Thomas, I believe you are responding too harshly to Philip. He is asking genuine questions. He apparently has not seen your position on the KJV, and I must admit that even though I do know it, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between you and the KJVOnlyites. (You haven’t posted it in a while.) Now finding out that Paula has been learning under your ministry calls it even more into question. We have all seen some of the misrepresentations and fallacious arguments she has posted and I would have thought someone of your position would have corrected her. I do not mean that as a personal attack on her at all or you for that matter. It is simply surprising to me that someone who has been under your ministry would be posting the arguments that she is posting. You have on other occasions urged people to use legitimate arguments. (BTW, while Philip’s post was edited for supposed ad hominem attacks (I didn’t see them so I don’t know), I noticed that Paula’s post still contains similar attacks.) Furthermore, your position on the LXX is most interesting. Apparently you are arguing that Christ didn’t quote from it because the earliest edition we have is 350 AD (I believe you said). So apparently you argue that he can’t have quoted from something that didn’t exist. Yet your whole position on the NT text is based on manuscripts that don’t exist. The Byz text type has long been shown to be a late tradition. Yet the lateness of it has not stopped you from supporting it. In other words you apparently argue that the late date of the LXX means it didn’t exist and the late date of the Byzantine NT mss means that it had to have existed. It seems to me that the same argument won’t work both ways. It is either a true argument and good for both, or a false argument and it works for neither. It seems inconsistent to me. Please explain how it is not. BTW, there is ample evidence for the existence of the LXX in the first century. It is not really debated much. The question regarding a verse for proof of the KJV as the perfect word of God is not a straw man. It is a legitimate question. The orthodoxy of people such as myself is being called into question on something that is unprovable from Scripture. It is at best a logical conclusion; it is more likely a personal preference to which there is no clear right or wrong answer. You know that as well as I do. We can agree to disagree on which text critical method is the superior one. We can agree to disagree on the relative value of the textual families. But you know good and well that some are claiming perfection for the KJV and that is not a legitimate position. In asking for a verse, we are simply demonstrating that God has not revealed the information that some people are claiming is set in stone. In other words, they are putting words in God’s mouth. I am not quite sure that God agrees with them. I do not begrudge the theory of your position, that the Majority text type is the better text. I disagree but it is a legitimate position. It is illegitimate to say that the KJV is the perfect Word of God, or the only Word of God.