This comes from a book entitled, "King James Version Ditches Blind Guides" in which Gail Riplinger, the author is doing rebuttals to those who have written lies about her and her book, "New Age Bible Versions". That book is shaking the religious world in a negative sense and the Christian world in a positive sense. Get it and read it, you will be glad that you did.

The Berean Call: HELP!

Only those who have never read the book, New Age Bible Versions, will buy McMahon's assertion that it does not "logically" prove the premise but appeals only to those who are already "bias" or "prejudice" toward the KJV. The daily stack of mail and flood of phone calls from all over the world are from readers who were "biased" toward the new versions until they read the book's "logical" presentation, verse comparisons and irrefutable texual and historical data. Many who have corresponded are prominent individuals, pastors and bookstore owners who have, as a result of the overwhelming evidence in the book, trashed their new versions. The evidence was so convincing, the Holy Spirit so confirming, that they humbled their hearts and joyfully suffered: 1)financial loss, 2) criticism and persecution, 3) loss of friends, fellowship, church members, or customers.

Many had had great personal investments in the new versions (two men who were on the New King James North American Overview Committee now recommend the book: one gentleman who raised 1 million dollars to produce the CEV now recommends the book instead; one best-selling Christian author said, "We were die- hard NIV users for years, but this book convinced us otherwise."

McMAHON'S MISCITATIONS

"Her example, however is the title of her book Communion, a secular best seller... She claims, without a hint of documentation that the author named it that "to make it more easily acceptable [to Christians]." The example is far-fetched at best. The title cover of Communion features a horrifying image of an alien that would keep even the most gullible Christian at arm's length."

McMahon made five errors here. He pretends the book gives only one example and it has no documentation. This is preposterous misrepresentation. Actually New Age Bible Versions has 1,480 footnotes and several thousand verse comparisons, documenting the New Age impact on the church. (The book has 40 pages of footnotes- more than most books in print. Their type size had to be reduced to fit them into the already too long 650 pages text.) The citation that he notes is from a best seller, currently available in every bookstore nationwide. Like his review of my book, he evidently didn't get much past its cover. If he had read Communion, as a good researcher would, before he asserted that the statement was "far-fetched," he would save himself the embarrassment of being caught in a lie. Communion states on page 215,

"One night in April my wife talked in her sleep... Suddenly she said in a strange voice: 'the book must not frighten people. You should call it Communion, because that's what it's about."

Researchers like Texe Marrs have even brought this same quote to the attention of Christian readers in his best seller, Mystery Mark of the New Age (p.143).
McMahon adds the words [to Christians], thereby grossly altering the book's statement. Christians will not worship the antichrist or receive his mark. He erects a straw opponent (i.e. Christians could worship Satan), then pretends to dismantle it (i.e. Christians would be repelled by the alien on the cover). Of course they would; New Age Bible Versions does not use the word 'Christians'; he added it to misrepresent the book.

McMAHON'S MISQUOTATIONS MULTIPLY

His weak case is self-evident in the fact that he must change the book's quotes to find fault with them. Note a second example of this:

McMAHON's MISQUOTE ACTUAL QUOTE
"...in the New Age Movement.""...in the New Age movement's
push for a One World Religion."

He capitalizes the word "Movement," then changes it, dropping the apostrophe and "s". This changes it from a possessive case to the objective case. He then omits the entire true objective case noun "push" and its modifying adverb phrase "for a One World Religion." In so doing, he changes the whole meaning of the sentence and the thesis of the book! (To help the reader understand the gravity of the difference, I offer this grammatical parallel: "There is an alliance between the book's critics and the New Version publisher's push for sales." VS "There is an alliance between the book's critics and the New Version Publishers." The first is true; they both produce the same effect, but no one would assert that McMahon or any of the book's critics was directly connected to the new version publishing companies.)

Only by the exaggerated and preposterous notion- that there is a direct connection between new versions and the conspirators "in the New Age Movement," can he gather the sympathies of his reader. Pretending the book asserts that NIV editors are really "New Age conspirators" is McMahon's straw man. The actual parallel, as stated in the book, is between the changes in the new versions and the One World Religion's push and goal to downplay salvation through Jesus Christ- softening as many rough edges as possible which prevent Christianity from being compatible with other religions of the world. Liberal theology, on the part of new version editors, has cut away at many of bible's Christian distinctives. Like Eve, most editors had no idea what a disastrous, Satanic outcome, their perceived "good intent" could have.

The very page McMahon cites (p.1) explains this saying, "This [new version changes] has taken place because... "of liberal theology of some editors.

STRAW MAN

He then takes his misquote- "New Age Movement" and applies it to several quotes used to support the book's thesis. Of course, now that he has changed the book's thesis, he can pretend the quotes aren't logically connected to his contrived thesis. He is forced to say the thesis "implies" a New Age connection; he must read into and beyond anything actually on the book's pages. The book identifies the quotes in question as "heresy" and "shocking," not "New Age teaching." The poverty of his position forces him to exaggerate his own imaginations rather than dealing directly with what was said.

In the first quote, NIV chief editor, Edwin Palmer, denies that one must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved. I said "MOST" Christians would find this view "shocking" and PALMER AGREES WITH ME saying that Christians who disagree with him are "SO PREVALENT TODAY." His view that there is nothing man needs to do to be saved, is shared by both the other critics of my book- Morey and White. This leads me to suspect they have NEVER been born-again. If they have never asked Jesus Christ to be their Saviour- they are still LOST. Perhaps that explains their inability to understand spiritual (I didn't say 'theological') things.

McMahon hopes his readers will have a MAJOR lapse in memory. Hunt's book, What Ever Happened to Heaven?, describes two systems of thought that will, as Hunt says, "join with the Antichrist in establishing a new world order" (p. 199). These are, according to Hunt's book: "Catholicism (pp. 99-171) and "reformed theology" (pp. 171-327). McMahon must not agree, as he chides New Age Bible Versions saying, reformed theology has nothing "even remotely to do with New Age teaching." McMahon's misquote ("New Age Movement" hides the fact that the actual quote ("One World Religion") mirrors Hunt's quote ("new world order") EXACTLY. Over half of Hunt's book examines the grave errors of reformed theology, such as postmillenialism and predestination. Hunt himself calls Palmer's doctrine of predestination a "libel on God's character" (p. 236) and a "perversion of scripture" (p.238). New Age Bible Versions agreed calling it "shocking." Fatalistic determination is very New Age, whether expressed in Hinduism or Palmer's denial of free-will.

Hunt warns of reformed theology's postmillenial "danger if we are indeed in the last days just prior to Christ's rapture and the revealing of the anti-Christ" (p. 86). He even connects reformed theology with the cults saying, "[T]he Calvinists insist that reason cannot be trusted at all. This is not only a cop-out but the very strategy used by numerous cults" (p. 303). "Antichrist," "cults", and "new world order"-- these are Hunt's own words identifying reformed theology, yet McMahon says New Age Bible Versions is 'maligning' and 'deceiving' by expressing the exact same thing. (The bible describes McMahon's twisting of quotes and duplicity as, "Speaking lies in HYPOCRISY.")

THE BEREAN CALL'S BLIZZARD OF CHAFF

False implications, germinated in the mind of careless readers like McMahon, demonstrate WHY new versions have had such a wide acceptance. Words are meaningless; feeling fuel their fantasies. The second quote McMahon cites as "misrepresenting: Palmer, represents him perfectly, just as the previous quote did. Palmer thinks the bible has "few clear and decisive texts that say Jesus is God." Both he and my book are discussing the subject of the number of TEXTS. Are there few or are there more? The quote by Palmer sets the stage for the nearly 100 instances (filling over 25% of New Age Bible Versions), which show how new versions, like Palmer's, omit TEXTS pointing to the deity of Christ. Once omitted, there are "few clear and decisive texts that say Jesus is God." It is no surprise that McMahon agrees with Palmer here. His own NIV New Testament omits names of deity 173 times, according to another book, Evaluating Bible Versions.

McMAHON'S UNDOCUMENTED CLAIMS

McMahon evidently has never read R. Laird Harris' chapter on 'Sheol' in The NIV:The Making of a Contemporary Translation. He asserts that New Age Bible Versions' quote from it is wrenched terribly out of context. But... WHY doesn't he give you the context to prove that "it's not even close to what was actually said." He doesn't because every line of every page of Harris' article repeats: THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT in Sheol! This book is readily available. Read it yourself!

Harris' 14 page article entitles, 'Why Sheol Was Translated Grave,' repeats over and over his four ideas regarding the Hebrew Sheol in the Old Testament. They are as follows: 1) Each reader should decide for himself what it means. 2) The NIV committee believes it means 'grave' 3) or 'death'. 4) No punishment is involved.

The KJV, however, translates Sheol 31 times as 'hell'. Hell is clearly: 1)not open for individual interpretation. 2) not just the grave 3) not just death 4) involves punishment. I give four quotes from Harris; they distill his four beliefs.Cramming the thoughts of his 6,000 word article into a 2" box requires compressing quotes, sometimes from several pages.

The goal of New Age Bible Versions was to distill volumes of research into brief summative statements, to communicate to the reader what these editors believe- what they were like- giving the reader the same impression one would get if they could read all of these editors' writings.

The monumental task of analyzing every word in the New Testament, every version, every editor, and every manuscript possible meant that each individual reference be extremely succinct. Books with a narrower subject matter and a more academic audience could easily broaden the parameters of their quotes. Space didn't allow that liberty.

McMahon's charge of out of context quotes are highly subjective. All quotes moved from one book to another are out of their context. The question is-- did the author MISREPRESENT OR LIE about what the original writer believes. A context may contain shreds of sheep's clothing. By removing these "good words and fair speeches [which] deceive the hearts of the simple: (Rom. 16:18), the naked wolf appears. Harris' article was one which contained few, if any, 'sheep's speeches'.

In it the reader will find Harris' strange belief that Old Testament believers wait in the grave until the final judgment. At that point the lost will experience eternal spiritual death at the lake of fire- in other words- there is no conscious punishment in hell before the judgement and no conscious punishment after the judgement. This is IDENTICAL with the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect; that is why Harris' NIV matches the J.W. New World Translation on these points.

Ask McMahon to send you a copy of Harris' article to document his allegations. He won't. I will.

McMAHON'S FALSE WITNESS

"There are too many instances where the author fails to apply her New Age version theories to the KJV... The Mighty One is said to be New Age; the KJV has four examples. References to God as 'the One' in new versions indicate New Age influence, according to Riplinger; the KJV has dozens of verses where the term the 'one' is a referent for God (Holy One, Mighty One, Lofty One, etc.)

All uses of such terms are discussed in New Age Bible Versions. Pages 79, 94, 318 and others prove McMahon a forger of lies. Readers would not need to 'scrutinize' the book, but merely read the title to chapter five "The One vs. The Holy One" to shatter McMahon's careless discussion of that chapter. Adjectives and modifiers like Holy One, Mighty One of Jacob, Holy One of Israel, or Mighty One of Israel are always used in the bible to distinguish the Judeo-Christian God from "the god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4). New Age Bible Versions objects to the dropping of these distinctives. It also questions why new versions change masculine nouns, pronouns and names (he, him, Son, God, Christ, etc.) to the neuter "One"- with absolutely no Greek or Hebrew basis.

Actually the word, "the One" has no basis at all in the original languages. For example, the Hebrew word qadash, means 'holy' and it translated 'Holy One'- even in Is. 57:15 where the two words are divided in the English text. (McMahon is wrong in saying the KJV capitalizes the adjective "lofty" here as a proper name.)

Lucifer's cry-- to be "like the most High" (Is. 14:14) can be seen in his claim, to divine names-- 'god' (II Cor. 4:4) 'Christ' (I John 2:22) 'prince' (Matt. 12:24) 'king' (Job 41:34) 'lord' (Matt. 12:25) and 'one' (Matt. 13:19, I John 2:13,14; 3:12, 5:18). The last, "the wicked one" is a sharp contrast to "the Holy One." Satan is not holy and therefore claims only the title "the One." New Age and Luciferian literature identify their false god as "the One." Hunt and McMahon's book, America, the Socerer's Apprentice (p. 269) even documents this phenomenon.

If McMahon had carefully scrutinized the book, he would know that the section discussing the 'Mighty One' BEGINS by distinguishing the new age "Mighty One" from those four KJV instances in which God identifies himself as the "Mighty One of Israel" and the "Mighty One of Jacob." The 'Mighty One' of the new versions and Lucis Trust 'Great Invocation' is not the "Mighty One of Israel," "the Mighty God" or "the LORD God" of the KJV. God even identifies the new age 'mighty one' as the "mighty one of the heathen" (Ez. 31:11). (Don't try to find that key in your NIV.)

SOPHISM & SCIOLISM

[N]ew versions are accused of being New Age because they use the phrase 'the Christ' while there are more than a dozen such verses found in the KJV.

New Age Bible Versions does point this out! The issue the book addresses is not the term 'the Christ', but the egregious increase in the use of the term in new versions-- strange turn of events never seen before in the history of the English bible. Why has it increased now, at this particular juncture in history, when 'Jesus Christ' is out and the New Age 'the Christ' is in? Application of simple logic and an analogy will clarify the issue. If you ask your doctor if it's safe to ear twelve eggs per week, he may agree that it is. If you ask if it's safe to eat more than 50 eggs, he should caution you. It is a move in the wrong direction. The increase to 50 eggs may not harm you, but they add a negative effect when accompanied by thousands of other blatantly bad choices.

McMAHON'S EVIL SURMISING AND UNDOCUMENTED CLAIMS

On May 13, 1994, host of a popular Christian radio program canceled Hunt's scheduled appearance on the show because of his unsubstantiated accusations of "mistakes" in New Age Bible Versions.

In the classic debates between Christians (i.e. Arminius vs. Calvin, Erasmus vs. Luther, etc.) none of the participants attempted to exaggerate, distort, or misrepresent the views of their opponent. They pointed out the areas where they disagree and presented their counter position. They did not call the points where there was disagreement-- mistakes. This reviewer and the others have been influenced by the worldly media technique of littering their articles with name-calling and emotional appeals, instead of employing the historic Christian platform of rational, factual debate and discourse.

We are grateful to the gracious readers who have pointed out the proof-reading, typographical and transcriptural errors which are inevitable in a book of nearly a quarter of a million words. These were adjusted in subsequent printings. These few items were the result of the author's disability and bed-ridden physical condition during the six years while writing the book. The scrawled, hand-written manuscript was the product of hands that often could scarcely hold a pen and eyes that strained with extreme pain to proofread-- driven by a heart that groaned for young Christian friends who were shipwrecked emotionally by the new versions.

He callously states a misquote (p. 61), where the inconsequential word "his" was accidently dropped, is "reprehensible." "Railing" are forbidden in I Cor. 5:11-13 and I Tim. 6:4. Yet McMahon "uses insolent and reproachful language to scold" (Webster's definition of 'rail'). He heaps up words like "terrible," "faulty," "incompetent," "false," "incomprehensible," "misleading," "reprehensible," "misrepresenting," "contrived," "bias," "maligned," [showing a lack of] "integrity," "credibility," or "objectivity." The bible calls such slander "evil surmisings." These are, as Webster says, 'accusations based on supposition.' He has never read the hundreds of books listed in New Age Bible Versions' footnotes nor ever spent one month, let alone six years, collating new versions! His vilifications and judgment of the heart motives which generated the book are based entirely on "surmisings" and suppositions devoid of any in-depth research or knowledge of the subjects on his part. McMahon's "doting about questions" and "strifes of words" leads to his "RAILINGS, EVIL SURMISINGS." [F]rom such, withdraw thyself," Paul concludes (I Tim. 6:4). "If any man that is called a brother be a ...railer," we are to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (I Cor. 5:11-13)

BLIND GUIDES CAN'T SEE

On the contrary, every charted quote is footnoted and new version changes are documented. Most of the book's charts direct the reader to either the NIV, NASB, or both. The other heading used--"New Versions"-- alerts the reader to trends, doctrinal problems and heresies evident in some or most of the new versions on the market, it would require a ten volume book to print out the various wording each version used to present the heresy. If only one version was identified, the reader might gather the impression that the other versions were all right. Because most new versions come from the shorter, corrupt Greek text, omissions and corruptions are fairly wholesale.

The chart alerts readers to the type of doctrinal problem in the cited verse. These should be checked in whatever version the reader uses. Six years of full-time research were required to complete the verse collations in New Age Bible Versions. Each reader has a responsibility before God to examine his own version in light of the problematic verses cited in the charts. Paul exhorted Timothy to "Study to show thyself approved, a workman...")

One must conclude from McMahon's notion that the charts are "incomprehensible" that he is experiencing a spiritual blindness. Obadiah 3 and Ezekiel 14:9 give possible explanations for his inability to see what is very clear to the other 50,000 readers of the book. None have written expressing confusion but heart- felt thanks for the book.

HUNT'S LAMENT
There are some books that I won't read.
They'd prove me wrong- THAT... I don't need.)
Some prods from God that I don't heed-
some times resist the Spirit's lead.

But that last vestige of my will...
The cross, I know must surely kill.
Three score and ten is what were taught
and God wants me without a spot.

WHEN THEY BEND THE TRUTH IN OREGON, NIAGARA FALLS FOR IT!

Hunt finally confessed in his September, 1994 Berean Call that,

His ascertion that it contains "errors" is based on, "what little I have read," and upon the reviews of OTHERS such as McMahon, Morey, and White.

McMahon has now admitted in personal correspondence that he only spent a few days on the subject; he relied heavily on the reviews of White, Morey, et al. Jeremiah 17:19 speaks of those who "have inherited lies."

Peter Lalonde of the Christian World Report hadn't read the book yet either, yet he published verbatum the review published by Hunt, who also hadn't read it. Lalonde now joins the growing number of highly visible Christian 'leaders' who experienced public shame, embarrassment, or major financial reversal IMMEDIATELY after they told lies about the KJV and New Age Bible Versions. (See Lalonde's Fall, 1994 letter to supporters.)

The preceeding and following pages prove that the "errors", "miscitations" and "misrepresentation" were made by the CRITICS, not the book New Age Bible Versions. After reading the following pages, Hunt, Lalonde, and McMahon will have to admit, "we have made lies our refuge and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." (Is. 28:15) Hunt's October, 1994 Berean Call now admits that new versions do contain "errors which need to be pointed out."

How could a prophecy teacher, like Dave Hunt, hide under the harlot's bedcovers as she reads fables like, "They hacked off my hands and my feet." This is Ps. 22:16 in Hunt's New English Bible, his version of choice for his book, Archon Conspiracy. Such liberal blasphemy negates the prophetic "pierced" seen in Zech. 12:10, Luke 2:35, John 19:34, Rev. 1:7 et. al.

The war against the living Word rages while spiritual 'adulterers' pierce the pages of the written word.

The Altar & The Bible
Ordained and given by God. Corrupted by man.
Israel multiplied altars as they multiplied transgressions (II Chr. 28:24, Amos 2:8, Is. 59:12, Amos 4:4)
The worldliness of the church grow with new version numerosity. Thy name is lexicon - idolatry!
Inferior altars were preferred (I Kings 12, 13; Is.65:3, Ex.39:38 - Brick over gold; Assyrian over Israeli. II Kings 16:10-15)
Guess God's people wanted a contemporary, international, revised standard, dynamically equivalent version to supersede the archaic, but heaven blessed, God-ordained, Christ honoring, people-blessing old one.
No comparison needed here.
And, let God-fearing souls be sent to return the people the one altar and the enemy will have an "old prophet" to opposed them.
But our Lord Jesus shall prevail as he did for Hezekiah (II Chron. 32) and will show which altar, and which version alone, has the true fire of God upon it. Praise the Lord! Glory!

THE OLD PROPHETS, "HUNT THE PREY FOR THE LOIN," YET TODAY. (JOB 38:37)

I KINGS 13

The altar at which God's people were worshipping was a counterfeit, like the counterfeit bibles today. God revealed this to a man and sent him to warn his friends. On his way, an "old prophet" (like Brother Hunt) - not an old heathen - crossed his path. He advised the young man to ignore his heaven sent message and trust the old prophet's advice - after all, he was a "prophet." This was a difficult decision. The prophet's advice seemed harmless enough - simply "turn again by the same way that thou camest." (I Kings 13:17) eating the bread and water of that 'way.' I Kings 13:18 says, "But he lied to him."

The young man, trusting the track record of the old prophet, "went back" to the "dry" and "moldy" bread which deceived Joshua generations earlier (Joshua 9). God's warning unheeded brought the young man to an untimely death. "[A] lion met him by the way, and slew him." The wrong choice between "God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24) is spiritually deadly. The bread of the new versions is dry and moldy; its water - a bitter font, spiritual anemia and dryness the result. The young "man of God" was prey to the old prophet because he was "sitting," not a true Berean who "searched"... to see whether those things were so."

The Berean Call, has missed its calling. The Bereans in Acts 17:11, "searched the scriptures"; they didn't 'correct the scriptures.' Mr. Hunt, like many bible teachers of today and "old prophets," feels the Call to correct the bible at will. His books, which swell with the voice of the Spirit of God, are sometimes finger-marked by his flesh, as the Authorized King James Version, the word of God, is corrected by the 'word of man.' "Every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5). But somehow Dave's KJV needs "altered" here and there. The "new priesthood" (I Kings 13:33) must have "alter" boys. If men proceeded to the altar as a "living sacrifice" before they pick up their pens, the scribes "altering rooms" would disappear.

In closing, I will quote Hunt himself, as he closed his July, 1987 newsletter regarding his critics:

God is giving Hunt and McMahon an opportunity to prove that they are capable of doing what they have long called other Christians leaders to do. Will they accept correction? There isn't one great man of God in the bible who wasn't deceived at one point. Hunt and McMahon are no different.

Six years ago Hunt penned the following words. None of us consistently live up to our own standards.

These words came from Hunt's 1988 book, Whatever Happened to Heaven?

The religious leaders of Christ's time were quite adept at 'talking about' theology and the faults of others. However, these men wanted to kill Jesus when he tried to move the discussion from the abstract to the real - from minds to hearts - from 'He wrong' to "I'm wrong." We have such leaders today.

What Happened to...Dave Hunt?
Rx: GO BACK TO SLEEP (I SAM. 3)

Of Eli, another old prophet, the bible says, "[H]is eyes began to wax dim, and he could not see." His spiritual insight allowed him to judge sin - but not his own. Of young Samuel, we read, "[T]he LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground." During the night, God called young Samuel to warn Eli of coming judgement. Eli's response was, 'Go back to sleep...God back to sleep.' This the response of today's old prophets to those who warn them of the 64,098 words which "fall to the ground" in the NIV.

HUNT'S BOLD MISREPRESENTATION

The January, 1995 issue of Hunt's Berean Call actually ALTERS a quote from the KJV Translators 'To the Readers' to PRETEND those translators agree with Hunt. He tells his readers they said,

The actual quote (taken from The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (F.H.A. Scrivener) Cambridge 1884 reads instead:

Hunt changes the word "meanest" meaning 'common' to "WORST"! The word 'meanest' comes from the Saxon 'germane' and the Latin 'communis'. It is used today in mathematics to signify a common average (mean). Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) says, "the word [meanest] belongs to the root of common." The KJV translators use the word elsewhere in 'To the Readers' and it is clear they used the word as Webster indicates, not as Hunt pretends. (Even Milton used 'meanest' to signify 'middle', rather like the French moyen. Furthermore, if Hunt had continued that quote, the remainder DENIES Hunt's whole thesis (viz, translations are not the very words of God).

The translators continue, saying,

Or as Nelson paraphrases, "There is no reason therefore why the translated word should be denied to be the Word."

If Hunt actually read an accurate edition of the 'To the Readers'. (Thomas Nelson and others misrepresent the original, available through A.V. Publications) he should know that most of it was a comparison of the veracity of those translations "set forth by men of our profession" (i.e. Valla, Valera, Olivetan, Luther, Calvin, Coverdale, et al.) VERSUS those translations from Vaticanus and other Catholic manuscripts! The very readings which the KJV translators called error are those Vaticanus (B) readings (mostly omissions) now seen in the NIV, NASB, and others. Of such readings, text types and versions, the KJV Translators said,

They precede this by saying, "the worst of ours are far better than their authentic vulgar [Vulgate]..." They note, "alternations have they made... of their Latin Translations... Neither was there this chopping and changing in more ancient times only, but also of late:"

No, Mr. Hunt, the KJV Translators NEVER condoned the readings or omissions now seen in new versions, in fact, they wrote nearly 10,000 words (To the Readers) noting how other versions "darken the sense." At the close, they note, "Many other things we might give you WARNING of..."

Lastly, Hunt exposes his lack of background in the subject. Referring to the rendering of 2 Peter 1:1 in the NIV and NASB ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ"), Hunt mistakenly comments,

Hunt naively assumes that Berry's Text of Stephens (1550) is the Textus Receptus. The rendering "our Saviour" IS IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. The Elzevir Text "is the one often called the Received Text or Textus Receptus. ..It is the text commonly reprinted on the Continent." This is addressed in Berry's Interlinear (Introduction, p. ii). The actual Receptus reading IS listed on page 602 as "our Saviour" in note g. Both the Elzevirs and the KJV Translators were following 'a bit' more manuscript and version data than accountants like Hunt can pick up at the 'bookstore'.