No, the problem is that you can't accept modern scholarship but instead cling to a 17th century translation.
Please remove me from your ping list.
I have no problem with honest scholarship. That's not what this is, it's sophistry.
You claim that you want a Bible that is easier to understand, yet most of the words and phrases that have been substituted have little or no meaning to most of the people for whom you claim to speak. When people see something that they don't understand, they don't try to find out what is meant, they just glaze over it. That is what is happening with the Newbibles; the message is getting lost. (and personally, I think that is what was intended)
it is more plausible to attribute the variant to the "helpful scribe" correcting a perceived inaccuracy, rather than an introduced error -- especially when one considers that in that era, attributing it to "Isaiah the prophet" meant little more than that was what scroll it would be found in. The minor prophets were not always cited, but often referred to by the major prophet their book was placed with...
Jude, you've just defeated your own argument.
Since 999 readers out of 1000 (conservative estimate) have no knowledge of the above quoted fact, how will changing the text back to that method increase understanding? If that is the reality of the issue, then the KJV reading imparts the more understandable thought.
"...then I bought a book by James White. Maybe that'll help me understand where this group is coming from."
No Wrigley, that will only familiarize you with James White's tendentious and pointless attack on those who exposed the fallacy of the Newbible agenda. He does nothing to refute the facts that are presented; instead he spins a verbose web of smoke and distraction in hope that the reader will just give up trying to sort through the matter and accept his position.
As for the 'out-dated language' issue, our language is being destroyed day by day. Just 100 years ago, no one would have considered formal english to be out-dated. I still don't because I use it every day in the preparation of legal boundary description exhibits. If I were to use the sort of diction that is commonplace on TV news programs, I would do a tremendous disservice to my clients, since those descriptions would become vague and ambiguous, and impossible to defend in a court of law. Are you really arguing for the dumbing down of our language?
Why not spend some time reading what the home-schoolers are saying. The KJV Bible is the best reader there is to put your kids at the top of the competitive heap. Some things are worth fighting for.
And Jude, the 'KJV only' line is a strawman. Nobody that I know of is making that argument.