I do understand that the majority of newer modern Bible versions have differences in translations; that is a problem, especially when we consider the new Bible versions are based on the Alexandrian texts. Of course you will get different readings.
For instance, the early church writer, Origen, says this: ""...the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."
So we see that even Origen himself (who has questionable theology) recognizes that as early as 200 AD, the manuscripts coming out of Egypt Alexandria (the source of modern day Bible translations) are corrupt. Why would I trust a corrupt source?
As far as the example you gave,
Revelation 5:9-10
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 and hast made
us unto our God kings and priests: and
we shall reign on the earth.
I FAIL to see the problem. It's written in plain English. They (the 4 beasts and four and twenty elders of verse 8) sang 'thou was slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
I fail to see the problem. The Four and Twenty Elders and the Four Beasts are proclaiming God's greatness and we hear the song they sing, and if *they* are singing the song and we were hearing them - then of course they would use the word *we* to refer to themselves. There are far worse examples that TR, BYZANTINE, and modern Bible critics use to try to fight the KJV then that verse. There are no translation issues in that verse.
Maybe you are suggesting the Four and Twenty Elders and the Four Beasts are not *saints*, and while that might be true - that is an interpretive issue and not a translational issue.
Other questions is that when someone says "Well the KJV is wrong here" - my next question - oh? You were on the translation committees of the KJV when all 54 of them reviewed their translations and discussed Hebrew, Greek, and Latin and you were there to understand the translational issues they came up with and now you are expert at knowing why a certain translation is incorrect?
Most people today who consider themselves Greek and or Hebrew experts cannot speak Greek to a native Greek individual today. We have videos on youtube where we know that a native Greek speaker hearing Koine Greek would hear it as a modern English person today hears Elizabethan English. It may not be the type of English we speak, but it is understandable. But most Greek scholars today could not speak to a modern Greek person - and these are the people telling me my Bible is wrong in what it says?
God forbid I ever stand before God's people at all and open up a Bible based on the traditional TR, or Byzantine, or Majority Texts in a fine translation from this manuscript family and I ever say to them 'Well, what you read in this Bible was wrong; actually, it should be translated as such and such and thus and thus and this is because several important modern Greek professors say so." Either God preserved His word in the English language and we can have confidence in it - or He didn't.
But as I said in the past, this particular topic is SEPARATE from the Genesis 6 angel thing and I'm disappointed you brought it up to make me and others like me or stick with KJV or KJV like translations look bad and foolish. The fact is, I've already written on this in the past:
#1) All the Alexandrian manuscripts (the ones I don't like) do *not* use the word 'angel' in the Hebrew in Genesis 6. The one exception, you can actually see the manuscript for yourself and see that a scribe or someone erased what was written there and put other words in there ... the same thing that modern textual critics usually complain happened in the TR and then down the KJV for being inferior.
You can see at this link that almost ALL modern Bible versions (again, most of the versions I don't like) do *not* use the word angel in Genesis 6. You actually have to click the link to see all the modern versions take on this.
Genesis 6:3 So the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years."
There is so much more I want to say because the information presented thus far on your end has been faulty. However, I'll let the reader decide - my only beef here is how the KJV today gets tons of supposedly "qualified" people to say how terrible a translation it is and then this seems to give the average Christian today permission to move on to any translation that reads the way they want to read it.
I don't do that because I trust Byzantine manuscripts and the translations that are produced by them. I put myself under the KJV and I don't question it; it questions me and my faith and asks me to live up to God's standards.
Now if you want to use other translations in your Christian walk, fine. I don't trust them, but I'll respect you for using it as long as your life reflects the truths of God's word. But don't reduce the entire argument of Genesis 6 on which manuscripts are being used as your manuscripts and your modern Bibles don't even use the word angel. So it is NOT based on the type of Bible you use in *that* instance.
Another consideration should be given to the Resurrected Christ who says, "39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
Jesus is very clear here; spirits (such as angels) do not have flesh and bones. And this is verified in the number of people possessed by demons in the New Testament - they need to seek out bodies since they don't have their own.
So if they don't have bodies, how can they mate with mortal women in Genesis 6?
