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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to historia in post #30]

Simply put, I love much about the way the KJV is expressed, such as the 23rd Psalm and John 11:35. The NWT should have left it, at John 11:35, "Jesus wept." Who says someone "gave way to tears"? But the NWT as a whole is readable and more accurate in many things than the KJV. For example it leaves God's name in all the places it appears in the Hebrew text, the original language, which can be seen even now in any Jewish Bible. Why be satisfied with a Bible that erases God's name in most of the 7,000 times it appears in the original language text? The NWT is accurate in this. There is some concern that it includes God's name in the N.T., but there can be no objection to it appearing in the O.T. The KJV renders the Name as "Jehovah" in four places, so why not the rest of the nearly 7,000 times? I think it is rude and disrespectful to take God's name out of His own Book.

[placebofactor]

Let’s compare a few verses between the K.J.B. and the New International Version, N.I.T., and include the N.W.T.

K.J.B. Acts 8:36-37, “As they (Philip and the eunuch) went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, see here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”
Verse 37, “And Philip said (to the Eunuch), if you believe with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

N.I.V. Verse 36, “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”
Verse 37, The verse has been removed., taking away “the Son of God,” and other important truths.

The New World Translation also removed verse 37. But they did put it in their footnotes.

K.J.B. Mark 13:14, “But when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that reads understand,) then let them that be in Jud-dae-a flee to the mountains:”

N.I.V. Mark 13:14, “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong – let the reader understand – then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

The N.I.V. translators removed “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Why would they leave the author of the book of Daniel out? Because liberal scholars and apostates claim that Daniel is post-written history rather than pre-written.

The N.W.T. also left out the following, “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,”

[Ross]

Historia, I absolutely love your new avatar.

Thanks! Are you a big John Chrysostom fan?

A very honourable Early Church Father. Is the avatar an image of him?

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.

Maybe. In our past discussions the delay in replying was a little frustrating to me as it was sometimes as long as a week.
However I always read your posts with interest, and they are often educational.

[historia]

The N.I.V. translators removed “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Why would they leave the author of the book of Daniel out? Because liberal scholars and apostates claim that Daniel is post-written history rather than pre-written.

If the conservative Evangelical translators of the NIV supposedly left out the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" here in Mark because of the views of liberal scholars, then why did they not do the same thing in Matthew?

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation', spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." (Matthew 24:15-16, NIV)

[historia]

Are you a big John Chrysostom fan?

A very honourable Early Church Father. Is the avatar an image of him?

Yes, it's a modern icon of St. John Chrysostom.

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

Maybe. In our past discussions the delay in replying was a little frustrating to me as it was sometimes as long as a week.

Certainly a fair critique. I don't always have as much time to devote to this board as I would like.

I do read all of your replies with interest, though, as you have a unique perspective. I look forward to crossing paths in future discussions.

[placebofactor]

The N.I.V. translators removed “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Why would they leave the author of the book of Daniel out? Because liberal scholars and apostates claim that Daniel is post-written history rather than pre-written.

If the conservative Evangelical translators of the NIV supposedly left out the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" here in Mark because of the views of liberal scholars, then why did they not do the same thing in Matthew?

You tell me. What if someone in some remote place in the world had only the book of Matthew, then I guess it would make a difference. We must remember, that before all the books of the Bible were put together, late in the 4th century, only individual letters were floating around the many churches across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe. What happens, it gets to be a bad habit, taking one word out and exchanging it for another, changing periods to commas, upper case for lower case etc. Before you know it, like today, there are 2000 different Bibles on the market, all saying something different in all 66 books.

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation', spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." (Matthew 24:15-16, NIV)

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #36]

Let’s compare 1 John 5:7-8:
K.J.B. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (the Logos), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
N.W.T. In their 1971 version they have, “For there are three witness bearers,” note the comma.

Because the Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they have removed the remainder of the verse. “the Father, the Word (the Logos), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

In their 2013 edition, they wrote, “For there are three witness bearers: In this edition used a colon: and left out the remainder of the verse.

K.J.B. Verse 8, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”
N.W.T. Verse 8. “the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.”
In verse 8, they removed “And there are three that bear witness in earth,”

[historia]

The N.I.V. translators removed “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Why would they leave the author of the book of Daniel out? Because liberal scholars and apostates claim that Daniel is post-written history rather than pre-written.

If the conservative Evangelical translators of the NIV supposedly left out the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" here in Mark because of the views of liberal scholars, then why did they not do the same thing in Matthew?

You tell me.

It's because their decisions here have nothing to do with what liberal scholars think about the book of Daniel. That's just a silly conspiracy theory.

The earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Mark do not include the phrase "τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου." It's also not found in the Vulgate or the Coptic, Armenian, and Old Georgian versions.

There is no good explanation for why this phrase is missing across all of these early versions if it had been originally part of Mark's text. On the other hand, it's quite easy to explain why it was added in later copies.

This is a clear example of what textual critics call 'harmonization', the tendency of Christian scribes copying the synoptic gospels to accidentally import into one gospel (in this case Mark) the wording of the parallel passage in another gospel (Matthew). It's not hard to see how scribes who were very familiar with these texts might conflate them.

In fact, this particular instance is such an obvious example of harmonization that the variant reading here is not even mentioned in NA28 or UBS5, which I believe is the textual basis for the latest version of the NIV New Testament.

We must remember, that before all the books of the Bible were put together, late in the 4th century, only individual letters were floating around the many churches across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Not exactly. Some of the New Testament papyri include multiple books within the same codex. P45 and P75 prove that, by the late 2nd Century, the gospels were already circulating together as a single collection.

What happens, it gets to be a bad habit, taking one word out and exchanging it for another, changing periods to commas, upper case for lower case etc.

I have to say, this concern you have over punctuation and capitalization is quite odd. As Ross rightly pointed out back in post #19, the original New Testament texts were composed at a time when Greek was written in all capital letters with no spacing between words and with virtually no punctuation. Therefore, any capitalization and punctuation that appears in later translations is solely a product of the translator.

[historia]

Because the Witnesses reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they have removed the remainder of the verse. “the Father, the Word (the Logos), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

While I do think there are some clear examples of theological bias in the NWT, this is certainly not one of them!

This addition to 1 John 5:7 does not appear anywhere in the main Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament. By that I don't mean it's just missing from the earliest manuscripts that you oddly think are "corrupt." It also doesn't appear in the later Byzantine manuscripts either. There are thousands of extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that do not have this addition.

There are just a couple of (very) late-Medieval Greek manuscripts -- which, if I'm not mistaken, are actually translations from the Latin -- that include it.

It's also not found in the oldest Vulgate or Old Latin manuscripts. It's missing from the Geez, Aramaic, Syriac, Old Georgian, Arabic, and early Armenian versions.

In fact, it also doesn't appear in the first two editions of the Textus Receptus, since Erasmus couldn't find a Greek manuscript that contained it. My understanding -- again, if I'm not mistaken -- is that Erasmus felt pressure to add it, since it does appear in several later copies of the Vulgate, and so used one of these late Greek translations from the Vulgate to justify its inclusion in the 3rd and subsequent editions of the Textus Receptus, which is why it ended up in the KJV.

This is clearly a spurious addition to the text, and I think is one of the most glaring problems with your whole theory of textual preservation and the KJV.

[historia]

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 .

Okay, let's get down to business then.

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.

The KJV renders that as:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The NWT (2013) renders it as:

who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God.

Neither of these are particularly good translations, in my opinion.

The KJV is following an outdated understanding of what the word harpagmos means here. As we discussed earlier, when harpagmos is used together with a verb of consideration, it forms a recognizable idiom meaning "something to seize upon for advantage," thus the NRSV's rendering here of "something to exploit" seems best to me.

But, even if you weren't fully convinced of the recent scholarship on this point, a literal rendering of "something to be grasped" -- as most other translations have it -- is certainly preferable to the KJV rendering.

But the NWT rendering, by comparison, is way off in left field!

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).

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!

This is not so much a translation as a paraphrase. Which is all the more glaring when we take account of the fact that, in so many other verses, the NWT is very literal -- often excessively so. What, then, other than theological concern could explain forsaking a literal translation here in favor of a looser one?