The KJV is not the best (or ONLY) version of the Christian Bible

It seems that con has not posted an argument for round 3, so I shall continue.In that previous round I briefly mentioned "hell" as it is in the OT. Now I will point out this deception of the KJV in the New Testament. In the KJV NT, we find the word "hell" 23 times. However, there are three different Greek words rendered as the same one word: "hell". GEENNA (12 times) is a Greek form of the Hebrew name for the Valley of Hinnom, which is just south of Jerusalem's wall; in other words, an actual, physical place. Some Bible maps feature it. This valley was also called Tophet, and it was where children were passed through the fires of Molech before King Josiah defiled it. In the time of Jesus (and for many centuries afterward) this valley was used as the city's garbage dump, and it was always burning, burning with a foul stench. As one might expect, maggots fed there constantly on the rot. The bodies of those who were not worthy of burial were cast here. This is what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of having both body and soul destroyed in an unquenchable fire where the worm doesn't die.HADES (10 times) is the Greek word used in place of the Hebrew SHEOL. In other words, when Hebrew Scripture that contains the word SHEOL is quoted in the NT, the Greek word used is HADES. Now, the only time of the ten times that it seems to refer to a place of fiery torment is in Luke 16. As you may know, Luke was a Hellenistic gentile (probably from Troas) who came to believe in Jesus. Only his account tells this story, and I tend to stick to God's idea of there needing to be two or more witnesses. It's possible that Luke didn't understand (or agree with) the Jewish view of Sheol. Or, it may be that the idea of the wicked suffering in a place of torment was developed between the two testaments. The OT ideology certainly supports the view that all die and go to the same place, the grave. After all, what's the point of a resurrection of judgment if folks are judged and sent to their reward or punishment immediately after they die?TORTOROS is used once in II Peter 2:4 in reference to those angels bound up in chains awaiting judgment from the time of Noah. What this means exactly is the topic of another debate, but it seems right out of the pages of Greek mythology. This is not a realm for anything human.And so there we have it. A total of 4 different words translated as "hell" in the KJV, and none of them reliably suggest the spiritual place of torment for those souls who (according to Baptist doctrine) never prayed a "sinners' prayer" where they ask Jesus into their hearts. Can you see how some very wrong ideas can come about from such a poor version of the Bible?Shall I get into the additions that add credit to the church dogma of Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh? In the second round, I talked about the addition to I John 5:7 in the KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Uh-huh. And by the way, "ghost" is an incorrect translation for the Greek PNEUMA, which refers to breath, wind, and (by extension) spirit. A ghost is the active soul of a dead person, which is normally fiction.For the book of Acts, the Western manuscripts add about 10% to the Alexandrian text, as well as containing a bunch of changes. The KJV relies mainly on the Byzantine tradition, but there are still differences between the Byzantine, Textus Receptus, and Alexandrian traditions. For example, 8:37 and 9:5b-6a are not in the oldest manuscripts. There are actually too many differences for me to point them out her, but some of these additions appear to be explanatory in nature, such as "which were sent unto him from Cornelius" (10:21), although 2 additions to that chapter (the last clauses in verses 6 and 32) seem to skew the same prophecy. In 13:42, the KJV text for some reason refers to "the Jews" leaving the synagogue, while the oldest manuscripts use "they", as in those who were just spoken of in the previous verses. Is this an attempt to separate Paul and those with him from the Jews, even though Paul still called himself a Jew?And here's something: in 20:28, the KJV tells us that God purchased the church through his own blood. The earliest text literally read, "through the own blood", a strange way to put it if the author meant to say "His own blood".In 23:30, the Textus Receptus once again points out that "the Jews" made a plot against Paul. The earliest manuscripts simply say that there was a plot against Paul. And verses 6b-7 of the next chapter don't belong either. And 28:29, which points out "the Jews" also doesn't belong.Romans 16:24, a "fake ending", as someone falsely put it, is not in the oldest MSS.In I Timothy 3:16, the KJV says that God was manifested in the flesh. Modern bibles, based upon the more ancient readings, simply say "he" or "who" (or "he who"). One could see how a Catholic scribe (or those above him) would jump to violate this verse to fit in with their dogma. Regardless of who this verse is speaking of, it's wrong to change the text and then teach others to point it out when they're trying to prove that Jesus is God in the flesh. Deceitful, even.Well, this is what I get for procrastinating. It's now five in the morning. Stayed up so I could post before I went to sleep. I'm going to end it here and leave it to con, if he's still interested. I would love to hear what he has to say.