The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

Thank you for that round. Now comes my responseAn Affirmative Case?My opponent has responded with a thorough rebuttal to my part, but he has not presented an affirmative argument. The most we have is that the KJV1611 agrees more with the early church, and that it's accurate according to its manuscripts. We're not, however, given a reason why this makes it the best. We just know that my opponent believes this is significant. I know that my opponent asked me to present a constructive argument for my side, but even if he were to completely destroy my side, we still wouldn't know why we should agree with him. In order for pro to win, we must see the reasons that the resolution statement should be believed.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. If he simply proves me wrong, that does not guarantee that he is right, which means we can't vote for him because he may still be wrong. Let's be honest, I do not know every nuance or particular detail of every modern translation of the Bible (there's a lot). I could be missing arguments that someone else may know just out of a lack of knowledge. Anyway, enough on that. Let's get into my response to my opponent's response.Archaic Language:I find it funny that my opponent starts out with a verse that includes the word "begotten" then chooses the word "believeth" to address. It's easy to figure out what "believeth" means, but what does "begotten" mean? Well, we say "begat" in the KJV for denoting that someone fathered someone, but is that what it means? We actually run into problems with this, because if Jesus was technically "begotten" then Jesus is entirely a created being, but only his body was created.In the Greek the word begotten actually means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind," [1] which is something you wouldn't know without the help of other sources like Mounce. So while it translates directly from the manuscript as a word for word, it doesn't translate well for the meaning. This is why as a kid we often learn it as "one and only" because that doesn't imply that Jesus was created, only that he is completely unique as the Son of God.Another example is 2 Timothy 2:15 to show that KJV1611 isn't necessarily the best version. In KJV1611 it reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."Personally, my eyes glaze right over that in a causal read, and I take no meaning from it. In another translation, the Modern English Version (MEV), "Study to show yourself approved by God, a workman who need not be ashamed, dividing the word of truth."It's not much different, but the modern English makes it so much more pleasing to the eye. It translates into the modern dialect so that we as modern readers can understand better. The other verse is just a particularly weird verse to translate in your mind as you're reading, and that is another problem.Translating as You Read:It's exhausting to translate as you read. I definitely don't read the KJV as long as I read other modern versions, because I expend too much energy understanding it in modern English. Your mind still speaks modern English, so when you're reading a sort of foreign looking English, your mind does extra work to put it into the modern English that it doesn't have to do with a Bible that is translated into modern English.So far my opponent has only shown a few flaws with a couple versions, but overall, the KJV1611 is much more exhausting to read. Even still, my opponent specifically attacked the NIV, a translation that was written in 1978 [2]. In that time, they may have used those long words a lot more than we did. I don't know, that was my parent's time. And it's too late for me to call them to see if they recognize those words.Modern Inaccuracy:The meaning of the verses isn't actually changed in the translation, but the challenge is brought up about whether or not we should refer to Joseph as Jesus' father. We refer to Mary as Jesus' mother because she gave birth to him, but was her DNA a part of it too? Was she technically the mother from a biological standpoint?It doesn't really matter honestly. How many of us call God "Father"? It's quite common, especially since Jesus referred to him as "our father" despite Jesus being his begotten son. But we have fathers aside from God. Or someone who fathered us at least. So is one of them not a father? No that's ridiculous. So we have two fathers then. The father who is charged as the head of our household and the father who created and guides the universe. The father of all things.So why couldn't Jesus refer to Joseph as his father? He did treat Joseph as if he was his father whether he referred to him as his "dad" or not. But Jesus was part of the household of Joseph who was a descendant of David, and part of the prophecy concerning Jesus is that he was a descendant of David. So honestly, it seems more correct to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father, because that means that Jesus is the descendant of David, which fulfills one of the prophecies concerning him.Early Church:What early church are we talking about? Are we talking about the church in the book of Acts or the church at Corinth or the church in Rome under secular rule or the early Roman Catholic church or the Anglican church (the church that wrote the KJV1611)? And what are the specific differences in belief that makes Mounce less accurate than KJV1611.Wording:We don't consider The Living Translation a translation of the Bible. It's a paraphrase, like the Message version. I wouldn't argue either of them are better than the KJV1611 under any circumstances, because no matter how easy to read they are, they don't even usually capture the full meaning of the Bible [3]. Aside from that, I could honestly say that we can get closer to the New Living Translation in the modern culture without being unpious. It does get across the meaning of what the person was saying. Even then the MEV says "You son of a perverse rebellious woman." Almost word-for-word with KJV1611 except that it updates the English a smidge, making it less exhausting to read in the long-run.Loving the KJV1611:These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says they love the KJV1611. Especially someone who's a new Christian or nonbeliever. And why would we favor a Bible that doesn't immediately reach out to people who don't know God? It seems that at least the MEV, which seems to just be an almost word-for-word modern update of the KJV1611, is superior to KJV1611 for the purpose of someone reading it without having to study the language.Sources:[1] https://www.str.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://www.gotquestions.org...