I've sort of been struggling with which Bible translation to read, off and on for months now. For the most part I just stuck with the NIV, and recently started to read more of the NASB. But every once in awhile I get stuck back wondering if its the right/best version. I don't seem to let it go, and it can get very frustrating.
've read a bit about the kjvo arguments, and alot of the time I think its just crazy, then there are times I think maybe they have a point, then sometimes not so much.
What did sort of hit me more when reading online, was the difference between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Texts. It started to make sense to me that something isn't quite right with the Alexandrian Texts. So here are a couple things I've found about it, and tell me if I'm wrong or missing something.
1.) There are just a few Alexandrian Texts compared to the TR, but because the Alexandrian Texts are older they are therefore considered more reliable?
2.) The Alexandrian Texts don't match with eachother as much as the TR's do.
3.) This seems the most important, which to me sort of proves the Alexandrian Texts were tampered, please tell me what may be wrong with this.
The Alexandrian Texts don't have the long ending of Mark, it ends at 16:8. But the TR does have the long ending of Mark. Therefore this proves that either one of them is false. Either the TR added it, or the Alexandrian Text took it out or lost it. I can't see a third option.
So with that in mind, how can you prove either? Which I thought. Now Irenaeus quoted from the long ending of Mark, and he did this years and years before the Alexandrian Texts we have. How could he quote from something that didn't exist? Doesn't this therefore prove there must have been a long ending to Mark, and therefore the Alexandrian Texts must have been altered, and that part taken out. While the TR kept it, showing it stayed reliable.
Now, That third comment has been the most convincing to me. It's hard to look past it, doesn't it prove the Alexandrian Texts must have taken the ending of Mark out if it was quoted before those manuscripts? And if that was changed, who knows what else. This makes me think more that the TR is much more reliable than the Alexandrian Texts.
And therefore seems like the KJV is the only one that bases itself on it, as much as I do have a harder time reading it. I'd like to read a newer Bible based on the TR if the TR is indeed more reliable, but there doesn't seem to be good ones. Is the NKJV fully based on the TR? One moment I think yes, and then the next I read things online that says it also has Alexandrian influences in it.
Anyway, that's about it.