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.

[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"?

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.

Mark: The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are two of the most corrupt Greek manuscripts known to man.

[historia]

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"?

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

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they deemed them to be corrupted beyond acceptance, as you claimed?

The KJV translators did not have access to -- or even know about -- NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from Codex Vaticanus (which they didn't have access to), all of the other NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type were discovered well after 1611.

[historia]

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.

You keep referring to "the A and B" in your posts, but I assume you mean rather "א and B" -- that is, Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B). "A" is Codex Alexandrinus.

Neither Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus were discovered in the Vatican. And none of these manuscripts was discovered in a "waste basket," that is a silly myth. You should take greater care in your historical analysis, as you are repeating gross misinformation.

But you are correct that the KJV translators did not deem any of these manuscripts to be "corrupted," since they didn't know about them. In fact, the KJV translators didn't really consult individual NT manuscripts. They used printed editions of the New Testament created by Erasmus and Stephanus as their textual basis.

[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.

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

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

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they deemed them to be corrupted beyond acceptance, as you claimed?

The KJV translators did not have access to -- or even know about -- NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from Codex Vaticanus (which they didn't have access to), all of the other NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type were discovered well after 1611.

Marke: In simple terms the KJV translation relied primarily upon what are referred to as Byzantine type manuscripts and rejected what are generally referred to as Alexandrian texts.

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Based_ ... anuscripts

The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of manuscripts
Lastly, the majority of manuscripts that have been discovered and catalogued in the past four hundred years agree more with the Textus Receptus than with the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text. The majority of these manuscripts, termed the Byzantine Majority Text by scholars such as Wilbur Pickering, Zane C. Hodges, Maurice A. Robinson, are in the Byzantine tradition which generally agrees with the Textus Receptus. The Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) can be viewed at Biblos.com. While it is true that no extant Byzantine manuscript matches the Textus Receptus perfectly, the same could be said that no extant Alexandrian manuscript matches the NA/UBS text. The NA/UBS text is highly edited, being a composite text of readings from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and other manuscripts, all of which disagree with each other in thousands of places (John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 11). With respect to the differences of whole verses, Codex Vaticanus does not have Matthew 12:47, forty-five chapters of Genesis, portions of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, and Revelation. Codex Sinaiticus does not have Matthew 24:35, Luke 10:32, Luke 17:35, John 9:38, John 16:15, John 21:25, and 1 Corinthians 13:2. Papyri are just fragments of various books.

[placebofactor]

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"?

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

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you which Greek manuscripts did the King James Version translators disregard because they deemed them to be corrupted beyond acceptance, as you claimed?

The KJV translators did not have access to -- or even know about -- NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type. Aside from Codex Vaticanus (which they didn't have access to), all of the other NT manuscripts in the Alexandrian text-type were discovered well after 1611.

Marke: In simple terms the KJV translation relied primarily upon what are referred to as Byzantine type manuscripts and rejected what are generally referred to as Alexandrian texts.

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Based_ ... anuscripts

The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of manuscripts
Lastly, the majority of manuscripts that have been discovered and catalogued in the past four hundred years agree more with the Textus Receptus than with the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text. The majority of these manuscripts, termed the Byzantine Majority Text by scholars such as Wilbur Pickering, Zane C. Hodges, Maurice A. Robinson, are in the Byzantine tradition which generally agrees with the Textus Receptus. The Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) can be viewed at Biblos.com. While it is true that no extant Byzantine manuscript matches the Textus Receptus perfectly, the same could be said that no extant Alexandrian manuscript matches the NA/UBS text. The NA/UBS text is highly edited, being a composite text of readings from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and other manuscripts, all of which disagree with each other in thousands of places (John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 11). With respect to the differences of whole verses, Codex Vaticanus does not have Matthew 12:47, forty-five chapters of Genesis, portions of Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, and Revelation. Codex Sinaiticus does not have Matthew 24:35, Luke 10:32, Luke 17:35, John 9:38, John 16:15, John 21:25, and 1 Corinthians 13:2. Papyri are just fragments of various books.

Thank you!

[historia]

In simple terms the KJV translation relied primarily upon what are referred to as Byzantine type manuscripts and rejected what are generally referred to as Alexandrian texts.

So you keep saying. But what evidence do you have to support this claim?

The Wikipedia article on the Alexandrian text-type has a table listing the major manuscripts of this recension and the dates they were discovered. Notice that, other than Codex Vaticanus -- which Erasmus knew about, but neither he nor the Anglican translators of the KJV had access to -- all of the Alexandrian manuscripts were discovered well after 1611.

How, then, could the KJV translators "reject" manuscripts they had never seen?

[placebofactor]

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.

You keep referring to "the A and B" in your posts, but I assume you mean rather "א and B" -- that is, Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B). "A" is Codex Alexandrinus.

Sorry, my computer does not write Greek letters, and if it does, I have no one to show me how it's done.

Neither Sinaiticus nor Alexandrinus were discovered in the Vatican. And none of these manuscripts was discovered in a "waste basket," that is a silly myth. You should take greater care in your historical analysis, as you are repeating gross misinformation.

Sorry, at the age of 87, my memory is not what it used to be. I do the best I can, and when I do make a mistake, it is not intentional, that's why there are people like you, to correct old guys like me. Thank you for the correction.

But you are correct that the KJV translators did not deem any of these manuscripts to be "corrupted," since they didn't know about them. In fact, the KJV translators didn't really consult individual NT manuscripts. They used printed editions of the New Testament created by Erasmus and Stephanus as their textual basis.

[Difflugia]

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.

Codex Alexandrinus has never been in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church as it was given by the Orthodox Church to the King of England in the seventeenth century. Codex Vaticanus has been officially catalogued by the Vatican since the fifteenth century. Neither was discovered in the 1800s, in a waste basket or otherwise.

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

Mark: The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are two of the most corrupt Greek manuscripts known to man.

What does "corrupt" mean in this context and what is your basis for declaring them such?

[marke]

In simple terms the KJV translation relied primarily upon what are referred to as Byzantine type manuscripts and rejected what are generally referred to as Alexandrian texts.

So you keep saying. But what evidence do you have to support this claim?

The Wikipedia article on the Alexandrian text-type has a table listing the major manuscripts of this recension and the dates they were discovered. Notice that, other than Codex Vaticanus -- which Erasmus knew about, but neither he nor the Anglican translators of the KJV had access to -- all of the Alexandrian manuscripts were discovered well after 1611.

How, then, could the KJV translators "reject" manuscripts they had never seen?

Marke: There is every reason to believe the Sinaiticus was a money-making forgery while the Vaticanus was never sanctioned by God because it was hidden by unbelieving churchmen of the RC church for centuries.

[marke]

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.

Codex Alexandrinus has never been in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church as it was given by the Orthodox Church to the King of England in the seventeenth century. Codex Vaticanus has been officially catalogued by the Vatican since the fifteenth century. Neither was discovered in the 1800s, in a waste basket or otherwise.

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

Mark: The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are two of the most corrupt Greek manuscripts known to man.

What does "corrupt" mean in this context and what is your basis for declaring them such?

Marke: Corrupted manuscripts are manuscripts with readings not true to the original written word of God.