Why I am KJV only I have been a member of Baptist Board going on one year and have not posted on this topic (although I have followed it) because I have been there and done that. In all the time I have spent on the Internet I have never seen anyone change his or her mind about Bible Versions and I figured that it was a waste of time. The other day a man named Chet posted on the Bible Version Board and his post mad it clear to me that I should at least post something on this page so if by chance someone acutely was struggling with what the deal is with Bible Versions, they may see this. I do talk to people about Bible Versions face to face but I'm not very good at doing it on the Internet. Before I get started a want to say that Ruckman and Riplinger are not representative of all KJVO people and they have serious flaws in their works. You can go to the following address to read articles on Ruckman, Riplinger and James White that go into detail. http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/fbns/examining01.htm When I got saved I had a huge appetite for the word of God. The preacher of the church I joined used the KJV and said that it was the word of God so that's what I read. He also used the Greek and Hebrew from Stronges so I got a Stronges and before long I to was "digging nuggets from the original languages" I went threw several note books retranslating the KJV. When I say huge appetite, I mean it. I would spend almost every waking hour (that I wasn’t at work) studding. That went on for about a year when I got a computer and a program with several different translations and "The Greek and Hebrew"… man I was on cloud nine, I could look at how other translators handled words and then come up with what the better reading would be. Then I came upon Matthew 17:21, when I tried to find it in the newer Bibles and it wasn’t there so I checked the Greek, it wasn't there! No explanation just a blank. By that time I had a pretty good start on a library so a started digging. I found out that the verse was not considered to be in the original manuscripts. Talk about jerking the rug out from under a guy… I felt like it was no use studying the bible anymore… if that was added at a later date what else had been added? After about a week of agonizing over this something strange happened. A man came in the office and said "I was just driving down the interstate (about five miles from my office) and thought I would stop and see if there were any jobs to be had in this area" I told him that we were not hiring and wished him luck. He was about to turn around and leave when the thought hit me that he was a long way from the interstate and maybe the Lord had led him to me so I could give him a Gospel Tract. He looked at and said I have something in the car for you and came back with a tact called "An Eye Opener" handed it to me and left. The tract told about how modern Bible versions were based upon a different set of manuscripts than the KJV and listed, I think, two hundred verses that were missing words or even the whole verse. For the next two or three years, I studied everything I could find on bible versions, I got on the Internet and found tuns of stuff on Bible Versions and began debating others on the Internet. In that time I have had men with Drs degrees argue me right down to the ground, with quotes from dead men and fifty dollar words, but I always came back to one simple conclusion…the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV, they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word. For me it’s a matter of authority, I may have to dust off an English Dictionary from time to time but most of the time the context of the verse and the way the word is used in other places is all I need to know to understand what it's saying, but I know that what I'm reading is true. I know that the posts that follow this will slam me and no doubt some will be very convincing but for me it's a faith thing.