In Reply to: Re: About the KJV posted by Donny on March 19, 2003 at 10:38:38:
It appears that a number of individuals are claiming that the KJV is more accurate than the manuscripts they are based on making the issue appear to be some absurd anglo-centric issue. That extreme view is then pointed to in order to label KJV onlyism as cultish. In the case above it certainly would be. That straw man is then attacked in order to divert away from the real truth that Satan produced corrupted copies of the bible many centuries ago and has had much success in reviving them under the guise of producing, 'new and improved translations'. There are accurate translations in many languages that are also in competition with, 'new corrupted bibles' so it is really not an issue that revolves around the English language per se. Some, I'm sure do hold to extreme views probably believing that God appointed the English as guardians and, 'saviors of the world' (Shades of British-Israelism!) and handed the KJV directly to them from heaven as a, 'standard' to be displayed at the front of their 'ever so proud' and victorius army. Yeack!
Some men in focusing on relatively minor problems with the KJV entirely overlook the very serious and deliberate corruption found in the newer translations. Satan has managed to create a blind spot among some otherwise very discerning Christians and quite often they are placed at the head of the pack attacking those exposing Satan's efforts to promote adulterated bibles. It appears that the guilty (Rome and the liberal bible publishers.) have spent lots of money to protect their investments. Take a look at how many heavy guns have been aimed at Gail Riplinger (author of 'New Age Bible Versions') who try desperately to discredit her research while ingoring for the most part the very serious corruption of the churches through, "gnostic new age translations".
(check out this short article on the link)
ps (I am not that familiar with the French Darby translation , but if that is J.N. Darby's translation I'm sure it is full of errors, if only in the footnotes.)