I have to admit that I have always been interested in early Biblical manuscripts and the history of how we got our Bible. For that reason I was drawn to this part of the forum as soon as I joined. I think that there is a valid case to be made that some manuscripts and some English translations are better than others and I am interested in exploring the differences that do exist. I tend to approach issues like this in a clinical sort of way and I am suprised when people get emotional about them, a failing of mine I suppose. I do have to say that I am somewhat suprised by just how personal people on both of this debate take the issue. I knew that there were radicals on the KJVO side, those who believe the original Greek and Hebrew should be corrected by the English of the Authorized Version for example. What I did not expect to find was positions just as radical on the other side. As an example of this I cite those who believe that manuscript A. can have thousands of differences from manuscript B. and that both are equal in their faithfullness to the originals. While I find the topic of manuscripts and Bible versions interesting, I can't help but believe that in the grand scheme of things we are splitting hairs. There are more important things to get worked-up about like actually reading one of the Bibles we are fighting over or sharing one with a lost person. Just my two cents worth.