Landmark Baptist

I picked this up from another site and since I'm not the greatest debater on the subject, I thought I'd post it here for some discussion.
I am strongly KJV and use nothing else for public Bible study & preaching. I have read many writings concerning the translations but have "lost" most of them in moving experiences.
The following article was in response to a "conservative " organization re-defining translations to rid the Bible of modern idealogies in new translations.
I may post the original if needed.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

[quote]
Sounds like sour-grapes from the KJVO crowd. KJV is a great translation. KJVO is a travesty, a dumbing down of Christian scholarship. Translation is an absolute necessity, since most of us are not fluent in koine Greek or ancient Hebrew.

Important point! Please do not ignore this! Out of the thousands of Greek manuscripts available today, no two are in complete agreement! That should rattle your brain and get you to thinking. Also, even the KJV Anglican scholars used a certain degree of textual criticism to produce the KJV! Yikes.

Another important point: The Greek manuscripts available to the KJV translators and to us today are copies of copies of copies of copies. Our oldest stuff comes from the 2nd century! So here's the deal. Textual criticism is the task of reproducing the original text through scholarly effort of thousands of dedicated Christian scholar, excluding all the Jesus Seminar crowd! Let me illustrate:

Suppose a third-grade teacher gave her 30 students a 5-page legal document and asked them to copy that document with pencil and paper. Obviously each student would make mistakes in copying that legal document. Some would be sloppy attempts. Others would diligently endeavor to do so, but mistakes would be make. However, another teacher could take the 30 student produced copies and produce a very close copy of the original. This is a simplified illustration, but it should get you to thinking.

Those who copied manuscripts worked under less than ideal settings. Candle light was dim. Days were long. Fatigue did its work. Consequently we have no two copies of old Greek manuscripts that totally agree in every word. Every translator throughout history worth his/her salt had to compare manuscripts and make decisions about certain passages and words. Some were swayed by sectarian bias. Many had a limited number of manuscripts to compare.

The KJVO crowd declares that the KJV is the only trustworthy translation of the Bible in the English language. Some even ascribe that those Anglican translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit to make that translation.

One question that KJVOers cannot answer satisfactory is this: What translation of the Bible was the complete Word of God prior to 1611, when the KJV was completed? Was there no complete Word of God? Let's say in the 9th century AD. What version was the inerrant Word of God? Some say the Latin Vulgate? Then why doesn't the Latin Vulgate agree completely with the KJV? And, why did the Johannine Comma appear as late as the 8th century AD in the Latin Vulgate?

Hmmm??? & Huh?

very thought provoking and sound reasoning.