When discussing the whole topic of versions debate we should beware of loaded terms.

In this discussion loaded terms are found often: "deleted" and "majority".

1. Words like "deleted", "changed" or "altered" have come up often in recent days. Using these words is like asking the question of someone, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no fair way to answer the question. Does the NIV delete words from the KJV? The assumption is that the KJV is the standard. A better way to ask it is "How does the NIV (or whatever translation) differ from the KJV in rendering, say, John 1:18?" This puts both translations initially on equal footing so a fair evaluation can be made. Otherwise you are in fact saying that you believe in re-inspiration, that God inspired the original writers of the Bible (which He did) and the mostly Anglican translators of the KJV in 1611 England, as well.

2. Another word that is misleading , especially to those who live in democratic countries, is "majority". The "Majority Text", or even "the majority of texts" (two different things) can be misleading to Christians.

The overwhelming majority of texts were made from the 10th to the 16th century. But these were mostly of the Byzantine type and there is a historical reason for this. The Fall of Constantinople and consequent migrations brought a flood of new manuscripts, Christian and Classical, to the attention of Western Europe. This was the impetus to renewed interest in the Biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew) and a rediscovery of Classic Roman and Greek Literature.

This flood gave birth to both the Renaissance and Reformation. But because it also gave undue influence to one family of manuscript types - Byzantine. When printing flourished in subsequent decades it was these Byzantine manuscripts that "got the media coverage", crowding out the Alexandrian, Western and other families. So it is not surprising that the Bishop's, Coverdale and KJV Bibles were all beholding to Byzantine sources. It was their main source.

All this just to say that, as the saying goes, "The majority can be wrong". More important than Majority is Seniority. The older texts, generally speaking, are the better ones because:

A. There was less time for sloppy or overzealous scribes to fudge the originals and

B. many of these early texts were from a time before the variations began to appear.

The variations came not so much from professional scribes or monks as you might imagine, but just from a large number of sincere persecuted Christians who wanted to have copies of the Bible or, since circumstances wouldn't permit this usually, at least have an Epistle or two. The copying was often hurried and mistakes crept in. Also marginal notes crept in the text, like the comment about why people gathered around the Pool of Bethesda for healing.

A personal note: I used to be an extreme KJV-only believer, believing that even the punctuation was given by God. Peter Ruckman was someone I had high respect for. But, as providence would have it, one of the Greek teachers I learned from at Bob Jones University was Dr. Stewart Custer, one of Ruckman's favorite "Alexandrian Cultists". When I read Ruckman's virulent attacks on my teacher, I realized that this is an often emotional issue and it is very hard to "dispassion" the mind so a cool and scriptural appraisal can be made. In the intervening years I realized that Dr Custer himself was also off-base on some things, but Ruckman gets nuttier and nuttier. It really bothers me that I see the arguments of Ruckman and Riplinger resurfacing (like "changing" Lucifer to the "Morning Star" or the so-called "conspiracy of deletions").