Misconceptions of Christian theology

[Aractus]

I think that the cumulative differences in manuscripts. interpretation and theological presuppositions creates a situation in which there are many, many differences on many issues.

Okay, firstly "cumulative differences in manuscripts" isn't a problem. If anything it allows us very clearly in at least 99% of instances of textual disagreement to quickly and efficiently work out the correct wording of a sentence or line of text or paragraph or passage. Most of the textual differences create no meaningful difference.

I had a Hebrew Bible which was marked up on many pages "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain".

That's another issue entirely, and mostly a non-issue. Firstly, you're lying if you say that it's in "many places", it's in only a few places. Most scholars tend to agree that in most cases the erroneous hebrew text is simply orphaned letters left over from shortening a word to simpler spelling.

A good example of this is 1 Samuel 13:1.

First allow me to give you a literal translation of the Hebrew:

"Saul [was] one year [old] when he became king, and he reigned two years over Israel."

That's all very well and good, yet in the very next verse:

"Saul chose three thousand men of Israel. Two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin. The rest of the people he sent home, every man to his tent."

The hebrew word for year - שָׁנָה - incidentally, is not translated 55 times in the Authorised Version. That's a fun fact for you.

The vast majority of translators and biblical scholars agree that the numbers were lost in copying. They don't agree on how to fix it however:

ESV: Saul was … years old when he began to reign, and he reigned … and two years over Israel.
NIV: Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.
ASV: Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Look at the different denominations. What you are saying is true, there is basic agreement between Christians in doctrine. I think FF Bruce estimated that the agreement was in 90 something percent. But why do the dispensationalists and fundamentalists use the KJV Bible but Catholics use a different Bible? The language of scripture does affect the church. And we do not actually have the original.

Let's separate these issues firstly. The RCC made the Latin Vulgate translated by Gerome in the 4th century scripture at the Council of Trent (16th century). This decision made the Apocrypha - found in Greek only in the LXX - and the LXX scripture as well. The LXX is certainly not divinely inspired in its translation, and neither for that matter is the Vulgate. Gerome petitioned not to include the Apocrypha - and it is from Jerome that we originally get the term "Apocrypha".

As far as any translation is concerned - no translation of the Holy Bible is holy inspired scripture, sorry to say. The OT is preserved in the Leningrad Codex - as well as what survives of the Aleppo Codex. We also have various other textual witnesses to the text such as the Qumran Scrolls which as I understand it contain about 40% of the OT text in early paleo-Hebrew. The NT is preserved in several forms, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus for instance, and also in critical editions such as Textus Receptus, and Westcott and Hort.