[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Beth

I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings?

That is unclear, he may be implying a bit more, such as alternative grammar, updating some words. One problem is that he is vague, and when you open a door, it can be a trap-door.

Originally Posted by Beth

and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly.

That is the sense I got, that some alternative translations may be acceptable, not wrong. However why raise the issue at all ? If you fully accept the King James Bible the alternative translation will at best be "almost ok" and "not wrong". Why open the door to translating differently on an overall basis ? If you want to say that on a particular verse an alternative in a version is understandable and reasonable, do it when that verse comes up. And even those words can be misunderstood, what you are really saying is that the alternative is not technically, scholastically 'wrong', 'error'.

Originally Posted by Beth

I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.

This is true.

btw, his usage of "accurate and lovely" discomfits me. Accurate yes, but more .. precise, majestic and much more, including pure and perfect. Lovely without much more sounds a bit elitist and quaint, almost condescending as it would be used by an opponent, and even 'accurate' is only moderately strong.

Just telling you how I see it. I don't comment on these issues much, I really like David Cloud and appreciate his labors, so this should be in that context.

Shalom,
Steven