> > I wish the verses on homosexuality had been
> > quoted from the KJV
>
> Um, why?
>
> -eric "not the most accurate translation there was, and the language is over 400 years out of date to boot" sleator

Actually it IS the most accurate English language translation, despite what amazing hoops people jump through (often people paid to make or sell new translations) to the contrary. Something like high-90s percent of the manuscripts in the original Bible languages are all in accord, and these manuscripts were the ones used to translate the King James Version. ALL newer English Bibles use some of the remaining manuscripts for the translation. The reasoning is that because some of these relatively small number of manuscripts are older than the oldest manuscript from which the King James was derived, these manuscripts are therefore more accurate. Not so. Older or not, the earliest manuscript of any sort we have is still a hundred years or so newer than the very original manuscripts. And, while no older manuscripts are known to survive today, other older writings, which QUOTE the Bible in the original languages, do, and they quote the texts that the King James was derived from.

That's the gist of one of many arguments for the King James, and I don't have the time (or the reference material, as I'm at work right now) to go into it further, but if you like, we can talk about this in more depth later.

However, as one Christian speaking to another, where we can already assume we believe God's Word is 100% truth and need not first establish that premise, there are a whole suite of other arguments that can be used by consulting the Bible -- any translation, even -- itself: Isaiah 40:8 says the word of God will stand forever; I Peter 1:23-25 says it will endure forever; Psalm 12:6-7 says it will be preserved forever; in Matthew 24:35, it says his words will not pass away. The original languages in which the Bible was written are dead. We can therefore conclude, since you and I accept the premise that God's Word will not pass away, that God's Word must therefore somehow exist outside of the human languages in which it were written. This is also supported, perhaps more convincingly, by John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word"), for "the beginning" surely existed *before* Latin, Greek, etc.

So if God's Word is not specifically tied to the human languages in which it were originally written for mankind, and God's Word endures forever, and those original languages are currently dead, it is not particularly consistent to cut one's faith in God's Word short by assuming it is only imperfectly accessible today. The King James translation, I believe, is as divinely inspired and guided as the original authorship. If this same divine inspiration applied to newer translations, too, then how does one reconcile the long absence of the single-digit-percent of manuscripts from which newer English translations were made?

Sure, the KJV uses 400 year old English. Good! 400 years ago, English was at the height of its development as a language. 400 year old English is far more precise and unambiguous than modern English. When you say "you" today, for example, there can be ambiguity about whether you're addressing a single person or a crowd of people. When the KJV says "thou," "thee," "you," or "ye," you can know exactly what's going on. This is actually an issue, as I recall, in a few situations, the most prevalent in my mind is when Nicodemus comes to Jesus in the night, and they talk about the Pharisees, of which he is one. As I recall, Jesus says "ye" at some point, indicating that he is addressing all the Pharisees by way of Nicodemus, and not just Nicodemus himself.

Note that the above only touches the tip of the iceberg, and, frankly, I wish I were as equipped as I should be, lacking my references, to take the subject on in more depth. If there is interest, I will see what I can dig up in the way of more concrete arguments sometime when I'm at home.