Jay Barker

This statement is untrue on a number of points. First of all, the TR is the name of a TEXT, not a FAMILY. Secondly - there are 30 different variations of this one text - and no TWO are the same, hence, your claim that they are is incorrect. Third - the majority of 'all Greek manuscripts' do NOT constitute the TR but the Traditional Text, a text which varies over 1800 times from the TR. Again, this is untrue on several counts. 1) The new versions are NOT based on just two mss. (which is irrelevant anyway since one based on the ONE ORIGINAL would be more accurate than one based on ALL FIVE THOUSAND COPIES). 2) They do not have heretical readings in them any more than the KJV does. 3) Your claim on the Apocrypha is funny esp. since all pre-1639 KJVs had the same thing in their text. And the rest of this is rhetoric.

MOST HIGH WRITES: I don't have the time nor the desire to overwhelm this post with a laundry list of misdeeds, mistakes and illegal activities by this administration. I think the poll numbers speak loud and clear.

MOST HIGH: They are not all disabled and infact the majority are not. Maybe they have an axe to grind because they expect our government not to abuse it's power and start wars for lofty ideals without a reality based plan or for financial gain. Maybe they expect our government to use the military wisely. JAY: Fair enough. A BETTER question might be this: what kind of an imbecile authorizes the President for unspecified military action, votes AGAINST funding those troops AFTER the war has been going on for a year - and spends an entire campaign NEVER SPECIFYING what he plans to do? To do this, all you have to do is be as stupid as John Forbes Kerry. Perhaps they don't like being used for the wrong reasons. They have a right to say so and to try and change a governemtn that has failed them. It's funny how these men and women are qualified to comment on the war or run for republican office but as soon as they are democrats they seem to be unqualified. Exactly how much experience did GWBush have before he "jumped to the head of the line" to run for the GOVERNOR? More conservative hypocrisy... REPLY: I didn't introduce Bush or say it was okay; YOU did. But since you are the one bringing up hypocrisy, I'd very interested to know if you think Hillary is qualified to even enter the race. She WASN'T qualified to be a Senator particularly from a state she didn't live in. I said NOTHING about war vets being qualified if they were Republicans. You are so busy thinking what you're going to say that you're hearing things that I didn't say. Yes, the vets have a right to say so. But it is also clear to me that you must never have actually served in a war, either. All that political garbage goes right out the window when the bullets start flying. And all the peace marches inside the city of Baghdad would not alter the outcome. MOST HIGH SAYS: What an offensive thing to say. Should we question the republican patriotism for continuing to support policies that threaten our nation? Like the failures on our security, failures in the intelligence to go to war, failures in planning the occupation of Iraq... the list is long. REPLY: Hmm, let's now open up the proverbial can. I realize logic is a missing commodity in most liberals so I'll talk REAL slow just in case. 1. Bill Clinton had EIGHT freaking years to do something about it. The World Trade Center suffered an explosion in 1993 in the basement. Some of my friends were KILLED at the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. I nearly had to perform the Honor Guard for the funeral of Andrew Triplett, a sailor killed in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. The only time Chicken Little ever had time to bomb bin Laden was - surprise! - when he was due to testify about his extracurricular activities. And the fact he didn't respond in 1996 or 2000 because they were election years is only a pacifistic coincidence, right? 2. Bill Clinton told me every day during Lewinskygate that he was 'doing the work of the American people.' Apparently, he was MORE INTERESTED - and spent tons more money - chasing that danger to humanity Bill Gates than killing the man he called 'most wanted,' Osama bin Laden. So what exactly was Bubba doing when he was doing the work of the American people? 3. Bill Clinton went on Larry King in 2003 on Bob Dole's birthday and said HE KNEW WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD WMDs. Is Clinton lying or telling the truth? Either way doesn't bode well for a liberal. If he's telling the truth, you got no business having heartburn with the initial decision. 4. John Kerry voted FOR the resolution to give the President a free hand. Why? He was against every single military action we did until then. Of course, the fact he was running for President had NOTHING to do with this sudden flip flop - just like after two decades of opposing the death penalty, he suddenly decided it was right for Bin Laden. Again, this was a change of CONVICTION, right? 5. John Kerry then voted against funding the troops. Why? Well, it's just a COINCIDENCE that Howard "Mr. Scream" Dean was out of the race and he needed to run to the left faster than Reggie Bush on the right hash mark. Again, this guy couldn't make up his mind. A lot of us thought if he got elected he put the troops in one day, pull them out the next, put them back in the next - a great leader to be sure. THESE WERE LIBERALS, SIR!! You list a number of wrong things. Fair enough. What was Kerry's solution? None - and we knew it. He would have run the war EXACTLY AS BUSH HAS - so why change leaders when it was six of one and half a dozen of the other? Garbage, the democrats NEVER claimed you should vote for Kerry BECAUSE he IS a DECORATED war HERO. There were plenty of reasons for and against voting for Senator Kerry. If Clinton was a draft dodger GW Bush certainly was as well. At least Kerry VOLUNTEERED and WENT to VN.

REPLY: Sure. We had a bunch of VOLUNTEERS in the all-volunteer force actually have to go overseas because the President told them to do so. Now, they got hurt and don't like it. (Btw, I'm not taking a pro or con on Bush's decision - let's cut right to the chase). So they somehow - with ZERO prior experience - have decided they are qualified to be public officeholders. And instead of starting at the local county level, they move right to the front of the line. Ironically, they all seem to be running as Democrats. And people wonder why we're cynical about the Dems and patriotism. They only use the folks to assuage their guilt - and to score points in the media. Don't ever forget this: we were SUPPOSED to vote for self-proclaimed Vietnam War hero John Kerry last time simply because he was a war hero. Of course, the same people claiming this were silent in the prior two elections when a draft dodger faced off against the youngest Navy pilot shot down in WWII (Bush) and the wounded warrior, Dole.

HE WRITES: What a bunch of dead flowers. bushy and chinny ain't poor, but I guess that doesn't matter eh? For this one little moment you're going to try and make us believe that the party of big business has less net worth overall? I guess you could make a case based on the idea that repugnicans take more bribes and hide their wealth off shore.

Butero, Haven't talked to you in a couple of days, so I thought I'd check in. Regarding Dr. Hills, let me make it clear: there are some scholars who do not endorse in toto the Critical Text (Westcott-Hort) and there are some who take an in-between position on this issue. The KJV Only position is a vary narrow stream of a wide river of manuscripts called the Byzantine Text. The more contemporary name for this has become the Majority Text. In essence, it is the notion that the text contained in the majority of the manuscripts is the 'real' text. Although I do not endorse this particular textual view, it has many scholarly adherents including Dr. Art Farstad (d. 1998) and Dr. Zane Hodges. A second majority text was compiled by William Pierpont and Maurice Robinson (professor at Wake Forest) in 1991. These folks might be what you would call "KJV Superior," yet they acknowledge that some of the KJV readings such as I John 5:7 have minimal to no textual support. Other representatives of this view include Dr. Wilbur Pickering ("Identity of the New Testament Text" available online), Dr. Jakob van Bruggen ("The Ancient Text of the New Testament"), Dr. Alfred Martin (Moody Bible Institute). A mid-level group that takes readings from both textual families is represented by the late Dr. Harry Sturz and is contained in his book, "The Byzantine Text-Type And New Testament Textual Criticism." The most common group now are adherents of the Critical Text. These go from the ultraconservatives like Dr. Gordon Fee (professor at Regent College in Canada) and Dr. Daniel Wallace (my own academic advisor at Dallas Seminary) to modernists like Dr. Bruce Metzger ("The Text of the New Testament") and the late Kurt Aland (same book title as Metzger). Within the Critical Text is another stream called the 'thoroughgoing eclectic school,' represented by two main scholars, G.D. Kilpatrick and J. Elliott. The bottom line is that all of the scholarly voices do not walk in lockstep and agree to disagree charitably. The notable exception, of course, is the KJV Only movement. Most of these authors have the barest knowledge of the manuscripts or ignore manuscripts that undercut the KJV. These include Dr. Donald Waite of "The Dean Burgon Society," Gail Riplinger, and Dr. David Otis Fuller, a well-educated man who was less than honest on the Bible version issue. Then there are the radcials: Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp (Ruckman's prize pupil), Jack Hyles (d. 2001) and William Grady. Ruckman believes that any English translation in the KJV that does NOT accurately record the Greek (an acknowledgement that this is true by even the most radical man) is an 'advanced revelation.' In his scheme, there was no perfect Bible until 1769. Gipp is his student who made a complete fool of himself on the prior mentioned "John Ankerberg Show" series about the KJV (aired in 1995). Hyles believes that you can't even be saved unless the KJV was used in preaching the Word to you - because otherwise the 'seed is corruptible.' This is merely the broad spectrum. The one KJV Only advocate I do like despite not caring for his arguments is the 'kill them with kindness' Dr. Thomas Strouse, now the dean at Emmanuel in Connecticut. He doesn't resort to the shrill arguments that others have used. Hope all is well with you. jb

I think a more accurate post would be, "Conservatives happier than liberals." We're not storing up all that venom for so-called peace marches or figuring out what 'lost cause' we're going to try and salvage. We don't have to resort to name calling to prove the point (yes, some do - but this is liberalism's only offensive weapon). I still like the old saying: Republicans inherit Daddy's wealth Democrats inherit Daddy's debts (assuming, of course, they know who daddy is) jb

LAST WORD FOR TODAY: Butero, I echo your call of gladness regarding this conversation. May God bless and keep you this week - keep you safe on the road. Btw, thanks that you're one of those people who does that job. Just look out for the rest of us and drive safe!!!

BUTERO: Here are a couple of the things Gail Riplinger supposedly said that was crazy. One, that God told her to write this book and spoke to her in general. That is not crazy to me. God has spoken to people throughout history. Also, again I will re-state, Gail Riplinger only reaffirmed what I already came to believe on my own. I can call what you believe blind faith as well. You chose who you wanted to believe, to support your arguments. Most people do that to some degree or another, though most are not honest enough to admit it. Also, it is one thing to have writings of the church fathers, and quite another to show me where they said what their Bible looked like. I know of no record of them saying for instance they did or didn't use the TR. I have read many writings of the church fathers and never came across anything to prove your case. JAY: Well, I don't want to engage in Gail-bashing, but she has brought a lot of abuse on herself. She said that God had written her book and therefore she had put her name on the book as "G.A. Ripligner,' meaning 'God And Riplinger.' While that may not sound far-fetched to you (and that is a fair point that I will even concede), most of us have a problem with identifying God with some of the slanderous things she said including comparing five-point Calvinism to the Satanic pentagram (this is specious even if one is Arminian in theology), misspelling the names of D.A. Carson and Richard Longenecker (didn't God know how to spell them?), and implying that NIV committee member Edwin Palmer denied the Deity of Christ when his actual quote is just the opposite. While God may speak in visions, He doesn't command people to lie in His name. Blind faith in my case? I've taken the time to do the leg work, sir. The difference between my apologetic and yours (keeping only with this issue) is that mine is based on EVIDENCE and yours is based on PRESUPPOSITION. And of course no writer would say he didn't use the TR. We know they didn't for one VERY GOOD reason: IT DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN!!!

In summary regarding Edward F. Hills: Edward F. Hills was a Presbyterian minister who graduated with honors from Westminster and Yale and was later thrown out of the University of Chicago. He then went to Harvard Divinity School and graduated with a Ph.D. in textual criticism. In 1956, he wrote "The KJV Defended" in an effort to get out his position on the KJV. He is pretty much 'the' authority in the scholarly KJV community. Theodore Letis was a friend of Hills' who wrote his Master's Thesis at Candler School of Theology (Emory University) in 1987 on Hills. He was a good enough friend to Hills that he preached Hills' funeral when the latter died in 1981. He defended Hills in the 1998 KJV Only video, "The Leaven In Fundamentalism" produced in conjunction with Pensacola Christian College, a rabid (and near cultic) fundamentalist Independent Baptist school in Florida. He also published a couple of books on the subject before his tragic demise in a car pile-up in Atlanta a little less than a year ago. I find it amazing, though, that you instead hang your hat on Gail Riplinger. Letis considered Riplinger a complete embarrassment to the cause of the KJV because of her unscholarly work. She has a Master's Degree in Home Economics and has NEVER studied the biblical languages. I disagree with the conclusions of Letis and Hills, but I can also fairly evaluate their work. It seems to me that your problem, Butero, is that you only read something (or perhaps believe it might be a better word) if it reinforces your preconceived notions. That is poor logic and argument, sir. When I began researching this issue in 1994, I was at least 'slanted' towards the KJV for the same reasons you are saying. But the more research I did and the more I learned, the less I could abide it. I cite Hills because he is the best-known and most credentialed scholarly member of the KJV Only group; he would be embarrassed, I think, by Riplinger's arguments.

But what manuscripts? Are they original copies of the TR? If not, why would I trust them anymore than new translations? What my argument boils down to is, why should I believe what you are saying is a fact? You don't have an original copy of the TR. You can't find a person that was alive from the first century church to tell you what their Bible looked like. That verse you mentioned that supposedly denied the virgin birth is one of the dumbest arguments I have seen yet. It does no such thing. That is the same type of straw argument people that try to prove there are errors in the Bible bring up to discredit it as being the Word of God. I will tell you what I tell them. I take the Bible as a whole. I take it in context. There are no true contradictions, only apparent ones to the unlearned and carnal minded. By the way, I didn't know Erasmus. Was he a friend of yours? Did he tell you personally how he edited it? Also when you say edited, do you mean changed or compiled? JAY: But Butero, this argument cuts BOTH ways. You have nobody from the first century to tell you that an NIV reading is corrupt, either. The entire flimsy basis of your position in seen in this: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE A TEXT THAT DID NOT EXIST UNTIL 1516 TO BE THE INFALLIBLE TEXT? That

Why should I trust you to be telling me the truth over Gail Riplinger? Also, why should I assume she is wrong in what she says, simply because a KJO defender finds problems with her argument? I understand your position, but here is my additional problems with your arguments. First, it is you that has decided which arguments you accept as having the most merit. To you, it is those that support the new translations. I do not agree. Secondly, even if you do know Greek, and have COPIES of documents like the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, no original copies of the TR exist today, at least to my knowledge. I also have nobody to ask from the early church what their Bible contained, since they are no longer alive. What I am left with is people that support the TR saying it was the accepted Bible of the early church, and people like yourself rejecting that ascertion. What proof do you have you are correct and those supporting the TR are wrong? JAY: There is a such thing as faith and there is a such thing as BLIND faith, and it shines clearly here, Butero. Did you check out her information or footnotes? You

I already did cite what is meant by "gender neutral." It means taking the word he when refering to God and making it say God. No it is not accurate to make any changes in the text. The purpose was clear. Feminists didn't like the idea of God being presented as male, so they simply changed the text. I want NO CHANGES to my Bible. I want an accurate translation. While the WCC may not have come with guns and confiscated KJV Bibles and replaced them with these new abominations they called a Bible, the fact they were accepted was reason enough for me to separate myself. That may not be important to you, but absolute accuracy matters to me. It comes down again to a matter of trust. I trust the TR and not the manuscripts, regardless of how old they are, used by those that wrote the new translations. JAY: This hardly qualifies as

Next, you bring another argument I have never encountered. Which TR is the right one? What evidence do you have to prove that there was more than one and that they contradicted each other? Secondly, why should I believe your sources? JAY: The fact you