Since the original KJV has so many flaws: Why do they keep printing it?

[Stillicidia]

That's just how production goes. As if it's actually wrong. You didn't address my points. I'm unfollowing thread.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

I still don't understand why a book that has been found to contain errors should be printed and distributed. JWs produced Bibles which they later revised and only print the revised versions. Now that makes sense.

I like that the strongs concordance translates the kjv into Hebrew and Greek ...I'm not sure if the other translations have such a concordance. Also blueletterbible.com is an easy resource for translating the kjv into greek/hebrew ...although many may find fault in that also.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Easter&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3957&t=KJV

And that's why I prefer the kjv :•)

 

[Radrook]

That's just how production goes. As if it's actually wrong. You didn't address my points. I'm unfollowing thread.

The points you objwecvted to are not sp[ecifically the ones I hold.
Theones I mentione are

1. Unwarranted capitalization to support the trinity
2. Calling the holy spirit a Holy Ghost
3. Referring to Gehenna a hell
4. Capitalizing the first letter of "spirit" or rendering the phrase ""holy spirit"" as ""Holy Spirit in order to indicate it is God. People reading the KJV trustinly assume that it was written that way in the original when it was not.

Example: When Jesus said that before Abraham was I am, the KJV renders it ""Ï Am" to indicate that Jesus was claiming to be God who used that phrase in identifying himself to Moses as God almighty. Whether the translator believes such is the case or not is irrelevant since a translator is not supposed to be pushing doctrine. A translator is supposed to translate scripture as it was written and not impose his beliefs on it.

 

[Stillicidia]

The bible I trust doesn't have Gehenna. I don't know if my KJV is the original version or the revamped one.
I like to use Kingjamesbibleonline.org because I don't have the full one.

So now I'm confused. It could be the revamped one I trust. I have no idea.

I think I'm reading they use a 1769 version instead of a 1611 published version, because it had basic spelling errors.

I don't see an issue with calling the Holy Spirit the Holy Ghost, religiously, as far as I can tell, there isn't really an issue there. Like it's tomato, tomato. Same with Yahweh, or Lord, or God, or Father.

When Jesus said that before Abraham was "I am". < That is acceptable, because it isn't lying, beyond that, he was also in existence before anyone was or anything.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

The points you objwecvted to are not sp[ecifically the ones I hold.
Theones I mentione are

1. Unwarranted capitalization to support the trinity
2. Calling the holy spirit a Holy Ghost
3. Referring to Gehenna a hell
4. Capitalizing the first letter of "spirit" or rendering the phrase ""holy spirit"" as ""Holy Spirit in order to indicate it is God. People reading the KJV trustinly assume that it was written that way in the original when it was not.

Example: When Jesus said that before Abraham was I am, the KJV renders it ""Ï Am" to indicate that Jesus was claiming to be God who used that phrase in identifying himself to Moses as God almighty. Whether the translator believes such is the case or not is irrelevant since a translator is not supposed to be pushing doctrine. A translator is supposed to translate scripture as it was written and not impose his beliefs on it.

Yeah I was really shocked when I noticed this: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Messiah&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4899&t=KJV

(Again, giant fan of blueletterbible.org) ...oh, and I ♡ the kjv.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Kinda need to wait to see what survives the "copyright era" of the new translations and their subsidiary versions. KJV is public domain, there are only so many public domain bibles. Remember the poor.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

The points you objwecvted to are not sp[ecifically the ones I hold.
Theones I mentione are

1. Unwarranted capitalization to support the trinity
2. Calling the holy spirit a Holy Ghost
3. Referring to Gehenna a hell
4. Capitalizing the first letter of "spirit" or rendering the phrase ""holy spirit"" as ""Holy Spirit in order to indicate it is God. People reading the KJV trustinly assume that it was written that way in the original when it was not.

Example: When Jesus said that before Abraham was I am, the KJV renders it ""Ï Am" to indicate that Jesus was claiming to be God who used that phrase in identifying himself to Moses as God almighty. Whether the translator believes such is the case or not is irrelevant since a translator is not supposed to be pushing doctrine. A translator is supposed to translate scripture as it was written and not impose his beliefs on it.

Since you mentioned the capitialization of the word "spirit" in the KJV you must be referring to the Cambridge Edition. The Oxford edition of the KJV does not capatilize it..

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Also since you mentioned Easter..... The KJV translates the word "pascha" as passover except in one verse...


Heres why the KJV is correct in the one place it translates it as "Easter"

Following is from Sam Gipps Website "http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html"

QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"?

ANSWER: No, "pascha" is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.

EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.

The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".

Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.

Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of "pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.

To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).

Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4, 5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."

Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.

After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!

In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"

In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."

Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."

Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).

In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.

II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles."

Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.

II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."

Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel."

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

1. On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
2. On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.

Now let us look at Acts 12:3, 4:

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone.Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away.Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.

Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

 

[Job8]

One would assume that a seriously-flawed translation would be removed from distribution out of respect for the biblical author and the original text.

You assumption and presumption is seriously flawed, that is why Christians continue to use the KJV. This is another attack from Satan on the Word of God.

 

[Radrook]

You assumption and presumption is seriously flawed, that is why Christians continue to use the KJV. This is another attack from Satan on the Word of God.

The revision of older versions of the Bible doesn't constitute an attack on the Word of God. It is merely a bringing of the text closer to what was originally said. In short, it is showing respect for the Word of God. What really shows disrespect is leaving intact gross errors committed by incompetent translators who might have also had denominational ulterior motives in mind. But that doesn't seem to bother you one bit it. Strange!

BTW
Don't you notice that Bible versions are revised? LOL!

 

[Job8]

The revision of older versions of the Bible doesn't constitute an attack on the Word of God. It is merely a bringing of the text closer to what was originally said. In short, it is showing respect for the Word of God. What really shows disrespect is leaving intact gross errors committed by incompetent translators who might have also had denominational ulterior motives in mind. But that doesn't seem to bother you one bit it. Strange!

You have made certain allegations here which are not supported by the facts.

1. If the KJV was indeed full of "gross errors" it could not possibly have become the standard English Bible for at least 300 years. It would have been rejected and some other Bible would have replaced it. The fact that it has remained "the Authorized Version" for over 400 years speaks for itself.

2. To describe the translators of the KJV as "incompetent" exposes your own ignorance of these outstanding scholars, who were also outstanding Christians. History supports the fact that these men were outstanding in every respect, and therefore produced an outstanding translation. You might want to study these men in greater detail and then apologize to all Christians for falsely accusing them of incompetence.

3. To accuse them of "denominational ulterior motives" is another false accusation, since the translators were a cross-section of various Christian groups. If anything the Puritans were more influential in this effort, and they certainly did not support the Church of England in many of its beliefs. They were the Reformers of the Church of England. The Geneva Bible shows a distinctly Calvinistic bias, whereas the KJV has sought to simply translate as faithfully as possible. In fact, perhaps too faithfully, since the Greek form of the Hebrew names (e.g. Jesus for Joshua) was not a good idea.

No one will deny that there could be further improvements and refinements to the KJV. But every effort at revision has ended up in corrupting the Bible, beginning with the Revised Version of 1881. So for the present, the KJV should be accepted as the most faithful and reliable English translation.

 

[Albion]

Without agreeing to the proposition that the AV has "so many flaws," some of the reasons for its enduring popularity include these:

1. It's the most beautiful of all translations, and people like uplifting language when dealing with God, not "Dick and Jane" stuff.

2. It's the Bible that won the world to Christ, the one that the missionaries of past centuries used all over the globe.

3. Familiarity. It's the best known translation and, in addition, contains innumerable phrases and expressions that are now part of our language, even among non-believers and Christians who in many cases are not aware of where the expressions, etc. are drawn from.

 

[farout]

It's the most trustworthy translation, and the best translation. I don't need a wrong translation telling me the literal opposite of what the KJV says about sheep sacrifice.

The KJV was the most trustworthy translation in 1611. There have been discoveries, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and older manuscripts have been found that give even more information translators did not have in 1611. The KJV is still a very good Bible. There are more accurate translations now like the New American Standard Bible, which is highly trustworthy and used by most Conservative Christian seminaries. The ESV is also a good translation. But the not the most trustworthy or most accurate today.

 

[Der Alte]

. . .
Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is themother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ. . . .

Most of this is total nonsense. Just because someone posts this stuff on their website one should not assume that it is true. Ishtar was not pronounced Easter. It was pronounced exactly as it is spelled "ish" as in "wish" "tar" as in "star." Duttur was Tammuz's mother not Ishtar and Tammuz did not have a wife. The festival of Tammuz was initially observed in March and April but later in the 7th century BC it was June and July. See this article from Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz-Mesopotamian-god

 

[Bob Carabbio]

One would assume that a seriously-flawed translation would be removed from distribution out of respect for the biblical author and the original text.

Simple - it's "PUBLIC DOMAIN" which makes it economic, and it's been the standard for a VERY LONG TIME. There are no "SERIOUS ERRORS" in the text, and the Holy SPirit is ever available for comment - IF you really WANT HIS wisdom, that is.

 

[Radrook]

You have made certain allegations here which are not supported by the facts.

1. If the KJV was indeed full of "gross errors" it could not possibly have become the standard English Bible for at least 300 years. It would have been rejected and some other Bible would have replaced it. The fact that it has remained "the Authorized Version" for over 400 years speaks for itself.

2. To describe the translators of the KJV as "incompetent" exposes your own ignorance of these outstanding scholars, who were also outstanding Christians. History supports the fact that these men were outstanding in every respect, and therefore produced an outstanding translation. You might want to study these men in greater detail and then apologize to all Christians for falsely accusing them of incompetence.

3. To accuse them of "denominational ulterior motives" is another false accusation, since the translators were a cross-section of various Christian groups. If anything the Puritans were more influential in this effort, and they certainly did not support the Church of England in many of its beliefs. They were the Reformers of the Church of England. The Geneva Bible shows a distinctly Calvinistic bias, whereas the KJV has sought to simply translate as faithfully as possible. In fact, perhaps too faithfully, since the Greek form of the Hebrew names (e.g. Jesus for Joshua) was not a good idea.

No one will deny that there could be further improvements and refinements to the KJV. But every effort at revision has ended up in corrupting the Bible, beginning with the Revised Version of 1881. So for the present, the KJV should be accepted as the most faithful and reliable English translation.

The hellfire doctrine is put forth as biblical via translating the words Sheol, Tartarus and Gehenna as hell.

The Nicene Council Trinitarian view is put forth as the only viable one via taking LIBERTIES with the text by capitalizing the first letter of the Holy Spirit, and capitalizing the ""I Am"" statement Jesus made is a mistranslation of "I have existed,". But it is mistranslated in order to make Jesus look as if he is claiming to be Yahweh when Yahweh stated that his name is "I Am that I Am."

Fantastical mythological beasts are included which do not exist.

There are a host of other inconsistencies which make the Bible seem self-contradictory.

A revision is the best thing when such errors are found. It does not Constitute an attack on the Word of God because the Word of God isn't the issue. mistakes are never the Word of god. that is why translations are revised. If indeed you are against revision then you are pro error and if you are pro error in reference to ho the bible was translated then you are pro Satan since he is the Father of the lie and obtains great satisfaction when errors are allowed to remain intact in the holy Scriptures.

KJV Translation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

KJV Translators
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm


BTW
Popularity did not keep revision from being needed..
https://gotquestions.org/mythological-creatures-Bible.html

 

[Der Alte]

The hellfire doctrine is put forth as biblical via translating the words Sheol, Tartarus and Gehenna as hell.

Did you know that among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom?

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

The Nicene Council Trinitarian view is put forth as the only viable one via taking LIBERTIES with the text by capitalizing the first letter of the Holy Spirit, and capitalizing the ""I Am"" statement Jesus made is a mistranslation of "I have existed,". But it is mistranslated in order to make Jesus look as if he is claiming to be Yahweh when Yahweh stated that his name is "I Am that I Am."

Just because you read it on some anonymous website doesn't mean it is true.

Link to Early Church Fathers
Ignatius [A.D. 30-107.] The Epistle to the Tarsians Chap. VI.[Student of John the apostle]
Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.” (Joh_1:3) “When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily.” (Pro_8:27, Pro_8:30) And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: “Sit Thou at My right hand?” (Psa_110:1) And how, again, could such an one declare: “Before Abraham was, I am?” (Joh_8:58) And, “Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was?” (Joh_17:5) What man could ever say, “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me?” (Joh_6:38) And of what man could it be said, “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not?” (Joh_1:9-11) How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Joh_1:1) and the Word was God.”5 And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.” (Pro_8:22-23, Pro_8:25)
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples.[Student of Polycarp a student of John]
And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.” But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.
From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus
The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the “Rock was Christ” Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.
Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.
Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]
It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.”
A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]
“And God,” says he, “was the Word.” Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? — who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.​

And OBTW this is known as research from credible, verifiable historical sources not anonymous websites.

Fantastical mythological beasts are included which do not exist.

The KJV translators used the most up to date lexical sources they had available to them. Modern translations have 400 more years of scholarship such as Dead Sea Scrolls that the KJV did not have.

There are a host of other inconsistencies which make the Bible seem self-contradictory.

Every so-called contradiction/inconsistency has been refuted or reconciled. Google "Bible contradictions refuted."

A revision is the best thing when such errors are found. It does not Constitute an attack on the Word of God because the Word of God isn't the issue. mistakes are never the Word of god. that is why translations are revised. If indeed you are against revision then you are pro error and if you are pro error in reference to ho the bible was translated then you are pro Satan since he is the Father of the lie and obtains great satisfaction when errors are allowed to remain intact in the holy Scriptures.

There is a big difference between "mistakes" and translations based on the only manuscripts available in 1611.

KJV Translation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Wiki? Are you serious? Wiki is about as reliable as the scribblings on a public facility wall. Every article has [edit] links, anyone can add, change or delete anything at any time without review or control.

KJV Translators

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm
BTW
Popularity did not keep revision from being needed..
https://gotquestions.org/mythological-creatures-Bible.html

Well it must be true it is posted on some anonymous websites.

 

[Radrook]

Did you know that among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom?

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

Just because you read it on some anonymous website doesn't mean it is true.

Link to Early Church Fathers
Ignatius [A.D. 30-107.] The Epistle to the Tarsians Chap. VI.[Student of John the apostle]
Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for “all things were made by Him.” (Joh_1:3) “When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily.” (Pro_8:27, Pro_8:30) And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: “Sit Thou at My right hand?” (Psa_110:1) And how, again, could such an one declare: “Before Abraham was, I am?” (Joh_8:58) And, “Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was?” (Joh_17:5) What man could ever say, “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me?” (Joh_6:38) And of what man could it be said, “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not?” (Joh_1:9-11) How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Joh_1:1) and the Word was God.”5 And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.” (Pro_8:22-23, Pro_8:25)
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples.[Student of Polycarp a student of John]
And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.” But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.
From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus
The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the “Rock was Christ” Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.
Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.
Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]
It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.”
A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]
“And God,” says he, “was the Word.” Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? — who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.​

And OBTW this is known as research from credible, verifiable historical sources not anonymous websites.

The KJV translators used the most up to date lexical sources they had available to them. Modern translations have 400 more years of scholarship such as Dead Sea Scrolls that the KJV did not have.

Every so-called contradiction/inconsistency has been refuted or reconciled. Google "Bible contradictions refuted."

There is a big difference between "mistakes" and translations based on the only manuscripts available in 1611.

Wiki? Are you serious? Wiki is about as reliable as the scribblings on a public facility wall. Every article has [edit] links, anyone can add, change or delete anything at any time without review or control.

Well it must be true it is posted on some anonymous websites.

First, The articles at WIKI require sources and the sources are -placed at the bottom of each article .
Are you criticizing the sources?
If so, which of the sources do you take umbrage with?

About Jewish ideas?
I studied the Bible for decades and see no basis for such ideas.
So to me that is all irrelevant.

About excusable mistakes in translation, some are excusable while others are not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One would assume that a seriously-flawed translation would be removed from distribution out of respect for the biblical author and the original text.

Why ?

It is weird because documents which are considered crucial to our understanding of issues such as the colonial Declaration of Independence
which outlined the issues involved leading to a diplomatic severance between the thirteen colonies and England are treated with great care and respect in order to assure accuracy and evade unnecessary misunderstanding.

Not at all. Most all of them are today virtually powerless, useless, mis-represented, used by the powers that be simply the way they want to use them, without regards to the TRUTH or utter lack of TRUTH about anything the 'powers' say.

Any flawed version of such a document would not be tolerated as genuine.

They just 'spin' it. Everything is very flawed. Have you happened to glance at politics lately ? All the way through all the schools, in the news, nationwide - deception. Oppression. Suppression of the TRUTH.

Yet when we come to the biblical text, this isn't the case.

YHWH has GUARDED HIS WORD , even MORE than YHWH GUARDS HIS OWN NAME.
No worries there. TRUTH YHWH, not men.

Strange! It seems to fall easily into the satanic scheme of misrepresentation

Not strange - it is written that satan would deceive the whole world.
He has done so for many centuries. (actually, practically for 6000 years).

 

[faroukfarouk]

I still don't understand why a book that has been found to contain errors should be printed and distributed. JWs produced Bibles which they later revised and only print the revised versions. Now that makes sense.

I really think that to portray the KJV as worse than some editions of the JWs' New World version is to overstate vastly whatever point you are wanting to make.

The KJV does have its strong points, as well as some archaisms.