churches in their county. Even on the big scale, Highland Park Baptist Church, which was raised under the leadership of Dr Lee Roberson, now uses more and more different versions, and even had one evangelist come in and translate directly from a copy of Erasmus's Greek New Testament during his service, hitting almost exactly what the concept of the words we read in our modern versions; they are found hard to stay uninvolved, with an active new membership class and a Deaf ministry that is made smaller only because of the Deaf church inside 30 miles of the church. I have never walked into a Baptist church with alternate versions where they were not excited about Christ and about getting new members involved in the church. Moving on: III. Christ didn't speak Greek in the first place. Archaeology shows that he probably spoke Aramaic, which was the commoner's language at the time. Even when reading the scriptures, he read the Greek Septuagint, and not the proclaimed Holy Hebrew scriptures that the Pharisees used. If we follow Christ's example, we would be translating continually from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic into languages used today, not 400-500 years ago. Also, the implications on Christ's care are also dramatic on your side of the argument. If the KJV is the inspired translation of today, where does that leave non-English speakers? Are you going to hang all non-western society members out to dry simply because they can't speak English? Better yet, would God do that? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! IV. Actualy, I don't know how or if I should respond to this one, as the implications of what you said bolster my side of the argument more than destroy it. Adding my own set of points: 1. The KJV is flawed in translation in several ways. First John 1:8-9 is hailed by many as proof that alternate translations have twisted the scriptures. In fact, the part they claim is removed wasn't removed, but added by the translators of the KJV. THe phrase in the end of verse 8 and beginning of verse 9 is only found in 8 late-era Latin copies of the scriptures (Dr Scott Carrol is my source for all archaeological statements on this, as well as the book "Traditions and Encounters" which is a History textbook). The only reason that statement is added in there is because of pressure from the Roman Catholic Church on the translators, as well as more than a few bribes from them. God only works through people who are devoted to Him and WILLING to serve in that capacity. If you want evidence of this, there were no Psalms from David during the mess with adultery and murder he had with Bathsheba. 2. Outdated word usages are prevalent in the KJV. How do you find mercy in your bowels? THis and other such phrases are in need of explanation, where there should be easily accesible words for people to read.