[George W. Bush]

One is free to use any tool to attempt to understand the King James, but the King James is the final authority.

In practice, I treat it that way, certainly when comparing its readings to some corrupt garbage like the NIV prepared by ungodly persons. But we cannot instill it with the authority of the original autographs. That would be dishonest. It is entirely possible for a very gifted, scholarly, godly, and orthodox group of translators to produce a version based on the majority text family in more modern vernacular that contains the accuracy of the KJV as well as its internal devices to aid memorization and its ability to evoke imagery as a great literary work. We have often discussed these features of the KJV. I would not pretend that we could produce a better KJV because the KJV is a product of its own era. But we could produce something very comparable that would speak in more modern terms. After all, you know that we don't actually use the KJV 1611 even if some KJV advocates think we do. We use a nineteenth-century revision of the KJV. It is something like the fifth revision as I recall. The original is more like:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say vnto you, Till heauen and earth passe, one iote or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoeuer therfore shall breake one of these least commaundements, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen: but whosoeuer shall doe, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdome of heauen.
Mat 5:20 For I say vnto you, That except your righteousnesse shall exceede the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, yee shall in no case enter into the kingdome of heauen.
Mat 5:21 Yee haue heard, that it was saide by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill: and, Whosoeuer shall kill, shalbe in danger of the iudgement.
Mat 5:22 But I say vnto you, that whosoeuer is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Iudgement: and whosoeuer shall say to his brother, Racha, shal be in danger of the counsell: but whosoeuer shall say, Thou foole, shalbe in danger of hell fire.

To suggest that the KJV is somehow insuperable would invalidate the nineteenth-century revision of it that we use since the KJV translators were long dead when our revised KJV was edited. And if we claimed that the 1611 was insuperable, we would have invested it with an authority equalling or exceeding the original monographs. Naturally, these positions are impossible to hold honestly. No translation is perfect as the KJV translators made perfectly clear in the Translator's Notes. But that is certainly not to say that all translations are equal.

Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error?

I am pretty certain I did not say it was in error. I'm surprised you would think that. I believe the KJV is the version that is less susceptible to doctrinal error than any other version in popular use by English-speaking peoples. And the role of scripture is to tell us an accurate history and to accurately convey the doctrine embedded in that scripture. No English bible has equalled it, IMO.

[fortheDeclaration]

To suggest that the KJV is somehow insuperable would invalidate the nineteenth-century revision of it that we use since the KJV translators were long dead when our revised KJV was edited. And if we claimed that the 1611 was insuperable, we would have invested it with an authority equalling or exceeding the original monographs. Naturally, these positions are impossible to hold honestly. No translation is perfect as the KJV translators made perfectly clear in the Translator's Notes. But that is certainly not to say that all translations are equal.

The 'revisions' that were done, were not revisions of the text, but upgrading of the language and correction of printing errors.

Now, if you are going to claim imperfection of the King James, you should at least point out where it is in error.

The 'originals' are gone so they have no more authority over anything!

What we have for authority is the translation that came from those Originals.

Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error? I am pretty certain I did not say it was in error. I'm surprised you would think that. I believe the KJV is the version that is less susceptible to doctrinal error than any other version in popular use by English-speaking peoples. And the role of scripture is to tell us an accurate history and to accurately convey the doctrine embedded in that scripture. No English bible has equalled it, IMO.

Well, if there are no errors, then it is a perfect translation.

The translators did not know they would produce the final English translation, but they did.

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the original 1611 with changes made in spelling and grammer but not the text itself.

You can buy an old Tyndale and one with modern spelling and they are both the same.