I was asked by Chris Temple to post my views on the KJV. Glad you asked!! I joined this fray as a Common Joe. I'm the guy who is trying to merely apply the Biblical admonitions to his life. So these views are born out of the day-to-day struggle with sin. 1. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 the KJV says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." The NIV says, "It is good for a man not to marry." Now which is it? When I check my Greek and Hebrew dictionaries I find that indeed, the KJV is the accurate reading, but more than that, the NIV rendering leaves the door wide open for the purely Western debauchery of dating. I know of one youth minister who counseled his charges that it was okay to kiss, because Paul was simply speaking of marriage here. In other words, it is good for a man to touch a woman. Is this important? As one who dated and now is the father of three girls, this is important. Fortunately, parental authority trumps pastoral and "youth ministerial" authority where the training of children is concerned. Not only in this passage, but in several others I will not post here in the interest of brevity, I find the NIV translators inordinately affected, if not brazenly promoting Western ideology in their "translation." 2. Whether you're reading the CEV or the KJV, one has to know how to read. I find the charges of archaism moot and a cop-out as my nine-year-old can read the KJV like she was reading a Nancy Drew mystery. What happens when she runs into a word she doesn't know? We look it up in the dictionary! What a novel idea! Isn't that what college students do when reading any other text? Why do we think it unreasonable for those who read the Bible? And so what if the word is archaic? In many cases you will find that the archaic words are richer and better conveyors of the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew than our modern English. It is good to have a few archaic words in your repertoire, not to dazzle people, but to develope your mind. (There was a reason Latin used to be taught in American schools.) I don't deny that a need exists for a simpler translation, but that need is the direct result of poor education students are receiving in American public schools. Instead of dumbing down the English Bibles and extolling the new ones as "better" we need to be teaching folks how to read. And so what if some folks have to work at it a little? What kind of a whiney-butt objection is that? Since when has work been a bad thing? Who has ever said that hard work did not benefit them? You've heard the old saying, "Easy come, easy go," and that applies when reading the Bible as well. I will say here, that I have given the CEV to folks, knowing that babes are easily discouraged if the challenge is too much for them. Babes need sincere milk, but what do you think of the 30-year-old man still at his mother's breasts? There's more, but this is becoming an interminable post!