I am not Foley [for the record I think he may just be writing a little tongue in cheek] but I would like to answer your question if you do not mind. The KJV is a translation. The authors of the KJV were not inspired in the same way as the authors of the Bible. The KJV translators did an excellent job with the resources they had. They did not claim infallibility. They made a few translation errors, most have been corrected. A few remain today. The orthodox position of the church has always held to the inspiration of the original apograph not the copy. There are thousands of handwritten texts (a text is a copy in the original language and a translation is a copy in a different language) that have survived and they all have mistakes, they were copied by fallible men written by hand. Fortunately the problem is with less than 5% of the readings and there is a scientific way of deducing a text from the plethora of witnesses (the method is called lower criticism).

What we have today in English, Russian, German, and so forth are copies of God’s Word. They are inspired in the sense that they are a faithful witness to the original autograph. Making an English copy done in the 16th century and revised numbers of times through the years the standard by which all future translations are measured is an implausible position.

I do not question the motives of those who hold to such a position. I think all of you who do so do it with the intent to honor God’s Word. But in your efforts to demonstrate its reliability you demonstrate your ignorance of factual realities. I am sorry if this statement sounds harsh, the tone is intended to be one of compassionate criticism.

Below is a brief article on the reliability of God’s Word
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm

Below is a link to a brief article on textual criticism
http://members.aol.com/rbiblech/Misc...OfTheBible.htm