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]

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

If you have two manuscripts, how do you decide which, if either, is true to the original written word of God?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #111]

Watchtower teaching:
Before 1935, all "true Christians" were said to be anointed and called to heaven. Therefore, everyone associating with the Watchtower Society before 1935 was automatically part of the heavenly class. Those who converted after 1935 generally are told they have an earthly hope. What makes this doctrine absurd is that it indicates God could only find 144,000 true Christians over the past 2000 years. "Is that possible?"

No, it's ridiculous.

[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?

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.

So, in other words, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the KJV translators "rejected" Alexandrian text-type manuscripts. You just made that up.

[historia]

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.

It's actually the Hebrew letter aleph. You can, in that way, just refer to "Aleph and B."

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.

That's good of you to admit, and I have no doubt you mean well. I would also encourage you to not rely on KJV-only websites and books, as they often misrepresent the historical facts.

[marke]

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

If you have two manuscripts, how do you decide which, if either, is true to the original written word of God?

Marke: I like the way the KJV translators divided into multiple groups to translate portions of the Bible which would then be submitted to other groups for their advice and consent. I like the way they prayed over their proceedings and, unlike the likes of Westcott and Hort, held the word of God in high esteem. I also like the way God said in His word that He would be responsible to preserve His own word and we do not have to try to figure which men to believe.

[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?

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.

So, in other words, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the KJV translators "rejected" Alexandrian text-type manuscripts. You just made that up.

Marke:

AI Overview
Learn more
No, the KJV translators did not primarily use Alexandrian texts; instead, they relied on the Textus Receptus, which is considered a Byzantine text type, meaning it is closer to later manuscripts from the Byzantine Empire rather than the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.
Key points about the KJV and text types:

[Difflugia]

If you have two manuscripts, how do you decide which, if either, is true to the original written word of God?

Marke: I like the way the KJV translators divided into multiple groups to translate portions of the Bible which would then be submitted to other groups for their advice and consent. I like the way they prayed over their proceedings and, unlike the likes of Westcott and Hort, held the word of God in high esteem. I also like the way God said in His word that He would be responsible to preserve His own word and we do not have to try to figure which men to believe.

Neither statement says anything about determining which reading is closer to the original autographs. That's the claim you were making and the question I asked.

[2timothy316]

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.

You are aware there are no manuscripts from the original writers, right? They are all copies of the originals.

[marke]

If you have two manuscripts, how do you decide which, if either, is true to the original written word of God?

Marke: I like the way the KJV translators divided into multiple groups to translate portions of the Bible which would then be submitted to other groups for their advice and consent. I like the way they prayed over their proceedings and, unlike the likes of Westcott and Hort, held the word of God in high esteem. I also like the way God said in His word that He would be responsible to preserve His own word and we do not have to try to figure which men to believe.

Neither statement says anything about determining which reading is closer to the original autographs. That's the claim you were making and the question I asked.

Marke: I have studied translations for more than 40 years and I know what I know. There is no way I can convey all I know to you or convince you I am right but the beauty of that dilemma is that I have no need or desire to try to convince anyone that I am right about what I believe.

[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.

You are aware there are no manuscripts from the original writers, right? They are all copies of the originals.

Marke: Yes, I am aware that all extant manuscripts are copies, which means the values of all manuscripts are debatable.