The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

Con states that the point of her argument is that she wants to show that the KJV1611 is impractical and therefore inferior to modern version of the Bible. She states that her primary focus is not on the correctness of the Bible but rather that it is less practical. There was a lot mentioned but I will answer the following points that I think sums up what was said. The reasons sited to justify her argument are as follows, followed by my rebuttal: 1. Languages become archaic and therefore use words not known in modern times. I agree that languages become archaic and that certain words are not understood anymore because it is not commonly used. However that does not mean it is impractical. The KJV1611 still contain English words recognizable to anyone who can read English even today: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Even though the word "believeth" is used, everyone knows what it means and can understand the passage. Out of the whole passage you have one word that is pronounced slightly differently but can still be understood. The argument for simplicity and comprehension is also a little one sided if you ask me. The modern versions are quick to point out where they improved on the KJV1611 English but remain silent where they actually are worse than the KJV. Consider the following comparison between the NIV and KJV: NIV - acclamation 2 Chr 15:14 KJV " voice NIV - annotations 2 Chr 13:22 KJV " story NIV - blustering Job 8:2 KJV - strong NIV " brooches Ex 35:22 KJV " bracelets These examples should be enough to prove my point. More examples can be found at . http://www.av1611.org.... A problem I have with Modern translations in English who claim to update only the language is that they often lie. For example: The NKJV uses as it"s base the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and only refer to the Masoretic text used by the KJV1611 translators (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). Do you think it is honest of them to name their version the NEW King James Version when they do not use the same manuscripts as the base for translating? I don't. Considering the examples given above it becomes evident that even though the new versions use modern words it also do not guarantee practicality and comprehension and therefore should also be regarded then as inferior to be consistent with your argument. This leaves you basically with an option to use one of the best inferior Bibles available. The language used in the KJV1611 might be difficult to comprehend in America but British people do not have a problem to understand what is considered archaic in America (but let me deal with this under no. 3). By condemning the KJV1611 based on practically as inferior you also condemned the new versions along with it because where they improve in one place they fail in another place. 2. Impressive accuracy does not necessarily guarantee understanding. In the same way, using modern words for better understanding does not guarantee accuracy. In fact, for the sake of understanding, new doctrines are introduced that conflict with others. KJV1611 " Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. ESV - And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. KJV1611 " Luke 2:43 - And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. ESV - And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, The NT records people referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus because they did not understand who he was. The NT writers never did so and took care to make the distinction. Here the ESV (and other new versions) might be easier to read but was Joseph really father the father of Jesus? Or was it God? Or is Joseph God? Or was God not the father of Jesus, which basically makes Jesus a liar. Was Jesus adopted? The verse does not say that. It introduces a new doctrine. This is not a single passage but echoed in other passages where Joseph and Mary become the parents of Jesus. 3. Using modern language does not hinder us from knowing God. I agree, but using "archaic" English also do not hinder knowing God. What do you do when you get to a difficult word in a modern translation? You use a dictionary of course! If that is the case then you can also use a dictionary when it comes to KJV1611 "archaic" words. I have yet to meet someone who has read the KJV1611 version and studied it who does not know what the Thee"s and Thou"s mean. The Bible says: "study to show yourself approved". If people study a bit more rather than relying on others to make things easier for them then I would say that we will see more serious Christians around than the happy feel good mentality that goes around today. Can you name the 10 commandments in sequence right here right now while reading this without using google or some other means to assist you? If you cannot then I think you will see my point. 4. Accuracy " Mounce is the most accurate translation of the New Testament. Mounce"s accuracy might be relative to the Greek base he used but do not necessarily means it is the most accurate in terms of the text used by the ancient church. He uses the Nestle/Aland text which is different from the Textus Receptus and therefore not very accurate in representing what the early church believed (. https://www.christianbook.com...). Translation accuracy in this case does not ensure staying true to the Orthodox Christian religion. 5. Different words can be used to express the same idea. I also agree with you regarding this but new versions go a little too far in some respects. 1 Samuel 20:30 KJV1611 - "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman" New Living Translation - "You stupid son of a whore! " The Living Bible - "You son of a bitch! " Thanks to popular media like TV, Movies, Comics and music (not to mention domestic violence) the last version is known by young and old all over America. Definitely much easier to understand than the rebellious woman but we need to ask ourselves: Is this type of language fitting to be used in what we call a "Holy" Bible? Is this where we are heading for the sake of practicality and comprehension? I think using such expressions to covey and idea for the sake practicality will truly change the way we conduct our church services. The KJV1611 also use the word "dung". The translators of the KJV1611 obviously where pious men who sought the most decent rendering available. Do you think we should replace this word with the popular modern 4 letter word commonly known today and usually used in conjunction with "bull"? 6. For the purpose of study, it is best to read several translations and scholary sources. They still teach Shakespeare and poetry up to University level today. People who love and study these subjects are familiar with the expressions used and terminology although outdated. In the same way someone who loves the KJV1611 will do the same. The more you read, the more familiar you will get with it. Studying to understand nullifies any argument about the comprehension level of a certain translation. The Gospel is easy to understand but moving from milk to the meat, like Paul says, require studying. Practicality and "easier" words will never replace studying. Studying will lead to practicality and the comprehension of modern and arhaic words.