People have not realised something very important when arguing with modern translators  over the modern translational errors.

Modern Bible editors believe their doctrine is correct, otherwise they would not have written it as such, and that in the King James is in error so as far as they are concerned no doctrine has been altered by the Modern Versions and in fact they would argue they are finding out more accurate details about them as they edit the text to 'improve it'.

While the King James people argue that modern versions have altered the true text the editors of modern versions argue that their text has been altered to make the King James Bible.

It is a lose, lose situation as arguments are not from the same common basis so each argue from their side of the argument and not from a common ground so that things can be accurately compared.

Now I know why the first book I wrote on the subject God has me ask "Why would God make these changes?"  Why would God demean Jesus?

Why in Daniel 3:25 would demons and their offspring be given credit for something He and Jesus did?  The word 'gods' refers to demons so a son of a demon has been given credit for the rescue of Daniel from the lion's den.

In Isaiah 14:12 why is Jesus the one who fell from heaven for rebelling against God.  (The titles of Jesus are used for this person and Lucifer, the real person spoken about is removed so t hat the devil is replaced by Jesus).

In Isaiah  7:14 why would they translate the Hebrew word incorrectly as 'young woman' when elsewhere they translate it as 'virgin' implying there was nothing special about the birth of Christ.

Why would they make Jesus out to be a liar in Jn 7:8 removing the perfection He had to be able to redeem us so that He was not able to meet the requirement of God for our sins.

There are many other examples but all imply the birth of Jesus was not special, He was not God but was made one, was not able to redeem us at Calvary and really was not divine and ruler and judge of all. In otherwords Jesus was inadequate for the task God was supposed to have sent to earth for and so man has to do something so that salvation is not purely by fait and is not a free gift of God.

It can be seen there are two different Bible: one that promotes Jesus and the other that demotes Jesus.

There will never be common ground between these two schools of translation so that to argue doctrine or Greek textual error will get you nowhere.

Thse are possible approaches:

1.       Show the New Greek text was made in rebellion against the spiritual authority over the editors so could not come from God but from the devil so does not represent God's view point on things

2.       Ask why God would have made the changes in either direction to either demote Jesus in the New Greek or promote Jesus in the supposed editing of the original Greek of the Modern versions and why would God suddenly promote Jesus in the supposed revision of the Greek to make the Textus Receptus. 

3.       If He was God in control of all things why could He not preserve the original Greek text implying their God is not a real God as He has supposedly not done this, or. conversely He is am impersonal God not caring what happens to us so that The Bible lies about Him personally relating to each one of us.

4.        You could also ask why Catholic and Greek Orthodox doctrine after the supposed recension cannot  be correct as they were based on the Textus Receptus, which is a recension of the true Greek  and not the supposed original Greek.

These are the basis of the attacks I would use to argue against the modern Greek text as well as show how badly the Vaticanus and Siniaticus are written so that they are really in disorder and God is not a God of disorder but of order so could not have been behind their writing.

Arguing doctrine will get you nowhere  and has done little against the New Greek Scholars so it is obvious a new approach is needed.