"Brit-Am Now"-639
1. More Names in Brit-Am Genealogical Section
2. Transcript of Radio Interview
3. Thomas Gray: In Defence of KJ Version

1. More Names in Brit-Am Genealogical Section
MacDonald, Mitchell, Morrison, Murray, Patterson, Phinney, Reid, Young

The Brit-Am Genealogical Section is under the responsibility and authorship
of Betty Matteson Rhodes.

2. Transcript of Radio Interview
A transcript of the interview with Tamar Yonah
is now available from the Brit-Am webside along with a recording for
downloading of the interview itself.
This transcript may also be accessed together with interview from the front page of our website.
The transcription was done by Carmelita Lee directly from a recording of the Radio Interview. Raymond and Carmelita Lee are strong veteran supporters of Brit-Am who now live in Israel. Carmelita has many years of experience in legal transcribing, Court Reporting, and Transcription work in the USA.
Any lawyer or legal worker visiting in Israel who may be interested in having depositions made or any other transcription work should contact
Carmelita Lee at 09-97407765.

Concerning the interview:
We are very pleased with it and its outcome has been very positive.
it was unprepared. I did not know what questions would be asked and If I have have done
some of the answers I gave would probably have been somewhat different.

3. Thomas Gray: In Defence of KJ Version
From: Thomas Gray <tgray@supernet.com.bo>
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-637
Dear Yair,

I think that your answer to Julia was generally good, but lacking in
important clarifications.  It is disturbing to me that there exists such
ideas as Julia's comments demonstrate.

At the present, only a small minority of American Christian churches use the
King James Version, although probably a majority of individual Christians
still love the old version they grew up with.  I personally began to use
another translation in the KJ tradition but with crystal clear modern
English, until I began to realize how carefully done the KJV was by such
scholarly men that are rare today, and also that the King James/Elizabethan
English is a superior language to modern English.  The "Thees and thous"
represent a distinction that still exists in other European languages such
as Spanish that provides clearer communication.  I realized how that the
fact that I read the King James Version since my father taught me to read
from it at age 4 had enriched me in intellectual ways as well as spiritual.
As a result, I began to use it again, and read to my children from it, even
though many Christians would be "horrified" that I am being so antiquated.

The fact that Julia thinks that Elizabethan English is the mark of a
Christian Bible should be corrected, and the facts about its superiority
explained instead of just trying to accommodate the emotions and prejudices.
Also, the fact that more modern translations are much more biased to one
perspective or the other should be explained.  The King James translators
had such reverence for the Bible that they left passages as exactly
translated as they could even when they caused difficulty for official
church doctrine, or even were complete mysteries.  Many, if not most, modern
translations try to make the passages "easy to understand" by putting a kind
of explanatory slant to the "translation".  I agree that, at times, the KJ
translators may have fallen short of the ideal, but from what I have learned
about them, I do not believe that they made any deliberate "Christian
slants" in their work.  As I have read your commentaries, even when you find
a passage you consider incorrectly translated, I don't believe that I have
seen that reason suggested for the inaccuracy, although evidently you feel
that this was the case at times.

Appreciating your use of the King James Version,

Thomas Gray.