Can a translation be Inspired and Infallible?

[Yeshua1]

"The King James 2000 will provide a version which has been, to some extent, verbally composed already. Many pastors and other Bible readers have already exchanged "show" for "shew," "you" for "ye," and "know" for "wot" in their private and public readings. Some of these "corrections" have already appeared in the various KJV printings. The King James 2000 will make these common exchanges "official.""

The KJ2000 replaces the correct albeit archaic pronoun ye with you. Pronouns are changed in almost every update to the KJB, and those changes eliminate the distinction between singular and plural that you have in the KJB.

Also here's a serious problem with the MKJV

KJB
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

MKJV
He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

Do you view the TR as being perfect greek text, exact copy of originals, or that it just not as "corrupt" as CT/MT were by your reasoning?

 

[Yeshua1]

There have been English translations of the same Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts on which the KJV is based that are as faithful overall to those same texts as the KJV.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers, the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the Literal Translation by Jay Green, and the KJ2000 by Robert Couric are some examples.

Geneva bible should be good for even KJVO, but the NKJV seen by them as bad as nasb/Niv!

 

[Logos1560]

inconsistent KJV-only reasoning

Also here's a serious problem with the MKJV

KJB
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

MKJV
He answered and said, Behold! I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no harm among them. And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

Why is there supposedly a problem with the MKJV at Daniel 3:25 unless there is also a problem with the KJV at Daniel 4:8?

Nebuchadnezzar [Dan. 4:4] speaks to Daniel and in referring to Daniel says "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" (Dan. 4:8). If Nebuchadnezzar is supposed to know to refer to the God of the Jews as "God" singular in Daniel 3:25, why does he not also refer to Him as "God" singular in Daniel 4:8 and thus say "in whom is the spirit of the holy God"?

Are you also suggesting that there is a problem with the KJV at 1 Samuel 4:8 where it has the Philistines referring to the true God of Israel as "Gods" [plural]?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is there supposedly a problem with the MKJV at Daniel 3:25 unless there is also a problem with the KJV at Daniel 4:8?

Nebuchadnezzar [Dan. 4:4] speaks to Daniel and in referring to Daniel says "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" (Dan. 4:8). If Nebuchadnezzar is supposed to know to refer to the God of the Jews as "God" singular in Daniel 3:25, why does he not also refer to Him as "God" singular in Daniel 4:8 and thus say "in whom is the spirit of the holy God"?

Are you also suggesting that there is a problem with the KJV at 1 Samuel 4:8 where it has the Philistines referring to the true God of Israel as "Gods" [plural]?

Wouldn't they know and call God as just one of the gods, as being heathen, they would have a plurality of gods to call upon?