Acts 7:59 (KJV)

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, did you catch the import of this, when comparing this to what I previously posted in another place, regarding the ASV?

The JW organization has been distributing the Bible version, of which you are claiming they are in opposition, namely the KJV for more than a century. Further, they have even been printing this same version for 3 years longer than they have been printing the ASV (65 yrs. and counting), which they printed and supported, the reason being, according to your claim, that of the basis of the text (NT ONLY, of course ), in some places.

And this doesn't even mention they have distributed >100K more of the KJV (~1.86 M, by 1992), than double the number of the ASV (~885K).

Something isn't adding up here, and it is not the raw numbers.

I suggest rather it's some of the "trash" you have elsewhere ascribed to another, that you have swallowed and now 'spue out' without any real knowledge and understanding of what it was you swallowed to begin with, and the 'puke' you are regurgitating because of this, IMO.

Ed

Both Logos and Ed, again I must ask you how many Bibles else than KJV were sold during the early stage of JW activities?

Let's say almost 6 Billion volumes of KJV have been sold so far ( maybe only a little less than 6 Billion so far), then 1.8 million may be 0.03% of total KJV distribution.

You cannot convince the relationship between JW and KJV, or the preference of the Bible by the JW's in that way.

The key point by which we can prove the linkage of JW teachings with any Bible is to investigate what are the bases of their Bible. Their Bible NWT or Watch Tower Bible is based on the WH-NA Greek text, and they will never use TR as the basis for their Bible.

As I said I was attending JW for about 6 months. Even if we use any bible like KJV, when they are confronted with the critical argument where they can hardly defend their doctrine, they quickly mention that the original text disagree with KJV.

Try to talk with them about 1 Tim 3:16 of KJV. They will quickly reject KJV is wrong there ! I have never met any JW who still believe 1 Tim 3:16 of KJV as the genuine Bible. Once they believe 1 Tim 3:16 of KJV, they quit JW. More than 99% of the manuscripts support KJV in 1 Tim 3:16 while MV's are based on the minority texts ( I believe less than 1 % of the manuscripts) which don't tell the deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Askjo]

The ultimate source of Modern Versions is the Vatican Texts and the other manuscripts such as Aleph, p75, A, are the bridesmaids for Vaticanus which has been preserved by the Roman Catholic, the Center of Idolatry and Goddess worship which tortured and killed the Bible translators, prohibited the Bible, the enemy of God.

Preach it !! AMEN!!!

 

[Tater77]

Those texts are from the early Church. The "Catholic" church was born in the 11th century and most to all of the apostasy the RCC is accused of came about in the middle ages as they became greedy.

 

[Eliyahu]

Those texts are from the early Church. The "Catholic" church was born in the 11th century and most to all of the apostasy the RCC is accused of came about in the middle ages as they became greedy.

This exposes your ignorance about the Church history greatly, though there may be many views to see the formation of RCC in the history.

In 431 when they had the council of Ephesus, they declared Mary the Mother of God. Before that, Constantine issued the edict approving Christian Church in 313 AD, and then there was Nicean Council in 325. It must be understood that RCC was formed around 4th century, though we can trace back to the time of Novatian when many apostates try to return back to the church in 251-258 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatian

11th century is the time of schism when Catholic was split into RCC and Eastern Orthodox in 1054
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[Askjo]

This exposes your ignorance about the Church history greatly, though there may be many views to see the formation of RCC in the history.

In 431 when they had the council of Ephesus, they declared Mary the Mother of God. Before that, Constantine issued the edict approving Christian Church in 313 AD, and then there was Nicean Council in 325. It must be understood that RCC was formed around 4th century, though we can trace back to the time of Novatian when many apostates try to return back to the church in 251-258 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novatian

11th century is the time of schism when Catholic was split into RCC and Eastern Orthodox in 1054
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Roman_Catholic_Church

I agree with you concering the RCC appearing in between 3rd Century and 4th Century.

 

[Tater77]

That is the beginnings of the Roman church. Now actually read when it was first called the CATHOLIC church. Did you just skim over the article or did you actually read it?

 

[Eliyahu]

That is the beginnings of the Roman church. Now actually read when it was first called the CATHOLIC church. Did you just skim over the article or did you actually read it?

Your level of knowledge about church history is too low to debate here. You'd better study further and come back.

 

[Tater77]

Your level of knowledge about church history is too low to debate here. You'd better study further and come back.

:laugh:

You have no idea what I'm talking about do you? What is the origins of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today? Not the early church or the church in Rome but Catholicism as we know it today.

 

[Revmitchell]

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

"God" is not in the Greek text. It is an interpolation. I believe it is unwarranted to have it there seeing that many anti-Trinitarian groups use this as an example of over-zealous Trinitarians trying to force their theology into the Bible.

Heretic accusations are not a standard for translation.

 

[thomas15]

Eliyahu,
I was going to reply to post #16 by simply saying that you don't really know what you are talking about, but others have done so by posting facts that prove it. But after reading your post #27, I think the problem is much deeper than I suspected.

I say this with deepest respect.
Tom