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]

How did he pass through a door? Easy, because he was now in a glorified, incorruptible, immortal body.

So his body was different to what it had been before his execution. Before hus drath ut was not a "glorified, incorruptible, immortal body"and afyer it WAS a "glorified, incorruptible, immortal body", correct?

[servant1]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #90]


Yes incorruptable= a spirit body

[placebofactor]

How did he pass through a door? Easy, because he was now in a glorified, incorruptible, immortal body.

So his body was different to what it had been before his execution. Before hus drath ut was not a "glorified, incorruptible, immortal body"and afyer it WAS a "glorified, incorruptible, immortal body", correct?

Correct:
1 Corinthians 15:52-53, a body "Incorruptible and immortal." Revelation 1:14, "His head is white like wool, his eyes as a flame of fire; his feet like unto fine brass, and his voice as the sound of many waters." That's the description John and Paul give the resurrected Lord in his new body.

[JehovahsWitness]

Correct:

So if Jesus body was different from the body he died with does that not mean Jesus was not raised in the same body he died with. He was raised in a different body. Correct?

[placebofactor]

Correct:

So if Jesus body was different from the body he died with does that not mean Jesus was not raised in the same body he died with. He was raised in a different body. Correct?

Yes he had the same body, but with alterations. Picture a car with a broken windshield, bent hood, and fender, and two flat tires. Send it to a good repair shop, and Walla, just like new.

When Jesus was placed in the grave he had been beaten from head to toe. Unrecognizable to his family and friends. When he was raised, his body was made perfect, the only evidence he could produce to prove his identity and that he had been raised from the dead were the nail holes in his hands, and the spear wound to his body. Other than that, His Father healed his broken body completely and gave him a body that can live in both heaven and on earth. Mortals, in the bodies we now possess, can only live on earth, but one day, the faithful, those alive and the dead in Christ will be given a body like their Savior, Incorruptible and immortal. The Father and his Holy Spirit are the best repair shop in the Universe.

Think about what God can do that man cannot even comprehend. He made iron float on water, he had Jonah swallowed by a whale for three days yet he lived, he had one man Sampson kill 1000 of his enemies with the Jaw-bone of an ass, he breathed life into a clay image, he made Eve from a man's rib, he flooded the earth with water, Gideon with a few defeated an army, Paul was bitten by a deadly snake but lived, and it goes on and on.

[onewithhim]

Correct:

So if Jesus body was different from the body he died with does that not mean Jesus was not raised in the same body he died with. He was raised in a different body. Correct?

Yes he had the same body, but with alterations. Picture a car with a broken windshield, bent hood, and fender, and two flat tires. Send it to a good repair shop, and Walla, just like new.

When Jesus was placed in the grave he had been beaten from head to toe. Unrecognizable to his family and friends. When he was raised, his body was made perfect, the only evidence he could produce to prove his identity and that he had been raised from the dead were the nail holes in his hands, and the spear wound to his body. Other than that, His Father healed his broken body completely and gave him a body that can live in both heaven and on earth. Mortals, in the bodies we now possess, can only live on earth, but one day, the faithful, those alive and the dead in Christ will be given a body like their Savior, Incorruptible and immortal. The Father and his Holy Spirit are the best repair shop in the Universe.

Think about what God can do that man cannot even comprehend. He made iron float on water, he had Jonah swallowed by a whale for three days yet he lived, he had one man Sampson kill 1000 of his enemies with the Jaw-bone of an ass, he breathed life into a clay image, he made Eve from a man's rib, he flooded the earth with water, Gideon with a few defeated an army, Paul was bitten by a deadly snake but lived, and it goes on and on.

You don't seem to realize that if Jesus took back his earthly body, he would be taking back his sacrifice of it and we would still be in our sins. He gave up his body for us. If he was to take back his body, then there would have been no reason for him to die. No, he gave it up so that we might gain life.

"For Christ also died for sins once and for all, the just for the unjust, so that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." (IPeter 3:18, NASB)

[marke]

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."

This seems a bit confused. The Textus Receptus is the name given to a printed, critical edition of the New Testament, first published by Erasmus in the 16th Century.

It is not the same as -- and, indeed, differs in several places from -- the various surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament found in papyri, lectionaries, and other manuscripts.

The Masoretic Text is, of course, something else altogether.

Marke: There are major differences between various extant Greek manuscripts and I agree with the choices made by the 1611 translators who disregarded manuscripts they deemed corrupted beyond acceptance.

[historia]

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."

This seems a bit confused. The Textus Receptus is the name given to a printed, critical edition of the New Testament, first published by Erasmus in the 16th Century.

It is not the same as -- and, indeed, differs in several places from -- the various surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament found in papyri, lectionaries, and other manuscripts.

The Masoretic Text is, of course, something else altogether.

There are major differences between various extant Greek manuscripts and I agree with the choices made by the 1611 translators who disregarded manuscripts they deemed corrupted beyond acceptance.

Which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they were "deemed corrupted beyond acceptance"?

[placebofactor]

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."

This seems a bit confused. The Textus Receptus is the name given to a printed, critical edition of the New Testament, first published by Erasmus in the 16th Century.

It is not the same as -- and, indeed, differs in several places from -- the various surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament found in papyri, lectionaries, and other manuscripts.

The Masoretic Text is, of course, something else altogether.

There are major differences between various extant Greek manuscripts and I agree with the choices made by the 1611 translators who disregarded manuscripts they deemed corrupted beyond acceptance.

Which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they were "deemed corrupted beyond acceptance"?

It sure wasn't the A. or B. the King James disregarded. In 1611, the two corrupt manuscripts were sitting on a shelf at the Vatican until they were discovered 200 years later in a waste basket. These are the two 99% of the modern-day Bibles concern themselves with because they are the foundation of them all.

[marke]

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."

This seems a bit confused. The Textus Receptus is the name given to a printed, critical edition of the New Testament, first published by Erasmus in the 16th Century.

It is not the same as -- and, indeed, differs in several places from -- the various surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament found in papyri, lectionaries, and other manuscripts.

The Masoretic Text is, of course, something else altogether.

There are major differences between various extant Greek manuscripts and I agree with the choices made by the 1611 translators who disregarded manuscripts they deemed corrupted beyond acceptance.

Which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they were "deemed corrupted beyond acceptance"?

Marke: The largest body of corrupt manuscripts share commonalities with what are referred to as the Alexandrian Texts.