Your Bible translation

You are absolutely correct. One of the primary objectives of modern versions was to undermine true Bible doctrine and it is evident to all who take the time to examine the changes.

What doctrine exactly is affected? I cant think of a single Bible where I couldnt prove the deity of Christ, trinity, doctrines of grace, salvation, or any other key doctrine from.

Its all in there. Even in the extremely "loosely" translated "the living bible". Its still all in there!

Did I say anything at all about either Lucifer or Heaven?

No.

You cannot determine "Catholic influence" by looking at how a single word is translated. You must understand the history and the original languages.

By the way, the KJV, particularly the NT, is replete with "Catholic influence".

Prove it with real evidence.

Compare KJV with other modern Bible versions.

John 3:36 - replaced believe not with obey - works salvation

1 Peter 2:2 - added grow up to salvation - works salvation

Col 1:14 - omitted through His blood

Matt 18:11 - omitted important verse

Acts 8:37 - omitted important verse

Psalms 12:6-7 - changed to preserve us from this generation forever

Psalms 119:89 - change heaven to heavens

Psalms 119:160 - changed judgements to rules

2 tim 2:15 - study was changed to other words

1 tim 6:20 - science was replaced with knowledge

1 thes 5:22 - appearance was replaced with other word

Is 14:12 - satan becomes the morning star

1 tim 3:16 - God replaced with He. God is not that important to them

John 7:8 - word yet was removed making Jesus a liar

Proverbs 30: 5 - pure was changed to true

Mark 9:42 - changed the context

Luke 23:42 - Lord was omitted, Lord was not important to them

Matt 16:18 & 23 - they made peter as the rock, the foundation of the church. But who is peter on verse 23? Peter is satan. Peter is the first pope of the catholics.

What about the doctrine of the Scriptures? Are they completely trustworthy? Every word? Did God promise us to preserve His word for all generations and not give it to us? The same God who gave us His words, commanded us to live by every word, not preserve every word for us today?

A faithful witness will not lie. If any version lies, it is not a faithful witness and cannot be trusted.

Well... did He? Where

If you're going to use the KJV as your reference point, you will need to prove objectively that the KJV is absolutely correct in every case before you can assert error on the part of any modern version.

You aren't going to be able to make a sound argument that way. Only by comparing both to an external reference can you determine which is correct.

Otherwise it is just as legitimate to assert that the KJV is wrong and the modern version is correct.

Could you apply this same logic with a new version?

I mostly study the KJV w/Strong's Concordance, but also use the NASB.

Y'all are forgetting, or neglecting (willingly, or from starvation) the huge influence/s, traditions of man has/have when just "reading/interpreting" that which you are reading in whatever translation/s/version/s you use.
The more tradition/s of man? The less "Word of God" gets through to the reader. Not to mention, teacher/s, pastors, shepherds, and their perpetuating tradition/s.

I think it's "dangerously silly" for one's who think salvation/election, is a "cakewalk!" In the light of the O.T., where it certainly wasn't!

It was GIVEN to Adam! Till the FALL! After which, it was taken away! From then onto even NOW? One has to FIGHT to grow!

Sure! Forgiveness is FREE! However, being forgiven, is a FAR CRY, from salvation, and an even farther cry from "being born from above." Which, gets one "in the door" TO the Kingdom of God, and Kingdom of Light. And, even in THIS, it's not a "given", of one's "inheriting" the Kingdom of God. Or how much of the Kingdom one DOES inherit!

If we don't have the pure words of God translated in the English language, then man's education is going to be the final authority on what God has said.

I was about to say the same thing. Divine inspiration would be meaningless unless there was also the divine PRESERVATION of Scripture. And modern Bible versions have made a wholesale assault on this doctrine.

When someone examines Reformation bibles and compares them to modern versions from 1881 onwards, one sees thousands of changes, out of which hundreds (probably about 1,500) are a major attack on Bible doctrines, particularly the deity of Christ and the Trinity. But the underlying subliminal message of modern versions is this:

1. GOD DID NOT PRESERVE HIS WORD FOR NINETEEN CENTURIES.
2. MODERN UNBELIEVING SCHOLARS HAD TO RESTORE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD.
3. REFORMATION BIBLES ARE WORTHLESS.

Indeed, if your read the Preface to the Revised Standard Version (of which the NASB is a derivative) that is exactly what they tell you.

Already addressed in my middle paragraph.

No, they haven't. The newer translations stand on the belief that God has preserved His word.

Yawn... not true at all. Just more narrow-minded heavily-biased fear mongering.

The same logic can be applied wholesale to the Reformation versions in reference to earlier texts. You're using a double standard.

Seems like we as humans like the idea of an absolute standard of the Bible.

Hebrews 10: 5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

so a respectful question for my beloved brothers and sisters who see the KJV as an absolute standard, that passage in Hebrews seems to be a quote of Psalm 40. Yet the KJV of Psalm 40 reads significantly different.

What if a version contradicted itself. Wouldn't you have grounds to claim that version is not a faithful witness?

First of all, most do not like the thought of having an absolute standard. They want themselves, their intellect. to be the standard. They want to decide what God has said.

Second, there is no contradiction or such between the two passages: one is figurative, the other literal, both having the same sense. The metaphor used in Psalm using the word ear is that member of the body whereby we hear the commands we are to obey, therefore faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You see, His Divine nature alone, made it impossible for the Son, who was co-equal with the Father, to come under the law; therefore He prepared Him another nature, in which He could be placed under submission to Him.

It is impossible that anyone should have ears of any use without having a body, and it is through the ears that instruction unto obedience is received. It is to this the Jesus made reference when, in the language of prophecy, He declared, "He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened Mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back" (Isa. 50:4, 5). So the figure used in Psalm 40:6 intimated that the Father did so order things toward the Messiah that He should have a nature wherein He might be free and able to be in subjection to the will of God; intimating, moreover, the quality of it, namely, in having ears to hear, which belong only to a "body."