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]

Let's consider a verse that we've previously discussed, as those previous discussions include references to some of the relevant scholarship on this verse, namely Philippians 2:6.

And the previous discision lead me to understand that the greek can legitimately be read in two ways ....

(3) ἅρπαγμα was used in the LXX and by Plutarch both in the active sense (the act of seizure: "robbery") and in the passive sense (the thing seized: "booty," "prey"), ...

In short , the translational choice (passive or active) are both possible renditions and neither represent grammatical or lexical violations.

I'm sure given our recent discussion , you are not going to attempt to suggest that the NWT committee violated their own stated methogology in favoring a choice that for them maintains internal theological harmony regardless of external trends in the secular literature at the time.

[historia]

In short , the translational choice (passive or active) are both possible renditions and neither represent grammatical or lexical violations.

Sure, and that's the difference we see between the KJV and the NRSV renderings.

My critique of the NWT above is on other aspects of this verse, as you can readily see, in case you'd like to address what I said.

[JehovahsWitness]

In short , the translational choice (passive or active) are both possible renditions and neither represent grammatical or lexical violations.

Sure, ...My critique of the NWT above is on other aspects of this verse ...

Are any of these aspects grammatical or lexical violations of the target or source languages ? ( I'm uninterested in theological preferences, interpretational opinions and secular trends )

[historia]

In short , the translational choice (passive or active) are both possible renditions and neither represent grammatical or lexical violations.

Sure, ...My critique of the NWT above is on other aspects of this verse ...

Are any of these aspects grammatical or lexical violations of the target or source languages ? ( I'm uninterested in theological preferences, interpretational opinions and secular trends )

Allow me to quote what I said (emphasis added):

Therefore, the NWT rendering here of "did not even consider" is I think grammatically unjustified.

But, second, the addition of "idea" and "tying" in the translation is completely unsupported by the text. Those words are nowhere in the Greek!

[JehovahsWitness]

... the NWT rendering here of "did not even consider" is I think grammatically unjustified.

I don't follow, can hegeomai, not be rendered as "to consider" ? Or are you saying it cannot be presented in the negative?

[JehovahsWitness]

... the addition of "idea" and "tying" in the translation is completely unsupported by the text. Those words are nowhere in the Greek!

All translations add words that are not in the original text , otherwise the resulting translation would be more or less incomprehensible. The only consideration is if the additional words are deemed by said translator as reflecting the intended meaning of the original or not and that often boils down to opinion or theological presumptions.

In short, like arguing over punctuation, an objection to the adding of words merely because they were not in the original is pointless.

[historia]

... the NWT rendering here of "did not even consider" is I think grammatically unjustified.

I don't follow, can hegeomai, not be rendered as "to consider" ? Or are you saying it cannot be presented in the negative?

Perhaps you can reread what I wrote in post #40, as I lay out the argument there.

[historia]

... the addition of "idea" and "tying" in the translation is completely unsupported by the text. Those words are nowhere in the Greek!

All translations add words that are not in the original text , otherwise the resulting translation would be more or less incomprehensible.

In some cases, sure, but that's not the case in this verse. All the major translations render this verse more-or-less literally, so it is not necessary to add any words here simply to make it comprehensible in English.

There is a substantial difference between "equality with God" and "the idea of trying to be equal with God," so the latter cannot be justified on the grounds that the text would be incomprehensible without those extra words.

The only consideration is if the additional words are deemed by said translator as reflecting the intended meaning of the original or not and that often boils down to opinion or theological presumptions.

But that reflects a more dynamic rather than a more literal translation philosophy.

The NWT could have just rendered the text literally as: "who, existing in the form of God, considered equality with God not a thing to be grasped." That's what the text says.

The fact that they didn't shows -- as you suggest here -- that they are letting "theological presumptions" dictate what they think the text should say. Which is their prerogative, I guess, but seemingly at odds to their stated translation philosophy.

[JehovahsWitness]

The NWT could have just rendered the text literally ....The fact that they didn't shows -- as you suggest here -- that they are letting "theological presumptions" dictate what they think the text should say. Which is their prerogative, I guess, but seemingly at odds to their stated translation philosophy.

I dont see that their chosen phrasing is "at odds to their stated translation philosophy", they clearly state ...

... the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought - source : NWT Principles of Bible Translation A1

[JehovahsWitness]

First of all, in Greek, the word οὐχ ('not') usually directly precedes the verb that it modifies. But, in cases like this, where it precedes a noun, harpagmos, it's the entire phrase that is being negated. The text is not saying Jesus didn't give any consideration to equality with God, but rather that he considered it to be "not harpagmos," i.e., not something to be grasped. (exploited or stolen)

Emphasis MINE


So let me get this straight, you are saying , grammatically the correct thought was along the lines of ...

YOU: {that he considered it to be} not something to be grasped
NWT: {did not regard } equality with God as {something to be seized (grasped)}

I don''t see any significant difference between what you suggest and the NWT ( footnote).

Both you and the NWT agree that essential idea the writer is trying to convey is that ---> " equality with God" was not something to be grasped. The NWT have chosen to put the ENGLISH words (and the negative ) in the order they believe best conveys this essential idea.

to "not consider" ... or to "consider not to"

If a woman explains her rejection of a marriage proposal saying "I never considered for a second marrying him" she does not mean that the issue was never a matter of consideration but that the question of accepting was never a a viable option.

The difference between saying Jesus did consider the question of equality and came to the decision that it was not something to be grasped or to say he did not consider equality as something to be grasped is symantics; both respect the essential idea, namely that grasping said equality was judged in the negative.

It is for the translators to then to choose the specific words, the word order and/or the placing of the negation in English that they believe best conveys that essential unrestrained by the impositions of Greek grammar which might in English obscure what has been judged to be original intended thought . If I may refer again to the aforementioned mission statement ...

... the New World Bible Translation Committee has endeavored to strike a balance between using words and phrasing that mirror the original and, at the same time, avoiding wording that reads awkwardly or hides the intended thought - source : NWT Principles of Bible Translation A1

to grasp ... or to try to grasp

If, as the NWT committee concluded, the verse is communicating the thought that Jesus did not consider (as in judged/deemed after due assessment of the facts) it be appropriate to grasp (as in steal) said equality , then obviously he would not have posessed said equality prior to any potential action. Any action taken therefore would by necessity be an attempt .

Again, since the above has been deemed by the NWT committee as {quote} " the intended thought" {end quote} , they have added words in English (eg "to try") to communicate that idea with clarity.

JW


RELATE POSTS

Did Jesus refrain from considering the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1152366&hilit=Jw#p1152366