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.

[placebofactor]

The N.I.V. translators removed “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Why would they leave the author of the book of Daniel out? Because liberal scholars and apostates claim that Daniel is post-written history rather than pre-written.

If the conservative Evangelical translators of the NIV supposedly left out the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" here in Mark because of the views of liberal scholars, then why did they not do the same thing in Matthew?

You tell me.

It's because their decisions here have nothing to do with what liberal scholars think about the book of Daniel. That's just a silly conspiracy theory.

The earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Mark do not include the phrase "τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου." It's also not found in the Vulgate or the Coptic, Armenian, and Old Georgian versions.

There is no good explanation for why this phrase is missing across all of these early versions if it had been originally part of Mark's text. On the other hand, it's quite easy to explain why it was added in later copies.

This is a clear example of what textual critics call 'harmonization', the tendency of Christian scribes copying the synoptic gospels to accidentally import into one gospel (in this case Mark) the wording of the parallel passage in another gospel (Matthew). It's not hard to see how scribes who were very familiar with these texts might conflate them.

In fact, this particular instance is such an obvious example of harmonization that the variant reading here is not even mentioned in NA28 or UBS5, which I believe is the textual basis for the latest version of the NIV New Testament.

We must remember, that before all the books of the Bible were put together, late in the 4th century, only individual letters were floating around the many churches across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Not exactly. Some of the New Testament papyri include multiple books within the same codex. P45 and P75 prove that, by the late 2nd Century, the gospels were already circulating together as a single collection.

What happens, it gets to be a bad habit, taking one word out and exchanging it for another, changing periods to commas, upper case for lower case etc.

I have to say, this concern you have over punctuation and capitalization is quite odd. As Ross rightly pointed out back in post #19, the original New Testament texts were composed at a time when Greek was written in all capital letters with no spacing between words and with virtually no punctuation. Therefore, any capitalization and punctuation that appears in later translations is solely a product of the translator.

If that's your argument, then why bother using lowercase, spacing, and leaving out all punctuation in any Bible? You don't have to answer the question, because if done in that manner, it would be lacking understanding and unreadable to 99% of Christians. And for that reason, those who do translate have to be of the highest order of scholars whose credentials are impeccable and unimpeachable. And concerning the N.W.T. interpreters, no one knows who they are or what their credentials are, and for that reason alone I reject the Watchtower's version of the Bible. COMMON SENSE!

[historia]

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.

Indeed, and some people's opinions are based on a careful examination of the evidence, while others are not.

[historia]

I have to say, this concern you have over punctuation and capitalization is quite odd. As Ross rightly pointed out back in post #19, the original New Testament texts were composed at a time when Greek was written in all capital letters with no spacing between words and with virtually no punctuation. Therefore, any capitalization and punctuation that appears in later translations is solely a product of the translator.

If that's your argument, then why bother using lowercase, spacing, and leaving out all punctuation in any Bible?

Because those conventions are necessary in modern English. If we were translating the Bible into Japanese prior to WWII, on the other hand, we wouldn't use any punctuation since at that time it didn't use any.

Any capitalization and punctuation that appears in any translation of the Bible is solely a product of the translator. The NIV and NWT haven't "changed" the punctuation or capitalization from that of the KJV, since they were never based on the text of the KJV to begin with.

There are legitimate arguments to make concerning the NWT, NIV, and other translations. Complaining about capitalization and punctuation does little except distract from those.

[placebofactor]

I have to say, this concern you have over punctuation and capitalization is quite odd. As Ross rightly pointed out back in post #19, the original New Testament texts were composed at a time when Greek was written in all capital letters with no spacing between words and with virtually no punctuation. Therefore, any capitalization and punctuation that appears in later translations is solely a product of the translator.

If that's your argument, then why bother using lowercase, spacing, and leaving out all punctuation in any Bible?

You wrte, "Because those conventions are necessary in modern English. If we were translating the Bible into Japanese prior to WWII, on the other hand, we wouldn't use any punctuation since at that time it didn't use any."

I suppose if I were a Japanese person reading the Bible at that time, I would understand what I was reading, especially if the Holy Spirit was involved.

You wrote, "Any capitalization and punctuation that appears in any translation of the Bible is solely a product of the translator."

But wouldn't you desire to have the best translators doing the work as compared to unknown or unqualified ones?

The NIV and NWT haven't "changed" the punctuation or capitalization from that of the KJV, since they were never based on the text of the KJV to begin with.

Yes they have!

You wrote, "There are legitimate arguments to make concerning the NWT, NIV, and other translations. Complaining about capitalization and punctuation does little except distract from those."

I am not complaining, I'm explaining and comparing. There may be legitimate arguments for anything and everything, but only one side can be right, or both sides wrong.

If I wrote in English the word God and then wrote the word "god," would you understand the difference? If I said, give me "an apple" from that basket," as compared to, "give me that apple from the basket" would you understand the difference? Ask yourself why we use periods, commas, quotation marks etc. That's my answer to all this bickering.

[historia]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #74]

I would encourage you to learn how to properly use the quote functionality on this forum -- or simply write your reply without it -- as your posts appear to attribute to your interlocutors words you have written, which is confusing.

Any capitalization and punctuation that appears in any translation of the Bible is solely a product of the translator.

But wouldn't you desire to have the best translators doing the work as compared to unknown or unqualified ones?

Of course. That is one of the reasons why I don't use the New World Translation.

But it's also one of the reasons why I don't use the King James Version either. We know a lot more about koine Greek today than they did in the early 17th Century. Modern translations are therefore going to be, on the whole, superior to the KJV on this score.

The NIV and NWT haven't "changed" the punctuation or capitalization from that of the KJV, since they were never based on the text of the KJV to begin with.

Yes they have!

No they haven't!

Consider an analogy: If I translate a Japanese text into English and choose one set of punctuation, and then you independently translate the same Japanese text into English and choose slightly different punctuation, you haven't "changed" my punctuation, since your translation is not based on mine. Rather, you have simply chosen different punctuation from me.

The same is true when it comes to English translations of the Bible.

The way you are framing your analysis -- both here and in other threads -- it is as if the KJV is the standard, and all other English translations are "adding" to, "removing" from, or "changing" what the KJV says. We can, in fact, say that about the ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV, since those are formal revisions of the KJV. But pretty much all other English versions are independent translations from the original languages. They aren't revisions of the KJV, and so aren't "changing" anything in the KJV. They are, rather, arriving at their own textual and translations decisions, which are simply different from those of the KJV.

If I wrote in English the word God and then wrote the word "god," would you understand the difference?

Of course, and that is a distinction we can, in fact, draw out from the Greek text, where the use of the definite article or context will indicate whether the author is referring to what we would render in English as "God" versus "god."

But, for example, whether the translation puts Jesus' name in ALL CAPS in a handful or verses or not -- as you pointed out in another thread -- is purely a stylistic issue on the part of some editors of that translation. It cannot be justified from the Greek text, and is, frankly, a silly thing to claim has been "changed" in other versions.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #74]

I would encourage you to learn how to properly use the quote functionality on this forum -- or simply write your reply without it -- as your posts appear to attribute to your interlocutors words you have written, which is confusing.

Any capitalization and punctuation that appears in any translation of the Bible is solely a product of the translator.

But wouldn't you desire to have the best translators doing the work as compared to unknown or unqualified ones?

Of course. That is one of the reasons why I don't use the New World Translation.

But it's also one of the reasons why I don't use the King James Version either. We know a lot more about koine Greek today than they did in the early 17th Century. Modern translations are therefore going to be, on the whole, superior to the KJV on this score.

The NIV and NWT haven't "changed" the punctuation or capitalization from that of the KJV, since they were never based on the text of the KJV to begin with.

Yes they have!

No they haven't!

Consider an analogy: If I translate a Japanese text into English and choose one set of punctuation, and then you independently translate the same Japanese text into English and choose slightly different punctuation, you haven't "changed" my punctuation, since your translation is not based on mine. Rather, you have simply chosen different punctuation from me.

The same is true when it comes to English translations of the Bible.

The way you are framing your analysis -- both here and in other threads -- it is as if the KJV is the standard, and all other English translations are "adding" to, "removing" from, or "changing" what the KJV says. We can, in fact, say that about the ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NKJV, since those are formal revisions of the KJV. But pretty much all other English versions are independent translations from the original languages. They aren't revisions of the KJV, and so aren't "changing" anything in the KJV. They are, rather, arriving at their own textual and translations decisions, which are simply different from those of the KJV.

If I wrote in English the word God and then wrote the word "god," would you understand the difference?

Of course, and that is a distinction we can, in fact, draw out from the Greek text, where the use of the definite article or context will indicate whether the author is referring to what we would render in English as "God" versus "god."

But, for example, whether the translation puts Jesus' name in ALL CAPS in a handful or verses or not -- as you pointed out in another thread -- is purely a stylistic issue on the part of some editors of that translation. It cannot be justified from the Greek text, and is, frankly, a silly thing to claim has been "changed" in other versions.

I guess we all have our point of view. What I know, from timeline to timeline, from person to person, and from place to place, my understanding of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation fits like a snug glove on my hand. I have no gaps, doubt nor am I confused about doctrine. I trust wholly in the Holy Spirit, not men or organized religions to teach me. I have lived several miracles in my life, events and happenings that have opened my eyes to the power and authority of Jesus Christ. I am not afraid to research, and not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. That's my take. If a person's argument against mine makes sense, I will investigate it to its end. My 87 years have taught me a great deal about two groups to be wary of; politicians, and religious leaders. I am a good listener and can discern the words I hear. I trust my instincts, and in all cases use common sense as a first step when studying any subject in the Bible. Have a good day, see you on another tread.

[servant1]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]


All who have studied history of translating know these facts. By satans will Gods name was removed from trinity bibles to mislead. Jerome used a corrupted latin translation to translate his vulgate-it misleads. Write ups say Constantine took the codex sinacticus and removed certain passages. No doubt altered others to fit false council teachings- to mislead by satans will. God fixed his translation here in these days via holy spirit, its called the NEW world translation. The teachings of Jesus in every translation on Gods earth back the JW religion.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]


All who have studied history of translating know these facts. By satans will Gods name was removed from trinity bibles to mislead. Jerome used a corrupted latin translation to translate his vulgate-it misleads. Write ups say Constantine took the codex sinacticus and removed certain passages. No doubt altered others to fit false council teachings- to mislead by satans will. God fixed his translation here in these days via holy spirit, its called the NEW world translation. The teachings of Jesus in every translation on Gods earth back the JW religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Holy Spirit, they teach "active force" or "breath of the Father," whatever that means. Nothing but confusion.

Please explain to me what active force means. Is it like two cars crashing into each other with force? Is it like, the Air Force? or Rocky Balboa punching a side of beef with the force of his punches? Please explain.

[servant1]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #78]


Yes Gods active force--Catholicisms own encyclopedia says--in most instances the holy spirit is not spoken of as being a living being. Here are other facts
The Father and son both have personal names-HS=0
The Father and son both seen sitting on a throne-HS-0
The Father shares certain things like honor-glory with the son-HS-0
One must know the Father( only true God) and know Jesus to get eternal life-HS-0

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #78]


Yes Gods active force--Catholicisms own encyclopedia says--in most instances the holy spirit is not spoken of as being a living being. Here are other facts
The Father and son both have personal names-HS=0
The Father and son both seen sitting on a throne-HS-0
The Father shares certain things like honor-glory with the son-HS-0
One must know the Father( only true God) and know Jesus to get eternal life-HS-0

I didn't ask you what the Catholics thought, I asked a J.W. to explain what "Active force" means.

I have a Catholic Catechism at home, here's what it states about the Holy Spirit, on page 161, 1976 edition: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is a Person of the Blessed Trinity, truly and eternally God. He is the Paraclete, the Counselor that Christ promised the apostles would be given "to be with you forever" (John 14:16).

You had better check your Catholic sources.