From the page noted in the Opening Post (O.P.):
// Also beware of Bible footnotes. \\
// They often favor the Alexandrian texts. \\
This statement is true. But when you find out what it means, you find the first statement to be highly suspect as being a LIE.
There are several kinds of footnotes:
1. Joyce Meyer's comentary on the Holy Bible is full of her opinions regarding the scripture. Opinions come in footnotes. The Geneva Bible which predated the KJV was chock full of anti-authoritarian (divine right of Kings) opinions. King James 1 of England (he was King James 6 of Scotland) did not like this undercutting of his empire. So he commissined the Bible to be retranslated. The most likely conspiracy theory concerning the Tranlsation of the KJV is that the British Crown and the church under it's thumb (Church of England = CoE) conspired to suppress the perfectly good Geneva Bible. Those saints fleeing the British Crown brought their Geneva Bible. The orioginal KJV did not have very many of these type footnotes. Most of them in the KJV have only to do with various measures between the time of writing and 1600. Some of these actually have errors in them as well as some misleading information.
2. There are cross-reference footnotes. The usefulness of these footnotes depends on the theology of the cross-reference note makers. The referrence footnotes show other scriptures related to the given scripture. The original KJV had cross-reference footnotes.
3. There are translator footnotes. The original KJV had translator notes in the left and right margin of each page (a two column per page format was used in the original printings of the KJV1611 Translations (AKA: KJV1611 edition(s). These translator footnotes show variations among the original language sources (and early foreign language translations). Note that the KJV was not all translated ONLY from original langugae sources but included some early fireign language translations, especially the then 1100-year-old Catholic Version: the Latin Vulgate*. The orginal KJV had these translator footnotes in them. Modern Versions are damned by Chick for doing what the KJV translators did: having a little honesty about the fact: there are multiple 'orignial' sources of the Scriptures (O.T. & N.T.). They did not always agree even in 1611 -- but the KJV Translators used translator footnotes to document the variation among the Received Text (N.T.)
* note that when this Bilbe was called "Latin Vulgate" the word 'vulgate' pertained to the common or ordinary language. There is nothing vulgar (or obscene) about the Bible -- well, most places
Ain't it convienent how the KJVO heresy loves to intorduce self-contradictions and other logical arguments into their 'man-made doctrine'
Beware of versions &/or editions of the KJV that exclude the translator footnotes. They are hiding (note 'occult doctrines' are hidden doctrines) something -- probably things they do not understand?
// They often favor the Alexandrian texts. \\
True. because some Modern Versions (like the nKJV) do have footnotes that "favor the Alexandrian texts". The reason the footnotes "favor the Alexandrian texts". is because the nKJV translators chose the Received Text sources over the Alexandrian sources. So they had to document the variation to be hones.
Strange, Chick damns the nKJV because it it is honest. Well, it is my opinion and I am sticking with it. Note that the translators of the KJV back in 1604-1611 did not have the so called "Alexandrian sources" to check out. They just document in footnoters the souces that they had. What is the matter J.C (jack chick)? why do you damn the Modern Versions for doing what the translators of the beloved KJV did: make translator footnotes to document variant sources?