...you are reading the "wrong" Bible, now please bear with me for one moment. The NIV is based on two "surviving" (as in never used) Eusebio/Wescott/Hort "Frauds",in the "Classical Greek", called "Vaticanus-B" and "Sianiticus-codex-Aleph". This is what we refer to as "corrupted text"I have researched this extensively, and your complaint is a little dated. The modern versions of the Bible, including Zondervan's NIV which I use for simplicity of language with its thought-for-thought format, are based not on Wescott/Hort but rather on the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (27th edition, 1993).
I have done an extensive research so I don't use "corrupted text" in order to present my commentary. Using Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Philip W. Comfort Ph.D., I have made a comparison between the KJV and NIV portions of Luke which go back to the earliest Alexandrian papyri we have (P75) and have concluded the additions (which describes in large part the differences the Byzantine texts have when compared to the Alexandrian sources) do not make a material difference.
The Byzantine texts are noted for their smooth Greek, and as Dr. Comfort explains, the textual critics regard that type of text as showing subsequent editing to the manuscripts. Textual critics tend to favor the shorter when it can be shown that material was not erroneously omitted (as can be shown in various texts).
My conclusion is that you can use whatever Bible version you feel comfortable with, and if you're fluent in Shakespearean English, the King James Version is just fine. But since every indication we have after all the recent research in the past several decades with information unavailable before shows that the Apostles and earliest NT writers used the common everyday language of the people, then I ought to be able to do the same. I also like the NASB for the best word-for-word translation and use that for my study Bible.
While I own and like the Revised KJV, I am wary that anyone would restrict me on a legalistic basis that only the KJV is the proper version to use.
Secondly, to answer your comment about the Greek, the answer is Yes and No,. The "Greek" you are referring to here, does agree, I believe, with the "Byzantine", ( I am sitting in a public place on "their" computer, and have no "material" such as a Bible with me at this time, I apologize for that) However, your conclusion is incorrect.
This is interesting, as the KJV did not have a good Greek copy of Revelation and so used the Latin, translated that back into Greek, and then into English. The book of Revelation in the KJV is perhaps, its weakest point.
If you cannot tell me what the proper inflected Greek is for "harvested," then you have no basis for your conclusion. Anyone can say this is that or that is this, but without any substantiation, it is nothing more than just a declarative statement.
You wrote:
If you will take a moment and read Mt. 13:24-43, in the KJV, you should be able to understand it.
I understand that in the world there are two groups, the wicked and the righteous. And in concert with Ezekiel chapter 18:20b-27, there are two outcomes for them. The tares are the wicked and the wheat is the righteous. Jesus' parable is exactly inline with other timeline sequences of events which stipulates that the righteous are harvested and then the wicked are burned. This follows the theological principle that those of us who have "washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb" are to be spared the Wrath of God, and are not going to be judged with the world.