Michael, You've changed what I said!!! But that always happens. One thing that the advocates of the modern translations do is – that if someone upholds the KJV as the best translation in English, they change this position to KJV only. I think they do that to get away from having to defend the quality of the modern versions. Also, it is not difficult at all to make a person look ridiculous, who upholds the KJV as the equivalent of the inspired word of God, and then, setting out the defense of the modern versions is not necessary. It is all gimmicks, gimmicks, gimmicks. In your case, I hope the misrepresentation of my position was merely a misreading of my posts. I do not consider your wine biblical passages applicable to what I have been discussing. The truth is, God set out one text, not many texts, and we should try to establish what the text is to the best of our ability, because it represents the truth on what is the Word of God. We should make every effort to set aside bias, or substitute standards for the way to read God's word, and we should make every effort to look at the evidence thoroughly and objectively. I do not consider your quoted prophecy text as being applicable. I Thessalonians 5:21 notes we should test prophecy. We do that by comparing these personal prophecies to Scripture. We do not establish Scripture by comparing it to our personal prophecies. I Corinthians 14:3 notes that the purpose of NT prophecy is for edification, exhortation, and comfort, and its purpose is not to establish what is the text of the Bible. The KJV is written in Tudor English (yes, I know it was published in 1611, but due to the influence of Tyndale, it was the language of the 1540s). It very interesting the character of Tudor English, I think, because it is the closest reflection in English of the character of the Hebrew language. Hebrew employs fast, open syllables and uses simple and basic words. Tudor English in like manner is fast and more closely resembles open syllables (although the English language itself prefers closed syllables), and the expression of that time relied on simple, basic words for all communication. So Tudor English is archaic; yet, the Bible is even more archaic in language and expression. Thus, what style of English can better represent it and convey the spiritual essence of its expression? People say the KJV is difficult. I agree. The only other Bible I find more difficult in expression is the original text. The truth is, reading the text in the original language is often difficult, because the language is so archaic. Even using the original text, I often have to struggle for many days to arrive at what I believe is being said. However, the KJV translators put an emphasis on language equivalents, not meaning equivalents – thus, they preserved the difficult texts in a similar form. But what is more honest – to leave difficult passages for what they are, or to change the language to reflect a simplified meaning as determined by experts according to their personal assumptions, which is most often left disguised, and which just ignores the question of how good they were at guessing? However, some of the KJV language actually cannot be understood due to the words having changed meaning due to age. The Sword Bible edition of the KJV notes all those changes – so it is a simple matter to deal with. The problem with making a new translation is, that people simply do not understand what is involved in bringing about an anointing on the work. Modern biblical scholars are not necessarily spiritual men. The KJV version was actually a work over a long period of time by many people, not just the KJV translators. The Holy Spirit became involved in that process. In the 1880s, the church in England tried to continue that process, by calling for a committee to review the KJV and make the minimal changes necessary to bring the language up to date. However, the committee was too elite for the objective. Instead, they created a new Greek text and made changes according to the dictates of their brilliant minds.