I do lose it in this argument sometimes. Thanks a lot, KJV-only extremists, for making this so difficult.

It does get frustrating arguing with people who don't pay attention to what I'm saying, but keep insisting on lumping me with the KJV-onlies. Granted, there are subtleties to this argument and people are used to the way it's generally misrepresented as a war between the KJV-onlies and Reason, but I do knock myself out trying to show that this is a straw man and STILL people don't get it. I'm referring now to another flap I just had elsewhere in cyberspace. Perhaps I need to preface every statement with a banner headline that says something like

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FRINGE KJV-ONLIES SUCH AS RIPLINGER AND RUCKMAN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE KING JAMES OR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE INSPIRED OF GOD.

THIS IS NOT EVEN REALLY ABOUT THE KING JAMES, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BIBLE BACK IN 1881 THAT SPEWED INTO THE 20th AND 21st CENTURIES BIBLES BASED ON CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS AND COMPROMISED BY THOUSANDS OF STUPID ENGLISH CHANGES AND MISREADINGS ALTHOUGH THE CHURCHES AND SEMINARIES UNFORTUNATELY THINK THEY'RE ALL LEGITIMATE.

Of course that won't do it either. Good grief.

I CAREFULLY distance myself from the KJV-onlies and IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Man, people can't read!

Here's what I just got:

... many who believe in KJV onlyism are cultists, not all but many. The fact that it has it was spawned by a Seventh Day Adventist should give one pause.

But this is irrelevant. I'M NOT A KJV-ONLY AND I REJECT THEIR ARGUMENTS.

From Hip and Thigh blog:

A definition of King James Onlyism in three sentences or less.

WHY DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KJV-ONLYISM WHEN I'M NOT ARGUING FOR KJV-ONLYISM AND HAVE SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AGAINST IT?

The aberrant belief that the King James Bible, first published in 1611, is the only reliable language translation which adequately conveys God's written revelation.

Any language translation prior to and after the publication of the KJV 1611 is either insufficiently translated or is translated from original language manuscripts alleged to have been intentionally corrupted by heretical individuals.

Moreover, any revision of the KJV 1611 text by either updating the English language and re-translating verses and passages for the sake of accuracy and clarity is viewed as corrupting God's Word and in some cases, introducing error into the Bible.

I just hate how this discussion so easily becomes about the crazy KJV-onlies instead of about what it SHOULD be about, the horrific mutilation of the Bible that Westcott and Hort did in 1881. THIS IS PROVEN BY DEAN BURGON'S LABORIOUS STUDY OF THE TEXTS AND THE 1881 REVISION -- it is PROVEN, not merely "alleged."

KJV-onlies may agree with that but they ALSO think the KJV is some sort of God-inspired text which is ridiculous. You'd think if nobody argues from a KJV-only point of view we'd be spared this kind of stupidity, but I guess there's no way to be spared it.

The devil sure knew what he was doing on this one, getting the church to think all these bogus Bibles are legit AND getting those who know they aren't legit smeared with the fringe arguments.

========
Here are some links to the usual stuff that came up in the dispute:

Hank Hanegraaff's argument:

This King James Version would likely have remained preeminent among English Bible translations if it were not for three principle factors: the evolution of language, ...

The King James needed an updating in the 19th century and that's what the committee of which Westcott and Hort were a part was supposed to do, but instead they substituted corrupted Greek texts and 36,000 unnecessary and often stupid changes in the English in violation of their agreement. Their contemporary and superior textual scholar, Dean Burgon, is the best source of understanding of what they did to the Bible.

...progress in knowledge and understanding of original biblical languages,...

There have been some improvements but nothing to the extent implied here, mostly in minor things like the names of some animals, and the KJV translators were arguably more expert in the original languages than anyone since them. Burgon referred to Westcott and Hort's Greek as "schoolboy" level at one point. The KJV DID need some improvements, but this is no argument in favor of the destruction produced by the Westcott and Hort committee.

...and the discovery of earlier and better manuscripts....

This is what I've been arguing against all along. Those "earlier and better" manuscripts are "earlier" only in the sense that they were found intact -- in dark corners, even a wastebasket -- after some 1500 to 1600 years, which is more likely evidence that they were rejected by the churches than that they represent the earliest form of the Bible. Burgon argues that they were known in his day to have been corrupted by heretical cults in the 2nd century, and he spends much of his writing proving it -- proving especially that the readings in the KJV are found in the earliest writings of the church and therefore are the authentic ones. Unfortunately nobody hears about Burgon's arguments any more so the seminaries and churches go on believing in the false "earliest and best" description of those corrupted manuscripts.

And here's James White with the usual obfuscating red herring argument:

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

This is typical garbage. They examine the corrupted texts to see if there's still SOME testimony to the gospel left in them, and finding that there is enough according to their lights, they completely ignore the fact that a great deal of it WAS removed in the early centuries and THIS CAN BE PROVED AND WAS PROVED BY DEAN BURGON. I document these things at my blog when I get the time.

It's OK by them if we no longer have lots of references to the deity of Christ or to such supernatural events as in the last twelve verses of Mark, or various other odd missing parts of the corrupted manuscripts? Shouldn't we want the CORRECT manuscripts with ALL the wording intact? The woman taken in adultery is not in the corrupted manuscripts for instance. Some modern versions stick it in anyway although their "better" manuscripts don't have it. There's something really rotten about all this manipulating that's going on.

And this doesn't even touch on the changes in the English that change the MEANING of what is still left of the UNcorrupted Greek.
=======

A list of those and other links for possible future reference:

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-one-

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-two-

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3F0U86BWBUP5