It summarizes with the interesting statement: "This paper draws from Bible-Believing study, sermons, and publications to demonstrate that battle lines have been drawn on an issue of importance, but proffers neither scholarly wisdom nor proof positive.", then sends people off to read Gail Riplinger for the real proof positive and scholarly wisdom.
Hmmm... Let's take a look at one of his arguments and see what he does proffer:
The Bible used in China today omits 1John 5:7 (and these three are one). Is this the word of God? It does not match the kept and preserved word of God of the AV1611. It is evidently translated from the corrupted Minority Text.
Now, please, remember this conclusion...it'll play into something fun in a moment.
The KJV in my hand is the only one translated from the proper manuscripts, the Greek Textus Receptus (i.e Received Text, or Majority Text), and the Hebrew Masoretic text.
This is a nice example of Scott(?)'s piece on obfuscation, since the Majority text is not the same as the TR as we'll see in a moment.
Purified seven times? Just coincidence? Look at the sequence of Bible languages:
4. Old Syriac
5. Old Latin
Purified seven times, the number of perfection! Coincidence?
No, just cleverly arranged selective data. Take a look at this list. The 'test' for the Chinese was long 1John 5:7-8...if they don't have it, they are corrupted. However, the German is in the list of Seven Bible Languages. Guess what? The German (which mean's Luthers, the main (maybe only?) German translation before the KJV) doesn't have long 1John 5:7-8, either. Oh-oh, we have to throw out the German and that only gives us 6 biblical Languages. We know what that means, right? But wait, it's not found in the Old Syriac either. Now we're down to 5 biblical Languages. Maybe we ought to kick in some of the other early biblical languages to get our numbers back up (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), but wait, it's not found in those, either. Shoot...
Also, since long 1John 5:7-8 only occurs in 4 Greek manuscripts of the 300 which contain 1John (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) , it's not in the 'majority text' (the compilation of majority readings), either*. If we have to throw out the Chinese, then we have to throw out the Majority Text.
If we have to throw out the Majority Text, then we have to throw out all translations based on it, too, right?
but "The KJV in my hand is the only one translated from the...Majority Text"
Yep, he was right, This paper...proffers neither scholarly wisdom nor proof positive."
But it sure was fun...
*this is a guess on my part. Perhaps DocCas could help me here. Doc?
-- 2Tim 2:24-25