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.

[Ross]

This is not so much a translation as a paraphrase. Which is all the more glaring when we take account of the fact that, in so many other verses, the NWT is very literal -- often excessively so. What, then, other than theological concern could explain forsaking a literal translation here in favor of a looser one?

In multiple previous discussions of the NWT on other forums, a very many who are familiar with Koine' Greek have concluded that the New World Translation has merit as a good and quite literal translation; but that whenever the Deity of The Christ comes into play in the verses, the wording and faithfulness of the rendering into English is glaringly manipulated to conform to pre-conceived doctrine.

It has been since it's introduction, believed by some that this was the sole reason for its production.

[historia]

The difference between saying Jesus did consider the question of equality and came to the decision that it was not something to be grasped or to say he did not consider equality as something to be grasped is symantics; both respect the essential idea, namely that grasping said equality was judged in the negative.

I agree that there is no meaningful difference between "he did not consider X to be Y" and "he considered X to be not Y," as both convey the idea that the person has, in fact, given consideration to whether X is Y, and judged it to be not the case.

But that's not what the NWT (2013) says!

It says "he did not even consider . . ." When you say someone "did not even consider," or they "gave no consideration" (so NWT 1984) to something, you're saying they have not, in fact, given any consideration to that matter.

Lest you think this is just me reading something into the translation that was not intended, this is precisely how onewithhim and Bible_Student articulated their understanding of this verse in our more recent discussion, the one you just referenced in your last post:

RELATE POSTS

Did Jesus refrain from considering the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1152366&hilit=Jw#p1152366

They argued:

The passage means that he did not even consider it.

Jesus never even gave it a thought.

Your replies above and in the previous threads indicate to me that you understand this verse and the issues of how it can be variously interpreted more clearly than they do.

But it's also clear to me that a major issue that is obscuring their understanding of this passage -- and the related question of whether it is possible to be equal to God -- is how the NWT has rendered this verse. They think the text says Jesus never gave it a thought. It doesn't. That is, for the reasons I noted above, not grammatically justifiable.

Again, since the above has been deemed by the NWT committee as {quote} " the intended thought" {end quote} , they have added words in English (eg "to try") to communicate that idea with clarity.

I appreciate the point you're making here, but it seems to me that "avoiding wording that . . . hides the intended thought" is not quite the same thing as rephrasing the passage in a way that runs contrary to Greek grammar and adds extra words not in the text to ensure the translators' interpretation of the verse is satisfied.

If that's what they mean by "balance," then the NWT is not really a literal translation, as they could have rendered this verse more literally in precisely the way you did above without having to resort to paraphrasing the passaging in the way they have.

[placebofactor]

How the N.W.T. and N.I.V. deny Christ’s deity by removing his title as the “Son of God.”
K.J.B. Mark 1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
N.W.T. (the) beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ:” They end the sentence with a colon: instead of a semicolon. And they removed “the Son of God.”

K.J.B. John 6:69, “And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. John 6:69, “and we have believed and come to know tat you are the Holy One of God.”

K.J.B. John 9:35, “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, do you believe on the Son of God?”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. John 9:35, “Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and, on finding him, he said: “Are you putting faith in the Son of man?”
Here they changed Son of God, to Son of man, questioning the deity of Christ as the Son of God.

In the following verses, they have changed K.J.B. “My Father” in John 8:28, John 10:32, to “the Father” in the N.W.T. and N.I.V. In doing this, they are denying Christ’s deity by changing “My Father” to, “The Father” robbing Jesus of his close relationship and intimacy with his Father.

K.J.B. 1 Corinthians 5:5, “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. 1 Corinthians 5:5, “You hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”

They removed Jesus, thus removing his Deity. Also note, that the Witnesses always deny that man is body, soul, and spirit, but in the above verse, they acknowledge both the flesh and the spirit.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree that there is no meaningful difference between "he did not consider X to be Y" and "he considered X to be not Y," as both convey the idea that the person has, in fact, given consideration to whether X is Y, and judged it to be not the case.

So your saying that a word order leading with the negative ( "Did not consider ...) can still in fact convey the idea that the person has, in fact, given consideration to whether X is Y, and judged it to be not the case.

So let's look at the word order of the NWT 2013 {footnote}

historia : {he did not consider} { ---> X < ---} to be { Y }
- NWT : “{did not regard} --> {X: equality with God as something } < --- to be {Y: seized (grasped).}

* I personally think the NWT 2013 made a good choice to change "consider" to "regard" as it better conveys the idea of a final assessment and avoids said confusion as to whether prior "conderation" was involved.

Given the above I'm still struggling to see what your point of contention is. No translation can ensure every reader registers their intended goal (and the NWT makes no such claim), all the translators can do is transmit the intended ideas to the best of their ability.






JW

[Bible_Student]

...
K.J.B. , “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
N.W.T. (the) beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ:” ...

K.J.B. , “And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “and we have believed and come to know tat you are the Holy One of God.”

K.J.B. , “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, do you believe on the Son of God?”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and, on finding him, he said: “Are you putting faith in the Son of man?” ...
...
K.J.B. , “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “You hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
...

I understand that some people consider the KJV to be the closest to the truth, but when it comes to Scripture, the reality is that any translation is only as trustworthy, accurate, and reliable as it effectively conveys the message the inspired authors intended in the original languages. For Bible translators to produce a version that truly reflects the Word of God, they must be aware of findings related to ancient Scripture manuscripts, which date back closer to the time of the original writings. While this doesn't guarantee fidelity to the originals, the likelihood is higher because the time gap for variations and errors during copying from the original manuscripts or their earliest copies is reduced.

The KJV is derived from the Textus Receptus, which the Catholic Church compiled from ancient Scripture manuscripts. However, over the past few centuries, even older manuscripts than those in the TR have been discovered. Scholars focused on the original Bible content and its translation strive to keep pace with these discoveries to correct errors passed down from manuscripts that are, in fact, less ancient, accumulating errors as copies of copies.

Consequently, many modern versions and translations differ from the KJV in numerous texts. To compare ancient manuscripts with the TR, you can visit this website https://greekcntr.org/collation/ , input the text, and observe which words, phrases, or even entire verses have variations based on the manuscript copies used.

[placebofactor]

...
K.J.B. , “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
N.W.T. (the) beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ:” ...

K.J.B. , “And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “and we have believed and come to know tat you are the Holy One of God.”

K.J.B. , “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, do you believe on the Son of God?”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and, on finding him, he said: “Are you putting faith in the Son of man?” ...
...
K.J.B. , “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
N.W.T. and N.I.V. , “You hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
...

I understand that some people consider the KJV to be the closest to the truth, but when it comes to Scripture, the reality is that any translation is only as trustworthy, accurate, and reliable as it effectively conveys the message the inspired authors intended in the original languages. For Bible translators to produce a version that truly reflects the Word of God, they must be aware of findings related to ancient Scripture manuscripts, which date back closer to the time of the original writings. While this doesn't guarantee fidelity to the originals, the likelihood is higher because the time gap for variations and errors during copying from the original manuscripts or their earliest copies is reduced.

I've written this 20 times. All you have to do is check out the men and the rules that were set down before the work of translation began on the K.J.B. Then there would be no doubts, the K.J.B. was overseen by the Holy Spirit himself.

The KJV is derived from the Textus Receptus, which the Catholic Church compiled from ancient Scripture manuscripts. However, over the past few centuries, even older manuscripts than those in the TR have been discovered. Scholars focused on the original Bible content and its translation strive to keep pace with these discoveries to correct errors passed down from manuscripts that are, in fact, less ancient, accumulating errors as copies of copies.

Older like the fourth century A. and B. does not mean better. The 4th century A. manuscript when found had 10,000 changes made to it by unknown hands. Found in a Catholic monastery, a church so corrupt back in 4th century, that people were fleeing for their lives. Popes had become dictators corrupt and even murders. No one was allowed to own a Bible until the 16th century. Others like Wescott and Hort over the past 150 years made another 5000 changes to these "Old documents". Also, the "A" is the foundation text for all new Bibles, especially from 1950 on.

You should have started your sentence with "Unfortunately," All these new manuscripts have done is divided the church and caused confusion.

[Bible_Student]

...
K.J.B. ...; N.W.T. ...

I understand that some people consider the KJV to be the closest to the truth, but when it comes to Scripture, the reality is that any translation is only as trustworthy, accurate, and reliable as it effectively conveys the message the inspired authors intended in the original languages. For Bible translators to produce a version that truly reflects the Word of God, they must be aware of findings related to ancient Scripture manuscripts, which date back closer to the time of the original writings. While this doesn't guarantee fidelity to the originals, the likelihood is higher because the time gap for variations and errors during copying from the original manuscripts or their earliest copies is reduced.

I've written this 20 times. All you have to do is check out the men and the rules that were set down before the work of translation began on the K.J.B. Then there would be no doubts, the K.J.B. was overseen by the Holy Spirit himself.

The KJV is derived from the Textus Receptus, which the Catholic Church compiled from ancient Scripture manuscripts. However, over the past few centuries, even older manuscripts than those in the TR have been discovered. Scholars focused on the original Bible content and its translation strive to keep pace with these discoveries to correct errors passed down from manuscripts that are, in fact, less ancient, accumulating errors as copies of copies.

Older like the fourth century A. and B. does not mean better. The 4th century A. manuscript when found had 10,000 changes made to it by unknown hands. Found in a Catholic monastery, a church so corrupt back in 4th century, that people were fleeing for their lives. Popes had become dictators corrupt and even murders. No one was allowed to own a Bible until the 16th century. Others like Wescott and Hort over the past 150 years made another 5000 changes to these "Old documents". Also, the "A" is the foundation text for all new Bibles, especially from 1950 on.

You should have started your sentence with "Unfortunately," All these new manuscripts have done is divided the church and caused confusion.

The key point, which I hope you grasp completely, is that the NWT editors have no intention of deliberately altering any accent mark in the original text of the sacred Scriptures. We've even acknowledged that in , Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god," as confirmed by more credible manuscripts.

PS: If you don't know how to quote others' posts, please, don't quote me. It may look that I am saying things I am not...

[Capbook]

...
K.J.B. ...; N.W.T. ...

I understand that some people consider the KJV to be the closest to the truth, but when it comes to Scripture, the reality is that any translation is only as trustworthy, accurate, and reliable as it effectively conveys the message the inspired authors intended in the original languages. For Bible translators to produce a version that truly reflects the Word of God, they must be aware of findings related to ancient Scripture manuscripts, which date back closer to the time of the original writings. While this doesn't guarantee fidelity to the originals, the likelihood is higher because the time gap for variations and errors during copying from the original manuscripts or their earliest copies is reduced.

I've written this 20 times. All you have to do is check out the men and the rules that were set down before the work of translation began on the K.J.B. Then there would be no doubts, the K.J.B. was overseen by the Holy Spirit himself.

The KJV is derived from the Textus Receptus, which the Catholic Church compiled from ancient Scripture manuscripts. However, over the past few centuries, even older manuscripts than those in the TR have been discovered. Scholars focused on the original Bible content and its translation strive to keep pace with these discoveries to correct errors passed down from manuscripts that are, in fact, less ancient, accumulating errors as copies of copies.

Older like the fourth century A. and B. does not mean better. The 4th century A. manuscript when found had 10,000 changes made to it by unknown hands. Found in a Catholic monastery, a church so corrupt back in 4th century, that people were fleeing for their lives. Popes had become dictators corrupt and even murders. No one was allowed to own a Bible until the 16th century. Others like Wescott and Hort over the past 150 years made another 5000 changes to these "Old documents". Also, the "A" is the foundation text for all new Bibles, especially from 1950 on.

You should have started your sentence with "Unfortunately," All these new manuscripts have done is divided the church and caused confusion.

The key point, which I hope you grasp completely, is that the NWT editors have no intention of deliberately altering any accent mark in the original text of the sacred Scriptures. We've even acknowledged that in , Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god," as confirmed by more credible manuscripts.

PS: If you don't know how to quote others' posts, please, don't quote me. It may look that I am saying things I am not...

Are you aware of an article that say," the primary translator of the NWT was inadequately trained to perform the task of Bible translation". See link below.

It is reported that Frederick Franz, the primary translator of the NWT, had only twenty-one hours of formal classical Greek training at the University of Cincinnati7 and only two hours of Biblical Greek or Koine Greek.8 This information was provided in Frederick Franz’s 1911 autobiography in which he published his own college transcript.9 It is important to note that Koine Greek is the language taught in theological seminaries for Biblical studies. The normal study course lasts for two years or four semesters. This means that the primary translator of the NWT was inadequately trained to perform the task of Bible translation.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... anslation/

[Bible_Student]

I am not interested in anti-Witness rhetoric.

If you wish to discuss what the Scriptures teach, I am available.

Thank you for your time.

[Locust]

''Verse 8 in K.J.B. ends with “death of the cross.”
Verse 8, N.W.T. ends with, “death on a torture stake.”
i have noticed that people really get excited when you tell them that Jesus did not die on a cross. Apparently it is so ingrained into their psyche they cant possibly imagine any other way.