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.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #240]

Some trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Deut. 10:17; Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.



(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik - http://www.blbclassic.org/commentaries/ ... topic=John )

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

[Difflugia]

Some trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

What are you trying to argue? Onewithhim's claim is that to Greeks, a god was "an important, privileged, powerful, esteemed individual" as opposed to a supernaturally divine being. Since you didn't actually quote any of your references, I doubt they support that. Based on your wording, I'm assuming that they're about "sons of God" referring to angels or apologetic arguments about the divine council in Psalm 82. Neither of those supports onewithhim's claim.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

That θεὸς is Greek for "an important person?" Again, I sincerely doubt it.

[tygger2]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #242]

Origen continued in his "Commentary on John" by actually discussing the grammar of John 1:1. He wrote:


"We next notice John's use of the article ['the' or ho in the Greek in this case] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. [Origen, himself, as noted, was an expert in this language and even taught it as a professional. So if anyone would ever have been aware of any special grammatical 'rules' or effects for John 1:1c, it would certainly have been Origen!] In some cases he uses the article ['the' in English or ho in NT Greek] and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos or 'the Word'], but to [theos: 'god' or 'God'] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho] when [theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos [Word] is named [theos]. .... the God who is over all is God with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos]­. .... and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, 'That they may know thee the only true God [Jn 17:1, 3];' but that all beyond the Very God [ho theos] is made [theos] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article [ho theos]), but rather [theos] (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation [Jesus, Col. 1:15], who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside him, of whom God [ho theos, the Father only] is the God [Rev. 3:2, 12; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17, etc.], as it is written, 'the God of gods...' [Ps. 49:1, Septuagint; Ps. 136:2; Deut. 10:17]­. .... The true God [the Father alone, Jn 17:1, 3], then, is ['the god,' ho theos], and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. X, p. 323, "Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John", Book 2, part 2, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.

Words in brackets [] are mine. The rest are Origen's.

[Difflugia]

but that all beyond the Very God [ho theos] is made [theos] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article [ho theos]), but rather [theos] (without the article).

Whether your argument is convincing or not, it's for a different conversation than the one we're having. As long as Origen thinks that a god is a supernatural being, no quote of his will support the assertion that onewithhim made.

[onewithhim]

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.

Why did Jesus call judges gods? Could he have done better? "Jesus answered them: 'Is it not written in your law, "I said 'you are gods'"? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be fulfilled, do you say to me whom the Father has sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's Son?'" (See Psalm 82: 1-7, to which Jesus was referring.)

[onewithhim]

Some trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

What are you trying to argue? Onewithhim's claim is that to Greeks, a god was "an important, privileged, powerful, esteemed individual" as opposed to a supernaturally divine being. Since you didn't actually quote any of your references, I doubt they support that. Based on your wording, I'm assuming that they're about "sons of God" referring to angels or apologetic arguments about the divine council in Psalm 82. Neither of those supports onewithhim's claim.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

That θεὸς is Greek for "an important person?" Again, I sincerely doubt it.

That Greek word is not the same as the Greek word for THE God. Look at the Greek itself.

[Capbook]

Some trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

What are you trying to argue? Onewithhim's claim is that to Greeks, a god was "an important, privileged, powerful, esteemed individual" as opposed to a supernaturally divine being. Since you didn't actually quote any of your references, I doubt they support that. Based on your wording, I'm assuming that they're about "sons of God" referring to angels or apologetic arguments about the divine council in Psalm 82. Neither of those supports onewithhim's claim.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

That θεὸς is Greek for "an important person?" Again, I sincerely doubt it.

That Greek word is not the same as the Greek word for THE God. Look at the Greek itself.

There's nothing different with "the God" in Greek still the same as "θεός." Still had the Strong#G2316 as "theos".

Mat 15:31 So G5620  the crowd G3793  was G2296  astonished G2296  as they saw G991  those who were unable G2974  to G2974  speak G2974  talking G2980 , those with impaired G2948  limbs G2948 N1 restored G5199 , those who were limping G5560  walking G4043  around G4043 , and those who were blind G5185  seeing G991 ; and they  R1 glorified G1392  the God G2316  of Israel G2474

G2316 (Mounce)
θεός theos

[Difflugia]

Why did Jesus call judges gods?

The extremely short answer is that judges were metaphorically being compared to gods. There's a bit more to it than that, though.

(See Psalm 82: 1-7, to which Jesus was referring.)

Psalm 82 is God addressing the council of gods over whom He is presiding and judging: "You are children of Elyon, but you will die like men!"

Contemporary rabbis decided that this psalm was a bit more polytheistic than they were comfortable with, so they interpreted this as God addressing human beings. John's Jesus used this interpretation of the psalm to play word games with "the Jews." Let's say for a minute that the rabbis, John, and his Jesus were right. That doesn't mean that Greeks understood θεός to mean "important people." Considering that John was using this psalm as a gotcha contradiction to the expectation of "the Jews," that in itself is proof that your assertion is false. If the contemporaries of Jesus thought that gods were just important people, their impression that Jesus was making a god of himself wouldn't be blasphemy.

Could he have done better?

I don't think so. I think it's a pretty clever way to turn the rabbis' apologetic silliness against them.

That Greek word is not the same as the Greek word for THE God.

Yes it is.

Look at the Greek itself.

You should know by now that I do.