2.) The well-known pre-AV English Bible versions, as well as sevaral post-AV versions, are just-as-valid as the AV or any other English version.
Do you have an NIV Bible handy Steel? If you do, go to Mark 16 and then tell me if verses 9-20 are in brackets. If not or they are go to the footnotes and tell me what they say. If they say (if there are footnotes) what I think they say then your idea of the NIV as a valid translation is shot through and you might as well throw the NIV in the garbage. Now go to John 5:7 and tell me if the verse is even in the NIV (of course you must read the KJV first). If it is not there that again shows that the NIV is not valid and should be thrown in the garbage.

You are so focused in on this idea of the KJVOnly, not ever responding to the fact that I do not believe that everyone in the world must learn English and read the KJV to have the Word of God, so again you just spout incendiary things to make some point. My stand is that the TR and the Masoretic hebrew Text are the preserved word of God and 90% of all manuscript evidence proves it while only 10% of manuscript evidence supports the modern versions.

You are the one who needs to prove the modern versions are valid with so little manuscript evidence (10 %). Tell me Steel, with so litle manuscript evidence how did the modern translators come up with anything coherent? Go read Hills and put down the book by Wilkinson which is an absolute red herring, since nobody I know has ever read and cares to read a book by a guy I never heard of.


Tim

Proverbs 29:2 "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."