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.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Translation Committee said, in so many words, that the NWT is as literal as possible,

I have explained what they mean by "as possible" .

FULL EXPLANATON OF NWT TRANSATIONAL PRINCIPLES ---> https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070201

* Evidently "as literal as possible" as literally as they deem possible while respecting the aforementioned constraints. The expression "offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures" should not be understood that the translation contained absolutely not "paraphrasal" renditions but that the bible could not legitimately be classified as a paraphrase translation.

You seem to be operating under the false premise that they mean if it is literally possible ( regardless of the violations that may represents for them), they intend to do it. This absolute reading of "if possible" is ludicrous given the fact that they clearly list the constraints they adhere to. In short their limits of possiblility lie with violating what they consider the meaning of any given text.

If JehovahsWitness is correct about all of their exclusions to the Committee's standard being valid, does the standard even mean anything? I don't think it can.

Well it means something to them and evidently to those that enjoy their translation. I see no mention in the NWT forwads of seeking acedemic acclaim or world approval.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #231]

There's a new thread dedicated to the topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

...when they wrote that "[d]octrinal bias can easily color a translator’s work," this is intended to convey to a reasonable reader that avoiding doctrinally-colored translation is a part of their standard.

A reasonable reader would understand that they meant to avoid "[d]octrinal bias that violates the writers intention (as illustrated by their example they themselves provided). since the bible is a book of doctrine, It is entirely unreasonable to conclude their aim is to produce a bible translation devoid of any doctrine, even the doctrine if the writers.

For example if the same word can legitimately be rendered in two different ways , all translators (even those that choose to systematically ignore the alternative rendition) are supporting a doctrinal conclusion, whether they choose to acknowledge so or not.

In any case when a word can be rendered in two or more different ways (with two if more different meanings) a decision has to be made. The NWT committee state they will do so in line with what they believe to be the author's intent.

[Capbook]

No, the difficulty lies in the apparent fact that you can't get your point across in an understandable manner.

I know you are intelligent enough to understand the presentation below, or you just refuse to understand?
Can you just answer the question?
John 5:37 speaks about no one heard the voice of the Father anytime. You believe that is correct, maybe as of now. I believe you will change your tune when ask;
Whose voice then that said " I am the Alpha and the Omega" in Rev 1:8?

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees when he said that they had not heard God's voice. He didn't necessarily include the Apostle John in that statement. Again, he was speaking directly to the hypocritical Pharisees. John heard that statement from God through Jesus, as he also heard Revelation 1:8 from God, through Jesus.

Do that mean that the voice in Rev 1:8, is the voice of Jesus?

It is actually his angel that has set forth all the things in the Revelation. The angel quotes the Father in Rev. 1:8. It says in verse 1 that Jesus "presented it in signs through him (the angel) to his servant John."

So, in Rev 1:8, it is the voice of the angel that says, " I am the Alpha and the Omega?"

[JehovahsWitness]

TRANSLATION OF EXPRESSIONS

Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.

You seem to have misunderstood the point in the NWT Appendix regarding the translation of "expressions" . This is not refering to every single word in the bible but a particular grouping of words. I will leave AI to explain more ....

In translation, words are individual units of meaning, while expressions are groups of words that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way. Words are often translated directly, while expressions require more nuanced translation that considers context and cultural differences.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Words:
Represent individual units of meaning, like nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.
Can be translated one-to-one between languages in many cases.
For example, "cat" can be translated to "chat" in French, or "Katze" in German.
Expressions:
Are phrases or idioms that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way.
May not have a direct translation, and require more careful consideration of context and culture.
For example, the English expression "break a leg" is used to wish someone good luck, but it's not a literal translation and would be translated differently in other languages.
Translation Challenges:
Literal Translation: Translating words exactly can sometimes lead to unnatural or nonsensical results.

Cultural Differences: Expressions often reflect cultural norms and values, and a direct translation might not convey the intended meaning or tone.
Context: The meaning of a word or expression can change depending on the context, and a translator needs to consider this when choosing the best translation.

Examples:
"That's the cat's pajamas": (English idiom) would not be literally translated into another language. A translator would likely choose a more idiomatically appropriate expression in the target language.
"To be on cloud nine": (English idiom) would also not be translated word-for-word. A translator would choose an equivalent expression that conveys the same feeling of happiness.

CONCLUSION The point about "expressions" was a reference to particular groups of words or idiomatic phrases that together convey a meaning that may be particular in the biblical context, it does NOT refer to the general translation of the entirety of biblical texts. And example of an expression " “God-breathed.” Gr., The·oʹpneu·stos; at 2 Timothy 3:16. The NWT renders that "inspired" since that former might be difficult for the modern day English reader to understand. The NWT committee gave a list of similar expressions and noted {I quote } " A translator must use good judgment in order to select words in the target language that best represent the ideas of the original-language text"

[Capbook]

TRANSLATION OF EXPRESSIONS

Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.

You seem to have misunderstood the point in the NWT Appendix regarding the translation of "expressions" . This is not refering to every single word in the bible but a particular grouping of words. I will leave AI to explain more ....

In translation, words are individual units of meaning, while expressions are groups of words that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way. Words are often translated directly, while expressions require more nuanced translation that considers context and cultural differences.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Words:
Represent individual units of meaning, like nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.
Can be translated one-to-one between languages in many cases.
For example, "cat" can be translated to "chat" in French, or "Katze" in German.
Expressions:
Are phrases or idioms that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way.
May not have a direct translation, and require more careful consideration of context and culture.
For example, the English expression "break a leg" is used to wish someone good luck, but it's not a literal translation and would be translated differently in other languages.
Translation Challenges:
Literal Translation: Translating words exactly can sometimes lead to unnatural or nonsensical results.

Cultural Differences: Expressions often reflect cultural norms and values, and a direct translation might not convey the intended meaning or tone.
Context: The meaning of a word or expression can change depending on the context, and a translator needs to consider this when choosing the best translation.

Examples:
"That's the cat's pajamas": (English idiom) would not be literally translated into another language. A translator would likely choose a more idiomatically appropriate expression in the target language.
"To be on cloud nine": (English idiom) would also not be translated word-for-word. A translator would choose an equivalent expression that conveys the same feeling of happiness.

CONCLUSION The point about "expressions" was a reference to particular groups of words or idiomatic phrases that together convey a meaning that may be particular in the biblical context, it does NOT refer to the general translation of the entirety of biblical texts. And example of an expression " “God-breathed.” Gr., The·oʹpneu·stos; at 2 Timothy 3:16. The NWT renders that "inspired" since that former might be difficult for the modern day English reader to understand. The NWT committee gave a list of similar expressions and noted {I quote } " A translator must use good judgment in order to select words in the target language that best represent the ideas of the original-language text"

So, the Bible that translated that way can be called thought for thought translations, as the translator use good judgement in his mind to change original Bible words, but the problem is we cannot look upon its meaning through Bible Lexicons as it only defines original Bible words.

[onewithhim]

TRANSLATION OF EXPRESSIONS

Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.

You seem to have misunderstood the point in the NWT Appendix regarding the translation of "expressions" . This is not refering to every single word in the bible but a particular grouping of words. I will leave AI to explain more ....

In translation, words are individual units of meaning, while expressions are groups of words that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way. Words are often translated directly, while expressions require more nuanced translation that considers context and cultural differences.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Words:
Represent individual units of meaning, like nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.
Can be translated one-to-one between languages in many cases.
For example, "cat" can be translated to "chat" in French, or "Katze" in German.
Expressions:
Are phrases or idioms that have a specific meaning or are used in a particular way.
May not have a direct translation, and require more careful consideration of context and culture.
For example, the English expression "break a leg" is used to wish someone good luck, but it's not a literal translation and would be translated differently in other languages.
Translation Challenges:
Literal Translation: Translating words exactly can sometimes lead to unnatural or nonsensical results.

Cultural Differences: Expressions often reflect cultural norms and values, and a direct translation might not convey the intended meaning or tone.
Context: The meaning of a word or expression can change depending on the context, and a translator needs to consider this when choosing the best translation.

Examples:
"That's the cat's pajamas": (English idiom) would not be literally translated into another language. A translator would likely choose a more idiomatically appropriate expression in the target language.
"To be on cloud nine": (English idiom) would also not be translated word-for-word. A translator would choose an equivalent expression that conveys the same feeling of happiness.

CONCLUSION The point about "expressions" was a reference to particular groups of words or idiomatic phrases that together convey a meaning that may be particular in the biblical context, it does NOT refer to the general translation of the entirety of biblical texts. And example of an expression " “God-breathed.” Gr., The·oʹpneu·stos; at 2 Timothy 3:16. The NWT renders that "inspired" since that former might be difficult for the modern day English reader to understand. The NWT committee gave a list of similar expressions and noted {I quote } " A translator must use good judgment in order to select words in the target language that best represent the ideas of the original-language text"

So, the Bible that translated that way can be called thought for thought translations, as the translator use good judgement in his mind to change original Bible words, but the problem is we cannot look upon its meaning through Bible Lexicons as it only defines original Bible words.

If that is what you insist, then you are missing out on what the Bible is really saying, what a pity. It has been explained that words must be added to make sense of the Greek language translated into English. Are you able to understand that? Look at the KJV and see the dozens of verses that have added words in italics. Can you see that without those words in italics the smoothness of the verse is compromised? Example: Matthew 7:14, KJV: "Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Without "is" added the sentence is strained, and I think the KJV translators had knowledge concerning what they were doing to round out the sentences.

Revelation 20:10,12, KJV: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever....And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life..." Remove the words that are in italics and one scratches their head for a moment. Would you leave the sentences as they were originally worded? Try to read them without the italicized words.

[Capbook]

If that is what you insist, then you are missing out on what the Bible is really saying, what a pity. It has been explained that words must be added to make sense of the Greek language translated into English. Are you able to understand that? Look at the KJV and see the dozens of verses that have added words in italics. Can you see that without those words in italics the smoothness of the verse is compromised? Example: Matthew 7:14, KJV: "Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Without "is" added the sentence is strained, and I think the KJV translators had knowledge concerning what they were doing to round out the sentences.

Added words to the Bible that do not change the central point, that's okey, but from God to "a god" I believe it's intolerable. Even the original Greek renders John 1:1c as "and God was the word."

Revelation 20:10,12, KJV: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever....And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life..." Remove the words that are in italics and one scratches their head for a moment. Would you leave the sentences as they were originally worded? Try to read them without the italicized words.

As I've said, addition that do not change the major points are tolerable. But the changes Jesus Divine nature, most specially from the Arians as they don't believe Jesus as God.

May I inquire from your heavily relied Bible, if they have used this word "blasphemes"?
May I know how many verses have that word from your sources?

[onewithhim]

If that is what you insist, then you are missing out on what the Bible is really saying, what a pity. It has been explained that words must be added to make sense of the Greek language translated into English. Are you able to understand that? Look at the KJV and see the dozens of verses that have added words in italics. Can you see that without those words in italics the smoothness of the verse is compromised? Example: Matthew 7:14, KJV: "Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Without "is" added the sentence is strained, and I think the KJV translators had knowledge concerning what they were doing to round out the sentences.

Added words to the Bible that do not change the central point, that's okey, but from God to "a god" I believe it's intolerable. Even the original Greek renders John 1:1c as "and God was the word."

Revelation 20:10,12, KJV: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever....And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life..." Remove the words that are in italics and one scratches their head for a moment. Would you leave the sentences as they were originally worded? Try to read them without the italicized words.

As I've said, addition that do not change the major points are tolerable. But the changes Jesus Divine nature, most specially from the Arians as they don't believe Jesus as God.

May I inquire from your heavily relied Bible, if they have used this word "blasphemes"?
May I know how many verses have that word from your sources?

As I've said, the major point of John's chapter 1 and verse 1 was to differentiate between God and the Word. "A god" does not change the real meaning. Jesus is not God but is an important, privileged, powerful, esteemed individual, which is the meaning of "god" to the Greeks.

In the NWT, "blaspheme, blasphemed, blasphemes, blaspheming, blasphemy and blasphemous" occur around 32 times.

[Difflugia]

an important, privileged, powerful, esteemed individual, which is the meaning of "god" to the Greeks.

This is just plain false. It's nonsense. Whatever process you went through that led you to believe this has utterly betrayed you.

To the Greeks, a god was a god. The Greeks certainly used metaphor and hyperbole, but "god," "master," and "chairman of the committee" weren't interchangeable concepts. When Zeus and Ptolemy were called gods, Zeus wasn't metaphorically being reduced to a man, but Ptolemy was metaphorically elevated to divinity. Gods were divine in an absolutely literal sense. Despite hubris, flattery, and perhaps even sarcasm, important people were not.

Do better.

Here's a link to the LSJ entry for θεός, for all the good it will do.