As usual, the KJB critics argument is misinformed, deeply biased and misapplied. Learn more about the man Erasmus and his theology here
I've used the KJV for practically all of my life its what I have memorized much Scripture in. It is perhaps the most beautiful English translation there is (that I know of) but I respectfully disagree with this statement. And I want to point out that I understand from the context by "KJB critics" you mean anyone that who does not believe the KJV is itself the inspired word of God.
For the KJV to be the true inerant word of God these two things must be true
1. The manuscripts used must have been perfectly preserved from the writings of the original God inspired authors.
2. The translators must have been perfectly guided by the spirit of God to not misunderstand the complex grammatical structures and vocabulary of the original writings. (And by implication ALL other translations that vary must be false)
To address the first point. As you correctly stated the KJV was not merely translated from Arasmus'
The King James Bible translators themselves did not even primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus for their magnificent translation, but rather the Greek texts of Stephanus and Theodore Beza, though all three are in basic agreement.
You acknowledge this but still call textual criticism foolish.
The so called "science" of textual criticism is a joke and a fool's game.
Arasmus himself was a textual critic of the NT. His first edition was only based on 8 manuscripts but he still compared these and had pick between the differences. His second edition was compiled from even more manuscripts and the edition which the KJV used to translate from was his third edition. Each edition was different, not vastly different but dozens to hundreds of changes between editions. Textual criticism is merely comparing the available manuscripts and their variations from one another to see if the correct reading can be discovered. This does not in any detract from the inerrancy of the scripture. The scriptures in their original form are the perfect inspired word of God with no error in them. The more manuscripts that agree and the farther back they date the more confident we can be that we are looking at something very close to the original.
You claim that modern textual criticism can't be compared with what Arasmus did.
King James Bible defender David Cloud writes: It is also important to note that there is no comparison between the situation with Erasmus and what we find in the field of modern textual criticism and the modern Bible versions today. Erasmus edited the Greek New Testament on his own.
What is referenced here is that he did this without aid from the Catholic Church. I don't know what the Catholic Church's involvement was but whether it was or not has nothing to do with textual criticism. He had many manuscripts that he compared and critically chose not to include the readings of some manuscripts in favor of the readings of others.
You draw heavily on the RCC involvement/acceptance as evidence that modern critical editions of the New Testament are incorrect and should be rejected. I don't understand why this should be considered as a valid argument. And I disagree with those you reference at the beginning who say the RCC approval (I honestly don't know if they approved or not) discounts his editions of the Greek Text. Do you believe in the deity of Christ? So do the RCC. Do you believe that Christ was sinless? So does the RCC. Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose the third day? So does the RCC. My point is that not everything the Catholic Church promotes or agrees with is wrong.
You said,
Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions.
Carlo Martini was not involved with the UBS. He was involved with one of the Nestle-Aland editions. These are two separate organizations. The UBS is currently (when I'm writing this) in it's 5th edition. The Nestle- Aland is in its 28th.
I fear you have overlooked some things and I don't write any of this to rude but I just want to see that everything is represented fairly. If I have any flaws please point them out to me. The goal of this is not to cause contention but to merely to see that the we do due diligence in searching out what we base our lives on. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith and that we may all be students of his Word to the end of living and serving Him.
(Forgive me for not completing my response but I have no more time at the moment but would love to discuss more if any one wants to)
