There is nothing that I said that challenges or impugns the credentials of the KJV translators. I am challenging your understanding of the KJV only issue and suggesting that in some cases your dogma may cause you to miss the meaning of the Bible.

My example is that the word translated “study” in 2 Ti 2:15 is better understood today as “be diligent”. Based on the etymology of the English word I suggested that the usage in the KJV was derived from Tyndale and it meant diligent in the 16th century and still carried that nuance in the 17th century. The word study no longer conveys that meaning today. The word study does not carry the same range of meaning as it did four hundred years ago, so a modern reader does not come away with the same meaning as the translators of the KJV. The responses thus far have demonstrated my point.
If you disagree with my position I would like for you to refute the essence of my argument.

Here are the essential points in brief:
1. The Greek word (spoudazo) means diligent.
2. In 1611 the English word (study) meant diligent
3. Today study does not mean diligent
4. Today in this passage we should use diligence

I am not trying to “correct your Bible” I am trying to challenge your understanding of the Bible. I do not expect to win any converts here, but it is most helpful to understand your position. My conclusions continue to be that your arguments are flawed, weak, and based on a poor understanding of the issues. It appears you are motivated by zeal without knowledge. Your motives should be commended, but your methods challenged. I do not expect that you will agree with my assessment, but I look forward to a challenge of my position.