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]

[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.

I wouldn't be calling the LORD a liar, after all, every word in scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Also, when men write books, 1. We don't know if they are Christians, 2. Most write for financial gain. 3. Controversy is the best seller.

This is, I believe, the scholarly consensus.

[historia]

The NWT is the most wooden and awkwardly-worded translation of the Bible ever produced in English.

That is of course really a matter of opinion.

Indeed, this is just my humble (albeit correct) opinion.

Lest you think I'm dogmatic on this point, though, I would happily entertain the argument that the American Standard Version is worse. It is a truly tortuous read.

I don't know what you mean by "It has no literary quality whatsoever."

I mean it appears the translation committee gave no consideration to the style and flow of the words in English.

Read Psalm 23 in the KJV and then read it in the NWT. Any editor who let "With oil you have greased my head" through as a translation clearly was not interested in expressing the literary quality of this beautiful ancient Hebrew poem into English.

[historia]

I believe the author of the letter, because it was recognized for centuries that it was written by Paul.

While it warms my catholic heart every time a Jehovah's Witness makes an appeal to tradition, I think you'd have to admit that an argument that takes the form of "I believe X because that's what people have believed for centuries" isn't exactly on-brand for you guys.

Why would that change in our days?

We know things now people didn't know before.

We all know that all this started with the "High Criticism" of the Bible, a relatively modern movement based on the premise that the Bible is not God's inspired ... a fatal error to start with.

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

[historia]

Historia, I absolutely love your new avatar.

Thanks! Are you a big John Chrysostom fan?

But if you put modern scholarly consensus above Biblical authority, is it really appropriate?

Pius XII and Vatican II were cool with higher criticism, so I think my avatar and I are good to go.

But that does sound like an interesting debate topic, if you care to start a new thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

Indeed, this is just my humble (albeit correct) opinion.

You are of course entitled to your opinion even if you mistakenly (albeit sincerely ) believe it correct. Although, I'm sure you could build a case that strawberries are much tastier than apples, it is perhaps more constructive to leave personal preferences aside . That said, I think we can agree that strawberries not much good for an apple pie, so goal and intent is evidently paramount in deciding if a project is a failure or not. I will admit then that if pleasing you was their goal, the translators indeed failed but I do not recall your having been mentioned in the NWT forward.

I mean it appears the translation committee gave no consideration to the style and flow of the words in English. ...

Well , I disagree. I think if they gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the English, the result would be have been incomprehensible, since that would have involved simply closing their eyes and sticking pins in dictionnaires; the result would be a random mass of unrelated words.

One does well to avoid hyperbole in rational discussion.


As for Psalm 23, you might like to re-visit difflugia's post #9 as he has managed to make a balanced contribution free of the emotional outburst so common when much cherished traditions are not respected. "Different strokes for different folks"


JW

[Bible_Student]

I believe the author of the letter, because it was recognized for centuries that it was written by Paul.

While it warms my catholic heart every time a Jehovah's Witness makes an appeal to tradition, I think you'd have to admit that an argument that takes the form of "I believe X because that's what people have believed for centuries" isn't exactly on-brand for you guys.

I'm pleased to have made your heart feel warmed with my response, but I simply replied based on your comment: while you believe "the scholarship consensus", I believe what the Bible says. It's ultimately about how we are validating what we each believe and who we consider authority (not scholarship) in all matters.

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.

Why would that change in our days?

We know things now people didn't know before.

My question was rhetorical, and your response didn't offer any new insights beyond what I already understand and frequently contemplate. Discussions about new theories that challenge the Scriptures are a common topic in these forums.

We all know that all this started with the "High Criticism" of the Bible, a relatively modern movement based on the premise that the Bible is not God's inspired ... a fatal error to start with.

This is a red herring. 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," but one of the most frequently targeted areas of criticism since the advent of Higher Criticism (sometimes called "Historical Criticism") has been the authorship of the books included in the Bible.

[historia]

Indeed, this is just my humble (albeit correct) opinion.

You are of course entitled to your opinion even if you mistakenly (albeit sincerely ) believe it correct.

I appreciate that allowance.

Although, I'm sure you could build a case that strawberries are much tastier than apples, it is perhaps more constructive to leave personal preferences aside .

I would just note that I am hardly the first person to point out the clunkiness of the NWT. You'll find that observation among several reviewers going back to the 1950s.

goal and intent is evidently paramount in deciding if a project is a failure or not.

Indeed, if the NWT translation committee had said their goal was to produce a more literal translation even if it often sounded clunky in English, I would have said they largely achieved that. But one of their stated goals was to "avoiding wording that reads awkwardly," which I don't think they've done terribly well.

The NASB, by comparison, is also trying to be a more literal translation -- and it too often sounds wooden for that reason -- but I think reads smoother. And, to be fair, the 2013 revision of the NWT seems a bit more readable than the older version, so progress!

I will admit then that if pleasing you was their goal, the translators indeed failed but I do not recall your having been mentioned in the NWT forward.

An obvious oversight on their part.

I mean it appears the translation committee gave no consideration to the style and flow of the words in English. ...

Well , I disagree. I think if they gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the English, the result would be have been incomprehensible, since that would have involved simply closing their eyes and sticking pins in dictionnaires; the result would be a random mass of unrelated words.

I didn't say they gave "absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the English," but rather specifically the "style and flow" of the English. One can certainly make a comprehensible translation from any language into English that nevertheless reads awkwardly. With a bit more effort, though, you can improve the literary quality of the translation by making it read more smoothly.

As for Psalm 23, you might like to re-visit difflugia's post #9 as he has managed to make a balanced contribution free of the emotional outburst so common when much cherished traditions are not respected. "Different strokes for different folks"

Literary quality and "cherished traditions" are not the same thing. For example, while the KJV's rendering of Psalm 23 is, of course, iconic, the NIV's less traditional rendering still retains good literary quality.

One does well to avoid hyperbole in rational discussion.

If one can't exaggerate for effect about a secondary point on an Internet message board, where can one exaggerate?

(I hope you realize I'm teasing.)

[placebofactor]

Any comments on the following?
Colossians 1:16-17
Verse 15 of K.J.B. ends with a colon :
Verse 15 of N.W.T. ends with a semicolon; Again, I hope you understand the difference. And because they end 15 with a semi-colon, verse 16 begins in lower case “because.”

K.J.B. Colossians 1:16-17, “For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

N.W.T. 1971 edition: Colossians 1:16-17, "because by means of him (Jesus) all (other) things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all (other) things and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist, "
The N.W.T. has added the word (other) in brackets in three places, giving the impression that the name of Jesus is second to the name Jehovah.

K.J.B. “For by him were all things created,” (comma) changed to,
N.W.T. “Because by means of him all (other) things were created” (no comma)

K.J.B. “heaven,” changed in N.W.T. to “heavens” (plural, no comma)

K.J.B. “in earth” changed to, “upon the earth”

K.J.B. “whether” changed to “no matter whether”

K.J.B. “dominions” changed to “lordships” Dominions and lordship are the same Greek, but not in the plural “lordships.”

K.J.B. ‘principalities” changed to “governments”
Here in the K.J.B. “principalities” in Greek speaks of Jesus' authority over the spirit world; his authority over angels.
N.W.T. “governments” in the Greek speak of authority over men, governors, or directors. Big difference!

K.J.B. “powers” N.W.T. “authorities” Same Greek word.
Verse 16, K.J.B. ends with a colon: N.W.T. ends with a period.

In verse 17 you can see the difference between the two Bibles for yourselves.
Verse 17, K.J.B. “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Verse 17, N.W.T. “Also, he is before all (other) things and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist," There are no Hebrew or Greek words for "exist" in the Bible.

In the 2013 edition of the N.W.T., “no matter whether” has been changed to, “whether” Also they removed the brackets from (other) in all three places, giving the appearance that it’s part of the original manuscripts.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I realize you are teasing and that's fine. The bottom line is you think its clunky, you don't like. I think its elegant (given the translators stated desire to be as literal as reasonably possible) I like it. Unless you are going to suggest I'm lying or that my feelings are not as valid as yours, there's not much more to say on the subject.

I think it much more constructive to look at something more quantifiable , which I think is the point of the thread, namely to examine of any if the NWT translational choices actually violate the grammatical or lexical rules that govern source and/or target languages.

Difflugia has commendably stuck to business in this regard and so far I have seen nothing of note .

[historia]

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 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.

Why would that change in our days?

We know things now people didn't know before.

My question was rhetorical, and your response didn't offer any new insights beyond what I already understand and frequently contemplate.

I wasn't trying to offer you any new insights. You asked a dismissive question, so you got a dismissive answer.

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.