Today I think it would be wise to discuss the authority of the bible, and why it is so necessary for us all to fight against the philosophy of textual criticism.
If perhaps we were to look at a document like the US constitution, perfect in its current form (in the sense of 'exactly like the original'- being the original), we would consider the original 1st century autographs to be, perfect. Nowadays however, we don't possess these autographs, Its almost like what we have is a large series of pocket constitutions, made hundreds of years after the original, and the constitution itself is gone.
Imagine however, that each constitution was copied by hand, and each one maybe had a minor difference in spelling or even a word here and there different. If you were to bring them all together, you could use the vast majority to counter those changes, and get a perfect representation of the original. This would be the majority text, however this is also corrupted, due to the prevailing philosophies behind it, that of textual criticism, which still has many ommissions when compared to the Received Text.
Textual Criticism, its a hard subject to deal with. Basically, it could be viewed as a survey of available texts, but largely its a survey of the alexandrian line, and making other manuscripts fall into line. The alexandrian 'eclectic' line of manuscripts is referred to as the superior - or best available manuscripts, a lie as we all know. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were little used prior to 1881, and despite their catholic origin, there is a reason they were unused. They were messy, heavily edited, and now they're used as the basis for ALL modern translations. Is this preservation by God? I think not!
Textual Critics, first and foremost treat the bible as middle east mythology, the same way they treat the Sumerian scriptures, and Enuma Elish, thats how they treat the Hebrew Old Testament, and thats how they treat the New Testament. The thousands of fragments mean nothing to them, no more than Josephus or the works of Caesar. Is this how we want our bible treated? For instance, I spent the best part of an hour trying to find a biblical history book on kindle that DIDNT treat the bible as an exagerrated fale history of ancient Israel. I had to go back to a book from 1870 in order to find that. You would do well to find a biblical commentary somewhere that doesn't come right out and say that the bible either lies, an author exagerrates, or its just plain wrong in light of modern archaeological findings. Those same commentators, are often bible translators.
The Bible has to be infallible, I know most people disagree here, it can of course be "the best we have at the moment", but if thats the case, where do we stop? According to Textual Critics we can never be 100% certain that what God wrote - we have. So why bother? Even if they are correct, there are plenty of other scholars saying that the TR is the correct manuscript line, and thus we can be happy and start translating bibles from it again, right?
If they were to do that, then they have a COMPLETED manuscript! They can't continually revise and edit it, and thus the big scam to make publishers and scholars loads of money is over with. Thats why we have a new ESV every five years, a new NIV every five years. Its not to accomodate new discoveries (if so ever generation of Christendom has been in darkness, and most likely still is), its not to accomodate better scholarship. Its to make MORE MONEY for the publishers. Thats why Thomas Nelson produced the NKJV, and also carries two dozen other translations. Thats why Zondervan produces both the NIV and carries the Satanic Bible. Thats why they all have their own commentary series, and study bibles, and why they copyright their materials. Its to make money, not to edify the churches. Its also why they say that the KJV is majestic, and a work of monumental importance - because they all sell it, of course, its flawed in light of better scholarship, I mean Paul didn't say 'brethren' he obviously said "brothers and sisters", and Paul didn't think women should be silent in church really did he, nor did he really want women to have long hair, and stay away from teaching males. No no, of course not - our better scholarship - will solve this problem of biblical misogyny.
Isn't it sad? That Christianity has been essentially gelded in the last 100 years? That thanks to not only the illuminati but also thanks to our own vanity we have allowed ourselves to become money pits for unscrupulous scholars, and to be mentally controlled by the media. So on two fronts the bible has been attacked. Not only are we convinced that we evolved from apes, but that the bible is an invalid source of history. The KJV is dull, old, boring and inaccurate - yet the NIV is seen no greater in the eyes of the non-believer, it doesn't help anyone. A Christian saved by grace SHOULD have no trouble with a KJV, when I first got saved, I remember I went upstairs, grabbed an old KJV and read the whole of 2 Peter, and there and then I knew God was real - because he described the present age.
Sadly within about a week I had fallen for the "KJV if inferior" line, and had bought and NKJV, I now have over 25 different bible translations on my bookshelf, hundreds of pounds worth of study materials, and all I needed was the KJV. (You can even look over my various blog posts and see the hatred I had for the KJV, for absolutely no reason).
I know the thought processes of the anti-KJV movement. But I tell you this, the one man who had faith in Jesus Christ was William Tyndale, the one translation that I can guarantee you would be faithful to the word of God is Tyndale's translation - the basis for the KJV. This man had such honor that he made a mistake in Matthew 23, and he prefaced it with a big apology! Nowadays they would wait 5 years before telling everyone, and call it a cadence of the greek or something ;)
Anyway rant over, God bless.