It seems to me that ofttimes a misunderstood position is falsely labelled as "dishonesty". It isn't my intent to pick on EdSutton here. He has merely given me an opportunity to share my point. This has been repeated many times on this board. While it makes great debate it is actually based on a mistaken premise. It confuses versions with revisions thereby creating a false dilemma. To illustrate my point, here is an example from a "statement of faith" by a KJVO Baptist church: "We believe the King James Bible AV 1611 is the word of God and we accept it as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice." Somehow that is taken (by some) to mean that the 1769 revision of the KJV would (or should) not be accepted. That, however, is due to the confusion between versions, revisions and editions. The version in vew here is the new translation which occured in 1611. The 1769 edition is a revision of the 1611 version. The text of the commonly used editions are more fully described as "The 1769 revision of the 1611 King James Version". The clear intent of the phrase "1611 King James Version" is to distinguish that particular translation (not edition!) from later translations such as the "New King James Version" which is an entirely diffferent translation (version). The word "version" is inclusive of later revisions of that same version. So there is no contradiction at all to say that I use the 1611 King James Version and then read from the my 1769-revision-based edition. The use of the perjorative "dishonest" above is both uncalled for and wrong. It is based on a faulty understanding of the facts. A.F.