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.

[historia]

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.

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.

Right, the KJV translators didn't use any Alexandrian text-type manuscripts because, as I said, those manuscripts hadn't been discovered yet. You can't "reject" something you didn't know about.

So your claim they "rejected" these manuscripts because they thought they were "corrupted" is obviously false.

I have no need or desire to try to convince anyone that I am right about what I believe.

You do realize this is a debate forum, right? The whole point of this site is to convince other people you are right.

If you're merely here to share your unsupported opinions and repeat demonstrably false claims about the past, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place.

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

By reading your post you're not really debating anything. You have decided which copies are right and which are wrong....there is no debate with you....you seem to be pretty much dogmatic, as you have decided on your own what is corrupt and which are not without seeing the original manuscripts. Can you explain to us why you're right? Is it a 'feeling'? Is it because that is how you were raised? Are you an expert on translation? In other words, what gives you the right to decide what is corrupt?

[marke]

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.

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.

Right, the KJV translators didn't use any Alexandrian text-type manuscripts because, as I said, those manuscripts hadn't been discovered yet. You can't "reject" something you didn't know about.

Marke: The idea that no old text of the Alexandrian type was known by the KJV translators is false. Granted, a huge number of the corrupt manuscripts have surfaced only in recent years, proving God did not use them for hundreds or thousands of years, suggesting they were not approved by God. Here is some history:


God had the Bible translated into Latin, so that it could spread throughout the Roman Empire.
True Path – God had the Vaudois (who lived in the Alps) translate the Bible into Latin. The Old Latin Bible became known as the Vulgate (common) Bible, and it spread all the way to England before 200 AD.
Corrupt Path – Satan responded by having the Roman Catholic Church commission Jerome to write their own version, the Latin Vulgate. Jerome followed Origen’s teachings, so the same corruptions occurred in this Bible. It was completed in 405 AD.
The Latin Vulgate Bible didn’t catch on during that time, because Christians knew it was a fake.
During the Dark Ages 500-1500AD, Satan used the Roman Catholic Church to kill millions of Christians for using the true Bible, and they burned the bibles.
The Roman Catholic Church taught from their corrupt Latin Vulgate Bible and forbid people to read the word of God.
They persecuted whole groups of people like the Waldenses, the Huguenots, the Vaudois in the Alps, and many more.

As copies of manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups.
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’ makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.
The Textus Receptus is the text which the King James translators used.
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written from 300-400 A.D., so because they’re ‘ancient’, modern Bible translators mistakenly think that they must be better.
But the Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


So your claim they "rejected" these manuscripts because they thought they were "corrupted" is obviously false.

I have no need or desire to try to convince anyone that I am right about what I believe.

You do realize this is a debate forum, right? The whole point of this site is to convince other people you are right.

If you're merely here to share your unsupported opinions and repeat demonstrably false claims about the past, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place.

[placebofactor]

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.

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.

Right, the KJV translators didn't use any Alexandrian text-type manuscripts because, as I said, those manuscripts hadn't been discovered yet. You can't "reject" something you didn't know about.

Marke: The idea that no old text of the Alexandrian type was known by the KJV translators is false. Granted, a huge number of the corrupt manuscripts have surfaced only in recent years, proving God did not use them for hundreds or thousands of years, suggesting they were not approved by God. Here is some history:


God had the Bible translated into Latin, so that it could spread throughout the Roman Empire.
True Path – God had the Vaudois (who lived in the Alps) translate the Bible into Latin. The Old Latin Bible became known as the Vulgate (common) Bible, and it spread all the way to England before 200 AD.
Corrupt Path – Satan responded by having the Roman Catholic Church commission Jerome to write their own version, the Latin Vulgate. Jerome followed Origen’s teachings, so the same corruptions occurred in this Bible. It was completed in 405 AD.
The Latin Vulgate Bible didn’t catch on during that time, because Christians knew it was a fake.
During the Dark Ages 500-1500AD, Satan used the Roman Catholic Church to kill millions of Christians for using the true Bible, and they burned the bibles.
The Roman Catholic Church taught from their corrupt Latin Vulgate Bible and forbid people to read the word of God.
They persecuted whole groups of people like the Waldenses, the Huguenots, the Vaudois in the Alps, and many more.

As copies of manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups.
True Path – The ‘Majority Text’ makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement and form the basis for the Textus Receptus which is also called the ‘Received Text’ or ‘Byzantine Text’.
The Textus Receptus is the text which the King James translators used.
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written from 300-400 A.D., so because they’re ‘ancient’, modern Bible translators mistakenly think that they must be better.
But the Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


So your claim they "rejected" these manuscripts because they thought they were "corrupted" is obviously false.

I have no need or desire to try to convince anyone that I am right about what I believe.

You do realize this is a debate forum, right? The whole point of this site is to convince other people you are right.

If you're merely here to share your unsupported opinions and repeat demonstrably false claims about the past, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place.

Historical evidence of that the Received Text was used in the 2ed century. The Peshitta Syriac Version of 150 A.D., Papyrus #75, the Italic Church in Northern Italy 157 A.D., the Gallic Church of Southern France in 177 A.D., the Celtic Church in England, Church of Scotland and Ireland, Pre-Waldensian church, The Waldensians, in 120 A.D. the Gothic all used the received Text. The Bible was completed between 90 and 100 A.D. These churches had the originals in their hands, and they based it on what was accurate, pure, and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Heretics like Marcion, Valentinus, Cyrinthus, Sabellius lived at that time. These godless men made changes in the received Text; most all the changes were made in the first 100 years.

From the 4th century until the 15th century, historical evidence exists that the Received Text was used during that period. Some were the Gothic Version, the Codex W. Matthew, and Codex A in the Gospels. 99% of over 5500. The Greek Orthodox Church used the Received Text. These churches knew the Greek language because they are Greeks. 2000 years of proven history supports the Received Text, and if it was good enough for the millions and millions of Christians that went through the brutality imposed on them, it was good enough for me.

[2timothy316]

Here is some history:

God had the Bible translated into Latin, so that it could spread throughout the Roman Empire.
True Path – God had the Vaudois (who lived in the Alps) translate the Bible into Latin. The Old Latin Bible became known as the Vulgate (common) Bible, and it spread all the way to England before 200 AD.

How do you know that it is what 'God wanted'? Where did you learn it? What is your source? Who told you this was the 'true path'? Why is it the 'true path'?

Corrupt Path – Satan responded by having the Roman Catholic Church commission Jerome to write their own version, the Latin Vulgate. Jerome followed Origen’s teachings, so the same corruptions occurred in this Bible. It was completed in 405 AD.
The Latin Vulgate Bible didn’t catch on during that time, because Christians knew it was a fake.

Again, how do you know this? Where did you learn it? Can you give an example of this corruption?

Amazingly, modern Bible versions like the NIV and ESV are based on these ‘Minority Text’ manuscripts.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written from 300-400 A.D., so because they’re ‘ancient’, modern Bible translators mistakenly think that they must be better.

By your same logic you're saying that simply because something is a 'minority' that it is wrong? Explain 'minority text' and what makes them corrupt.

[historia]

The idea that no old text of the Alexandrian type was known by the KJV translators is false.

Here is some history

Let me quote from the rules of this forum:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

Nobody here has any reason to believe anything you've written simply because you say it's true. If you can't cite any evidence or scholarship to support your claims -- and you've been asked multiple times to do so -- then the rest of us can only conclude that you are simply repeating misinformation you've read on the Internet.

[marke]

The idea that no old text of the Alexandrian type was known by the KJV translators is false.

Here is some history

Let me quote from the rules of this forum:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it.

Nobody here has any reason to believe anything you've written simply because you say it's true. If you can't cite any evidence or scholarship to support your claims -- and you've been asked multiple times to do so -- then the rest of us can only conclude that you are simply repeating misinformation you've read on the Internet.

Marke: What part of my posting of history caused you to claim I made no attempt to support my position?

[historia]

What part of my posting of history caused you to claim I made no attempt to support my position?

You didn't cite any evidence or scholarship.

To substantiate any historical claim, you need to cite evidence from either: (a) primary sources, that is, written accounts that were composed near the time of the event in question, preferably by people directly involved, or (b) secondary sources, that is, scholarly accounts of history written by historians or acknowledged experts in a related field, preferably published in books or peer-reviewed journal articles.

The forum rule I cited above says you need to support your claims with evidence. Your posts consist of you just telling us what you think happened in the past. That's not evidence.

[historia]

As copies of manuscripts have been collected over the years, they have formed two groups.

True Path – The ‘Majority Text’ makes up 95% of 5,300+ existing manuscripts that are in agreement . . .

Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts.

Okay, let's put this analysis into practice.

Here are three passages from the New Testament as they are rendered in the King James Version (KJV) and the English Standard Version (ESV). Which of these represents the "True Path" and which represents the "Corrupt Path"?

Acts 8:37

KJV: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

ESV: [ verse omitted ]

Acts 9:5-6

KJV: "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

ESV: "And he said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.'"

1 John 5:7-8

KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

ESV: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

[marke]

What part of my posting of history caused you to claim I made no attempt to support my position?

You didn't cite any evidence or scholarship.

To substantiate any historical claim, you need to cite evidence from either: (a) primary sources, that is, written accounts that were composed near the time of the event in question, preferably by people directly involved, or (b) secondary sources, that is, scholarly accounts of history written by historians or acknowledged experts in a related field, preferably published in books or peer-reviewed journal articles.

The forum rule I cited above says you need to support your claims with evidence. Your posts consist of you just telling us what you think happened in the past. That's not evidence.

Marke: I am not a manuscript expert but I can study what manuscript experts say and I am convinced John Burgon was right in his analyses of manuscripts. Modern versions and late emendations to ancient Greek texts call in question the genuineness of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel. John Burgon provides compelling reasons for rejecting those aberrant texts and translations that question the legitimacy of Mark's last 12 verses.

https://archive.org/details/doctrine-bi ... 6/mode/2up

CHAPTER X.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LECTIONARIES SHEWN TO BE ABSOLUTELY DECISIVE AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THESE VERSES.

The Lectionary of the East shewn to be a work of extraordinary antiquity (p. 195).—Proved to be older than any extant MS. of the Gospels, by an appeal to the Fathers (p. 198).—In this Lectionary, (and also in the Lectionary of the West,) the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel have, from the first, occupied a most conspicuous, as well as most honourable place, (p.204.)—Now, this becomes the testimony of ante-Nicene Christendom in their favour (p. 209.)

I HAVE reserved for the last the testimony of THE LEcrioNARIES, which has been hitherto all but entirely overlooked*”’;—passed by without so much as a word of comment, by those who have preceded me in this inquiry. Yet is it, when rightly understood, altogether decisive of the question at issue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary Father or by a solitary MS.; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a single Church, or by a single family of MSS. But it is the united testimony of all the Churches. It is therefore the evidence borne by a ‘goodly fellowship of Prophets,’ a ‘noble army of Martyrs’ indeed; as well as by MSS. innumerable which have long since perished, but which must of necessity once have been. And so, it comes to us like the voice of many waters: dates, (as I shall show by-and-by,) from a period of altogether immemorial antiquity: is endorsed by the sanction of all the succeeding ages: admits of neither doubt nor evasion. This subject, in order that it may be intelligibly handled, will be most conveniently approached by some