[RaceBannon]

The link I posted above is not a review, but a side by side display of the verses that the NIV totally leaves out, and the changes in wording and doctrine it creates with the word changes. The NIV is a corrupt translation. I realize it is a more modern English, but the KJV is still readable for those who have good reading skills.

[Mercat]

"I realize it is a more modern English, but the KJV is still readable for those who have good reading skills."

Good for you. Read away. I've read Beowolf in old English and The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. I've read most of the works of Shakespeare. I know from good reading skills. hehe... I also know from good spoken English. I'm not looking for a literary experience. I just want to get up and read the Bible every morning. You read what you want, I'll read what I want. There are some mornings I might want to read some Children's Bible. This year I may skip some of the really tedious parts. But, its better than not reading it at all and that's my point.

[RobRoy]

Show me ten people who think the KJV is the only accurate version of the bible, and I'll show you at least nine mormons. They have to preserve the KJV as the most accurate version because it keeps the 18th century BOM, which was written in 16th century english (like the KJV) from appearing silly. It keeps it's credibility better.

BTW, I would love to see a "modern english paraphrased" version of the BOM. That would be an interesting read, for interesting reasons.

[Jennifer in Florida]

The NIV is a corrupt translation. I realize it is a more modern English, but the KJV is still readable for those who have good reading skills.

Aye, there's the rub.. not everyone has good reading skills. People who have difficulty reading the KJV might just give up on reading the Bible if there wasn't a simpler version for them.