First of all, may I recommend that the link to this page be included in the links to the left of the homepage as a permanent link as it is sometimes difficult to find for those who have not already found the link in the main body of the website. Place it near the top of your yellow links as I believe this is one of the most important pages that Bibleprobe has produced.
As a reader of the original KJV, I have always had my doubts about the so called "New Translations" for our language. However, I never really had any proof of any actual deception...until now. Very good work to Bibleprobe for shedding light on this. I now have evidence these bibles have serious problems, I was wondering if Bibleprobe has more information on how these bibles were produced in addition to what is stated in the article.
I've approached other family members who currently read and reference the NIV and NASB version. Incidentaly, most I know don't read the KJV at all, most read NIV. After breaking the news armed with my information obtained from bible probe with more than just prejudice, I immediately get the attack..."where did you get your information!?"....."Who are they...?".
I'm essentially looking for more evidence that the NIV and NASB are truly translated from the Sinacticus Greek texts that your article states was "thrown into a wastbasket in St. Cathernine's Momentary and are NOT based from the Greek Textus Receptus? At least those are my assumptions reading the article. I'm assuming that the article was trying to connect the corrupt Vacticanus manuscr1pt with the Alexandrian Manuscr1pt?
I admit I am a bit confused here. You were building a history and making a "good" point on the Vaticanus manuscr1pt and how corrupt it was, then saying (next parragraph)that the NIV and NASB were based on the Alexandrian Manuscr1pt. This too corrupt? Based on Vaticanus?
Anyway, if you can elaborate more please do. That would be very helpful as I have stated above I have already approached family members who read the NIV and NASB and they claim that their version is based from the original Hebrew texts.
They have referenced me to this website.....
http://www.judeministries.org/Bible/versions.htm
It really doesn't give much support about "where" their bible version came from as does Bibleprobe, but does state that the NIV is the "best translation to date!"
I of course believe Bibleprobe that this is blantantly false. Nevertheless, the more information I have, the better I can debunk this myth and bring them back to only reading the Authorized (1611) KJV. Interestingly, they claim that the NIV is more accurate than the 1611 KJV! I'm not suprised, the deception has worked I guess.
Anyway, if you can check out the website given above and comment it would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have more ammo on your thesis, please include it in your article and maybe proof read it from the perspective of someone who isn't a history major to ensure the message is loud and clear.
If you press "Preview Message," you are taken to a preview screen where your
message is shown to you before allowing you to post it.
Your message is not finalized until you click "Post Message".