I made a remark in an earlier thread about how KJV-only arguments against the modern versions echo the arguments of Roman Catholic apologists against the evangelical doctrines of the sufficiency of Scripture. What follows is a slight re-working of a post I made elsewhere. It comprises part of a critique of a KJV-only Web site by an author named "Chris" (whose last name I will leave out), which site is also no longer available. My edits here are basically to mark up the text in a format more suitable to the BB, and to remove extraneous material that makes no sense out of context. Chris' page starts out with a Scriptural citation, John 5:24 and others. This introduction closes with a note that once a Christian becomes born again he matures by feeding on the Word of God. "Doubting the Word of God," he writes, "is not a natural condition for a child of God." He then goes on to tell this little hypothetical anecdote: Ah yes. The classic KJV-only "confusion" sob story. Multiple translations undermine Biblical authority, it says, because they never agree on anything. Better to just have one single Bible translation that everyone can refer to and avoid all this confusion. Doesn't this line of reasoning sound familiar? It is none other than a rehashed version of the standard argument commonly used by the apologists for the Roman church against the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. For example, see this passage by Patrick Madrid, from a debate against James White: In other words, all these pastors claim to believe "sola scriptura" and yet they cannot agree on the meaning of the Scriptures. All this confusion! Therefore, Madrid says implicitly, you need a single final authority - the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman apologists employ the same kind of skepticism when dealing with the text of Scripture that they do when dealing with its interpretation. In the first volume of their trilogy Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, David King and William Webster cite several examples of Roman apologists appealing to the uncertainty of the text in favour of so-called Sacred Tradition. They refute these assertions with the words of the textual critics; both Protestant and Catholic critics alike affirm the overwhelming certainty of the text, such that no essential truth remains in question because of a variant reading. As one author puts it, "In any event, no doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain."  How does this differ in substance from the claims Chris is making? His argument is exactly the same in form: all these Bibles claim to be the Word of God and yet they cannot agree on the exact wording. All this confusion! Therefore, Chris says, you need a single final authority - the King James Version. This appeal to skepticism, from both camps, is agenda-driven. Its purpose is to drive Christians towards an arbitrary standard of authority - not by positively establishing that authority as authentic, but by creating skepticism. King remarks on this kind of appeal: Replace "oral tradition" with "KJV-onlyism" and "the Roman Church" with "the King James Bible," and you have Chris' argument in a nutshell. Footnotes  Debate between James White vs. Patrick Madrid, "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?" Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church, September 28.  Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990) 281, qtd. in David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, vol. 1 (Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001) 154.  King, op. cit. 157.