Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version

If you meant any changes then I agree that your argument was correct and that I am wrong. However, I believe the Bible can be traced back to the original autographs. We have oral traditions; writings by various Christians through all the ages and of course the Bible manuscripts that can be compared to establish that there was always a text used that was regarded as the continuation of the true originals. This text was known as the Textus Receptus and was used through all the ages for the New Testament. The text used for the Old Testament was the Jacob Ben Chayim text. Scholars try to confuse the issues by dividing the evidence into Greek manuscripts, codices and all kinds of families. The fact is that the majority of manuscripts, translated Bibles and codices agree with the TR and JBC Text. The changes made in new versions are usually based on a small minority of manuscripts. Scholars try to hide this fact by trying to convince people that the minority is the oldest and therefore the closest to the originals, but this is also a lie. The two oldest manuscripts V & S was not even written in Koine Greek. It was written in Scholastic Greek and therefore does not resemble the 5000+ majority Greek manuscripts available that is written in Koine Greek. As for you question about changes, you can find almost the entire New Testament verses as found in a KJV Bible quoted (in full or part) reading the Church father library and in the post Church father era until present in sermons, writings and songs. You will be amazed how people in the 1st and 2nd century etc. quote verses exactly as we have them in the KJV today. Manuscript evidence cannot be validated by scientific means to tell you which line of manuscripts are the true line. You have to trust people to tell you the truth. The TR was always associated with missionaries who died for what they believed. Those great modern Christian scholars tend to be unsaved liberals who do not even accept the Gospel by which we are saved. I always find it amazing when people refer to Origen from Alexandria as the first "great Christian scholar" and how everyone owes a debt to him for his scholarly work. The historical facts state that he changed the Bible whenever he disagreed with it, denied the virgin birth, castrated himself and questioned the deity of Holy Spirit and said hell was not a real place. He also did not regard Jesus as equal with God, saying Jesus is not immutable. Is this really a great Christian scholar who denies basic Christian doctrines? Origen is quickly mentioned when support is to found for manuscripts that oppose the TR and JBC texts. Go figure, because the TR testifies against Origen. Trusting people seems to be a very difficult thing especially when it comes to people who oppose the Bible. They will ask, how do you know, and how do you know what you know etc. I find that type of reasoning very strange because if we cannot trust anyone then how do they know what they know? And how do they know what they ask other people know is not wrong? Get a King James Bible 1611, not new King James. Trust it, read it. "Taste and see if the Lord is good". Thanks for the debate.