Are those Alexandrian texts the same Alexandrian texts that have admitted omission's by Origen the Ebionite (one who denies the doctrine of salvation), believed sin was forgiven by communion, denied that Christ was our high preist?
Origen did leave out some omissions when he attempted to translate the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts that were nearly 1000 years older than the Masoretic texts that are used in many bible translations including the KJV and NIV. Origen found that the Septuagint contained passages that were not in the original Hebrew. Origen believed that if the original Hebrew did not contain the passages then they must have been added later so he left them out.
Remember that almost all modern translation meaning from the 1600's to present rely not on the work of Origen but on the Masoretic texts. Origin's omissions have to do with the Old Testament and not the New Testament because his problems were with the Septuagint. Because no translators today or during Origen’s time used his work, it doesn’t matter what he believed. Origen made no translation of the New Testament which means his views on Christ have even less value.
Why does 95% percent of all manuscript evidence support the text of the authorized Version?
Don’t you mean 95% of the Byzantine texts? Now if you take what you say and include all meaning the Byzantine and the Alexandrian texts both as a whole then I must ask you why does 95% of all manuscript evidence support the NASV, ESV, DARBY, NIV?
All modern versions of the Bible today are based off of the work of Westcott and Hort!
This if completely false. Most translations today acknowledge the work of Westcott and Hort but they do not agree with their textual criticism. In fact the NASV, ESV and NIV do not use Westcott and Hort excepts in very few circumstances. Besides, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that all modern translations would rely on the work of two men in modern times and ignore thousands and thousands of manuscripts that are hundreds of years older.
Maybe I am crazy but I don't remember where the Lord said man could put a copyright law on His text.
This too is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Did you know that my blog and even these posts are protected by copy right laws? Your website is protected by copyright laws. Copyright laws are to protect someone’s or even a group of people’s work from being used by others. The reason we officially copyright work is to officiate it so that if someone takes our work we aren’t going back through ‘he said she said’ type arguments. I’m a citizen simply because I’m born here but if there was no birth certificate to prove it, that doesn’t mean I’m not a citizen, it just means I have to find a way to prove it. The NIV would allow me to use their work provided I don’t make money from it. What’s wrong with that? The IBS is able to print bible for free and I have gotten permission to use 8 books of the New Testament without any restriction provided I site the NIV copyright information and I don’t make money from it.
Also, I have plenty of bibles, and there are some very nice leather bible that cost money to make, I see no problem with me paying for those. It’s not like it’s limiting is it?
As I said before, the KJV is NOT the ONLY translation that is copyright free. The NASV AND ESV have no copyright restrictions.
I don’t remember where the Lord said it was okay to have a lesbian whore (NIV) aid in the translation His Word. Isnt it funny that the NIV removed the word Sodomite?
A lesbian whore? Is this is your attitude toward those whom Christ gave His life? According to God you and I are just as guilty. According to Jesus you and I have both lusted which is the same as adultery. We are all guilty and if this is your view of those for whom Christ died I have no desire to know your God. You mentioned you became a Christians about 3-5 years ago. I sure hope no Christians went around referring to you as the adulterating whore. I wonder if you would have ever become a Christians if that’s what Christians called you.
If the NIV is so accurate, why is it changing the original masculine words to masculine and feminine?
Please give an example.
The result is that they render what THEY THINK God meant and what SEEMS relevant today. They are used to manipulating God's word for their profit, that's how they could inaccurately translate these gender-inclusive editions with such ease. Contrast this with the King James Bible translators who simply rendered what the best manuscripts said (95% of all manuscript evidence supports the Authorized version), word-for-word--that is formal equivalency. The authorized King James is the only version that uses formal equivalency. They didn't put human interpretation in it--give me that book!
There is no such thing as a WORD-FOR-WORD translation from the Greek or Hebrew language. Do you know what the point of translation is?
I know that most modern versions are still 95-99 % accurate but rat poison is also 99% nutritious. I think false bibles kill many Christians. I have read many good works by those that do not use the King James. I even use their works often times. I don't hate them or look down on them in any way. There are still some great faith contenders out there that use other versions. My research shows that the KJB is the best and only Bible a Christian needs. I have never lost a debate to a heathen using the KJB but I have lost a debate using the NIV. I will continue to contend for the Word of God which is hard to do to those that do not hold the Word as their final authority in life.
I find this interesting that you admit that most modern translations are 95-99% accurate. So modern translations have 1-5% errors in them. If these versions are so perverse, and people like Westcott and Hort influenced them so much, there is only 1-5% error in them? These modern translations do not disagree with the Textus Receptus or other Manuscripts on any scriptures that affect doctrine. They only disagree on things like spellings. Just because a FEW (1-5% of over 31,000+) verses say something different than the KJV you and others assume that the KJV must be correct and all others are incorrect. You said many modern versions are 99% accurate, if they could make mistakes, why do you assume that the men who translated it were infallible.? How come you don’t consider the possibility that the KJV translators could have made a few errors?