The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White

Apparently you didn't read it yourself. There are five pages by Mr. Cloud on this issue. But you have still not answered the question that has been asked several timeslease document the false comments that James White allegedly made in his book-"The KJO Controversy."

Some interesting things Cloud said in his article:

Personally, I would reject the NIV on the basis of either one of only two corrupted verses, one in the Old Testament ( Micah 5:2 ) and one in the New Testament ( 1 Timothy 3:16 ).
[ I wonder on what basis he considers the NIV renderings to be corrupted. Also, is he aware that the KJV has a host of textual corruptions itself? --Rip ]

[Cloud says the strangest things sometimes . For instance ]--Since I have been reading , studying and fellowshipping with King James Bible defenders since 1973. James White was only eleven in 1973.

[ O how convincing that argument is!-- Rip]

We also acknowledge the happy fact that there is a general overall doctrinal agreement between the textual families.

[ Finally some sanity issues from his keystrokes. If he repeats that kind of sentiment more often, he will lose his KJVO audience-- Rip ]

You can show someone the Gospel of the grace of Christ even with a Roman Catholic version.

[ This is scary. He's making too much sense here! -- Rip]

It is easier to defend their ( Jw's for instance) perverted doctrine from the modern versions than it is from the KJV Bible.

[ Oops, he's back to making nonsensical claims again. -- Rip ]

[ Cloud insists that the word 'Diety' is less clear than the King James Version's 'Godhead' in Colossians 2:9 ]

I don't have the time now, but could someone see if the KJV uses the word 'Diety' at all? If it does , than Cloud's claim vanishes.Also, is the word "diety really less clear than 'Godhead'?The verse is emphasizing the fullness of God, or God's nature is in the Person of Christ. That's the point, right?-- Rip ]

Cloud spends a great deal of time on the sunject of Robert Schuller in his article. Why he does this is a mystery. Many leading Evangelical and Reformed leaders (who use the MV's) denounce R.S. various heresies. Cloud just wasted his time devoting so much space to Schuller.

Also, Cloud took up a lot of space on the subject of the Bible's infallibility. That has no relevancy to the issue-at-hand. Tell me one Evangelical/Reformed leader who supports the ESV and yet also doubts the infallibility of God's Word.

He has a lot of charts which purport to manifest the weakness of various versions.However, after hammering the NIV specifically early on, he does not use it at all in his listing of Bible passages which he tries to set forth as watering-down the Word of God.Hmm, could it be that the NIV was not guilty of any watering-down in his examples? He just uses it selectively. Also, he cites the NRSV in his charts but I have failed to see how any doctrine is weakened in that version.He prints out the NRSV verses, but usually doesn't mention it as pertaining to any doctrinal weakening.I am in general agreement with his assessment of the TEV,CEV,LB etc.