If you need to catch up, here's PART 1, PART 2, and PART 3.
"Most people who are not committed to the KJV Only position will admit that the AV (authorized version) needs some level of revision. No matter how strongly AV Only believers assert the alleged simplicity and clarity of the KJV, the fact remains that there are many passages that are anything but clear and understandable in this venerable old translation. And, at times, those ambiguities get in the way, and even give ammunition to those who would attack the Bible." (JRW)
There are many examples given of this in Chapter 9 of The King James Only Controversy.
And finally, this is one of the arguments I used to use: People are not understanding the KJV because they are not studying it properly. Here's a great response to that -
"Some defenders of the AV insist that all one has to do is have a good dictionary at hand and all will be well when encountering such terms. But we must ask, why should we always have to have a dictionary at hand when reading the Bible? Why make reading the Scriptures a laborious task when simply translating them into our modern tongue would do just as well? Again, we are not condoning the "dumbing down" of the Bible that can be seen in efforts to turn the Scriptures into a first-grade level piece of literature. But we are saying that there is no need to add unnecessary ambiguity to the scriptural text. Utilizing terms that are no longer a part of our language has no place in making the Scriptures available to all people." (JRW)
I'll wrap this up tomorrow.