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.

[Capbook]

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.

It is not as anti to believers, it is to the translator.
Why NWT is different from the rest Bible translations when it comes to the Deity of Christ.
Specially John 1:1 translation.

[Bible_Student]

while you believe "the scholarship consensus", I believe what the Bible says.

Since a surface reading of the Bible doesn't tell us whether the Pastorals are pseudepigraphical or not, this kind of simplistic appeal to the text is meaningless.

Moreover, in your previous reply, you justified your belief that Paul himself wrote the epistle to Titus "because it was recognized for centuries that it was written by Paul." That's an appeal to external evidence, and ultimately an appeal to tradition.

I spoke of "tradition" as something that was based on the letter to Titus itself: the writer of the letter explicitly says that it is Paul.

The letter was included as part of the canon since there were lists of inspired Christian writings and since before the Catholic Church was officialized, it was already considered a letter written by Paul to Titus. When I cited "tradition", what I meant was that there was never a problem with the authorship of the letter, ever.

I understand that you regard the Catholic Church as an "authority," yet its leaders are relinquishing control to a "scholarship consensus" composed of individuals who aren't even Christians.

First of all, no they aren't. The Catholic Church takes no formal stance on the authorship of Titus or any other book of the Bible. Catholic scholars can, and do, reasonably disagree on this point.

And, second, most New Testament scholars are Christian.

The teachings of the "Catholic Church" are essentially the teachings of "Catholic Theologians." Throughout history, Catholic theologians have consistently upheld Paul's authorship of the letter to Titus without question.

Additionally, it's important to note that the majority of "scholars" do not identify as Christians. It has become evident that many of them are now openly critical of the Bible, dismissing the God of the Bible and disregarding the words of Jesus.

Higher criticism, as such, makes no a priori claim as to the inspiration of the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "as such,"

I mean that higher criticism itself is just a set of historical and literary methods for better understanding the origin and historical context of a text. It doesn't entail either the acceptance or rejection of the inspiration of that text. And for that reason, you can find scholars employing an historical-critical approach to the Bible who also believe it is divinely inspired.

Higher Criticism dismisses the involvement of God's spirit in the inspiration or authorship of the Scriptures. Rather than supporting the Bible, they focus on critiquing it. They attempt to identify "characters" mentioned in the Bible for whom there are no other secular references, asserting that these figures never existed... same with biblical locations whose whereabouts remain unknown. Similarly, they strive to demonstrate that numerous historical events described in the Bible did not occur. Furthermore, they endeavor to date the prophetic books to periods after the events they predict, adhering to the skeptical assumptions of Higher Criticism, which argues that humans cannot foresee future events.

It is clear that Higher Criticism aims to undermine the Bible's credibility and erode believers' faith. This suggests that any true believer involved with this movement may eventually devise their own religion based on personal beliefs, even if it means rejecting the Scriptures, which others have led them to distrust. Hence the new wave of "Christianity without Scriptures or religion," with the aberrant idea that everything that occurs to a particular person in question individually, is the product of the direct action of God's holy spirit upon him... thus denying the inspiration of the Scriptures in order to invent an inspiration of individuals.

[historia]

Given the above I'm still struggling to see what your point of contention is.

I fear the disconnect here is that we are, quite literally, not on the same page.

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

I see now you're referring to a comment in the "study notes" for this verse that appears specifically in the Study Edition of the NWT 2013. This is not properly a footnote of the translation itself -- as no textual note appears for this verse in the NWT 2023 text -- but is rather part of the commentary on this verse in this particular study Bible.

But, either way, my critique is of how the verse is rendered in the main of the text, as that is, in any translation, how the translators think the verse is best translated. That translation is grammatically unjustified and is little more than a paraphrase of the Greek, for the reasons I noted above.

[JehovahsWitness]

Given the above I'm still struggling to see what your point of contention is.

my critique is of how the verse is rendered in the main of the text...

By introducing the alternative wording with the word "OR" the STUDY NOTE reading is presented as an equally valid rendition.




In any case you have explicitly stated that introducing a thought with the words " he did not consider..." can {quote} "convey the idea that the person has, in fact, given consideration to whether X is Y, and judged it to be not the case"

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.

I just feel this is at most a non-issue and certainly not something to be regarded as a corruption of source.


JW

[historia]

By introducing the alternative wording with the word "OR" the STUDY NOTE reading is presented as an equally valid rendition.

Okay, but my critique is that the main rendering is invalid. You haven't really addressed that argument.

Pointing out that a "study note" in the study edition gives a much better rendering of this verse doesn't, by itself, justify the translation in the main of the text -- especially since this note is evidently not from the translation committee, and we were giving consideration to the translation committee's goals.

As you can see in the non-study version of the NWT for Phil. 2, the translators themselves occasionally give alternate renderings in other verses. They don't give one for this part of Phil. 2:6.

Whoever wrote this study note -- the fact that both the authors of these notes and the translation committee are anonymous is quite odd and no doubt adds a bit of confusion to our discussion -- felt the need to give a more literal rendering. But that just highlights all the more how strange the main rendering is, as surely this more literal rendering in the "study note" is more inline with the stated goals of the translation committee.

I just feel this is at most a non-issue

Fair enough. We've beat this horse to death. Thanks, as always, for a good discussion.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

John the Baptist preached repentance, baptism, and the coming of the Messiah. John most likely went to the desert because it was an emblem of the corrupted state of the Jewish church. It had become destitute of all righteous cultivation, of both spiritual and holy practices. John prepared the people in the way of repentance, and water baptism. It was Jesus Christ, "with us is God," that John the Baptist was speaking of.

Isaiah 40:3, K.J.V. "The voice of him (John the Baptist) that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah).” This exact translation has been verified in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This verse is quoted in Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, and John 1:23.

N.W.T. Isaiah 40:3, "Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: "Clear up the way of Jehovah, you people!

The N.W.T. has changed the word Lord to Jehovah in all four Gospels. They had to do this in order to protect their teaching. If they admitted that John the Baptist was speaking about Jesus, this would prove that Jesus was Jehovah, because the word LORD in Isaiah 40:3 is Jehovah.

In both Matthew and Isaiah, the Witnesses say these verses are speaking of the Father, and not about Christ. Is this right?

John the Baptist was heralding in the coming Messiah. What is the idea of a herald? Monarchs whenever they entered upon an expedition, or took a journey through a country, would send a herald before them to prepare the way for their Journey. In this case, Jesus represents the coming Monarch, and John represents the herald. Because Jesus is the King, and the Lord of the New Covenant, it was he, that both Isaiah and John were pointing to.

The Witnesses will tell you that Jesus is Lord, but not God (Jehovah). They Have changed Lord to Jehovah in the New Testament by and through their own authority. There is not one known scroll, parchment, manuscript, document, fragment, no ancient verse of the New Testament writing, no known Songs composed from the New Testament verses, the total of which there are over 80,000, that the word Jehovah has ever been found replacing the word Lord in these New Testament verses.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

It's a cause for wonderment that you just pick at the NWT and do not do so with the many other versions of the Bible which do the very thing you pull apart the NWT for doing. They all change words or add them. The KJV does this many many times.

And there is no punctuation in Greek, so it doesn't matter if there is a semi-colon or a comma in a verse. My semi-colon is as correct as your comma, for all intents and purposes.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

It's a cause for wonderment that you just pick at the NWT and do not do so with the many other versions of the Bible which do the very thing you pull apart the NWT for doing. They all change words or add them. The KJV does this many many times.

And there is no punctuation in Greek, so it doesn't matter if there is a semi-colon or a comma in a verse. My semi-colon is as correct as your comma, for all intents and purposes.

I guess it depends on what the intent is.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

It's a cause for wonderment that you just pick at the NWT and do not do so with the many other versions of the Bible which do the very thing you pull apart the NWT for doing. They all change words or add them. The KJV does this many many times.

And there is no punctuation in Greek, so it doesn't matter if there is a semi-colon or a comma in a verse. My semi-colon is as correct as your comma, for all intents and purposes.

I guess it depends on what the intent is.

Very true.

[placebofactor]

[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.

Everyone has an opinion. Britannica is not a Christian source concerning the things of God.