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.

[Difflugia]

I don't understand the context of you comment, are you suggesting that the NWT translators fail to hold to their own stated standards?

Yes.

If so, in what way?

By paraphrasing Scripture when a straightforward or literal translations challenges their doctrine.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #189]

By paraphrasing Scripture when a straightforward or literal translations challenges their doctrine.

Putting aside your assumed translational bias for the moment and concentrating on the point of paraphrasing versus literal rendition... how is the statement you provided violated?

“We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and ---> where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought <---.”

did the NWT committee state they would always provide a literal (word-for-word) rendition of every bible passage? Did the NWT committee explain what they meant by "We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures" (you might like to read the NWT Appendix A1 for their full explanation --> https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070201)

[JehovahsWitness]

By paraphrasing Scripture when a straightforward or literal translations challenges their doctrine.

As for the motivation behind translational choices, the NWT Appendix A1 fully explains their position. It will be very difficult to prove that that they have not held to their own stated guidelines but you are welcome to take a specific example and document your mind reading capacities to prove your claim.

Regards,

JW

[Difflugia]

Putting aside your assumed translational bias for the moment and concentrating on the point of paraphrasing versus literal rendition... how is the statement you provided violated?

I've explained my position here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

did the NWT committee state they would always provide a literal (word-for-word) rendition of every bible passage?

No. Is that your claim? That every bible passage must be changed before their statement is rendered false?

If not, I invite you to clarify and support your position.

[JehovahsWitness]

Example 1 was John 1v1c

Are you claiming that the NWT was not a legitimate translation of the Greek? If not, how does that demonstrate a violation of their own (not your) standards as stated in their appendix?

[JehovahsWitness]

In EXAMPLE 2 you are arguing that the NWT does not translate a word literally. The NWT never claimed it would, nor does it claim to be a literal word for word translation. That addressed the second of your example.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

No. Is that your claim? That every bible passage must be changed before their statement is rendered false?

My claim is you must support YOUR claim that they have violated their own stated purpose, namely they stated will render bible passages literally if they feel it best and paraphrase (ie translate the meaning) if they feel that is best. Now it if for you to prove they have violated the above stated guideline.

In example 2 you are arguing that the NWT does not translate a word literally. The NWT never claimed it would, nor does it claim to be a literal word for word translation. That addressed the second of your example.

You might like to read the NWT Appendix A1 for their full explanation --> https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070201) before you attempt to support your position that they have not honored their own guidelines.

JW

[Difflugia]

Example 1 was John 1v1c

Are you claiming that the NWT was not a legitimate translation of the Greek?

No. The discussion involving John 1:1 above was about claims that it appeared differently in different printings of The Emphatic Diaglott.

[JehovahsWitness]

Example 1 was John 1v1c

Are you claiming that the NWT was not a legitimate translation of the Greek?

No. ...

Fine well since the NWT Committee claimed to make every effort to respect the meaning of the original text they in no way violated their stated translational guidelines and that is the point I am trying to clarify.

Let's move on ...

[Difflugia]

My claim is you must support YOUR claim that they have violated their own stated purpose, namely they stated will render bible passages literally if they feel it best and paraphrase (ie translate the meaning) if they feel that is best. Now it if for you to prove they have violated the above stated guideline.

Is it? What's your counterclaim? If all you have is an ax to grind, then the links I gave you should keep it plenty sharp.