Jehovah Witness are misguided by Cabal, as all organized religion is.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Serious question for you - Is King James most accurate? I have heard many people debate after the apocrypha was removed if any versions are accurate. I have seen still others claim that Bible editing has gone back as far as the time of Constantine. Curious what is believed to be the most complete and accurate version with nothing redacted or removed?
The King James version is written in the English current at the time. Additional scrolls have been discovered and translated, improving on the accuracy of a modern English Bible translation. To say that the King James version is the only authentic Bible translation is like saying, "Well, your Bible is in French, and therefore, invalid". Yes, there are some modern versions that tweak some verses to slightly change what may be the original intent. I use an NIV Bible, which is probably the most thoroughly researched version out, and written in modern English, so much more understandable than middle English. Of course, you need to be able to read Greek to get the original version of New Testament texts, but not too many people can do that. Old Testament texts are subject to much less certainty, but we have to go with what we have.
The NIV is corrupted, friend.
The NIV translation is based on the Nestle-Aland text. which is a combination of Tischendorf's Codex Sinaiticus (rediscovered in a Catholic convent wastepaper basket), Westcott and Hort's manuscripts (based on Codex Vaticanus, a Roman Catholic preserved Alexandrian bible), and Richard Francis Weymouth's The Resultant Greek Testament. These manuscripts were Alexandrian manuscripts and are written in classical Greek.
What I can tell you is that the KJV is based on the Masoretic text (Hebrew Old Testament) and Textus Receptus (Koine Greek New Testament) preserved by Orthodox Christians who fled the Roman Catholic inquisitors and the Muslim invaders of Constantinople.
In fact, I can use the NIV Bible to prove the Alexandrian scripts were corrupted, because the "fact-checkers" didn't realize they needed to edit these passages too! Pay close attention to Acts 6:8-14 in the passage below for mention of the Alexandrians and their role in falsely accusing and turning Stephen over to the Sanhedrin.
Acts 6:1-12
1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Stephen Seized
8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. 10 But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.
11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13 They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Koine Greek was the Greek of the common people and understood throughout the Roman Empire. Classical Greek was only understood by the scholars AKA the academics.
Which version of Greek do you think the Apostles and early Christians would logically have chosen to spread the Gospel message to as many people as possible based on the above information?
If your answer to this question is the same as mine, you'll see why I choose translations based on the Textus Receptus, which include the KJV.
Now, the King James is not perfect. The translators didn't know what a certain word meant so they translated it as unicorn.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7214/kjv/wlc/0-1/
With that being said, the word doesn't affect any doctrinal statements and the meaning is "probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known."
The 3-page preface to my NIV is pretty thorough in explaining how it was done through a large group from many denominations. Any attempt to alter the truth would seem to be pretty rare. I'll take my ability to understand 99.99% of the same text better, because it's in modern English, in exchange for the POSSIBLE mis-translation of a VERY minor portion of the Bible.
The 3-page preface to your NIV was written by commies, just saying.
The language in the KJV is more direct and has the benefit of more poetic language.
Romans 10:17-18 (KJV)
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:17-18 (NIV)
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”[a]
Is "Yes, verily" really harder to understand than "Of course they did?"
Granted, these are subjective things and not a big deal.
But what about doctrinal issues because of words being removed?
Matthew 9:13 (KJV)
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13 (NIV)
13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
That part about repentance is important and was removed from the NIV. It was also removed from Mark 2:17.
Mark 2:17 (KJV)
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17 (NIV)
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Or entire verses being removed?
Acts 8:36-38 (KJV)
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The NIV removes Acts 8:37 completely, but did add a footnote to later versions.
Acts 8:36-38
**36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [c] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. **
c. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Matthew 23:14 was also removed from the NIV. There's a footnote but it doesn't provide an explanation of what was removed. It just says-
b. Matthew 23:14 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.
Matthew 23:13-15 (NIV)
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
Now let's see what they removed.
Matthew 23:13-15 (KJV)
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Can't have that part about stealing from the widows while saying long prayers as a pretense (i.e. pretending to be devout in public), now can we?
There are many more verses removed, but I hope you'll at least consider researching exactly what's been removed. The only substantial difference between the Jehovah's Witness Bible and the NIV is that the NIV includes footnotes.
But I'll be honest. I'd rather somebody reads the NIV than let their KJV collect dust on their shelf and pray the Holy Spirit reveals all truth to the NIV readers that the enemy removed from the text.
For me it is the King James version all the way. It is a word for word translation that is uncorrupted by the Westcott-Hort translation of the New Testament in the 1800's.
The OT is something you can be reasonably sure is honest. Too many copies made since the Jews were commanded that every male write their own Torah scroll.
The NT is harder. When reading, read with the Interlinear handy. Use Biblehub.com for s clickable link to each word and its translation and othet instances it is found in the scriptures.
Hebrews 4:9 is translated incorrectly in the KJV.
When reading the NT look for inconsistencies between books and verses.
There is controversy surrounding Matthew 28:19 which presents the trinitarian baptismal formula. This formula is not repeated anywhere else in the Bible.
Hebrews 4:9
9 there doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God,
That's from Young's Literal Translation, which is based on the Textus Receptus NT as well. It appears the KJV translators didn't include the sabbatic part of that verse, although it's gleaned from the context.
I still swear by the KJV for reasons stated above.
I bought The Hebrew Bible by Robert Alter and The New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Edition With The Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha is written in Greek. What type of stupid kike are you to buy a heeb bible to read the Greek New New Testament of Jesus Christ?
This book presented a simple and down-to-earth argument (for me anyway) that the KJV is the most convincing English version of the Bible.
https://archive.org/details/sam-gipp-the-answer-book-a-helpful-book-for-christians/