Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott cites over 20,000 inconsistancies between the King James Authorized Version and actual Biblical text. Nevertheless it only requires one discrepancy to change the Word from His Word to King James word.
The manner in which the King James Authorized Version was rendered, in addition to the actual changes made to the text are more than enough reason to rebuke the King James Authorized Version as blasphemy. The quote should not be, It’s the King James or Hell. It should be, With the King James it is Hell!
“Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott cites over 20,000 inconsistancies between the King James Authorized Version and actual Biblical text.”
Produce your source for this claim, please.
My goodness. Looks like your Douay-Rheims is blasphemy too, then, since by admission it’s sourced from the KJV.
How strange is that? I guess it’s just one more weird internal inconsistency on top of centuries of the same, from a religion that discourages introspection, to me.
I would not trust a word he says since he says the devil does not exist.
Since Mr. Wilson never saw the actual biblical text nor an exact copy of it, his opinion is just a little less than worthless...
So a RC (for at least the second time!) invokes a cultist to attack the KJV, which is far more in conformity with RC Bibles than his beliefs? Which is not surprising, since the Diaglott was produced by Benjamin Wilson, who was apparently baptized by Christadelphian founder John Thomas (though they later divided over the judgment seat and the resurrection), and was co-founder of the cultic Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith.
And who neither saw "the actual Biblical text" or had credentials in Greek, and from what i see supported the denial of the personal pre-existence of Christ before his birth, the incarnation doctrine, and the literal second coming, and the actual person of the devil and demons. And is used widely by Jehovah's Witnesses because of its anti-trinitarian bias, claiming (among other things) it supports their mistranslation of Jn. 1:1.
As to Wilson's doctrinal position the following is included in his obituary, printed in the Evening Bee of Sacramento, May 9, 1900: "'Among the doctrines and teachings of modern theology that he could not harmonize with what he believed to be the teachings of the early church were the following ... doctrine of eternal torment, inherent immortality of the soul, and the doctrine of the Trinity. . . ."
"Benjamin F. Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott," The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, 41:68, July-August, 1964. From the foregoing it is clear that Wilson's theology and Russell's were very close, and from the facts pointed out here and in chapter 2, it appears probable that both Russell and Wilson drew from a common source, Dr. John Thomas. (Apostles of Denial By Edmond C. Gruss. p. 194 )
Professor Emeritus Edmond Gruss, of the Master's College in Southern California, observes how the Diaglott fit the needs of the newly formed Russellite religion: Wilson was self-educated; his work shows that he cer-tainly was not a scholar. Neither did he have the respect of those who were scholars. Obviously, his purpose was not to translate, but to justify his theological views....It may be concluded, then, that the Emphatic Diaglott was adopted because of its Christadelphian bias which agreed almost perfectly with the new Russellite group that was forming. The Russellites accepted the renderings of Wilson, for they did not have the linguistic ability either to evaluate or to determine their correctness, nor did they wish to question that which so perfectly supported their theories... 205 (Fast Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses By John Ankerberg, John Weldon. p. 77 )
Nor did Wilson even base the Diaglott on the Greek New Testament of the Textus Receptus (used by the KJV), but on a "poor dated recension" (Gruss) published in 1805 by Johann Jakob Griesbach. Griesbach, and gave priority to the Alexandrian and Western. Under each line was a rough translation in English representing what he saws as being the best meaning of the Greek language used in the passage.
Thus what this cultist cites as errors in the KJV would also apply to the Catholic DRB.
Meanwhile, what English translation do you hold as the most reliable?
Against which criteria? which exemplars?
There are 300,000+ variations in the Greek across all families and exemplars... Most are little more than spelling errors... So your 20,000 number is relatively insignificant, and can be approximated critically without effort in attacking codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus.