The seminary student next to me has a copy of the Authorized Version of the Bible, i.e. the King James version. I wonder if he uses it exclusively. He would be prohibited from doing so by his studies, if he's studying theology, that is. I can't imagine any professor here thinking of the AV, as a translation, as anything but a nice piece of literature. Certainly it's no good for exegesis, having been translated from later documents, among other problems. Virge argues in its favor, however, because King James English is more specific than our current kind. It distinguishes between the singular "you," i.e. "thou," and the plural "you," i.e. "ye." There are other such niceties that I'm just not interested in talking about now.

Joshua is always making fun of those he calls the "King James Only People." These are people who believe that God took special care to ensure that the translators of the authorized version did their job perfectly, so that version and no other is the inerrant word of God. The problem they're sideswiping is the necessary "Original Manuscripts" clause in all doctrines of inerrancy. Inerrantists all make the consolation that the current manuscripts have small errors, but state that these are necessarily copy errors which would not have been found in the original manuscripts, penned by Moses, David, and a handful of other individuals. This is hogwash, and the KVJ-only people know it. They just picked a nice famous translation and decided to stick with it. The real problem is with the doctrine of inerrancy itself, however. It's a heavy-handed way of defending the authority of scripture, one which did nothing at all for me when I struggled with questions about why God seemed so keen on eternal torture or why he never really seemed to exist in the sense that everything else does.