Definitions, Please

I'll take another shot at it.

1. Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."

2. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its origin was so superintended by God that it now replaces all earlier bibles, including the Hebrew and Greek.

3. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its words are equal to the Hebrew and Greek and that the words of the KJV are the "Final Authority" and that any word in any other bible which differes in any way from a word in the KJV is "corrupt."

4. The Textus Receptus Only, or Majority Text Only, or Critical Text Only, or Stephens Text Only, or Westcott Hort Text Only who limit the NT scriptures to one and only one Greek language text and refuse to accept any reading which varies from their chosen (usually arbitrarily) text. This view has produced KJVOs but to the best of my knowledge it has not produced any NIVOs or NASVOs, etc.

5. Those who believe the basic texts underlying the KJV are superior to the basic texts underlying most of the later versions, and consider the KJV to be an excellent translation of Holy Writ and love it and honor it as they teach and preach from it.

I would consider 1-3 to be KJVOs, #4 may contain KJVOs as well as NIVOs etc., and that #5 is not KJVO and is the most rational of the positions listed and the position I hold after 35 years of intense study of the issue.

 

Thanks TC for giving us that delineation. I, too, am a #5 on your list and have some good friends who are #4s. However, to group me with KJVO status is to include me with biblical heretics. I believe the KJVO position is truth out of balance and a position new in the 20th century.

Keep in the Word (KJV - 1769)

 

Circuitrider, I too am a #5, and I too have several friends who are #4s. I love them, and pray for them and their ministries, but reserve the right to disagree with them. What I have not found myself able to do is to demean them and their ministries on the basis of our disagrement. I'm with you! Let's just preach the gospel from whichever bible we have in our hands, and watch the Father draw men, women, boys, and girls to the Son!

 

Dr. Cassidy, I'm continuing my thought over in this thread where you directed me. Your breakdown is a little different than James White's.

On the one hand, your's is more distinguishing in some regards and otherwise completely missing White's first category, which was "I like the KJV best" Which is sorta the... it-was-mama's-Bible, and I'll-never-give-it-up or she'll-turn-over-in-her-grave kind of argument.

Thanks again for this LINK, but I was curious as to whether you think James White is fair in the way he writes the descriptions for the categories he asserts? Maybe I'm presuming too much in thinking that you have his book, do you?

Btw, do you have a shorthanded way to describe these categories, one - three word phrases?

Anyway... to your remarks...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I'll take another shot at it.

1. Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You offered these definitions without critical comment, so I'll ask, would you not agree that position #1 here (notwithstanding the possibility that there could be some nice folks who hold it) is, in substance, a serious heresy?

I'm not invoking the term as a curse word, but in sober criticism. I'm using the term heresy in ALL of it's common definitions: out of the mainstream of historic orthodox doctrine, divisive innovation and biblically incompatible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
2. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its origin was so superintended by God that it now replaces all earlier bibles, including the Hebrew and Greek.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This view, as you've described it, is tolerable for about three-fourths of the way through the text, but when we get to the last clause, we've once again stumbled upon what I think can be fairly described as a heresy, unless I've misunderstood the meaning of your phrasing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
3. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its words are equal to the Hebrew and Greek and that the words of the KJV are the "Final Authority" and that any word in any other bible which differes in any way from a word in the KJV is "corrupt."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to sound redundant, but if this view is not heretical, it is at least bad doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
4. The Textus Receptus Only, or Majority Text Only, or Critical Text Only, or Stephens Text Only, or Westcott Hort Text Only who limit the NT scriptures to one and only one Greek language text and refuse to accept any reading which varies from their chosen (usually arbitrarily) text. This view has produced KJVOs but to the best of my knowledge it has not produced any NIVOs or NASVOs, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this view, you've not made an important distinction that I believe should be made. From my reading and common sense, I get the impression that there is no such thing as a critical text only, or a Wescott & Hort only person, in the same sense that we use the term KJVO.

It's true, there may be persons who ONLY use the: "critical text," "Wescott & Hort type text," I suspect these types use those formulations because they believe, on a scholarly level, (rightly or wrongly) those texts are the best.

That's not the same mindset we are describing when we KJVO-critical writers use the term KJVO. When we say KJVO, we are NOT using it as technical shorthand to describe one who happens to only use the KJV.

We're using it as an unflattering label for a cultic superstitious paranoid mindset that looks at the translation committees of all other versions and sees, NOT scholarly Christian gentlemen with a different view of textual criticism, BUT a cadre of apostate spooks working their bible corrupting voodoo, on the Holy Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
5. Those who believe the basic texts underlying the KJV are superior to the basic texts underlying most of the later versions, and consider the KJV to be an excellent translation of Holy Writ and love it and honor it as they teach and preach from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree that number 5 is not strictly a KJVO position, because the thrust has switched from bigoted-ignorance to scholarly-dispute. I have absolutely no problem with someone who holds such a position, and I don't think that anyone else should either. Those who disagree with the substance of this view should be able to debate with those who hold it like Christian ladies & gentlemen.

cordially,

CNM

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

For whatever its worth...

I would classify myself as a 4.5.
Just barely outside of the KJVO or TRO sphere.

I view (by faith) the Greek and Hebrew eclectic text underlying the KJV as the restored Word of God and always fall back on this text (I have the Trinitarian Bible Society copies). I would consider and am open to scholarship and enhancement of this text.

Obvioulsy then,I don't agree with the Wescott and Hort theories : Older is better, shorter reading is better.

However, I use the MVs as study tools because (IMO) the translators use modern English words and phrases which are closer in nuance to the originals than the olde KJV English (that is of course if there is no serious variant in the MV reading). Having some formal education in Greek and Hebrew I can get along without the MVs but they do simplify things.

Often in my Adult Sunday School class I will ask for some one to read from the NIV, NAS, NKJV...etc, but usually only if I know that it has a closer meaning to the original than the KJV (apart from the olde English vs. Modern English difference).

HankD

 

Personally, I only use for Teaching and Preaching the KJV/NKJV. I do prefer the Majority Text for the N.T. I sometimes however, will reluctantly acknowledge that the NIV/NASV renders this verse or phrase thusly, to enhance the meaning of the text.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RevKevin77:
Personally, I only use for Teaching and Preaching the KJV/NKJV. I do prefer the Majority Text for the N.T. I sometimes however, will reluctantly acknowledge that the NIV/NASV renders this verse or phrase thusly, to enhance the meaning of the text. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've just finished a two-week intensive exegesis course on Galatians, taught by Muarice Robinson, Byzantine text expert and co-editor of the NT according to the Byzantine text, with Robert Pierpoint.

He of course taught the course using the Byzantine Greek text, but alongside the NKJV. Most of us students had the NASB.

Although he prefers the Byzantine text, and therefore prefers the NKJV as his English translation, I chuckled that at least 3 dozen times after he translated the verse from Greek and checked the NKJV, he said it was not really translated correctly (at that word or verse). He then would ask who had an NASB, and checked the translation, and then he'd say "The NASB really translated it better there".

He really panned the NIV, calling it a glorified paraphrase, but admitting that even the NIV got the sense of some passages better than the NKJV.

One thing I've found interesting sitting under three Greek and Hebrew scholars: to them, no one ever really translates the languages correctly. Each one would like to translate his own version.

I guess that expresses the need for translation by committee over individual translators.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I would agree that number 5 is not strictly a KJVO position, because the thrust has switched from bigoted-ignorance to scholarly-dispute. I have absolutely no problem with someone who holds such a position, and I don't think that anyone else should either. Those who disagree with the substance of this view should be able to debate with those who hold it like Christian ladies & gentlemen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, #5 is mainly a belief of KJV supremacy, but even that tends to produce KJVO's when propagated publicly -- in the same way that bigoted remarks about racial supremacy do. For example, the KKK is not "white-only" in the sense that anglos are the only race that is human -- they just think whites are much better than non-whites. And, as we all know, that leads to racial strife.

The problem is, a great number (the vast majority?) of KJV-onlies and KJV supremacists feel obliged to share their beliefs with everyone they know. That's what causes division in churches, and you can rest assured that the Holy Spirit is NOT in it.

The bottom line is, ALL FIVE positions are fertile ground for producing divisive and pugnacious KJVO's, which is not good. Most folks in the pews are not spiritually mature, and aren't aware of the subtle differences between KJVO and KJV/TR supremacy. To them, it's the same thing, and many will make an issue over it as proof that they're "spiritual".

TLB

P. S. -- I mean no offense toward KJVO's by these remarks, I'm just trying to tell it like it is. He who has ears to hear . . .

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
The problem is, a great number (the vast majority?) of KJV-onlies and KJV supremacists feel obliged to share their beliefs with everyone they know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terry:

Not defending KJVOs, but are there not also MV supremacists who sneer and belittle anyone who would even still consider using a KJV?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Not defending KJVOs, but are there not also MV supremacists who sneer and belittle anyone who would even still consider using a KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point, Chris, and thanks for bringing it up. I think ANYONE who causes division in a church by touting their own preferences for ANYTHING should be silenced:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
1 Cor. 1:11-13
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for me, I throughly enjoy studying the NASB and the Amplified, but that is purely my personal preference, and I won't mention that preference from the pulpit. I preach from the KJV almost exclusively, mostly to avoid causing a problem. And, that is the whole point.

Terry

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I was curious as to whether you think James White is fair in the way he writes the descriptions for the categories he asserts? Maybe I'm presuming too much in thinking that you have his book, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I not only have James White's book, but have corresponded with him and chatted with on several occasions. I think his book is unfair only insofar as it tends to take the worst case scenario and apply it with a rather broad brush to everyone whom James labels as KJVO without taking into consideration his own different catagories of KJVOism.

As to your questions, let me offer a rather broad opinion (perhaps too broad). I don't consider any form of KJVOism to be heresy in my understanding of the word. It seems to me that a person expressing his faith in his bible cannot be considered heresy. Some of the conclusions drawn from that faith in his bible can be heresy (I have a bible but you don't - I am saved because I believe the KJV but you are not because you don't, etc.), but the position of believing the KJV is the word of God, inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, etc., is far better, in my mind, than the position taken by some on this board (thankfully a very small minority) that the bible is not inspired, inerrant, infallible, or perserved in any form, and cannot be trusted in all that it speaks of!

Sorry for the short answer, but today is my busy day. Preperation day.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I preach from the KJV almost exclusively, mostly to avoid causing a problem. And, that is the whole point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a serious question (not inflammatory), is not this attitude a part of the modern problem? It seems the the trouble stems from the fact that for 100 years we have had at least one good option that most people agreed was a good option. Yet no one ever switched, thus giving the opinion that there was no other Word of God out there. I was listening to a pastor recently whose church has just voted to allow public use of the NASB and the NKJV. He said the reason is "These are the Word of God and we want to validate it by public use." He commented on the "inadvertent propogation" of the KJV Only position because we have failed to publically use and thereby endorse the fact that there are other versions that are equally the Word of God. It seems that when we have failed to make our practice fit our teaching, often for the reason that we don't want to confuse or cause trouble. Yet we have no problem confusing people over the Trinity, the blood atonement, the miracles, etc. all of which are hard to fathom. Why is this the place we choose to put our "non trouble causing" stake down?

I am not suggesting we should cause trouble. I preach from the 95NASB, but regularly quote from the NIV, NKJV, and KJV by name. Most people in my (small) church do not have a problem because I preach authoritatively the text and reference others where necessary. I have gone out of my way to give the public impression that I trust and use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV.

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As a serious question (not inflammatory), is not this attitude a part of the modern problem?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I hardly consider my attitude of being a peacemaker as a problem, but I think I see your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It seems the the trouble stems from the fact that for 100 years we have had at least one good option that most people agreed was a good option. Yet no one ever switched, thus giving the opinion that there was no other Word of God out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you are referring to the ASV?

Well, Psalm 23 just doesn't sound quite the same in other translations. That makes tradition a hard thing to overcome, especially when it affects things that are very dear to our hearts. And, that's why so many KJVO's are willing to fight to the death over this thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It seems that when we have failed to make our practice fit our teaching, often for the reason that we don't want to confuse or cause trouble.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't think my approach is hypocritical in any way, but it's funny that you brought that up.

Before I started preaching, I used to think the pastors in the churches I belonged to were a little wishy-washy about that. Now that I'm in the driver's seat, I can understand why they were so cautious. Not all Baptist churches are open-minded enough to make such a switch.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yet we have no problem confusing people over the Trinity, the blood atonement, the miracles, etc. all of which are hard to fathom. Why is this the place we choose to put our "non trouble causing" stake down?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, we shouldn't be confusing people about anything. It's our job to un-confuse 'em.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I am not suggesting we should cause trouble. I preach from the 95NASB, but regularly quote from the NIV, NKJV, and KJV by name.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great. If you'll notice my previous message, I said I preach from the KJV almost exclusively. I do drop hints from time to time that I'm not KJVO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Most people in my (small) church do not have a problem because I preach authoritatively the text and reference others where necessary. I have gone out of my way to give the public impression that I trust and use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you mentioned, the size of the congregation has a lot to do with a church's willingness to accept such a radical change, which would probably require the purchase of additional pew Bibles.

Anyway, I mostly agree with you. I expect to make such a change eventually . . . Lord willing.

Terry

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
True, #5 is mainly a belief of KJV supremacy, but even that tends to produce KJVO's when propagated publicly -- in the same way that bigoted remarks about racial supremacy do. For example, the KKK is not "white-only" in the sense that anglos are the only race that is human -- they just think whites are much better than non-whites. And, as we all know, that leads to racial strife. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terry I appreciate your perspective, but I have my doubts about it. As I am reading Dr. Cassidy's view #5 on it's face it sounds very close(though slightly stricter) to the Majority Text position, which would include people like: Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad, Wilbur Pickering, Willliam C. Dunkin, Jakob Van Bruggan, Harry A, Sturz, Alfred Martin.

That the radical KJVOs selectively borrow from the material of people like these, is well-known. You may recall that Zane Hodges and Alfred Martin both had essays published in D.O Fuller's "Which Bible?" But I heard or read somewhere, that Hodges was not comfortable with the effect of this essay lumping him with radical KJVOs. Also I might be wrong, but I thought maybe Fuller edited Hodge's essay. In any case, Fuller did catch some heat for portraying Robert Dick Wilson and C.H. Spurgeon incorrectly.

Beyond this, I suspect one could hardly hold such a KJV supremacy stance without eventually lapsing into one of the other four positions, or migrating to at least a recognizable MT position. If you are correct then Dr. Cassidy's list is too short. I'm not completely comfortable with the wording of his five positions, and I suspect that if we were to place them on a sheet next to James White's five, that between the 10, we could come up with about six distinguishable KJV positions, but maybe only three or four that are truly KJV-Only in the sense that I take that label.

cordially,

CNM

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[/qb]As to your questions, let me offer a rather broad opinion (perhaps too broad). I don't consider any form of KJVOism to be heresy in my understanding of the word. It seems to me that a person expressing his faith in his bible cannot be considered heresy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a little reluctant to reply as I think I should wait for the rest of yours, but I can't help but feel the need to further clarify.

Well... it is true that one could hold position #1, in ignorance to it's ramifications, certainly some of the factory workers (in the assemblies that propogate this aberrant {and abhorant} view) probably do.

But, I did say, in substance. For a refresher your view #1 reads...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>1.Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."
[/list]

The last two thirds of this view, imo, is just simply bad doctrine and bad practice which stems from the heresy of the first sentence. The list of possible heresies flowing from this one heresy is disturbing, to say the least.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>1. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture emasculates the doctrine of providential preservation. In this sense the extreme KJVOs are just like the worst of the Higher Critics. Because, by practice, the necessity of reinspiration is a de facto disregarding of providential preservation.

<LI>2. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture is neo-pentecostal extremism. If we accept this doctrine by it's very validity it tranforms the KJV translators into apostles & prophets.

<LI>3. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture undermines(to some degree) a historical and theological appreciation for the special place of the biblical writers. This has to be so, since God went ahead and re-did the whole thing over in 1611.

<LI>4. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture calls into question the propriety of ANY biblical translation work. If God did not (for whatever reason) providentially preserve the sacred scriptures from biblical times, and thus needed to RE-inspire the biblical books in 1611, then, who is anyone to think that he can make a translation into Spanish, Tagalog, Swahili or what-have-you, if such-a-one is not an apostle or prophet?

Also, again this opens up the logical necessity for revelatory Charismata in each new country missionaries enter, unless of course we teach them Elizabethan English.
[/list]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Terry I appreciate your perspective, but I have my doubts about it.
&lt;snip&gt;
That the radical KJVOs selectively borrow from the material of people like these, is well-known. You may recall that Zane Hodges and Alfred Martin both had essays published in D.O Fuller's "Which Bible?" But I heard or read somewhere, that Hodges was not comfortable with the effect of this essay lumping him with radical KJVOs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that sort of guilt by association wasn't the point I was trying to make. (Sorry, I should have been more clear.)

I was mostly referring to the influence (inadvertent or intentional) that KJV/TR supremacists tend to have over the people in their own congregations. It's a type of leaven that tends to "leaven the whole lump".

Whenever a church member self-righteously throws down the gauntlet that the KJV/TR is the BEST (or ONLY) Bible there is, that instantly creates an an atmosphere of divisiveness and peer pressure which can easily quench the Spirit. The resulting conflict is unnecessary and extremely harmful.

My question is: How does that honor Jesus Christ? Is the Holy Spirit the force behind such things? Absolutely not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Also I might be wrong, but I thought maybe Fuller edited Hodge's essay. In any case, Fuller did catch some heat for portraying Robert Dick Wilson and C.H. Spurgeon incorrectly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't doubt that. I myself ran across a few quotes from Spurgeon a while back where he seemed to think very highly of the Revised Version. (I have that Fuller book, but I haven't finished studying it yet.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Beyond this, I suspect one could hardly hold such a KJV supremacy stance without eventually lapsing into one of the other four positions, or migrating to at least a recognizable MT position. If you are correct then Dr. Cassidy's list is too short.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I can accept Thomas Cassidy's excellent classifications as they are, and I believe it's possible for #5's to remain so indefinitely without ever embracing KJVO-ism themselves.

However, it's the influence that their supremacist beliefs have on less mature Christians that worries me. Very few KJV supremacists know how to keep their Bible preferences to themselves while at church (James 3).

That creates a problem because most new Christians have no idea where the Bible came from, and it's easy to manipulate them with false information.

TLB

[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
I was mostly referring to the influence (inadvertent or intentional) that KJV/TR supremacists tend to have over the people in their own congregations. It's a type of leaven that tends to "leaven the whole lump".

Whenever a church member self-righteously throws down the gauntlet that the KJV/TR is the BEST (or ONLY) Bible there is, that instantly creates an an atmosphere of divisiveness and peer pressure which can easily quench the Spirit. The resulting conflict is unnecessary and extremely harmful.

My question is: How does that honor Jesus Christ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't; and as you've described it, it is to my way of thinking another form of KJVOism hiding behind a cloak of denial.

You said DR. Cassidy's list is fine the way it is. If that is true, then Zane Hodges and Co. must be in category number five. But the true Majority Text people are generally scholarly Christian gentlemen, who wouldn't give the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger the satisfaction of sharing any kind of venue, not that an autononmous person like Ruckman would want to share anything with anybody anyway, but I digress.

What you seem to be referring to, is people who really don't understand what it is they are talking about, and using a position like #5 as a dividing weapon.

It appears (since we are disputing this point) that the # 5 position umbrella is two big and needs to divide.

I can't imagine the group you are describing needing more than a phone-booth to hold their meetings in. To affirm # 5, one would have to say, they are not TR-only. To be pro Majority Text is to not favor the Critical Text, but also to be broader than the TR!

If one equates the TR to the Majority Text, he is closer to number four than to number five, since the TR and MT disagree in so many places. If such a person as you describe exposes their position on the board, I will try to turn up the heat that such-a-one may recategorize himself or repudiate his incongruent ways.

cordially,

CNM

 

The KJV should be the preferred Bible. It comes from the Textus Receptus, and I know and believe it to be God inspired, by it being perfectly preserved in the English, what is there in the Greek.
If any of you believe in a "God inspired Word" such as the Bible clearly states the Holy Scriptures to be...then the question is, where is it? Is it something that only exists in man's imagination, something that no one can hold or touch or read?
The KJV compared to the NIV or the NASB shows themselves to be obviously different...if nothing else, that there are hundreds of verses missing. If we all believe that there is a God inspired Bible out there, and there are obviously hundreds of verses missing out of the two "other" main "versions" (NIV & NASB), why do people continue to defend those versions. If verses are missing, it cannot be the perfect word of God. It simply can't.
Now, for those who believe that God is only powerful enough to inspire the original Greek text, yet not powerful enough to preserve it in the English...are usually of two categories: they either (1) don't believe in a powerful enough God, or (2)are usually into "scholarship" or "education" in too big of a way, where their own "education" becomes the "authoritative source", not the word of God...these are normally the people who defend these other versions, especially after they have the evidence that there are hundreds of verses missing.
The others that slightly defend the other versions, do so normally out of ignorance...not that they are ignorant themselves, but that no one has pointed these things out to them. Usually these folks are quite shocked when they learn of these things.
Search your hearts gentlemen, to find out why you defend, what you defend. If God's word is inspired, and we are warned by God in two different places in the Bible not to add to or take away from His word, then why do we continue to read and study "versions" that obviously do so.