Me: 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.

XRT Tim: 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.

Can you **PROVE** some versions haven't **ADDED** this material, and other, to their translation?

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.

Your "stand" is simply a GUESS. What makes you think God retired in 1611?

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.

What's so hot about Hills? He brought nothing new to the table except some of his own opinions. But if ya don't wanna read Wilkinson's book, fine, but then please don't tryta justify the doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. Again, virtually all literature advocating this doctrine are derived from Wilkinson's book. I HAVE READ W'S BOOK, as well as stuff by Riplinger, Ruckman, Ray, Fuller, etc. & therefore know of which I speak. If you read that book, you will see where I'm coming from, but ifya don't, your criticism is non-factual and hollow.

You wanted proof-I provided proof. Now, lessee YOUR proof!

"robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"