Comparing K.J.B. with N.W.T.

[placebofactor]

This is a direct challenge, verse by verse of the N.W.T., and the King James Bible. I am not going to give an opinion. You can compare and decide which Bible is true to the word. I will be using an 1824 and 2015 King James Bibles. As for the N.W.T., I have the 1971, 1984, and 2013 editions. Their first copyright came out in 1961. Before 1961 the Witnesses used a K.J.B.

Okay, let’s get started.
We should all agree on this. The original language of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a few verses were written in Chaldean. The New Testament was originally penned in Greek.
The foundation source for the K.J.B. is the Textus Receptus or Received Text. The translation of the text of all ancient known Papyrus Fragments, Uncials, Cursives, and Lectionaries, collectively are known as the "Receptus Textus" and the "Masoretic text." Their number, 5,500 copies, plus 86,000 quotations or allusions to the Scriptures by early Church Fathers. There are another 45 document sources for the N.W.T., although they list 94 in the 1984 edition. The N.W.T. two main sources are the "B" Vatican manuscripts 1209, and the A. or, "Aleph Sinaiticus."

Let’s begin with Philippians 2:8-9-10-11.

Verse 8 in K.J.B. ends with “death of the cross.”
Verse 8, N.W.T. ends with, “death on a torture stake.”

Verse 9 in the N.W.T. ends with a comma “,”.
Verse 9 in the K.J.B. ends with a colon: I hope you understand the difference between the two. The N.W.T. is the only Bible that ends verse 9 with a comma.

Also, note as you read these verses, they have added the word (other) and put it in brackets in the 1984 edition, but removed the brackets in the 1971 or 2013 editions, making it part of the verse. Adding the word (other) gives a reader the impression that the name of Jesus is second to the name Jehovah. In their Interlinear translation, their Greek reads, “over every name.”

Also, "(at) the name of Jesus" has been changed to "(in) the name of Jesus.
"Bow a knee" has been changed to "bend," and "confess" has been changed to "acknowledge."

Bend is not a New Testament word. In the O.T. it is used strictly for “bending or stringing a bow.” To bow a knee is to pay homage or worship. Compare with Romans 14:11, As I live, said the LORD, every knee shall bow to me,” Same word in Philippians.

In English, "bend," means to change shape, or change someone's will, to yield or submit. To yield or submit is not to worship. This change of words chips away at the glory of the Lord Jesus.
Compare verses below:

K.J.B.
Philippians 2: 9-10-11, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth; (semi colon) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

N.W.T.
Philippians 2:9-10-11, “For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every (other) name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, (coma) and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Your comments on the above.

[historia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #9]

Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought.

Whatever else we might make of the NWT, it's pretty clear the translators failed on this particular goal. The NWT is the most wooden and awkwardly-worded translation of the Bible ever produced in English. It has no literary quality whatsoever.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #9]

Thus, the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought.

Whatever else we might make of the NWT, it's pretty clear the translators failed on this particular goal. The NWT is the most wooden and awkwardly-worded translation of the Bible ever produced in English. ...

That is of course really a matter of opinion. I personally find it beautiful and a joy to read - bearing in mind the translators stated goals.

If however you are claiming to be offering more than mere personal opinion, I'd be happy to read peer reviewed comparative studies of the analysis of brain scans and endorphin levels of readers under laboratory conditions (or whatever scientific methodology you base your factual claim on) that prove your statement to be more than mere opinion.

DANIEL 9 :28b
.... and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate

DANIEL 9 :28b

... and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation ...

I don't know what you mean by "It has no literary quality whatsoever." but if you clarify, I will be more than happy to consider making a comment in reply.

[Difflugia]

A few notes:

K.J.B. “heaven,” changed in N.W.T. to “heavens” (plural, no comma)

In the Greek, the phrase is plural: "the heavens."

K.J.B. “in earth” changed to, “upon the earth”

The Greek preposition is ἐπὶ, "upon."

K.J.B. “dominions” changed to “lordships” Dominions and lordship are the same Greek, but not in the plural “lordships.”

It's plural in the Greek. I'm not sure what you're saying here. The word is κυριότητες and is derived from κύριος, "lord" or "authority." "Lordships" is awkward, but not meaningfully different than "dominions."

K.J.B. ‘principalities” changed to “governments”

This is an interesting choice by the NWT. When Paul uses the word ἀρχαὶ elsewhere (Romans 8:28, Ephesians 6:12), he means something supernatural. Of all the legitimate choices available, "governments" seems the most likely to obscure Paul's meaning.

There are no Hebrew or Greek words for "exist" in the Bible.

This isn't quite true. There are forms of the verb "to be" that don't have an exact counterpart in English, but that can be accurately be translated as forms of "to exist." None of those are used in verse 17, however. The Greek word is συνέστηκεν and means "came together."

[Bible_Student]

A few notes:
...

K.J.B. ‘principalities” changed to “governments”

This is an interesting choice by the NWT. When Paul uses the word ἀρχαὶ elsewhere (, ), he means something supernatural. Of all the legitimate choices available, "governments" seems the most likely to obscure Paul's meaning.

Not in Titus 3:1.

Thanks for your honest analysis.

[Difflugia]

Not in Titus 3:1.

Thanks for your honest analysis.

Titus wasn't written by Paul.

[Bible_Student]

Titus 1:1 Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth that is according to godly devotion 2 and is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ago; 3 but in his own due time, he made his word known through the preaching entrusted to me according to the command of our Savior, God; 4 to Titus, a genuine child according to the faith we share ...

[historia]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #16]

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Titus:

That Paul actually wrote the letter to Titus has been much disputed, the answer depending on arguments that extend also to the two letters to Timothy. Many scholars consider the three Pastoral Epistles to be "deutero-Pauline," meaning that they were written in the tradition of Paul but not authored by him.

This is, I believe, the scholarly consensus.

[Bible_Student]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #16]

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Titus:

That Paul actually wrote the letter to Titus has been much disputed, the answer depending on arguments that extend also to the two letters to Timothy. Many scholars consider the three Pastoral Epistles to be "deutero-Pauline," meaning that they were written in the tradition of Paul but not authored by him.

This is, I believe, the scholarly consensus.

I believe the author of the letter, because it was recognized for centuries that it was written by Paul.
Why would that change in our days? We all know that all this started with the "High Criticism" of the Bible, a relatively modern movement based on the premise that the Bible is not God's inspired ... a fatal error to start with.

[Ross]

Excellent. Thank you.

You're welcome! Hopefully, it will help those who use these Bibles to see the vast differences, and how they deflect the truth to fit an agenda. Not the Lord's agenda, but the agenda of corrupt men and women.

As the original Koine' Greek was written in capitals and with no pronunciation marks, any argument comparing Bible translations to this agenda alone is invalid. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

[Ross]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #16]

From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Titus:

That Paul actually wrote the letter to Titus has been much disputed, the answer depending on arguments that extend also to the two letters to Timothy. Many scholars consider the three Pastoral Epistles to be "deutero-Pauline," meaning that they were written in the tradition of Paul but not authored by him.

This is, I believe, the scholarly consensus.

Historia, I absolutely love your new avatar. But if you put modern scholarly consensus above Biblical authority, is it really appropriate?