Battle of the Bibles - Present Truth

So, once more, as in the days of Constantine, Rome has a Bible in place with
which she hopes to reunite church and state, thereby obtaining global supremacy. Such
a goal is by no means unattainable; rather, in the light of history and humanly speaking,
it is a probability. This great counterfeit Christianity knows only too well that if she can
destroy or neutralise the Bible which brought on and sustained the Protestant
Reformation, then it is logical that Protestantism will crumble or, at the very least remain
impotent.
Over and over again we hear the cry from professing Protestants that the
language of the King James Version is so archaic that it can no longer be understood;
therefore, by implication at least, we need the modern versions. In the opinion of the
writer, this is nothing more than a red herring, and a very smelly one at that!
We have seen how proponents of the Revised Version (1881) used this excuse
to "revise" the KJV and on these grounds also, the Southern Convocation of the Church
of England gave permission for that revision. But we have also seen how Westcott and
Hort, acting under the guidance of Cardinals Wiseman and Newman, used this occasion
as a ploy to bring out a new Catholic Bible. The same ploy is still being successfully
used today. In offering this excuse, the publishers of some modern versions are serving
up a gross insult to the mentality of our generation. Suddenly, our young people appear
intellectually inferior to their parents and grandparents! Yet we do not hear demands for
Shakespear's works to be revised. Of course not; their artistry would surely be lost!
Over the last one hundred years we have had about as many Bible versions - all
claiming to improve on the inadequacies of their predecessors. Presumably, there will be
no end to this chicanery so long a gullible buyers are around to keep cash registers
ringing.
The author has lived for a considerable time in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon
Islands and the Fiji Islands. In his experience, the indigenous people of these countries
evidenced no problems in understanding God's Word in the commonly used KJV. And
this - in spite of the fact that, to these people, English is a foreign language!. Are these
people intellectually superior to those of us living in Australia or New Zealand? Yet this is
what such specious arguments would imply! It would be much nearer the truth to
suggest that young people who have been exposed to the barrage of modern versions
have come to lose confidence in God's Word because of all the meddling to which it has
been subjected. Hence they do not have the thirst for a knowledge of God's will for man
that our less privileged brothers have in what we are pleased to call "developing
countries".
We have every reason to appropriate to those publishers who offer this argument
as an excuse for their versions, this following statement concerning the revisers of 1881
and 1901:
"The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few
changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorised Version the
most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished
ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine. Some of them did not
know good English literature when they saw it ....There were enough modernists among
the Revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubt on the
Scripture" ("Herald and Presbyter" [Presbyterian], July 16, 1924, p 10).
Another specious claim made by modern revisers is that the translators of today
have access to better manuscripts than those which were available to the KJV
translators. Among the modern scholars who explode this myth is Theodore P. Letis.
After methodically presenting both sides of the argument he concludes that:
19