Here is a review left by a customer on a product. Would you say he was satisfied or dissatisfied?
Title: Thanx for the explanations of the archaisms but ...
Review: ... why not use a modern version that uses modern terms in the *main text*? It would save a lot of *unnecessary* work, which could be better spent on learning the original Hebrew and Greek.Alas, both authors are known KJV-only advocates, with all the misinformation that this entails. Even if they were right about the Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian textual family (which they are *not*), why not produce an updated translation? Jay P. Green Sr., a strong TR advocate, has done just this with the "Modern KJV", and Dr Kouric has done this with the KJV-2000, but apart from this kept the rhythm of the KJV (search on the Internet). Even the NKJV is based on the TR, despite a lot of misinformation to the contrary, e.g. their use of footnotes -- which is exactly what the *real* 1611 KJV did, as opposed to the Blayney revision of 1769 -- which this work is.
