Steven,

Now let me comment on your comments. I don't see how the KJV can be held as the Word of God in the equivalent sense of the canon, but it can only be considered a translation. There is no biblical record that the prophets made translations of what they wrote and put those in the Ark of the Covenant to serve as Scripture. I believe they put in what they first wrote in Hebrew. In like manner, there is no indication that the writings of the apostles used substitute translation as canon.

You seem to be attributing the Catholic postion on including the Apocrapha as my own. That is not accurate. I was noting that to make the KJV the equivalent of canon, it would seem an arugument similar to what the Catholics use on the Apocripha has to be employed. I asked Will to expand on that.

Basically you seem to be saying that I am confusing, that I don't know how the canon is established, that I don't know what the Catholic position is on the Apocrapha. Well, I did start off assuming the Protestant position was known. Sorry for the confusion that may have created.

I believe the KJV has an anointing as no other English translation does. It is extremely powerful and not necerssarily easy to understand. But an anointing is not infallible inspiration. I think arguing that the KJV is the equivalent of canon distracts from people understanding the truth about its powerful anointing and promotes attacking this translation.

Just my opinion.

M Paul