by blabbermouth 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Lol @ this thread!
I left the Watchtower by primarily reading the New World Translation and the Kingdom Interlinear. They make an interesting combination, anyone reading both will see how biased the NWT is and how they have deliberately changed words to fit their own doctrine . Yes, used this way, even the NWT can lead a person to "the truth".
As for King James only, darn, they are a group to be contended with, real fanaticle and a head ache to say the least!.
Brummie
What were some of the scriptures that really stood out at you, Brummie?
J
The big underlying issue beneath the "KJV cult," I guess, is the NT Greek text it is based on, i.e. the Textus Receptus. Even though we have no early Protestant French version which can compare with the KJV in terms of literary quality and popularity, we have a few TR sectarians who promote very poor French versions (such as David Martin's) for the same reason. They actually advocate a global rejection of the later field of textual criticism, which really developed when older Greek manuscripts (such as the uncial codices of the 4th and 5th century and even older fragmentary papyrii) became available, and of all subsequent critical editions (such as Tischendorf's, Westcott & Hort's or Nestle & Aland's). Although the kind of textual criticism which led to the current critical editions is not above criticism (for a long time the search of an elusive "original" led to underestimate the inherent value of alternate editions, such as the Western text), the exclusive worship of the TR is true obscurantism, very alien to the humanist spirit of the Protestant Reformers and their principle of free inquiry vs. Roman magisterium. The TR adepts have, in effect, switched the infallibility they deny the Pope to the early Protestant translations: if the Reformers were right, the text they worked on has to be right (another good example of circular reasoning).
At least we know who did it so can check their credentials, unlike the NWT.
Even when it was published in 1611 the language was old fashioned. Of course there are better ways of translating some verses - see the revised King James version published a few years ago. They won't shun you for disagreeing. I heard Shakespeare was on the committee - anyone know more about this?
Even a junior high school student of greek could do a better job than ole Freddie after a 15 hour entry level course in greek nowadays...
Jeanniebeanz,
off the top of my head these come to mind: Hebrews 11:13-16 (changed to fit earthly hope, see also Matt 8:11), Hebrews 12:23? changed to fit the "annihalation" doctrine. John 14:14.(prayer to Jesus) John 17:3 Changed to "knowledge" rather than Knowing, as if somehow taking in knowledge of someone was the same as personally knowing someone.
Theres a whole host of changes, this is all off the top of my head.
Brummie
hELP!
Brummie a pussycat next to a poor (much cuter) defenceless hamster!!!
Is there no safety even on this board for me?
HB
Hey hampster, watch ya back, ok?
The King James Version did not come from Scholars,It came from God,I cherish the King James Version and do not mention by name any other "version".If you don't believe the King James Version,then you don't believe the Bible.You can call me "Close Minded","Ruckmanite","Cult Member",but I careth not.I was King James Born,King James Bred,when I die I will be King James dead.If you think the King James is a joke,Im sure that God won't think it's very funny.Mock his word all you like,And when you are finished,read Revelation 20:10-Amen
Did we just get "damned" to hell?
u/d
"Ruckmanite
Yes, I think thats a good word to use. " Blabbermouth Ruckman", seems to fit both characters.
Brummie
