In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself.
This is why I argue against modern translations. When the receptor language loses categories that the biblical languages require, the translation inevitably loses precision. Pre‑modern English carried those categories natively. Modern English does not."
Your very own assertions suggested that you are opposed to all modern English Bible translations including those based on the same preserved underlying texts as the KJV, which shows or reveals that your position on English Bible translations can be soundly and accurately regarded as being KJV-only. It is your own statements that display KJV-only reasoning.
The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God cannot be translated into Modern English in the same way or in the same sense that it was translated into Early Modern English.
Modern English does not have a reduced vocabulary. Early Modern English did not have all the categories of language found in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Alan Macgregor asserted: “Hebrew makes a gender distinction for second and third person pronouns (singular and plural) as it does also with singular demonstrative pronouns. The Greek has feminine third person plural pronouns, and feminine reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. However, the English language is incapable of effectively translating these” (400 Years On, p. 254). William Mounce noted: “In English all imperatives are second person; in Greek there are second and third person imperatives” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 194).
In some ways, Early Modern English was less precise and less standardized than 1900's Modern English.
