you said:

'You will still need an INERRANT Hebrew and Greek text in order to analyse and promote so-called "errors" in ANY Bible.'

Now I am being called a liar, which is even worse than an Arminian, for stating the fact that W&H did not write two GK manuscripts, that were actually written some 1500yrs before they were born.

You do not do your cause any good.

I am talking about Planet earth which is a lot bigger than the UK, stop being so short sighted, yes the Church in the Europe and the Uk is shrinking, but what about China? South Korea? and the like, none of these nations use the kjv, so wake up, and stop denying God's wonderful works of grace just because you want to use a 16th (well actually the version you use is 18th) century translation.

Finally stop equating the truth with exclusive KJVism that is disgusting indeed.

'RE:: KJV; The reason I defend this version of God's Holy Writ and not the modern version is because (A) God used it for 400 years, (B) KJV comes from a superior Greek text. (C) That Text did not use the input of Two heretics and their textual criticism. (D) Nor would I use the Nestle-Aland.'

A. Yes God has indeed used the KJV, but he has also used other versions to His glory. In the past 50yrs the Christian faith has progressed at a faster rate than ever before, not via the KJV.

B. The King James version does not come from a superior text (texts)it is a translation from comparatively very few later manuscripts.

c. It still amazes me that people think, or act like Wescott and Hort actually wrote the GK texts B and א Surely this nonsense about W&H needs to be shelved, what on earth do they have to do with the great versions we have today?

Nothing that's what!

D. Well that's not much of an argument!

'The evangelical church has become a laughing stock, and the sooner we can put to bed these superstitious, traditional hobby horses the better.'

John Gill also famously said the translators had moulded the kjv to suit their own opinions while 'they put the truer renderings in the margin'

These arguments are so similar to what we hear from advocates of exclusive KJV use, it is almost frightening.

Ricky St. Claire wrote:
Is it really wise for SermonAudio to feature a "news" item like this that is tied to conspiracy theories, mostly associated with nutjobs, debunked by fact-checking websites (like factcheck.org, for instance), and is very, very partisan in its claim? Regardless of anyone's opinion on the topic of Obama's birth, I don't think it serves or honors Christ at all to feature this kind of news/propaganda and, through the nature of your website, associate it with God, Christ, and Biblical truth.
Please be more discerning. It's nice to have those news bits, and everyone is entitled to an opinion, but remember Who we are representing. Bashing Obama, for whatever reason, hurts our testimony.

He would be having something to say about how the poor are being ripped off by Wall Street (rampant Capitalism) the hypocrisy of the current religious establishment that is currently losing its power.

And oh yes he would say something lovingly to homosexuals like "I forgive you - don't keep up that lifestyle because I can set you free from that"

Don't see what any of this has to do with some of the comments that followed.

And he would never wrap himself in an American, Australian, Israeli, UN or any other flag either.