So, what are your qualifications? I spent many years in academia, enough to realize that those who consider themselves correct can be in serious error.
Do you think that the plethora of documents available from ancient times, compared to what the KJV translators had available to them, counts for nothing? The modern translations are based on better sources and a greater understanding of the Biblical languages and cultures.
The Textus Receptus is far closer to the Majority Text than the Nestle-Aland. The Alexandrian text type, Codex Sinaiticus(faked by Constantine Simonides), and Codex Vaticanis are NOT better sources. Sinaiticus had over 23,000 alterations because it was forged. It hasn't been carbon-dated, only paleographically dated, which can't be relied upon to tell you anything about the age of a suspected forgery. Further, what makes you think people translating the modern versions(farther in time from the people who wrote the bible) understand the biblical languages and cultures better than the team of scholars who translated the KJV?
You wrote "don't even render a correct translation of those manuscripts, leaving out things clearly in the original Greek(and Hebrew in the OT), and putting things in that clearly AREN'T in the original languages." If you examine your beloved KJV, there are quite a few additions and modifications, rendered in italics, as well as some clearly added sections such as the "long ending" of Mark and Romans 8:1
KJV, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
The King James version agrees with the Majority Text in this instance. The NIV does not. I never said the KJV was a perfect translation, just that it is far more reliable than modern translations.
NIV, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"
"who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." is an addition by a zealous scribe but is not in the best source texts.
The Majority Text IS the best source, and it is in there.
Also, you make the serious error of stating that those of us who dislike the KJV are somehow deficient in our ability to understand Scripture.
Where did I say that?
If the KJV makes you feel "holier than thou" and "religious" fine, but it is not a good translation. It's archaic, confusing, and sometimes inaccurate.
