PS is it just me or are “preserved & inspired” kind of mutually exclusive in this discussion? I’d always thought those who taught preservation believed the originals were inspired and those that claim the KJV is inspired believed the translators were also inspired, right?

I’ve heard of (usually in jest) of texts that improved by translation, but that’s the first time I’ve heard someone claim that about the Bible!

What’s a Bible without “thees”, “thous”, “wilst”, “doeth”, and “hath”?

When I hear an online fundy sermon it sometimes sounds like the preacher has a lisp.

“I use it because it is the preserved, inspired Word of God for the English-speaking world. It is error-free and its words are of divine origin. God moved the minds and hands of the translators to ensure that His Word was accurately preserved. The printing errors and spelling standardization that have been fixed since 1611 do not negate its inspiration.”

This was the “other” response. However option three reads:

“I use it because it is the preserved, inspired Word of God for the English-speaking world. It is error-free and its words are of divine origin. God moved the minds and hands of the translators **just as He did the authors of the original manuscripts, in order** to ensure that His Word was accurately preserved. The printing errors and spelling standardization that have been fixed since 1611 do not negate its inspiration.”

So because he felt compelled to add that one phrase he skewed the poll results and fell into the “other” category. Plenty of other examples. So I guess what I’m saying is, there’s no way on earth this poll will be accurate, not with people wanting to change a comma location and throwing away their vote.