An interesting point, since the Alexandrian texts were largely undiscovered before the 19th century.
What there was of the Alexandrian texts, as found in the readings of the Douey-Rheims, from 'B', were rejected.
Thus, the Douey-Rheims (a Roman Catholic bible) did not have the same readings as the King James.
The 'mindset' of the King James translators was that God did in fact preserve His words and that they were translating them.
AMEN! That does not, however extend to the idea that there was a belief that the Byzantine Text was the "pure" text vs the "corrupt" Alexandrian or other streams. That is simply a historical error, and NOT the opinion even of the men who translated the KJV.
No, because the men who translated the King James did reject 'B' readings as found in the Douey-Rheims.
Hence the term later used, Textus Receptus was used to show that the Elzevir text(1633) was the 'Received Text' of the Christian Church.
Westcott and Hort, attempting to overthrow, what they called the 'vile Textus Receptus', tried to establish the Alexandrian text.
And that is the Critical Text which is the basis for most modern versions.
The fact is that there are two hundreds of lines of Bibles. There, fixed it for ya.
No, there are hundreds of translatons of the bible, but they either follow one textual line or the other.
Most of the modern translations follow the Critical readings found the NA/UBS Greek texts.
There are some that have attempted to follow the TR, such as the NKJ, but still give the CT and MT as 'alternative' readings.
The fact is that given ALL the different texts we have of the NT, and with the 22,000+ "variants" we have in reading, over 95% of them are completely insignificant. Of the less than 5% which DO affect some text, not a single one affects any major doctrine of the faith. God HAS preserved his word, and all the hoopla about the "satanic attempt to corrupt the word of God" is just silliness.
Well, that 5% does affect major doctrines, as I showed you in the previous post.
That is an incorrect reading which calls into question the Trinity.
There are some 5,000 differences between the TR and the CT and some of these are very significant.
We can discuss some of these if you like.
As for the "New World (ahem) 'translation'", I am reminded of a funny story a friend of mine used with a Jehovah's Witness. This guy came on with all the typical crap about Westcott and Hort and the original greek. My friend said "Oh! We are talking about the Greek text? Lets get a New Testament and look at it!" He got two Greek NT and gave one to the "elder brother" in the team (hint: when evangelising a JW, always address your questions in a gracious manner to the guy who is NOT talking! He is the "newbie" and is less indoctrinated and hardened). He opened it and put it in the guy's hands, and asked him to discuss the text at hand. The guy was bluffing his a** off, trying to "discuss" the text. My friend walked over to him, removed the text from his hand TURNED IT RIGHT SIDE UP, and said "oh, sorry, I handed it to you upside down." He then returned to discussing the need for the new birth with the younger guy, the difference between the JW view of "atonement" and hammered on how the gospel transforms a man, including making him HONEST and filled with INTEGRITY (never said a word about the upside down stuff), and giving an assurance of heaven. The elder one sat there and DID NOT SAY A WORD (that is extremely unusual) and my friend had a good conversation about the gospel (again, an extremely unusual event because of the "rabbit trail" MO the elders are trained to follow).
That is all very well and good.
I showed him Rev.1:7-8 from their own translation that states that Jesus Christ (who was pierced) stated that he was in fact Jehovah God.
That doesn't change the fact that they had a incorrect reading in their translation, one that would have caused doubt to someone who saw it and did not know it was a corrupt reading, the same reading found in all other modern versions.
Anyhow, the best and most respected scholars on the textual variants are solid inerrantists, and I know very few of them who are TR only advocates (although there are some, to be honest).
CT advocates believe that we do not have the complete word of God, that every text has errors in it, and that God was unable or unwilling to preserve His words.
Now, either the readings found in the modern versions are correct or the ones found in the King James are.
They both cannot be right.
All bibles are not the same.
According to yours and the CT view, we almost have the words of God (95%).
Since the issue here is preterism (which I have managed to mangle into a sub-discussion of dispensationalism/covenant theology), I should probably refrain from charging ahead on this particular issue here, as it is at the most, tangentially related to the subject (let's have pity on the owner of the thread!).
If we talk in the future on this, I will look forward to a chat with someone motivated as I am to stand foursquare on the inerrancy and preservation of God's word for us, His people. I always learn new stuff in these things.
peace
DoP