The subject of this post is what I read while reading a book on the movement we call King James Onlyism (KJO). The book was written by someone for their dissertation for a doctorate at a certain school (forgot the school it was for). While reading the book while at the library at Bob Jones University I saw where some "soldier" on a mission started correcting (rather, attempting to) the dissertation by crossing out the author's statements, adding his own in the margin, etc. The dissertations aim is to give an honest showing of the KJVO movement and then critique it. I have forgotten the name of the dissertation, but it's something along the lines of _The King James Only Movement: From 1950 to Present_ or something along those lines. In numerous places things were written in the book . One such thing was the subject of this post, "Tell that to Origen" when the author asserted that no doctrine was affected by a textual variant. Now, to the nitty-gritty of this post, what evidence can you who provide to corroborate your assertion that the text of "Westcott and Hort," B & Aleph, etc. was "doctored" or corrupted? The only honest attempt I have ever seen such a theory was Dr. Pickering in his book on the Majority Text (MT). He noted that one of the early Christians in the church (Gaius) had complained that ruthless heretics had tampered the text. However, when one takes Gaius' complaints in context, he wasn't talking about the whole body or corpus of the text. So please, those of you who continuously assert that certain texts have been "corrupted" or ruined, please explain how and by who.