The Alexandrian manuscripts are new news to me. I had no recollection prior to your mentioning of it. I may not explore that route.
What I gathered...is that the Apocrypha may not be inspired, but I have reason to believe the other books of the Septuagint may shed light on the history of God's work throughout the OT (The Book of Enoch comes to mind)
Again, It seems that there is a debateable ground. Here's what I understand
The Septuagint has merit in the story of the LORD's work since creation
The Apocrypha may be faulty and uninspired.
Would I be correct in saying this?
Alexander, John146 is a KJV only person.
I would suggest reading the book King James Only Controversy by James White if this issue is of concern to you.
KJV Only people claim that the older manuscript evidence incorporated in the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament is corrupted. I definitely do not agree with this position. The older manuscript evidence is closer to the original writings (the autographs) and thus contains less copying errors.
The problem is that Erasmus, who compiled the Textus Receptus, did not have access to very many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Much more, and older, manuscript evidence was found in more recent years and incorporated into the Nestle Aland New Testament.
We also know that Erasmus was affected by the Roman Catholic Church and included some items, such as the Comma Johanneum, into the Textus Receptus based on a fraudulent manuscript provided to him by Catholic sources. So, the Textus Receptus is tainted as a result.
There are a handful of sections of Scripture affected by this Textus Receptus issue, including Mark 16:9-20 (the long ending of Mark) and the Comma Johanneum.
KJV Only people are traditionalists and believe in a satanic conspiracy to water down the word of God, claiming that modern translations are the result. They want to enslave Christians to a 400 year old version of the Bible which does not convey meaning in an effective way to the modern generation.
The corrections reflected in modern translations, based on these earlier manuscripts, do not affect any major doctrines, and in fact clarify some Scriptures which show the deity of Christ better, as the KJV authors did not understand the Granville-Sharp construct...this is a technical Greek issue that would take a long time to explain, but basically it shows that a phrase like "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ" is not speaking of God the Father and Jesus Christ, but is calling Jesus Christ both God and Savior.
I am not a big fan of KJV Onlyism as it basically requires one to insert another level of analysis in order to properly understand the Bible. As a young believer, I had to look up words in a dictionary to derive the proper meaning, or do additional research, because of the archaic nature of the language. For example, the phrase "fetch a compass" in KJV language means to "go around'. How many modern day English speakers would know that?
I feel sorry for younger seekers who read the KJV and think that God's word can only be properly understood through it.
By the way some of the major proponents of KJV Onlyism include Gail Riplinger (a graphic designer with no original language training), Peter Ruckman ( a dingbat who claims the CIA planted brain transmitters in old and black and mentally handicapped people and operates alien breeding facilities), Kent Hovind (who just spent a long time in prison for tax evasion) and Steven Anderson (who prayed for Obama to die of brain cancer and for all homosexuals to die of brain cancer). There's a few people who aren't whacko, but as you can see some of the major "authority figures" are not well balanced.
If you want to have a discussion on this topic sometime we can. You know where to find me
