It is wrong to demand that others accept the same translation as you do but it is ok to expect others to accept ONE and not ALL since they don't read the same.
You are correct. They do not all read the same, since they are based on different Hebrew and Greek texts.
And no one can require another Christian (or Christians) to stick with one specific translation, unless it is within a local church context.
Churches which know the truth about Bible translations should make it clear in their Statement of Faith that the only acceptable translation in that church is the Authorized Version (the King James Bible, which has also been brought up-to-date in the King James 2000 Bible). And many do.
What most Christians do not know is that when the Church of England authorized a revision of the King James Bible in the 19th century, all they wanted was an updated translation -- NOT A WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT of the Bible which had stood the test for time for almost 300 years. And had the revision committee adhered to their directives, we would not be having this discussion.
But there was a small group of saboteurs on the revision committee, which included Westcott & Hort (W&H). These two worthies hated the Textus Receptus (TR) as well as the KJV. So what they did is surreptitiously bring in a totally different New Testament Greek text to supplant the TR. The only one on this committee who opposed this sabotage was F.H.A. Scrivener (who was the leading textual scholar of the day). But W&H prevailed, and thus the REVISED VERSION (RV) came into existence in 1881 (the ASV or American Standard Version is its cousin). Today they gather dust because they were indeed worthless.
Dean John William Burgon was the other conservative textual scholar who was a friend of Scrivener. He exposed the hoax perpetrated by W&H, and you can read all about it in
The Revision Revised (which is available as a reprint, and also online).
But both Burgon and Scrivener (along with their allies) were ignored by the liberal critics, and the ideas of Westcott & Hort dominated all the seminaries and Bible schools (as well as the work of Nestle, Aland, Metzger et al). Therefore every modern bible version slavishly follows the corrupted text (called the Critical Text) which originated with W&H.
You will hear over and over again that the New American Standard Bible (from the Lockman Foundation) is THE MOST ACCURATE English translation. But that is TOTALLY MISLEADING. It is another replica of W&H.
For its Hebrew Text, it used the corrupted and emended Biblia Hebraica:
"HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls." (1995 Preface to the NASB)
For its Greek Text it used Nestle's Critical Text (which is simply that of W&H with slight differences): "
GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed." (1995 Preface to the NASB)
For those who are unfamiliar with the nature of the critical texts, you should be aware that a handful of corrupted Greek manuscripts (Gnostic corruptions) are the basis of all critical texts -- Aleph, A, B, C, and D. Aleph is
Codex Sinaiticus and B is
Codex Vaticanus. And for all practical purposes the critical texts (including Nestle-Aland) are based upon Vaticanus (which was found in the pope's library).
Thus the critical texts differ from the Received Text (Textus Receptus) -- which is the traditional Greek text -- in thousands of places. About 1,500 of these passages have doctrinal significance, and the deity of Christ and the Trinity were primarily targeted. But the chief doctrine which has been attacked is the doctrine of Scripture.
You will read over and over again that "the oldest manuscripts are the best". Under normal (secular) circumstances that might be true.
But because there has always been a spiritual battle, it turns out that the oldest manuscripts are the most corrupt and the worst. That is not an opinion but a sober fact which you will discover after reading the works of Burgon, Scrivener, and their allies.
