If you were saying this about the Jehovah Witnesses and their bible version, then I would completely agree
The Jehovah Witness Bible is very similar to the NIV, at least in all the places they both disagree with the KJV.
The Textus Receptus cannot be "the traditional Greek text used by the vast majority of Christians throught history,"
Any scholar can tell you that the text
type of the Textus Receptus is the same exact text in the majority of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts in existance.
Erasmus compiled the text from 7 Greek manuscripts, with the earliest manuscript being from the 11th century
Why do you parrot deceptive statements? You try to make it sound as if the Textus Receptus has no legitimate textual basis, which is nonsense. Like I said before, out of the 5300+ Greek manuscripts known today, 99% of the readings therein AGREE with the Textus Receptus. Like it or not, that's a documented fact. Erasmus may have used
7 manuscripts for his TR, but those were representative of the vast majority he already knew about.
yet the Majority Text does not have: Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36, Acts 15:34, 1John 5:7
I know that the last verse isn't in the majority of Greek texts, but that's a whole different discussion. It is in the majority of
Latin manuscripts including the old Latin (150 A.D.), and also quoted by several early writers and councils. The reason for its omission from the Byzantine Greek was probably to combat a heresy called Sabellianism... but that's another story.
I guess I should have said the KJV is a 99.99% literal and accurate translation of the TR, as there are a few exceptions to the rule, not without reason.
So does the AKJV - as has been demonstrated on more than one occasion within this thread
Demonstrated? Not likely, although I don't feel like reading through this huge thread again to find out what you're referring to. People can make all the accusations they want, but there's never been a proven error or mistranslation in the AV.
As for the "based on the translators' personal theology" comment - what arrant nonsense
Then I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NIV eliminates or downplays most references to sodomy (they had 2 homosexuals on the comittee). They certainly didn't pick and choose their omissions based on manuscript evidence.
You make it sound like that the translation committee picks up a KJV and flips through it & says "I don't like this," "I don't agree with that," and with a pair of scissors goes "snip, snip, snip" and viola, we have a new Bible version. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock, but, that's not how Bible translations work
You're somewhat correct, the translators themselves don't usually do that. The textual critics, who make things like the Nestle/Aland or UBS Greek texts, are the guilty ones. Wescott and Hort did exactly the things which you said above. For decades these 2 "scholars" picked and chose what they thought the Bible said (or should say), and made their own Greek text out of it. This text then served as a basis for all the New Age Bibles we have today.
Where specific passages might REASONABLY be asserted to have alternative readings, the fact is noted.
That depends on what is reasonable. When they give an alternate reading based on 2 manuscripts out of 4000, I do not consider that reasonable. When they omit or bracket nearly 100 words based on 1 lousy manuscript (Luke 24), that is unreasonable. A good number of their footnotes are deceptive, like the ones which say "some manuscripts do not have..." when the truth really is "all manuscripts have this, except 1 or 2"
I read NIV mostly. KJV onlyism is idolatry, point finale
Nah, setting yourself up as the final authority above God's Word is idolatry. That's what the new versions offer people... a chance to make yourself the judge of what you want God's Word to say.
