The first one says:
The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.
So far it seems true enough.
There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.
It is my understanding that all the early manuscripts are alike, about 99.5% alike. What I think the author means is that they are not exactly alike. I think this complaint illustrates that the author does not know much about the science of textual criticism. I can’t imagine a good textual critic doing anything but laugh if he heard someone say that 8000 early copies of ancient letters with 99.5% likeness should not be trusted because the copies are not 100% alike.
The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.
It is my understanding that they did use ancient manuscripts because they used the Textus Receptus. This was a critical edition of the ancient Greek texts and was one of the best resources of the time for translating from the most ancient manuscripts available at the time. The KJV translators did compare prior translations to help them make translation decisions, but that does not mean they did not use the original texts as well. Plus, it’s reasonable to see what other translators have done. That’s just good translation practice, and it’s still done today.
So, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century
No, most Christians don’t think the KJV is the Word of God. It’s just a decent translation of the Word of God.
from 16th Century translations
And a critical edition of the ancient manuscripts.
of 8,000 contradictory copies
I don’t know if 8,000 was the exact number of manuscripts they used, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the ancient manuscripts, which are 99.5% alike, as “contradictory copies.”
of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies
The consensus of modern scholars is that that claim is reasonable and true.
of lost letters written in the 1st Century.
They’re not lost because we have copies of them.
That’s not faith. That’s insanity.
For the reasons given, it is not insane.
The second one says:
The War on Christmas is Real.
It happened centuries ago
A war on Christmas did happen centuries ago, in fact many wars on Christmas have occurred over the years. One that comes to mind is: during the French revolution in the late 1700s, traditional Catholic holidays were replaced by pagan alternatives. That was a war on Christmas, and Easter, and even Sunday.
when Christian armies invaded Europe, stole pagan traditions, and renamed their holiday
The author needs to give an example of a Christian army that invaded Europe. In fact, a Christian army invading Europe that early in history is unlikely on the face of it. Christianity wasn’t even legal until 313 A.D., and until then they did not have armies under their control.
Perhaps the author means that Catholic armies after 313 A.D. invaded other parts of Europe. But Christmas was already a Catholic holiday by then. Since Christmas was being celebrated before Christianity had any armies, it is impossible that the Church stole Christmas by means of armies that didn’t exist yet.
I’d also like to know exactly which Christian army he thinks invaded a pagan land, and what he means by “invade”. The only examples I can think of don’t seem to fit the description of this author. It is my understanding that Empress St. Pulcheria declared war against the Persian empire in the mid-400s, but I think that was a defensive war after Persia had attacked Catholic lands, and Christmas was an ancient Catholic holiday by then. I think that Emperor Charlemagne invaded pagan Saxon territory in the late 700s or early 800s, but Christmas was ancient by that time as well. Thus, I’d really like to know what army he is referring to, because none that I know fits the description he gives.
after forcing them to convert at the point of a sword.
Early Catholic doctrine forbade forced conversions. When some Catholic rulers tried to force people to convert, faithful Catholics stood up against it. The author ought to provide examples of instances otherwise, because without them he is just making unfounded assertions.
I hope that helps.