Well, can you prove an error. Can you prove that the KJ translated something that cannot be translated that way?
I don't mind the KJV -- but it is not superior to any other good translation (NAS, NKJV, and to a lesser extant, NIV), and it is certainly not superior to a study of the autographs, which we can say we have with a reasonable degree of certaintly.
One, we do not have the autographs. Two, the NAS and NIV come from a corrupt text. The NKJ used the right text, but still snuck in some corrupt non-King James readings.
The Greek text underlying the KJV was Erasamus's NT. A brilliant work of scholarship in its own right, to be sure, but limited because of the challanges Erasamus faced in getting manuscripts. For instance, he had to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate certain portions (shooting from the hip, not quite sure which portions). He did a respectable job, but archaelogy marches on -- and more MSS'es were found. They generally vindicated Erasamus, but in other areas revealed a better rendering.
Actually, the Greek text underlying the KJB was Beza's 5 edition. They had many years since Eramus to collect additional evidence for the correct readings.
They also knew the other readings since they had the Catholic Douey-Rheims version in front of them, which used the Vaticanus manuscript.
They KJB translators were also experts in their fields of translation, one even having every Greek work extant in his own home!
God did not speak in the noble prose of 1611 (or 1742) King James English, but rather the earthy, easily understood common Koine greek. If God were to inspire the Sciptures in the intellectual Attic Greek, then we might have a leg to stand on for the KJV-only position. But he used the common language-- and why should we do any differently?
The King James 'language' is 'common' without being 'gutteral'. We are talking about the words of God and they should have some dignity.
When the text demands it the KJ is as blunt as necessary.
This new-age conspiracy crap of Riplinger et al. is certainly not correct. It is based on ignorance, misplaced fears, shoddy scholarship, and blatant mischaracterizations and slander. Unfortunately, Evangelical Christianity has overreacted to the excesses of higher Criticism and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
Now, you are just repeating what you heard. What Riplinger points out about the words being attacked is true as is the attempts against the Canon itself.
Note attempts to put in the Apocrypha books. An excellent book (not from a King James defender) is called Spirit Wars (I have forgotten the authors name).
Read it and see if view that there is an attack by the NewAgers is being overblown!
I myself use both the KJV and the NASB. Generally, I like the NASB translation because it is easier for exposition to others -- I'm not translating what the archaic English means. But I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for every translation of the KJV. There are some that are just unfortunate. But the same may easily be said of the KJV.
One, there are relativity few words that are actually 'Archaic' in the King James.
Two, the NAS is constantly having to change because its Greek and Hebrew Text are changed. Do you know where most of the those changes end up? Back to the King James readings (example Lk.24:51-52, 'carried up into heaven and they worshipped him' were recently put in)
As for using other 'versions' you are free to do so, it is after all a free country.
We just do not regard them as Bibles! And we will continue to say so.
#64,#84,#86,#87,#90,#91
m
Au contriare. I know that of which I speak becuase I read her book. I was once KJV-only, like you.