The King James Version is stupid

Sorry about the links. I'll repost them.Contention One: ArchaicI find it somewhat amusing that my opponent writes "All translations of the Bible comes frmo ancient near-original manuscripts", because while that is the case with most modern Bibles, it sure isn't the case with the King James Version.Dismissing a manuscript for having any typographical errors would be unwise, but the Textus Receptus uniquely a disaster. It was translated from 10th or 12th century manuscripts [1], which were neither ancient nor near-original.As I mentioned last round, a few typographical errors would not be a problem. However, the Textus Receptus contains thousands of these errors, which is simply ridiculous. Erasmus saw himself as in competition with someone else, and so he rushed to release it first and as a result it was so messed up he himself admitted it was very poorly done [2].My opponent makes a compelling argument for me when he writes 'Luke contains errors... which was not present in the earliest manuscripts.'. This is a severe argument against the King James Version, which used late and much inferior texts. As I said in the first round, the translators of the King James Version had access to some early manuscripts, but chose not to use them.'Technically, however, it is far from the original text.' - [3] on the Textus ReceptusAll of these attacks on the Textus Receptus translate to the King James Version, as it is from the Textus Receptus the KJV was translated.An analogy: I have a book written in Russian fifty years ago. I want to buy a copy of it in English, because I can't read Russian. The book shop guy says 'Here, look at this copy. It's written in French, and is translated from a modified version of the original Russian text that was adapted five years ago by a professor of Russian. Or, you can take this other copy that's written in English, and is translated from the first manuscripts of the original book we have, dating from around 40 years ago.'.While the analogy is a bit extreme (King James English isn't as hard to comprehend as French for a native English speaker), it serves to get the point across. Given that the King James Version is translated from poorer quality texts, and given that it uses somewhat incomprehensible language, it is preferable to use more modern translations.Contention 2: DeuterocanonIf the books were inspired, the KJV did err in putting them in a seperate section and labeling them as 'Apocryphal'. That's wrong. The canon of Christian scripture does not consist of the Old Testament, the Apocryphal Testament, and the New Testament. Justly, the Deuterocanon would belong with the Old Testament if it was inspired, and should not have been included if it were not.My opponent writes "If the books were not inspired, and were profitable to read, it would definitely have been written by a scholar versed in theology.". So what? The Bible, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is 'The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.'. Are the Deuterocanonical books scriptures of the Old Testament? If they are, then why segregate them? If they're not, then why include them at all?No matter how you cut it, the King James Version translators botched it by putting in the Deuterocanon. Does your Bible include the Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? The Epistle of Clement? Surely the authors of those works were 'scholar[s] versed in theology'. Yet, their works are not included because they are not deemed inspired.If you have things that are profitable for reading but are not inspired, they have no just place in the Bible. The Bible isn't supposed to be a catelogue of every writing ever that may have some implication on Christian thought. It's only for the scriptures.And on the other hand, you have no reason to take scriptures and seperate them out from where they belong. It would be like me taking every one of Paul's epistles, and sticking them in the very back of the Bible with the label 'Spurious' ('Apocryphal'). If they are inspired, it is abusive to degrade them in such a fashion, and if they are not it is abusive to exalt them in such a fashion. The KJV is wrong about this no matter how you cut it. This makes it inferior.Contention 3: FlawsFor some reason, I was a moron and said I quote 2 Samuel 29:19 when I actually quoted 2 Samuel 21:19 (2 Samuel 29:19 doesn't exist). However, my argument here stands. Most translations [4] accurately ackowledge that 'the brother of' was added by King James translators for absolutely no reason.While my opponent makes a reasonable point regarding literal translations, I think there's a big difference between substituting something that is more or less equivalent and substituting something that is completely different.For instance, if the Hebrew read 'Jesus threw chair', and I translate it as 'Jesus threw the chair', 'Jesus threw a chair', or even 'Jesus threw a stool', that's adding/changing without having any effect on the meaning of the verse. However, if I change it to say 'Jesus threw the table', the meaning changes completely.There's a pretty significant difference between someone killing me and someone killing my brother.Pro also writes concerning the difference between Joshua and Jesus, "Jesus' name is a transliteration from Yeshua. Different forms of the same name, not a flaw."So was it Jesus or Joshua who failed to give them rest? Like I said, pretty much every other translation goes with Joshua [5]. Context is important.On unicorns, my opponent writes 'The depiction is that of an animal with horns on its head.'. That is fine. Why, however, did the King James translators decide to insert a mythical beast into the Bible? Does my opponent believes unicorns exist? I see it as a flaw that the King James translators decided to go with 'unicorn' over the perfectly serviceable 'wild ox', 'rhinoceros', etc. etc.Everything I have not addressed here, I have dropped.Conclusion:While you could do worse than the King James Version, in comparison to most modern Bibles it is far inferior. It is outmoded in style of writing, translated from an inferior and error-ridden unoriginal manuscript, contains the Deuterocanon in a fashion that cannot be rationalized, and is obsessed with unicorns.The resolution is affirmed.Sources:1. http://www.bibletexts.com...;2. http://www.solagroup.org...;3. http://www.gotquestions.org...;4. http://bible.cc...;5. http://bible.cc...; Sources (Round 1):1. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...;2. http://www.blueletterbible.org...;