Why so much confusion?

[placebofactor]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

Traditional Christian doctrine, particularly in Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, holds that Jesus is fully divine and part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We know that there is no love lost between the Catholic and Protestant churches, yet these two giants of religion agree concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine. However, other groups, such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians, reject the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, arguing that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.”

Early Christianity saw significant disputes over Jesus' nature. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) (a Catholic council) affirmed Jesus' divinity, leading to the Nicene Creed, which defines the Trinity. However, groups like the Arians argued that Jesus was created by God and not co-eternal with Him.

The first followers of Jesus, many of whom were Jewish, struggled to reconcile his teachings with Jewish monotheism and Greco-Roman thought. John 1:1, for example, explicitly presents Jesus as divine, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was a pivotal moment in Christian history, affirming that Jesus was "of one substance" with God the Father. This was in response to Arianism, which argued that Jesus was created and not co-eternal with God. Later, the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) established the doctrine of the hypostatic union, declaring Jesus as both fully divine and fully human.

Most of us who read and study the Scriptures are laypeople. Few of us speak, read, or are capable of interpreting the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, so we have to leave that work to the scholars. Their conclusions can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture.

Now the question is, is Jesus God? And because I am a layperson like 99% of all Christians, I have to depend on the Bible that is in front of me. I use the King James Bible. Why do I use the K.J.B.? Because of its history, and because of the men who gave 8 years of their lives to translate the various manuscripts they had.

The following is a history of two Bibles. After you read the following, you will better understand why the K.J.B. is trusted by millions of Christians, and why 6 billion copies have been sold.

There are over 600 different Bible translations in more than 2,000 languages for sale of bookshelves. Different versions exist due to variations in translation methods, historical updates, and denominational preferences. The most popular versions include the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And because of the differences, foundational truths have been corrupted, and confusion reigns throughout the body of believers. God is not the author of confusion; men and their organizations create confusion.

Here is the history of the King James Bible:
The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 under the sponsorship of King James I of England. Commissioned in 1604: King James I convened a conference at Hampton Court to address issues within the Church of England, leading to the decision to create a new English translation of the Bible.

It’s influence on English literature: The poetic and majestic language of the King James Bible has shaped English literature, inspiring writers like John Milton, John Bunyan, and William Blake.

Standard English Bible for centuries: From the mid-17th to the early 20th century, it was widely accepted as the standard English Bible. It includes Old and New Testaments: The King James Bible contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, making it a complete Christian Bible. Its impact on religious tradition and English-speaking culture is profound.

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers, and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, schoolteachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats.

All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result, many delayed marriages until they had established themselves in a church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties, and one over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They were all familiar with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian Gordon Campbell has observed:

Gordon Campbell is a professor of Renaissance Studies at the University of Leicester and is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the King James Bible. He has published extensively on various topics, including John Milton and biblical history.

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the K.J.B. Translators.

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no “tell-all books” published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the K.J.B., the Translators “were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own and sought truth rather than their own praise”. They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith “craved the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer” as they proceeded in their work.
Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years later. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived.

Also, the lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance are in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty.

Now let us compare the above with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s a Bible translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and is primarily used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Before the N.W.T., Jehovah’s Witnesses primarily used the King James Version. The translation was proposed in October 1946 by Nathan H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society. Work began on December 2, 1947, with the formation of the New World Bible Translation Committee. The New Testament portion was released in 1950, and the complete Bible was published in 1961. The translation has undergone multiple revisions, including in 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013.

Who were the translators
The New World Bible Translation Committee was composed of Jehovah’s Witnesses who professed to be anointed.
The identities of the translators were never officially disclosed by the Watch Tower Society.
The translation is based on Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and Westcott & Hort for the New Testament.

Some scholars have noted that significant effort went into producing the translation, but others have described it as biased.
The New World Translation differs from other Bible translations in several keyways: It restores the name Jehovah in the Old Testament over 6,000 times, whereas most translations use LORD or YHWH.
It also inserts Jehovah in the New Testament, even though the original Greek manuscripts do not contain it.

The N.W.T. reflects Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological views, particularly regarding the nature of Jesus.

John 1:1 is translated as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”, which differs from mainstream Christian translations.
Colossians 1:16 adds the word “other” to say, “by means of him all other things were created”, implying Jesus was created rather than eternal.

The N.W.T. aims for modern, clear language, avoiding archaic terms found in translations like the King James Version. It is considered a thought-for-thought translation rather than a strict word-for-word rendering.
Unlike most Bible translations, the N.W.T. was produced by an anonymous committee, raising questions about the qualifications of its translators. Critics argue that the NWT introduces doctrinal bias concerning the Godhead, Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Hell, etc.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

[Capbook]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

Traditional Christian doctrine, particularly in Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, holds that Jesus is fully divine and part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We know that there is no love lost between the Catholic and Protestant churches, yet these two giants of religion agree concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine. However, other groups, such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians, reject the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, arguing that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.”

Early Christianity saw significant disputes over Jesus' nature. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) (a Catholic council) affirmed Jesus' divinity, leading to the Nicene Creed, which defines the Trinity. However, groups like the Arians argued that Jesus was created by God and not co-eternal with Him.

The first followers of Jesus, many of whom were Jewish, struggled to reconcile his teachings with Jewish monotheism and Greco-Roman thought. John 1:1, for example, explicitly presents Jesus as divine, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was a pivotal moment in Christian history, affirming that Jesus was "of one substance" with God the Father. This was in response to Arianism, which argued that Jesus was created and not co-eternal with God. Later, the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) established the doctrine of the hypostatic union, declaring Jesus as both fully divine and fully human.

Most of us who read and study the Scriptures are laypeople. Few of us speak, read, or are capable of interpreting the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, so we have to leave that work to the scholars. Their conclusions can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture.

Now the question is, is Jesus God? And because I am a layperson like 99% of all Christians, I have to depend on the Bible that is in front of me. I use the King James Bible. Why do I use the K.J.B.? Because of its history, and because of the men who gave 8 years of their lives to translate the various manuscripts they had.

The following is a history of two Bibles. After you read the following, you will better understand why the K.J.B. is trusted by millions of Christians, and why 6 billion copies have been sold.

There are over 600 different Bible translations in more than 2,000 languages for sale of bookshelves. Different versions exist due to variations in translation methods, historical updates, and denominational preferences. The most popular versions include the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And because of the differences, foundational truths have been corrupted, and confusion reigns throughout the body of believers. God is not the author of confusion; men and their organizations create confusion.

Here is the history of the King James Bible:
The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 under the sponsorship of King James I of England. Commissioned in 1604: King James I convened a conference at Hampton Court to address issues within the Church of England, leading to the decision to create a new English translation of the Bible.

It’s influence on English literature: The poetic and majestic language of the King James Bible has shaped English literature, inspiring writers like John Milton, John Bunyan, and William Blake.

Standard English Bible for centuries: From the mid-17th to the early 20th century, it was widely accepted as the standard English Bible. It includes Old and New Testaments: The King James Bible contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, making it a complete Christian Bible. Its impact on religious tradition and English-speaking culture is profound.

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers, and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, schoolteachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats.

All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result, many delayed marriages until they had established themselves in a church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties, and one over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They were all familiar with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian Gordon Campbell has observed:

Gordon Campbell is a professor of Renaissance Studies at the University of Leicester and is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the King James Bible. He has published extensively on various topics, including John Milton and biblical history.

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the K.J.B. Translators.

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no “tell-all books” published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the K.J.B., the Translators “were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own and sought truth rather than their own praise”. They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith “craved the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer” as they proceeded in their work.
Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years later. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived.

Also, the lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance are in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty.

Now let us compare the above with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s a Bible translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and is primarily used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Before the N.W.T., Jehovah’s Witnesses primarily used the King James Version. The translation was proposed in October 1946 by Nathan H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society. Work began on December 2, 1947, with the formation of the New World Bible Translation Committee. The New Testament portion was released in 1950, and the complete Bible was published in 1961. The translation has undergone multiple revisions, including in 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013.

Who were the translators
The New World Bible Translation Committee was composed of Jehovah’s Witnesses who professed to be anointed.
The identities of the translators were never officially disclosed by the Watch Tower Society.
The translation is based on Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and Westcott & Hort for the New Testament.

Some scholars have noted that significant effort went into producing the translation, but others have described it as biased.
The New World Translation differs from other Bible translations in several keyways: It restores the name Jehovah in the Old Testament over 6,000 times, whereas most translations use LORD or YHWH.
It also inserts Jehovah in the New Testament, even though the original Greek manuscripts do not contain it.

The N.W.T. reflects Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological views, particularly regarding the nature of Jesus.

John 1:1 is translated as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”, which differs from mainstream Christian translations.
Colossians 1:16 adds the word “other” to say, “by means of him all other things were created”, implying Jesus was created rather than eternal.

The N.W.T. aims for modern, clear language, avoiding archaic terms found in translations like the King James Version. It is considered a thought-for-thought translation rather than a strict word-for-word rendering.
Unlike most Bible translations, the N.W.T. was produced by an anonymous committee, raising questions about the qualifications of its translators. Critics argue that the NWT introduces doctrinal bias concerning the Godhead, Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Hell, etc.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

Maybe NWT textual basis of their New Testament is from Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. But what I've observed, their English translation largely differs from W&H Greek.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to Capbook in post #2]

The God Christians are to serve desires us to live in unity and harmony built on the foundation left us by the Lord Jesus. He left us with one truth, not many truths. But over the centuries, men have slowly chipped away, leaving us a house divided.

1 Corinthians 3:11, “For (no) other foundation can any man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

It’s Jesus who draws us together, and the power of the Holy Spirit that makes our bond stronger. Our unity is to be built on love, not pride, selfishness, or the doctrines of men. We are likened to one body,

1 Corinthians 12:12, "For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.”

Our unity in Christ Jesus serves as a major source of witness to the world and is expressed through common love, purpose, and mission. The early church demonstrated this through the Holy Spirit, enabling believers to communicate and work together effectively. But now, unity seems to be lost.

The most common sources of confusion are a lack of foundational understanding: Peer acceptance and the exclusivity of Jesus.

The question of whether Jesus is the only path to salvation is a source of considerable debate on this forum and many others. Most of us argue that salvation is solely through faith in Jesus Christ. Others disagree. This fundamental disagreement creates significant confusion for many believers who are unsure which view aligns with biblical truth.

My final thought: The Bible we use is of the utmost importance. Each of us must make an honest evaluation through personal research and investigation. Who were the translators, and what were their credentials? These two issues are of the utmost importance. Be not deceived, the devil and his helpers are hard at work today because he knows his time is short.

Your thoughts:

[marke]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

Maybe NWT textual basis of their New Testament is from Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. But what I've observed, their English translation largely differs from W&H Greek.

Marke: According to John Burgon, Westcott and Hort altered the Greek text based on a handful of little used highly questionable texts that differed not only from the main body of extant Greek manuscripts but also exhibited major differences from each other.

AI Overview
Learn more
How Accurate Was/Is the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek New ...
Yes, Westcott and Hort did produce a new Greek text of the New Testament that deviated significantly from the Textus Receptus (also known as the Received Text). They based their text primarily on the Vatican Greek manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) and the Sinaitic Greek manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus), which they considered to be the most accurate and oldest manuscripts available.
Elaboration:
Westcott and Hort's Approach:
.
Westcott and Hort were influential scholars who developed a textual theory that favored certain Greek manuscripts over others. They argued that the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Version (KJV) and many other English translations, was a relatively late and corrupt text.
The New Greek Text:
.
Westcott and Hort's work resulted in the creation of a new Greek text, published in 1881, that differed from the Textus Receptus in numerous places.
The Textus Receptus:
.
The Textus Receptus was a Greek text based on the most widely available manuscripts at the time, primarily the Byzantine text-type. It was the standard Greek text for the KJV.
Textual Criticism:
.
Westcott and Hort's work was a significant contribution to textual criticism, the field that attempts to determine the most accurate original wording of biblical texts by analyzing different manuscript traditions.
Burgon's Criticism:
.
John William Burgon was a prominent scholar who strongly disagreed with Westcott and Hort's approach and their new Greek text. He argued that the new text was inferior to the Textus Receptus.
Modern Textual Criticism:
.
Modern textual criticism has largely embraced the type of textual analysis pioneered by Westcott and Hort, but has also moved beyond the strict reliance on a single set of "best" manuscripts.
The Greek Text of the English Bible between 1611 and 1881
Oct 24, 2016 — For his part, John W. Burgon said that the RV diverged from the traditional Greek text “nearly 6000 times.” Since this...

Evangelical Textual Criticism

Chapter 8: Westcott and Hort - part 1 - Chick.com
Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal T...

Chick Publications

Westcott and Hort - Wikipedia
WH edition. ... Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text...

Wikipedia

[Capbook]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

Maybe NWT textual basis of their New Testament is from Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. But what I've observed, their English translation largely differs from W&H Greek.

Marke: According to John Burgon, Westcott and Hort altered the Greek text based on a handful of little used highly questionable texts that differed not only from the main body of extant Greek manuscripts but also exhibited major differences from each other.

AI Overview
Learn more
How Accurate Was/Is the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek New ...
Yes, Westcott and Hort did produce a new Greek text of the New Testament that deviated significantly from the Textus Receptus (also known as the Received Text). They based their text primarily on the Vatican Greek manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) and the Sinaitic Greek manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus), which they considered to be the most accurate and oldest manuscripts available.
Elaboration:
Westcott and Hort's Approach:
.
Westcott and Hort were influential scholars who developed a textual theory that favored certain Greek manuscripts over others. They argued that the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Version (KJV) and many other English translations, was a relatively late and corrupt text.
The New Greek Text:
.
Westcott and Hort's work resulted in the creation of a new Greek text, published in 1881, that differed from the Textus Receptus in numerous places.
The Textus Receptus:
.
The Textus Receptus was a Greek text based on the most widely available manuscripts at the time, primarily the Byzantine text-type. It was the standard Greek text for the KJV.
Textual Criticism:
.
Westcott and Hort's work was a significant contribution to textual criticism, the field that attempts to determine the most accurate original wording of biblical texts by analyzing different manuscript traditions.
Burgon's Criticism:
.
John William Burgon was a prominent scholar who strongly disagreed with Westcott and Hort's approach and their new Greek text. He argued that the new text was inferior to the Textus Receptus.
Modern Textual Criticism:
.
Modern textual criticism has largely embraced the type of textual analysis pioneered by Westcott and Hort, but has also moved beyond the strict reliance on a single set of "best" manuscripts.
The Greek Text of the English Bible between 1611 and 1881
Oct 24, 2016 — For his part, John W. Burgon said that the RV diverged from the traditional Greek text “nearly 6000 times.” Since this...

Evangelical Textual Criticism

Chapter 8: Westcott and Hort - part 1 - Chick.com
Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal T...

Chick Publications

Westcott and Hort - Wikipedia
WH edition. ... Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text...

Wikipedia

This is also what I find online:

The Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort texts represent two different approaches to reconstructing the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus, primarily based on Byzantine manuscripts, was the basis for many early English Bible translations like the King James Bible. Westcott and Hort, on the other hand, favored a "critical text" based on Alexandrian manuscripts, which they believed were more reliable. This led to significant differences in the wording and interpretation of certain passages.
Textus Receptus:
Origin:
Primarily based on Byzantine manuscripts, which were popular in the Eastern (Byzantine) Church.
History:
Published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, with subsequent revisions.
Key Features:
Known for its relatively uniform and standardized text, though it has been revised over time.
Influence:
Used as the basis for the King James Bible and many other English translations.
Criticism:
Some scholars argue that it reflects a later, less original version of the text due to its reliance on Byzantine manuscripts.
Westcott and Hort:
Origin:
Based on Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which were believed to be earlier and more accurate.
History:
Edited by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1881.
Key Features:
Emphasized a "neutral" or "critical" text, aiming to reconstruct the most original reading possible.
Influence:
Has influenced modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as Nestle-Aland and UBS.
Criticism:
Some argue that their choices were based on subjective preferences and may not be representative of the original text.
Key Differences:
Textual Basis:
The Textus Receptus relies heavily on Byzantine manuscripts, while Westcott and Hort favor Alexandrian manuscripts.

Interpretation:
The Textus Receptus is often seen as representing a more standardized and later text, while Westcott and Hort's text aims to reconstruct a more original reading.
Influence:
The Textus Receptus has been the basis for many English translations, while Westcott and Hort's text has influenced modern critical editions.
In summary, the main difference between the Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort is their approach to textual reconstruction. The Textus Receptus is a more traditional text based on Byzantine manuscripts, while Westcott and Hort sought to reconstruct a more original text based on Alexandrian manuscripts. This difference has led to various interpretations and translations of the New Testament.
https://www.google.com/search?q=textus+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

[1213]

...There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.” ...

If those affirm Jesus is the God, then also disciples of Jesus are the God, because they also can be one with the God, they also are God's temple, where God lives.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21
…Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that God’s Spirit lives in you?
1 Cor. 3:9-11, 16
Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

Revelation 1:8 says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty". It doesn't say it is Jesus who says it. Why interpret it to mean it is Jesus who says so?

[Ross]

A fact that not too many people know about the New World Translation is that the Greek and first part (NT) was translated or put together by a committee of men authorised by the President and Vice President in complete and utter secrecy and then presented one day to the Bethel (headquarters community) and the then Governing Body who had no choice but to accept it before it was even read by them.

[servant1]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]


The confusion is caused by faulty Catholicism translating. When the protestants were allowed to translate only the Latin Vulgate and Codex sinacticus( both 4th century) and translating out of those remained. ( There are a few minor older fragments but not many) Filled with errors and altered against Gods will to mislead.

[Capbook]

...There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.” ...

If those affirm Jesus is the God, then also disciples of Jesus are the God, because they also can be one with the God, they also are God's temple, where God lives.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21
…Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that God’s Spirit lives in you?
1 Cor. 3:9-11, 16
Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

Revelation 1:8 says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty". It doesn't say it is Jesus who says it. Why interpret it to mean it is Jesus who says so?

Verse below is the words of Jesus Himself, that said, no one had heard the voice of the Father at anytime.
Is Jesus words below wrong to you?

John 5:37
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
NASB

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]


The confusion is caused by faulty Catholicism translating. When the protestants were allowed to translate only the Latin Vulgate and Codex sinacticus( both 4th century) and translating out of those remained. ( There are a few minor older fragments but not many) Filled with errors and altered against Gods will to mislead.

May we know NWT's textual basis then? Even Wikipedia no mentioned of any, maybe you can enlighten us.