So you believe the Bible correctors and their 10% manuscript evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was added by the KJV translators? You still cling to your erroneous belief that modern translations are valid? I just wonder with the 90% manuscript evidence supports the TR from which the KJV was translated from how you think you have a leg to stand on with only 10% evidence? The odds that the NIV is a valid translation goes up in smoke. With that kind of reasoning there is a possibility that the New World Translation is also valid since the NIV is no less corrupt than that translation.

BTW, you must have a mental block since you continue insulting us with the KJVOnly label when I have stated over and over that I (we) do not believe that the entire world must learn English and read the KJV to have a valid version. I have stated ad nauseum that the Textus receptus and the Masoretic Hebrew Text are the preserved word of God and the KJV is God's preserved word in the ENGLISH language.

Have you ever heard of the Gideons? They have translated the Bible in almost every language on this planet and those foreign language translations are as much the word of God as the KJV is. The NIV and her brethren are from totally different texts and they all have one thing in common, they are corrupt because their source was corrupt.

Proverbs 29:2 "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
Last Edited By: XrcTim Apr 25 09 10:57 PM. Edited 1 times.