Do those who believe the Authorized Version 1611 only guilty of Idol worship?

a reply to: Raggedyman

“Herod and Pilate became friends with each other on that very day, for before that they had been at enmity with each other.” (Luke 23:12)

Any chance you are willing to honestly answer the question in my last comment, which was also present and answered by Scripture in the comment you were responding to (in that case you could acknowledge that answer).

Or how about the 2nd question in my last comment in the form of a song: To whom do you belong?

It should have the same answer if you are a Christian as you profess to be. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

Same question for anyone else responding to that comment, shouldn't be that hard to answer and there's no need to dodge...Deetermined. I only asked 1 question (or 2 if you count the video title, but they both have the same answer for me). It's not overly complicated as some people like to make it. And when not answering such simple straightforward questions, someone may get the impression you're behaving like your average fan of evolutionary philosophies on the other subforum that won't answer straightforward questions with a straightforward simple and obvious answer (since it's readily available to anyone who desires to be honest about it, waiting for you to accept and acknowledge it; the truth is out there after all. Red herrings and ad hominems won't make it go away or change it).

a reply to: whereislogic

I don’t need to answer to you
I asked why you should be looking at others splinters and why you don’t address your own beam
Truthfully are you even allowed on a site like this, I bet you lie in Kingdom Hall about being on this site.

The JW bible is only used by JW.org members, that’s sufficient that you are in a cult

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: whereislogic

I don’t need to answer to you

Nope, you don't need to, “but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account.” (Hebrews 4:13) Which isn't me, nor you according to Psalm 83:18 in the KJV (as well as other Bible translations, those translations who haven't swapped it out for a generic title).

Some people here may want to consider if perhaps one day, they are willing to give credit where credit is due. Or praise and worship. Otherwise, your allegiance is made so obvious (the answer to the question: To whom do you belong?).

Devil: The descriptive name of Satan in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which means “Slanderer.” Satan was given the name Devil because he is the chief and foremost slanderer and false accuser of Jehovah, His good word, and His holy name.​—Mt 4:1; Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.

Jeremiah 23:26-32, 36 (NW)

26 How long will this continue in the heart of the prophets, to prophesy lies? They are prophets of the deceit of their own heart. 27 They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal. 28 Let the prophet who has a dream relate the dream, but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”

“What does the straw have in common with the grain?” declares Jehovah.

29 “Is not my word just like a fire,” declares Jehovah, “and like a forge hammer that smashes the crag?”

30 “So here I am against the prophets,” declares Jehovah, “who steal my words from one another.”

31 “Here I am against the prophets,” declares Jehovah, “those who use their tongue to say, ‘He declares!’”

32 “Here I am against the prophets of lying dreams,” declares Jehovah, “who relate them and lead my people astray because of their lies and their boasting.”

“But I did not send them or command them. So they will not benefit this people at all,” declares Jehovah.
...
36 But the burden* [Or “burdensome message.”] of Jehovah you should mention no more, for the burden* is each one’s own word, and you have changed the words of the living God, Jehovah of armies, our God.

a reply to: whereislogic

As you won’t answer my question
If Kingdom Hall found out you were here you would get kicked out?


Thanks but no thanks

i can watch what I like, you are not allowed to watch that video
You are in a cult

a reply to: whereislogic

In the FirPrinting of the AV1611 an "s" looked like an "f", there were also some printing errors so when some one claims I don't know or that it is not the ORIGINAL AV 1611. they do so only to divide. JW's are very proud in say things as were in the reply whereis has made. It is all a ruse because he has no argument other than to fall back on the grammatical letters that were used or in printing errors that took place in the First printing of the AV1611. You will notice not only in his personal reply and the quoted material he added don't show any verse errors and they clearly said "printing errors" so they could fall back when called out saying they were truthful when being deceitful. He and the JW's he quoted do this to say there were major errors but they were printing errors. Do I have a copy of the first Printing? Yes I do. Do I use it no I use the One available today but it is the AV1611 without the "Printing errors". Yes I do

You see it is printing errors not doctrinal errors, not Theological errors as the NW, the NIV and all other English version that use two main Documents of the Vaticanius(SP?) and the Siniaticus(SP?). the NW, NIV and all newer version of the Bible don't have 1John5:7 which is a doctrinal error not a printing error. They remove it for it tells the reader that the Father, the Word (Jesus Christ John 1;1-3, 14) and the Holy Ghost are one (not in purpose but in person).

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV

1John5:7 For there are three witness bearers New World Bible of the JW's

The NW and other versions also remove "of God" in 1 John3:16which removes proof of the deity of Christ again these are major errors they printed in their Bibles.

1John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.KJV

By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life

These are just two of thousands of Changes the JW's made in their New World Bible translation. Note they will put their opinions in their Bibles to claim "many scholars" believe these are spurious errors in the KJV. But understand this is because Unlike me, they do not have a pure word of God, they have no inspired Bible in which all of God's words are preserved by him to our generation, they have no bible they can hold in their hands that have ALL the words of God for life and Godliness. They ave no final authority for life, when it comes to their final authority it is in themselves, in their scholars and in their works.

You know a person by their works we can judge the JW organization by the fruit of their own Bible translation.

a reply to: Deetermined

Yeah they believe in the return of Christ but not as the AV 1611 Bible portrays Jesus Return. Just get any other their teaching on the subject and you will see they replace Israel, known as Replacement Theology it is not the same replacement theology as that of the Roman Catholic church or the Landmark Baptist or the Calvinist.

a reply to: Deetermined
You are seeing the truth take things out of context, use a version that will support their Opinions and Private interpretation not Bible truth.

They like the unsaved will always say when we judge them by their works and words we are not showing the love of Jesus, we are not being Christian, and they make false accusation like I showed above about the "first printing" and their not being honest. All the while not showing the Love of Jesus by their own standards, Judging others by their opinions and not by truth of the word of God, and make tons of false accusation all the while trying to play the victim.

I have found JW's are not worth the time we give them. After 2 rebukes we are to shake the dust from our feet and leave them to their own devices.

a reply to: Raggedyman

As far as your "no Value" comment I never said that. I said error and I quoted what you said and it speaks for itself. You said you bible and mine have errors and that is all I said. I have had lot's try and show errors in the AV 1611 but what it turns out it is an opinion that is an error and that is difficult I cannot fight ones opinion on what the see as an error when it is not.

resorting to name calling is unnecessary therefore ends our discussion form her on.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have a NWT/NWB/NW but I wont use it except to show the hypocrisy and errors in it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

As far as your "no Value" comment I never said that. I said error and I quoted what you said and it speaks for itself. You said you bible and mine have errors and that is all I said. I have had lot's try and show errors in the AV 1611 but what it turns out it is an opinion that is an error and that is difficult I cannot fight ones opinion on what the see as an error when it is not.

resorting to name calling is unnecessary therefore ends our discussion form her on.

Yeah resorting to name calling is unnecessary but this
Question


Tell me. If I showed you faults in your bible would that prove it has errors and if it has errors would that stop your relationship with Jesus?

You can’t answer it can you?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have a NWT/NWB/NW but I wont use it except to show the hypocrisy and errors in it.

This is my issue


Tell me. If I showed you faults in your bible would that prove it has errors and if it has errors would that stop your relationship with Jesus?

Fear?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

Do I have a copy of the first Printing? Yes I do.

Cool, does it say "he" or "she" in the last part of Ruth 3:15?

Perhaps you're willing to answer that question instead. Since you're responding to my commentary anyway.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.
...
Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! Awake!—2000

I wonder what use asking questions could be when certain people will not answer them anyway... I guess it could give one some information about those not answering. Of course, the advice above was more about asking yourself questions about whatever argumentation or message one is confronted with, pondering over the examples given. The answers of which regarding the commentary in this thread do seem rather obvious to me.

bias: check
name-calling and loaded words, i.e. loaded language: check
appeal to emotions: check
track record in regards to speaking the truth: poor, lots of spin
merits of the message:

a reply to: whereislogic

See previous comment of mine, especially this part: To the surprise of many people the King James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form (original printings of which are also very rare and sometimes quite fragile; not really suited for everyday use). Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.” So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed? They use a present-day edition of the King James Bible because it is far easier to read. They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

Not true at all.

Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”
There you have it. A scholar of repute has spoken. Other critics have taken up the same whimpering cry.

But is it true?
No, it is not true. Furthermore, it is willfully deceptive, as I shall now demonstrate.
First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!

From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better.
Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted -
TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.
Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature! Now let’s do the math...

By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150 (to be conservative) remaining changes. This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text.
The remaining 150 changes from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes. For example...
In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD.
In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD.
In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN.
Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day.
Indeed, the words of the Holy Ghost are very appropriate here - “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6

The question now arises, how then can Daniel Wallace and other enemies of God’s Word make a statement like the one he made above? If there have been only 421 changes from 1611 until today, how can Wallace et al say that there have been 100,000 changes?
It’s very simple, and yet very insidious, my friends. Here is how Wallace et al attempt to justify their deception...

You see, the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is printed in the ROMAN TYPE FACE! The King James Bible of 1611 was printed in the GOTHIC TYPE FACE!
VIOLA!!! [sic]

There you have it, friends. Changes in TYPE FACE are the “changes” that Wallace et al are referring to. And yet, Wallace clearly intended his reader to believe that the King James Bible of 1611 is significantly different than the King James of today.

As usual, however, the facts don’t bear the critics out. The facts condemn the critics and expose their smoke-and-mirror shell game. Deceit is the only thing modern critics can traffic in, for the facts are so overwhelmingly against them that they have no other means by which to denigrate the Word of God.
Conclusion: the FACT is that the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to the King James Bible of 1611.
Source - bible.org...

The JW's were legally formed in 1879 and used the KJV bible till 1961. For well over 80 years they used a bible that they now say is corrupt. Was there truly a need for them to create their own bible? Yes there certainly was a need for their creating their own literature because their doctrine was not found in the KJV bible and for well over 80 years their doctrine was in conflict with the KJV bible. Not because the KJV bible was corrupt but that they were corrupt and were forced to quit lying to themselves. Rather than change their doctrine they butchered the KJV bible to suit their doctrine.

The 1611 KJV bible was translated, transliterated and interpreted by 54 renowned scholars of sixteen committees. It took about 7 to 8 years to finish their work and each committee submitted their finished portion to the other committees and were all in complete agreement. That is unthinkable today. If you care to read the names of the scholars I can show them to you.

a reply to: Seede

Well said...but what about the pagan-derived doctrine of Hell? I was once a KJV advocate, but that one doctrine impelled me on to other versions.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

a reply to: Seede Well said...but what about the pagan-derived doctrine of Hell? I was once a KJV advocate, but that one doctrine impelled me on to other versions.

According to the teaching of Jesus, as taught to Luke [ Luke 16:19-31, we see where all spirits of dead souls were confined in this earth. It is doubtful that Jesus ever referred to this realm of spirits as hell. The most common name that the orthodox Jews used was Sheol or Nether World.

There has been a work called “Jewish Views Of The Afterlife” by Simcha Paull Raphael that is very extensive on this very subject. Hell is a Greek understanding of Sheol and according to this study by Raphael the Hebrew beliefs were changing even as they were Sumerians before Moses. They were a barbaric and tribal people who believed in ancestral worship and feeding and communication with the dead. This gradually evolved in their dead spirits of their people being contained in Sheol regardless of their stature in life. Everyone was simply imprisoned in this nether world called Sheol.

This then evolved into the bad vs the good. If the bad were separated from the good in life then they had to also be separated in death. So this idea eventually evolved into Sheol having under world divisions for the bad spirits and the good spirits. This is where we find Luke’s account in Luke 16:19-31. According to Luke this was also verified by Jesus as James taught the doctrine of his brother Jesus to the James congregation.

The understanding of hell is to exist in discomfort after death. This is shown in Luke’s account of the Apostles understanding . There is no mention of burning flesh simply because there is no flesh to burn. It is all Spiritual [whatever that is]. So to better understand the Hebrew’s understanding of hell is to understand that hell is a place in Sheol that the bad spirits are contained. This understanding of the doctrine of Jesus continued till Jesus died. James then took the helm and continued to teach the doctrine of Jesus.

James then taught that as Jesus died, He then introduced a comforter to continue teaching. This spirit comforter is named the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then introduced the Kingdom of Heaven to those of the Kingdom of God. These that were of the Kingdom of God were both dead and alive. The dead that were of the Kingdom Of God were in Sheol but separated from the unjustified. It was these dead justified spirits who were released from Sheol and entered the Kingdom of Heaven. These were the very first to resurrect into the Kingdom of Heaven.

From this point on the justified dead spirit is resurrected into the Kingdom of Heaven immediately upon death while the unjustified spirit is bound in Sheol/Hell till the final day of judgments. This is the doctrine of Jesus and James [Nazarenes] and does not agree with the rabbinical teachings of the rabbis. The rabbinical doctrine of afterlife is very vague and confusing because of the many divisions of the Hebrews/Jews. This is the key to understanding why the Apostles deemed it necessary to be of one accord. James had no division of thought in his congregation. The teachers of the synagogue of James were all of the Apostles and certain committees of disciples. Greek nor Roman influence was not tolerated or allowed in the liturgy of the first Jesus movement.

The question as to why the doctrine of the Jews is so vague is somewhat like this. The nation of Israel as Jesus found it was controlled spiritually by the Sadducee's. Now we know that the Sadducee's had no afterlife whatsoever. Once you are dead that was all there was. Remember that the Sadducee's controlled the temple and influenced the people to such an extent that they actually had very little knowledge of God and practically no knowledge of their prophets. Regardless of this the many divisions of Jews clung together because of Torah. Torah was and still is their magic glue. So To denounce the Sadducee's and certain other denominations was to denounce Torah. This is why there is tolerance in the many aspects of Judaism.

Getting back to Hell. Hell still exists in the Nether World/Sheol just the same as when Luke described it. The difference being that now the Justified spirits are allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven and never see Sheol/Hell. Actually in Hebrew we say that the dead see either Sheol or Heaven, leaving the Greek word Hell out of our vocabulary. The doctrine of the Christ Jesus declares that Sheol is destroyed in the final judgment as the entire universe is vaporized. Those that are now in Sheol are sent to the land of despair/lake of fire where their spirit/mind is tormented forever. Why do the Nazarene's believe in this? Because it is the doctrine of the Christ as well as the question -- if the spirit were to be annihilated then why would the Creator transfer them from this terrestrial earth to a celestial realm/lake of fire? Why would the Creator not simply leave them in Sheol and dissolve the entire universe including Sheol?

Hell is nothing but a understanding of the translators of the Greek language to the English language at the particular time of translation. As time and cultures do change meanings, the KJV committees designed the concordance of the translation to keep the translation as pure as they possibly could.

a reply to: Seede

Just so you know, Seede, I do not agree with any of what you say above.

First, "Hell" is an English word, not a Greek one. The Greeks had Hades, and it carried a lot of pagan baggage, but then, so does Hell.

Second, I see death as a separation of body and Spirit. The body returns to dust and the Spirit returns to God Who gave It. Inventing Hell and Hades adds nothing but confusion.

Third, if God vaporizes the Cosmos and all that is in it, including the wicked dead, they are still dead. If so, how does God ever become All in all? I have been waiting for years now for a decent answer.

a reply to: whereislogic

It was admitted to be a misprint and fixed int he next printing, like the word whiskey which was also in one of the first printing. Printing at that time were done in two places which led to many first printing mistakes, the second printing with all corrections was printed by order of King James to be done a Cambridge and for most of the time until the 1800 was done so. But the version you have today is the 7 timers purified version preserved for us today and led the words largest worlds Evangelism Program from the 1700-1920, it was the only version to go around the world the AV didn't get anywhere though it was in printing in 1885 a late comer with many errors like the New World Bible. as shown in previous post.

JW's believe Jesus Became a god, despite that Rev 1 tells us he is the IM as does Exodus and Matthew, Isa, 1 peter, He was to be ONLY CALLED Jehovah by Israel. not by some Replacement theology of the JW's, Land Mark Baptist or Mormons.

BTW, JW's wont bring up all the mistakes in the first printing of the NWT,as well as 30,000 changes and REMOVALS, Changes and total ADDITIONS, thereby bring them under the three fold curse in Duet, Psalm and REv not to change ADD or delete any words from the book. Do you want a Bible that is cursed of God then use any Modern version you want and you hold it in your hands. And read it does it tell you what was added? Is it translated where the AV1611 transliterated? Are there whole sections verses removed, in brackets or have foot notes saying "Most Scholars say this is in error" without telling you it is mainly their scholars, or Roman catholic Scholars or critical of the text German Scholars?

If they do throw it out and get a WHOLE. COMPLETE and Error free Doctrine, Teaching, Blessing, and supernaturally word connected Bible that God preserved for this Generation in English.

originally posted by: ChesterJohnIf they do throw it out and get a WHOLE. COMPLETE and Error free Doctrine, Teaching, Blessing, and supernaturally word connected Bible that God preserved for this Generation in English.

Whole/Complete...? - No, for the Apocrypha are missing from nearly all copies.

Error Free Doctrine...? - No, for it promotes the pagan-derived doctrine of Hell.

Teaching...? - See above. I teach the Reconciliation of all, which is not easy to find in most Bibles, the AV among them.

Blessing...? - Yes, for a few, but for most, Hell. What kind of blessing is that?

Supernaturally Word Connected...? - I'm afraid Ivan Panin's Numeric Bible has the AV beat on that.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

Do I have a copy of the first Printing? Yes I do.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Cool, does it say "he" or "she" in the last part of Ruth 3:15?

From your latest non-answer I take it that you do not have a 1611 edition of the AV ("AV 1611" in your words) nor an exact copy of it (100% the same). Like all the others arguing similar to you in the King James Only movement, it seems you consider the more modern versions of the KJV, which are quite different from a 1611 edition, an "AV 1611" (or appropiately referred to as such).

I think it's fair to remind people that you are not talking about a 1611 edition of the AV nor an exact copy of it (100% the same) with the term "AV 1611", or as expressed in the thread title. After all, that is the truth of the matter. "Love . . . rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor.13:4-6)

For those interested in that sort of thing:

The topic of "doublespeak" discussed on the "Origins and Creationism" forum concerning proponents of evolutionary philosophies, atheism, agnosticism and philosophical naturalism.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: whereislogic

Not true at all.

Which part? Since nothing in the rest of your comment seems to address, negate or contradict anything in the part you quoted from my comment. The terms "word changes" and "corrupt" weren't even used in the part you quoted. A word that was used though to refer to the changes made to later editions of the KJV, was "improvements". Yes, what ChesterJohn refers to as the "AV 1611", i.e. modern editions of the KJV, is/are an improvement over the 1611 edition of the KJV or AV.

Using red herrings and straw men much? It seems you are. Nice dodge from the question in my comment though...I guess you have the excuse that the comment you responded to already had the answer included from the Bible, unlike the other comment below it. You can still acknowledge that answer though and give credit where credit is due. Or praise for that matter. Can you say it out loud? To whom must we give an account according to Psalm 83:18 in the KJV? To whom do you belong?