Quote:

Yes, I would like to hear your belief.



My view is basically the same as the KJV translators: They believed all English Bibles were "the word of God", while at the same time recognizing textual problems ("ink-on-paper") in them and that none of them were free from the need of correction of those problems. They saw a benefit in using multiple translations, and in studying out uncertain readings.

I believe that the messages God intended scripture to convey to us can be obtained despite error in the ink-on-paper. Of course obtaining the correct understanding is easier or harder in different places in different versions, and is also somewhat dependent on the reader's current understanding, past teachings, how receptive they are to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, etc. A simple example: suppose someone had no previous knowledge that adultery was wrong, and had only a 1631 edition of the KJV. Then they read Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt commit adultery." (a printing error dropped the word "not"). Despite this error in the ink-on-paper, and despite it being "contradictory" all other translations, the reader could still (through study of other passages of his 1631 KJV) come to the correct understanding and conclude there was a textual error. He would still have "the pure word of God" despite his only Bible having a textual error in it. He truly has "the pure word of God" and despite performing a very basic textual criticism, he is not "a Bible corrector", "his own final authority", "calling God a liar", or any of those other antagonistic labels.

Quote:

Such as the Geneva?



Yes, but not only the Geneva. The Geneva is not much older than the KJV. The Vulgate (which is Latin, and first produced in 400 A.D.) is still used (although mostly in Catholic circles) - I have a couple of English translations, and I have no reservation calling it "the word of God". Likewise, the "Peshitta" (the Bible in Aramaic) is at least as old as the Vulgate, and is still the "standard" Bible in many Eastern churches. Lots of other Bibles in lots of other languages are still used today and have thus "stood the test of time", yet nothing matches the KJV 100%.

Quote:

I agree that people will get the gospel, and can be saved using the NIV, but I believe the NIV is a polluted translation, that used over time would most likely not bring a babe into maturity without error being introduced into their doctrines, making them perhaps an ineffectual witness, or open for a lot of the apostacy that is being taught today.



I basically understand your concern, and would agree that in theory that would seem to be the case. However, in practice, it appears that it is not the version one uses that results in that, but it's something else. KJV users seem to be just as likely to cling to wrong doctrines as "modern version" users.

Quote:

I am referring to W&H, and others...who by their own writings claim an unbelief in the diety of Christ. I have read some of their works, and the books by Westcott's son, Life of Brooke Westcott, and The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott. Have you read these?



Yes, in fact researching W&H and what they really stood for in one of my other hobbies. I own those books and many others, and am able to look up the context of any quote, if you want to discuss some. W&H were completely Trinitarian in their beliefs, and asserted Christ's deity more times than I can count. If you want to examine some, we could start a new thread about this.

Quote:

By the way, may I ask your affliliation if any, to a belief system or religion? I am a New Testament Christian, and do not belong to a denomination, but to the body of Christ, and fellowship with other believers.



I too am a "New Testament Christian" I guess. :) I attend a Baptist church but am not a formal member. I attend there because my family is comfortable there and my wife is a formal member, and I don't feel a strong enough pull (yet?) to any other affiliation to justify pulling my family out of the church they love, or going to a different church than my family.

Quote:

So, I too would enjoy more discussions. One I might suggest would be Nestorism...because, although I know the rudiments of the belief, I don't know much about it really, or why exactly it is a wrong belief. I would like to search it out to understand it, and know why we don't believe it, rather than just knowing "about it"...if you know what I mean?



Yep. :) We could do Nestorianism. I currently only know the very basics of the view, so I would get to do a lot of new learning as well. :) There are several other similar views (which are called "heresies" by orthodox Trinitarianism) and we could spend a few posts examining a each of them. With Christmas fast approaching though, and travelling and such, my involvement online is going to diminish quite a bit from now until about the 30th - so if I'm slower to respond over the next little while, that's why.