[Teleosis]

You wrote:

...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.

[Sorensen]

We are not dealing with Shakespearian English, we are dealing with Source. Nestle's revisions of Idioms was for the purpose of "covering up " the problems discovered when questions were asked about the source. (common Greek or Classical Greek) The disciples as "unlearned men" did not master the Classical Greek. I am not willing to be "drawn into" a lengthy discussion on this now, as my time is limited for this application. Suffice it to say, that the KJV. is the ONLY book in the English language, that uses the Hebrew "Masoretic" text, for the Old Testament, and the common Greek for the New testament.
If you are so confident in you assumption, then you should have no problem answering my question , should you?
So go ahead, answer the question, Who killed Goliath, and what does your FALSE Bible say about it in 2.Sam.21:19 ?
Please write it out verbatim as in your NIV, for all the readers of this forum to read.

Sorensen