All concerned should take a moment to consider where this began. Not to suggests that texts were not debated prior or that corruptions did not occur prior, but this debate between the kjv and modern versions essentially began with the introduction of the RV as a better translation which took into account "better" manuscripts. Upon examination though, particularly by Burgon the version introduced a new way of handling the sacred words of scripture which was and should have been alarming. Were the concerns of Burgon invalid? Was he unreasonable in his assessment of Wescott and Hort's work? Like most theological debates two sides seem to take to distancing themselves so thoroughly from the other position that truth sometimes suffers. I find it sad though that apparently good men here refuse to acknowledge the legitimate problems that were introduced with the methodologies of Westcott and Hort and the 19th Century philisophical systems which took the world by storm and to which we have become slaves. I don't believe anyone here would profess those philosophical systems as their god but we should all take care that we are not led away by the wisdom of men. Is conjectural emendation and the subjective relativity of an eminent scholar a good method for determining a variant reading? Are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrinus really the best and most reliable texts? Should the methodology for textual analysis deny the very existence of God and treat the texts as one would treat any other historical text? When a new version comes along which claims a better reading, use of more reliable mss, a more accurate translation, should we trust this because a great Greek scholar determined it was better, more reliable, more accurate? What makes a particular reading “better” Is there ANY place for faith and a concept of a preserved transmitted word or is faith in this matter just foolishness? Or, are these concerns just silly, stupid and naive? I suppose the problem with much “kjvoism” is a move to suggest that in English, translation was locked in at 1611 and no further work in English should ever be done. I don’t subscribe to that position. I believe it is imperative that good men of faith handle the texts and mss that are out there and be familiar with Greek and be Hebrew scholars and engage in such endeavours as translation. But I refuse to accept that God has not been providentially involved in the transmission of his Word through the ages. I refuse to accept that we can treat the sacred words of God in our handling just as any other ancient text and trust in the scientific method to sort it out. We need to trust in God instead. He GAVE us his Word and we do disservice to treat it so carelessly. I have only heard men here who hate kjvoism spend every effort to bring down the kjv in an attempt to make it equal with modern translations. If you cannot elevate the bible you use and must seek to bring down another to make yours equal, perhaps you’ve got it wrong. I have visited a church where the pastor began a series on bible translations. He started by saying all (most?) modern translations were valid and profitable including the kjv. Then for the next five weeks I heard him consistently and regularly disparage the kjv to support his position. I love the kjv and I have no desire to change which version I use. English of the 17th Century was in many respects the best it ever was or has been. I cannot imagine a modern language version rivalling it if only from the point of view of the state of English then compared to now. But I think it would be a tragedy if we stopped handling the mss of the Word of God and stopped learning the Greek and Hebrew in which it was written. It would be a tragedy if the kjv became like a medieval Latin Vulgate which very few understood. Unfortunately though, we have an utter confusion on our hands with regards to an explosion of translations. There is so much doubt cast upon the scriptures today by men who claim to believe it that it is utterly shameful. I am frustrated by the attitude that I am reading of a smug and snobbish intelligencia who have it right against a bunch of country bumpkins who hold a position that is just misinformed in its simpleton naiveté by suggesting that God could or would or did actually give men of the 21st Century a bible that they could actually believe with confidence actually IS the Word of God upon which they can lay their hope of eternity without reservation. I admit this may be unscholarly but I’ll take that over believing the industry of doubt which thrives on the uncertainty of the layman and the priestly power over him to say thus saith the Lord because WE have determined it. Take out the money motive, take out the scholarly prestige motive and take out more sinister motives and how many versions do we have left? How many of you claim that all versions are equally good when you mean all versions are equally bad? Is this the position we should take? That all versions are so rife with errors that it doesn’t really matter which one you choose, they’re all bad. At least with a modern version you can read and doubt those mistakes in language you can understand? Is that what I should advocate to be purged of my heresy? If we go into a translation endeavour with the intention of correcting all the errors in what came before and with an attitude that God certainly didn’t preserve his word in what came before then we are starting in the wrong place. If we begin a translation endeavour with a need to satisfy the swelled minds of men or our own with our unique ability to actually improve upon the bible we are starting in the wrong place. If we go into a translation endeavour without fear and trembling of carelessly handling the Word of God we are starting in the wrong place. Too many modern translation endeavours are starting in the wrong place. In what is the kjv so outstandingly wanting to warrant the constant attacks against it and an explosion of translations which boggles the mind. Alternative bibles are a nice philosophy for our post-modern new age all truths are true, just pick one society but why does it make me a heretic to believe that I have a bible that I can rely on, believe is an accurate preservation of what God GAVE to us and what he intended for us to have? I don’t want to have to inject a panoply of doubts into every reading that I cast my eyes upon because somebody said “it doesn’t REALLY say THAT” or “better mss read thisaway” ?