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.
"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."
The differences are minor *within the Byzantine text-type*, but between the various text-types that are used to compile modern critical editions of the Greek NT, there are significant differences, ones that unquestionably have big theological implications.
"I'm simply saying the small changes that do exist account for the variations in translations."
There are many reasons for variations in translations into English. Some are because the translators choose different Greek manuscripts or text-types, and others are because of underlying theological differences. I don't see this as illegitimate, since as an Orthodox Christian, I do not believe that it is possible to translate and interpret the Bible in a vacuum. While there are no Orthodox translations of the Bible, we certainly are able to spot things we know to be mistranslations because of the fact that Greek has been a living language of faith and worship in Orthodoxy without interruption since NT times.
I wrote: "All other modern English translations are based on composite, patched together Greek texts that were concocted by German agnostics in the 19th century."
You wrote: "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."
Note that I said all other *modern* translations. Luther, Tyndale, and the KJV all used one form or another of the Textus Receptus of the NT, which is basically the Byzantine text-type. The reason that the TR was of the Byzantine text-type is that the vast majority of the manuscripts of the NT in existence are of the Byzantine text-type. Thus, the manuscripts available to Erasmus were Byzantine manuscripts.
It is for this reason that Orthodox Christians who are aware of these issues tend to insist on the KJV or one of its revisions when it comes to the NT (the NKJV or 3rd Milenium Bible -- the latter being the better of these two). We of course consider the LXX to be the authoritative version of the OT, since again, it is the version in continuous usage within the Christian Church. The Masoretic Hebrew text was compiled quite recently, and has not been in any kind of continuous use within Christianity at all.
The point that I am making is that the point is not just whether they went "right to the Greek," but rather which Greek text did they go to? There are significant differences between the Byzantine text-type and the major uncial manuscripts that are preferred by modern scholars. And there are significant differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX.
"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..."
It is not at all disingenuous to say that they concocted these texts. I ask you: what church, anywhere in the world, ever used either these composite Greek texts or a translation of the same, prior to their compilation within the last century or two? The answer, of course, is "none." The Greek New Testament never existed in that form before it was compiled in such a way.
"... although I will say that within recent years there have been those who have wished to shape the message according to their own agenda..."
Bingo! But what most people don't realize is that the message is shaped not just by how something is translated, but by what Greek manuscript one chooses to use for any given passage. The reason that versions like the NRSV are so inimicable in many ways to traditional Christian faith is not just because of choices of interpretation or translation -- it is often because of the Greek text they are following.
"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."
Again, this misses my basic point. *Which* original Greek text? There is no one "original source" or "original text." The fact of the matter is that modern critical Greek texts involve a picking and choosing between manuscripts, and more often than not, they choose the readings of a few scattered uncial manuscripts that were found gathering dust in this or that old monastery, rather than the readings of the Byzantine text-type that were passed down in living fashion within the Church. Those manuscripts were sitting in corners for a reason. Look at a modern critical edition of the NT in Greek. Read the apparatus and see the widely flung manuscripts that are used to compile the text.
And again, this gets back to the basic point that I was making. While we as Orthodox Christians are nonplussed by the minor variations within the Byzantine text-type or LXX manuscripts we have, we definitely believe that the Holy Spirit preserved the Holy Scriptures within the Church. We do not believe that God would inspire Scripture to be written, but not go to the trouble to preserve it.
We do not believe that the Greek texts are something that scholars and archeologists need to reconstruct two millenia after the fact in order to try to figure out what the original autograph *really* said. We believe that we have the texts as God preserved them within the Church, and the interpretations that God preserved within the Church.