Most modern translations are lousy translations
Pray tell, how are they lousy translations? Can you give specifics?
that have been modified due to the copyright laws.
This assertion lacks substantiation and strikes me as absurd, but maybe it’s because I know a thing or two about textual criticism and translation. They are “modified” from the KJV on the discovery of more, earlier, and better manuscripts, the basis of increased knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and the basis that the English language has changed in the past four centuries (“prevent” no longer means “to go before” and “let” no longer means “to restrain,” for two instances).
The 1611 KJV has not been subjected to these modifications.
You’re right; it still uses inferior manuscripts, archaic English, and outdated Hebrew and Greek scholarship.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You aren’t stating opinions. You are stating facts about the KJV and other translations–facts that I (and others) have disputed as false. And you have either been unwilling or unable to provide any sort of substantiation for those facts.
Most modern translations are disgusting with all their modifications
Now this is an opinion, of course, and a very strong one, but pray tell, what do you find “disgusting” about modern versions? Because most of the translation differences amount to three things:
- Differences in manuscript tradition.
- Updating archaic English into contemporary English.
- Actual revised translations based on updated scholarship.
due to the copyright laws.
And this is a “fact,” not an opinion–one which you have failed to substantiate despite having stated it twice in this post and multiple times elsewhere. When asked for substantiation, you’ve made vague references to “US Copyright Law,” yet have consistently failed to provide anything resembling a reliable source.