[Agrarian]

"Protestants believe it's the original documents that are the inspired writings of God-not the translations. I would argue this confusion is EXACTLY as God has intended and reminds me very much of the tower of Babel."

While Orthodoxy has never made proclamation on these things, if you look at how we act and practice and worship, a quite different view comes out.

We believe that the Holy Spirit, through the Church, has maintained the Scriptures. Since we do not make a point of inerrancy of every word or phrase (there are obvious errors here and there -- but none of any importance), we are not disturbed by the fact that different manuscripts of the Scriptures differ one from another.

But, when you look at the Byzantine *text-type* that is universally used within the Orthodox world (except by those churches in North America that, in ignorance of this fact, use a version other than the KJV, NKJV, or 3rd MIllenium Bible for the NT), that text-type has remarkable consistency within it, and it had that remarkable consistency before the age of printing presses, let alone computers. The differences that are there are minor and change neither the historical accounts nor the spiritual meaning of the texts. Again, the Orthodox Church isn't fixated on the exact text word for word, since we have always had manuscripts of this or that text that vary slightly.

All other modern English translations are based on composite, patched together Greek texts that were concocted by German agnostics in the 19th century. The Greek texts that are used for most translations are Greek texts that were *never* used by any church at any time.

If you take the idea that only the original autographs are infallible, then you accept the idea that from the very earliest times, God did not preserve the Scriptures very well at all, and only in the 19th and 20th century were scholars able to do reconstructions that come close to the text of those autographs.

[HarleyD]

"...we are not disturbed by the fact that different manuscripts of the Scriptures differ one from another."

I wouldn't say we're "disturbed" by the differences. As you've pointed out the differences are minor and seldom changes the meaning of the text. And it is remarkable-almost miraculous-that the various texts could be so consistent. I'm simply saying the small changes that do exist account for the variations in translations.

All other modern English translations are based on composite, patched together Greek texts that were concocted by German agnostics in the 19th century.

I wouldn't go that far. Tyndale and Luther were accomplish scholars who went right to the Greek. The King James Version was commissioned to people experienced and knowledgeable in the text. And some of the more recent translations were done within the last 50 years by renown scholars from many disciplines who served on boards that went back to the Hebrew and Greek sources. It's a bit disingenuous to say these boards "concocted" some version although I will say that within recent years there have been those who have wished to shape the message according to their own agenda.

There are many tools today for anyone to use to view the original source. It's hard to say version X used the wrong word when you can go and see for yourself what the original Greek or Hebrew text states. We do it here at Free Republic all the time-both Catholic and Protestants pulling out various words and phrases from the original text.

In the 21st century the argument isn't about what is written in various translation. If the translation is incorrect you will immediately hear about it and you can verify it. The argument really boils down to whether you want someone else interpreting what you are reading.