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

BUTERO: You tell me the NKJV is based on the TR, but you are the only person who I have encountered that makes that claim. Also, even if it were true, why would I use it? I have no problem with the Authorized Version, and most of the time now I use the 1611 Version. I understand them just fine, and don't need a more modern version. JAY: Well, let

On the basis I have seen the error for myself. The King James Bible is my standard. If they contradict anything in it, to me it is error. The reason people like yourself are evidence to me new versions are of the devil, is because you claim you are not attacking the KJV, yet you spend so much time attacking KJO supporters. As I stated, it is obvious why I would fight so hard to defend my position. I don't trust the reliability of new translations. On the other hand, what motivates you? If the KJV is the Word of God, why do you fight so hard for people to accept new versions? JAY: You know full well this is a falsehood. I have not

BUTERO: Next, do I believe the King James Bible alone to be the Word of God. I believe the TR to be the Word of God. I also believe the King James Version Bible is the only translation in English that used the TR exclusively. The TR has also been translated into Spanish and other languages, so they are equally the Word of God. I do not believe any other English translation other than the King James Version is the Word of God. They may contains portions of the Word of God, but they also contain errors and leave out portions of verses. JAY: I

Ok, let me try to answer these questions. You are very defensive of new versions, lest you wouldn't have spent so much time attacking those that reject them. Next, you say I didn't respond to "facts" regarding Erasmus 5-11 manuscripts? What facts are those? What are your sources to prove what you say is even true? Butero, I realize this will ultimately be a waste of time as far as YOUR OWN VIEW is concerned, but I am more than willing to demonstrate using KJV Only sources where possible to demonstrate what I

As I also said, I am convinced that the real purpose Satan has for all of these new versions is to breed confusion and doubt when it comes to the Word of God. Doubt comes subtily through the discrediting of certain verses. Then he creates numerous tainted versions to make the Bible read whatever a particular group wants it to. You will have a Baptist Bible promoting eternal security, a Pentecostal Bible promoting gifts of the Spirit, a Wesleyan Bible promoting sanctification. As if that wasn't bad enough, every cult will get in on the act, as the Jehovah's Witnesses already have, and create a version to promote their heretical beliefs. The first thing a Jehovah's Witness did when witnessing to me was to tell me about this great New World Translation Bible he had. He claimed it was like all other new versions, and unlike the King James Version with it's Catholic influence, it was written by true believers. I discouraged him more with my stubborn refusal to accept anything but the KJV than anything else. He said, "I don't know what it is with you King James Only people, that your so stuck on that one translation?" I believe in the day in which we are living, it is safer to stay with the King James Version, if for no other reason, than to protect some poor soul from such a deception. If they reject all new versions, there is no danger of them getting deceived by a translation put out by some cult. REBUTTAL: There are two major problems with your argument: 1) This EXACT SAME one version argument was used prior to the acceptance of the Vulgate and prior to the acceptance of the KJV. "Hey, stick with the old version." The 'Satanic deception' argument has been used time and again - and then the 'satanic Bibles' become the norm. 2) The line that gives me pause is the one that says, "If they reject all new versions, there is no danger of them getting deceived by a translation put out by some cult." Seriously, did you think before you wrote this? MORE CULTS USE THE KJV THAN USE ALL OTHER VERSIONS COMBINED!!! The Mormons are KJV Only, but it doesn't make them orthodox. The JWs use the KJV to point out that the Holy Spirit is an 'it' (something you failed to interact with, sir). The Branch Davidians are (were?) a radical offshoot of Seventh Day Adventism that was also KJV Only. Anyway, feel free to try to dubunk what I said, but it is doubtful you will change my mind. In the first place, since I love the old english in the KJV, and have read it so long I understand it, I don't need a modern translation. In the second place, I am convinced new versions are part of a last days deception of Satan. Thirdly, since most of your arguments are based on historians you trust in, and I don't, you have very little to argue with. While you may poo poo the argument of I believe what I do by faith, that is exactly the case, as it also is with you. I have faith in the conclusions I came to on my own. I have faith that Gail Riplinger knows what she is talking about. On the other hand, you have faith in whatever scolars, or whatever sources you are believing in that tell you all these so-called facts about what the early church used, and about the various manuscripts. That is why I feel like this is a no win situation for those who already have the matter settled in their minds. REBUTTAL: My arguments are determined BY ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS, not by some historian. What your argument boils down to is this: "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up." You repeatedly assert that the new versions are tools of Satan - yet you fail to interact with verses in the KJV that, if you were consistent, you would have to call 'Satanic' such as denying the Virgin Birth and calling the Holy Spirit an 'it.' I note that you do not discuss the manuscript data or even Gail Riplinger's version of it. Why do you trust a Greek source that DID NOT EXIST prior to its collation by Erasmus in 1516? If there was already a TR, Erasmus would not have had to edit it, would he? So why? God bless, jb

Dear Butero, Before I begin my criticism proper, let me first of all thank you for your mostly diplomatic response. It has been my sad experience in dealing with this issue that too much of it focuses on personalities as opposed to the issue of manuscripts and doctrine. I've engaged in a number of debates on this issue through the years, and let me sadly say the nastiest and meanest repsonses I've ever gotten are from KJV Only proponents. You have NOT done so, and let me say at the outset that I appreciate it. That said, I must correct and engage you on a number of propositions. Btw, I'm sorry I have been delayed responding to you. This week is spring break, and I took my son camping last night for the first time, so I'm a bit fatigued but also intrigued. YOUR INITIAL POST First of all, I would ask you Sir, why you are so defensive of new translations of the Bible if you are not attacking the King James Version? If you consider the KJV as reliable as others, why do you care if the whole world reads it alone? It is obvious why KJO people are so stubborn. We consider new translations to be full of error. The very fact people such as yourself can claim the KJV is ok, just not the only good translation, and then fight so strongly to defend other versions, is evidence to me new versions are a tool of Satan. It is like the so-called athiests that spend so much time trying to prove to Christians God doesn't exist. To me they are God haters, not atheists, because a true unbeliever wouldn't waste their time with such matters. They would eat, drink and be merry because tommorow they will die. All life would be about is having a good time. MY RESPONSE: For starters, I am NOT defensive about new translations. I am FACT ORIENTED, sir. I notice you did not interact with the FACTS regarding Erasmus' 5-11 manuscripts. You are committing the negative inference fallacy by basically saying that since I support new versions, I'm therefore 'attacking' the King James Version. I also note that you did not bother to interact with the verses I cited, nor did you answer the question: THE KING JAMES BIBLE ALONE = THE WORD OF GOD ALONE Do you believe this or not? And if you do not , what other versions either Greek or English would you claim are the Word of God? You consider new translations to be 'full of error.' On what basis? You cite nothing to prove the point. Are they 'full of error' because they do not fully comply with the KJV? But the one that takes the cake is this one: "The very fact people such as yourself claim the KJV is ok, just not the only good translation, and then fight so strongly to defend the other versions is evidence to me new versions are a tool of Satan." I find this line of argumentation laughable for the following reason: I know of MANY churches that exclude any fellowship or parishoner unless that person uses the KJV; I know of NONE that exclude people based on any other version. The 'divisiveness' is thus seen to come from the KJV side. Furthemore, please do not generalize as KJVOs love to do. You speak of 'new versions' as if all are the same and that if one defends one new version, he thus defends them all. Not so. Every 'new version' is not 'created equal' with others. Now Mr. Barker, I feel no need to waste my time going point by point with you, since I have written extensively on how I feel about new Bible versions. Nothing you have said has persuaded me in the least to change my opinion. Let me start out by saying I was not always against new Bible translations. My mother had a Living Bible (paraphrase) when I was a child. I had no biases starting out. The truth was revealed to me concerning their unreliability over time. I will now turn back the clock to 1982. While I had grown up with the knowledge of God, and my parents were Methodists, I wasn't saved. I heard a preacher on the radio, and fell under conviction. After 6 months of wrestling with God, I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I bought a King James New Testament and read it cover to cover. After that I read the entire Bible through. I started attending church regularly, at the United Methodist Church where I had been brought up. Then something happened that made me decide to find a new church. Sir, I think you failure to interact with the presented data speaks volumes. You fail to answer the most obvious question: DO YOU USE THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION SINCE IT IS TRANSLATED FROM THE 'RIGHT' GREEK TEXT, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS? Furthermore, WHICH TR is the RIGHT one? I think it obvious to everyone here why you do not answer that particular question. Please note that if you say the 1894 Scrivener edition, the entire board will see the thin veneer of your position since that one is the ONLY one that matches the KJV entirely and did not exist until 1894. First, the World Council of Churches to which they belonged decided to endorse a "gender neutral" Bible to cater to feminists. This Bible would eliminate references to God as he, and would simply call him God. Next, they wanted to take songs about the blood of Jesus out of the hymn books, saying they didn't like promoting a "bloody religion." I could not in good conscience stay there. This "gender neutral" Bible was the first warning flag about the problems with new translations. Also, by that time I had also heard about the many errors in the Living Bible. Though it is a paraphrase, and not a translation, many don't understand the difference. Can you cite what is meant by 'gender inclusive', the first term used on this board? And what is a gender neutral verse? Is God not God? My point is not that I favor the TNIV, but many of these points are actually more accurate in terms of what the word MEANS. And how did the World Council of Churches impose what you're talking about on churches? Did they come in with gun and bayonet to enforce their will? Over time, I started noticing how the NIV left portions of verses out, and made statements like "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..." This disturbed me, as it was an assault on portions of God's Word. I saw it as casting doubt on the Bible's reliability. On my own, I rejected the NIV as a false version. After that, I compared other versions, and found things that read differently from the King James Version. On my own, I realized these versions were no good, and went to using the KJV only Butero, while I IN NO WAY am talking somebody out of using the KJV, you again fail at the intial premise. You state that you noticed the NIV left portions of verses out - but again, on what basis did you ever come to the conclusion that the KJV was not ADDING words? If you wish to argue that the KJV is 'older,' my response is that the manuscripts that were used in NIV translation were OLDER. On what basis do you assume that if the NIV and KJV read differently that the KJV is right? As to the historical reasons I reject new versions and believe what I do concerning the TR, my source is Gail Riplinger. I have her book, "New Age Bible Versions." I have also watched a video presentation by her, where she documents the problems with new versions. Since I wasn't alive at the time of the early church, and neither were you, we are relying on people we trust to tell us the truth about the early manuscripts, and where they came from. I have the utmost confidence in Gail Riplinger, and apparently you have confidence in whatever sources you are using to spout out all of that information you gave about what the early church used. By the way, what exactly are your sources? REPLY: Regarding Gail Riplinger, I'm only 'trashing' Gail Riplinger if 'trashing' is identified as 'telling the truth' about somebody or testing what Gail (or anyone else says) against Scripture. The documented errors of Gail Riplinger are legion. Aside from the already mentioned (true btw) claim that she claimed God 'authored' her book, one of the better known rebuttals to Gail came from a KJV Only advocate named David Cloud and can be found at: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm She repeatedly cites people out of context, makes slanted charts that skew the evidence (none of the verses I listed earlier is ever covered by Gail), and personally attacks anyone who refutes her contention including KJV Only folks (like David Cloud). If telling the truth about a source is 'trashing,' then I guess I'm guilty. But I read the book and couldn't believe the number of out and out factual errors in it to say nothing of the errors of logic. I would add that while I do not endorse them, there are some more scholarly works that at least attempt to present a fair defense of the KJV. The best-known is Dr. Edward F. Hills' book, "The KJV Defended," and can be found online (I tell you and anyone else this who is interested in further study). Dean Burgon's works are cited by KJV Only folks although he is actually more akin to the MAJORITY TEXT school of thought; indeed, Burgon is the founder of the MT school. Modern authors who write from a pro-KJV perspective include Alfred Martin, David Otis Fuller, Jakob van Bruggen, Wilbur Pickering and the recently deceased Theodore P. Letis. Again, I cite these that you may check out some better arguments for your position. I am against your POSITION, not you personally, sir. Here lies a great problem we both have in these arguments. We have to rely on someone else to tell us how things went down. Since you will I feel sure trash Gail Riplinger as most on your side of the isle do, and I won't accept your historians, nothing can conclusively be proven to change either one of our minds in this matter. REPLY: No, I do not. It has nothing to do with 'accepting historians.' It is the MERIT OF THEIR ARGUMENTS that is decisive. My problem with KJV defenders in general is that they have to keep throwing out new (old in reality) arguments that support the BYZANTINE family but DO NOT give carte blanche to the KJV. Any honest inquiry of the KJV can only come to the conclusion that there are additional readings that should not be there. Btw, there are readings that certainly beg the same question in the NIV, so again, I'm not 'after' the KJV. The way I have conquered this is to learn Greek on my own. I'm fortunate at Dallas Theological Seminary (where I presently attend) to have copies of such documents as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I do not need the scholar to make my argument for me. Yet I have a serious problem with those who simply begin with the KJV and then consider ANY reading that is not a KJV reading to be 'demonic' or some other term.

AND FINALLY... BUTERO: I am not in the least bit ashamed of myself for stating my honest opinion that new versions are the lazy man's Bibles. REPLY: But unless you are 'not lazy' yourself, how do you KNOW the KJV is faithful to the Greek? Because some scholar told you so? Why do you make the scholar the mediator between you and Christ then? There are MANY errors in the KJV renderings BY ERASMUS' OWN ADMISSION. And since we're on the subject, which TR is the authoritative one? There are a good 20-30 different TRs - and they all read differently. So which ONE is the true Bible for you? The first two Erasmian editions that did NOT have I John 5:7? Or the later ones that did? Beza? Which one? Stephanus? Which one? Mill? Which one? I'll be very interested in your answer.

At 2:01 pm the next day you wrote: BUTERO: This type of propaganda shows the desperation the New Version enthusiasts have to stoop to in trying to discredit the King James Version. REBUTTAL: I know of no one trying to discredit the KJV. Most people are discrediting the NOTION THE KJV IS THE ONLY BIBLE. Big difference, sir. You further write on the same post: BUTERO: First you say the differences have no effect whatsoever on doctrine. Then you say there is little effect on content, an admission there is some effect. According to the NIV Bible, the whole latter portion of Mark's gospel is not in the most reliable manuscripts, verses that include one of the most powerful doctrines in the Bible, the great commission. That is a direct effect on the Word of God. Even if it is included, such statements like, "The most reliable manuscripts don't include these verses" are the direct work of Satan trying to breed doubt in the reliablility of the Bible REBUTTAL: Butero, this one cuts both ways. Since YOU brought up the NWT, let's show how the KJV affects doctrine in a number of ways: DENIAL OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH Luke 2:27 - "and when the parents brought in the child Jesus.." (Now Butero, we ALL KNOW that if this was the NIV, you'd accuse them of denying the Virgin Birth. I know because this charge has been leveled at the NIV in the same chapter. Luke 2:48 - "behold they father and I have sought thee sorrowing." (Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, yet the KJV denies the Virgin Birth clearly according to King James Only principles - if they were ever to be consistently applied). DENIAL OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT John 1:32 - "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him." Romans 8:16 - "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit.." Romans 8:26 - "But the Spirit ITSELF..." Acts 4:25 - "Who by the mouth of thy servant, David, hast said.." (NIV refers to this being Spirit inspired) BUTERO CONTINUES: According to the NIV Bible, the whole latter portion of Mark's gospel is not in the most reliable manuscripts, verses that include one of the most powerful doctrines in the Bible, the great commission. That is a direct effect on the Word of God. REBUTTAL: 'The whole latter portion' is a good use of rhetoric. Twelve verses. You make it sound like four chapters or more. The Great Commission is included in Matthew. Secondly, let me give you some reasons why those 12 verses are said to be a later interpolation: 1) There are numerous - not just the two the KJV Only say - manuscripts that DO NOT include the passage including 62 Armenian manuscripts and 12th century manuscript 304. 2) Many manuscripts that DO have the verse have markings indicating its suspicious nature that were a majority even in the times of Origen and Eusebius. 3) You introduce an erroer in verse 14 when it says, "He appeared unto the eleven." Wasn't Thomas absent? 4) There are several things taught in verses 16 and 17 that are nowhere taught in the rest of the entire Bible. I fail to see any merit to your argument. BUTERO SAYS: Even if it is included, such statements like, "The most reliable manuscripts don't include these verses" are the direct work of Satan trying to breed doubt in the reliablility of the Bible REPLY: But again, by your own words you claim to have a 1611 KJV. SURELY you know that these types of notes - over 8,000 of them - are in the original KJV. So again, you're using double standards. Please have some logic, sir.

Butero, I want to keep the posts easy to read for other folks, so I will cut them as short as possible for easy reading. Yet I continue. 59 minutes later on the same day you wrote: BUTERO SAYS: First, I compared the NIV with the KJV and was bothered by the many portions of scripture they had omited and placed in footnotes. I was also bothered by whole sections, that while being included, had a disclaimer saying the most reliable manuscripts left them out. I rejected that notion then, and still do. Second, I noticed a trend whereby people were re-writing the scripture to make it fit their belief system. The Jehovah's Witness for instance, re-wrote the entire Bible, calling it a modern translation, and made it suit their beliefs. Next, another new version came along that was gender neutral, catering to feminists. It occured to me how easily any denomination could create a translation to make the Bible read in a way where their beliefs appeared irrefutable. Since that is the case, it is safer to simply hold to the King James Version only. It has been trusted for hundreds of years, and I believe it was an honest attempt to get the most accurate English word to correspond REBUTTAL: Again, there are numerous flaws of argumentation here. Why did you compare the KJV with the NIV? On what basis do you assume that the KJV is 'the standard' other than your opinion? Oh, you believe it by faith? Well, I believe by faith the NIV is the true Word of God and the KJV added all those extra words. Notice how this type of argument really goes nowhere? Perhaps you'll argue, "The KJV is older." Fair enough. But there are manuscripts in the original language older than the KJV. There are ENGLISH translations older than the KJV. Why not one of those? You then make reference to rewriting the Bible and use the JWs as a reference. But this is throwing the apples into the orange bin. For starters, the NWT had NO Greek or Hebrew scholars of any repute. Nobody knowledgeable of the subject would consider the NWT to even be a 'translation' so much as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Watchtower. What other denomination can you name me a Bible that does this? And as an add on, how can you possibly say this about the NIV? Let's use your own style of comparison and see if you are consistent (which evidence will show you are not, sir): The NIV was translated by many Greek and Hebrew scholars of repute making up some 30 denominations. The KJV was translated by baby-sprinkling Anglicans. Using your logic, the KJV would fit the model of what you claim to be against. But I suspect you'll squirm and twist or change the subject on this card (or resort to what is clearly your favorite tact, "That's just your opinion."). Finally, do you care to SUBSTANTIATE your allegation regarding gender-neutral verses? I'd be very interested in what you turn up since most people have an opinion on the verbiage (gender neutral) but don't have the first clue what they're talking about. Do these new CONSERVATIVE Bibles talk about God the Mother? Just wondering.

Dear Butero, I was on this board looking for somebody else and ran across this particular 'argument.' I then read through the nine pages and realize that nothing ever changes in this debate. So let me say at the outset that I realize we will not likely change one another's minds though that does not necessarily mean our minds are not 'open.' That said, I can summarize your position well, and I find it sad that nobody else has done so yet. Here's your position in a syllogism: THE KJV BIBLE ALONE = THE WORD OF GOD ALONE If this is inaccurate, please tell me what else you would accept as the Bible. But you made a number of other statements that deserve scrutiny and as such I will provide it now. BUTERO: On February 25 at 7:53 pm you wrote: There are too many errors in the new versions I have looked into. The NIV is one of the worst. The KJV is the only translation that is from the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts used by the early church. Other versions are translated from numerous other manuscripts, less reliable. That is why in the NIV they often leave portions of scripture out or say things like, "the most reliable manuscripts do not include..." I would argue the problem is with their flawed manuscripts. REBUTTAL: There are numerous falsehoods in this argument. For starters, you allege that the KJV is the only translation from the TR. This is simply not true as the New King James Version is also from the TR. Secondly, you state that the manuscripts 'used by the early church' were the TR. THIS IS DEMONSTRABLY NOT TRUE!! Erasmus used somewhere between 6 and 11 (depending upon the source) manuscripts NONE EARLIER THAN THE TENTH CENTURY. Pray tell how the 'early church' could have used a manuscript that didn't exist for ten centuries? What you're doing, quite frankly, is what KJV Only advocates nearly always do - you're using Byzantine priority arguments in favor of the Majority Text to buttress your position. The TR is one small stream of transmission in the Byzantine tradition (with a few Latin Vulgate readings thrown in for good measure). But this argument washes away when you consider there are over 1,800 differences between the Majority Text and the TR. When they diverge, which do you use? And why? You then accuse the NIV of leaving out poritions of Scripture or saying 'the most reliable manuscripts do not include,' but this, too, is wrong on two counts. First, how could they LEAVE OUT portions of Scripture if their manuscripts are OLDER than the KJV ones? They only LEAVE OUT Scripture if you ASSUME the KJV to be the starting point of translation - which then begs the question which Bible was used prior to the KJV (and that begs the question of how that Bible suddenly 'went bad,' too)? Secondly, the 1611 KJV also had 8,422 textual notes including one calling doubt on Luke 17:36, a verse that is NOT in the majority of the manuscripts.