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]

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: Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV. There are supporters on both sides of the issue but I stand with the KJV for many studied reasons.

Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations?

Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com › why-is-acts-837-omitted-fro...
Is Acts 8-37 authentic?
There is in fact a great deal of historical and manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this entire verse, and I have no doubt that it is an important part of God's inspired word. The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir.

[placebofactor]

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: Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV. There are supporters on both sides of the issue but I stand with the KJV for many studied reasons.

Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations?

Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com › why-is-acts-837-omitted-fro...
Is Acts 8-37 authentic?
There is in fact a great deal of historical and manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this entire verse, and I have no doubt that it is an important part of God's inspired word. The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir.

If the answer has been removed in Acts 8, what's the point of asking the question?

Mark 15:28 has been removed, it verifies an O.T. prophesy found in Isaiah 53:12.

Why would certain corrupt Bibles remove 12 verses from Mark 16. Verse 12 speaks of the Lord in his glorified state able to appear in different forms. In verses 15-16 Jesus tells his disciples to go out into all the world and preach his gospel. This verse nullifies what he told his disciples in Matthew 105, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

There have been so many word changes, both added and taken out of these cult Bibles, they have broken every rule of translation and truth.

Acts 10:30, Cult Bibles have left out "I was fasting"

Acts 13:35, they changed "Holy One" to "Loyal one."

All toll, 10,000 + changes. Bad Bibles published by men listening to the wrong spirits.

[historia]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #132]

You didn't answer my question.

When it comes to Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, and 1 John 5:7-8, which translation has the original, un-corrupted text -- what marke called the "True Path" -- the KJV or the ESV?

[marke]

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: Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV. There are supporters on both sides of the issue but I stand with the KJV for many studied reasons.

Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations?

Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com › why-is-acts-837-omitted-fro...
Is Acts 8-37 authentic?
There is in fact a great deal of historical and manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this entire verse, and I have no doubt that it is an important part of God's inspired word. The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir.

If the answer has been removed in Acts 8, what's the point of asking the question?

Mark 15:28 has been removed, it verifies an O.T. prophesy found in Isaiah 53:12.

Why would certain corrupt Bibles remove 12 verses from Mark 16. Verse 12 speaks of the Lord in his glorified state able to appear in different forms. In verses 15-16 Jesus tells his disciples to go out into all the world and preach his gospel. This verse nullifies what he told his disciples in Matthew 105, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

There have been so many word changes, both added and taken out of these cult Bibles, they have broken every rule of translation and truth.

Acts 10:30, Cult Bibles have left out "I was fasting"

Acts 13:35, they changed "Holy One" to "Loyal one."

All toll, 10,000 + changes. Bad Bibles published by men listening to the wrong spirits.

Marke: The problematic issue of variant readings in conflicting manuscripts is something that cannot be resolved without a great deal of research.

[marke]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #132]

You didn't answer my question.

When it comes to Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, and 1 John 5:7-8, which translation has the original, un-corrupted text -- what marke called the "True Path" -- the KJV or the ESV?

Marke: I have become convinced through my research that the KJV is a far superior English translation compared to other English translations.

[placebofactor]

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: Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV. There are supporters on both sides of the issue but I stand with the KJV for many studied reasons.

Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations?

Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com › why-is-acts-837-omitted-fro...
Is Acts 8-37 authentic?
There is in fact a great deal of historical and manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this entire verse, and I have no doubt that it is an important part of God's inspired word. The evidence in favor of including this verse is quite massive. It is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, and Elzevir.

If the answer has been removed in Acts 8, what's the point of asking the question?

Mark 15:28 has been removed, it verifies an O.T. prophesy found in Isaiah 53:12.

Why would certain corrupt Bibles remove 12 verses from Mark 16. Verse 12 speaks of the Lord in his glorified state able to appear in different forms. In verses 15-16 Jesus tells his disciples to go out into all the world and preach his gospel. This verse nullifies what he told his disciples in Matthew 105, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

There have been so many word changes, both added and taken out of these cult Bibles, they have broken every rule of translation and truth.

Acts 10:30, Cult Bibles have left out "I was fasting"

Acts 13:35, they changed "Holy One" to "Loyal one."

All toll, 10,000 + changes. Bad Bibles published by men listening to the wrong spirits.

Marke: The problematic issue of variant readings in conflicting manuscripts is something that cannot be resolved without a great deal of research.

I have no problem because I trust one Bible, the K.J.B. Men cause problems and confusion, but the Holy Spirit doesn't. The N.W.T. in two of the most important verses in Scripture differ not only with the K.J.B. but with every other Bible I have ever read or owned, and I own 26 of them. The two verses are John 1:1, and Revelation 1:1.

N.W.T. disagrees with the N.I.V. the N.A.S.V. the R.S.V. the Douay etc. etc. etc. It should be trashed. "And the Word was a god." Give me a break! Revelation tell us not to change one word, so men in these corrupted Bibles have changed 15,000. Maybe they think the LORD won't notice or doesn't care.

God said men are gods, and the Devil and angels are gods. If that's the case, let a Witness tell me the difference between men, demons, and Jesus. A god is a god is a god.
The Jews worshiped Jehovah, but rejected the Son, look where they are, deaf, dumb, blind to the truth, and under God's curse. The Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be the Son of God.

[historia]

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."

Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV.

But I thought you said the "True Path" was to be found in the "Majority Text"?

You and placebofactor have repeatedly argued -- both here and in other threads -- that we should follow what the majority of NT manuscripts say:

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’.

What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

So why then would you support the KJV's rendering of Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, and 1 John 5:7-8? In all three of these verses, it's the ESV that agrees with the majority of manuscripts!

In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, 99.9% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. With Acts 9:5-6, 100% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. The vast majority of NT manuscripts -- including virtually all other ancient translations, such as the Peshitta -- agree with the ESV on all three of these verses.

To quote placebofactor: If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is?

So, surely then, using your own logic, both of you would have to admit that, when it comes to these particular verses, the King James Version is wrong, and that the ESV and other modern translations are correct. Right?

[placebofactor]

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."

Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV.

But I thought you said the "True Path" was to be found in the "Majority Text"?

You and placebofactor have repeatedly argued -- both here and in other threads -- that we should follow what the majority of NT manuscripts say:

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’.

What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

So why then would you support the KJV's rendering of Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, and 1 John 5:7-8? In all three of these verses, it's the ESV that agrees with the majority of manuscripts!

In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, 99.9% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. With Acts 9:5-6, 100% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. The vast majority of NT manuscripts -- including virtually all other ancient translations, such as the Peshitta -- agree with the ESV on all three of these verses.

To quote placebofactor: If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is?

So, surely then, using your own logic, both of you would have to admit that, when it comes to these particular verses, the King James Version is wrong, and that the ESV and other modern translations are correct. Right?

My logic is, that when a question is asked, I would expect an answer.

[historia]

In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, 99.9% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. With Acts 9:5-6, 100% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. The vast majority of NT manuscripts -- including virtually all other ancient translations, such as the Peshitta -- agree with the ESV on all three of these verses.

To quote placebofactor: If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is?

So, surely then, using your own logic, both of you would have to admit that, when it comes to these particular verses, the King James Version is wrong, and that the ESV and other modern translations are correct. Right?

My logic is, that when a question is asked, I would expect an answer.

Good. Are you actually going to address my question, then? Because I'm expecting an answer.

In Acts 9:5-6 (ESV), there is a question asked and there is an answer. Virtually every Greek manuscript agrees with the ESV. Not a single one agrees with the KJV.

1 John 5:7-8 doesn't involve any questions or answers. 99.9% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV.

So would you agree, then, that the ESV rendering is correct and KJV is wrong in these two verses?

[marke]

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."

Of course I support the KJV translation over the ESV.

But I thought you said the "True Path" was to be found in the "Majority Text"?

You and placebofactor have repeatedly argued -- both here and in other threads -- that we should follow what the majority of NT manuscripts say:

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’.

What I do know is, the A. and B. are in the minority, exactly 3%. If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is? I like the odds, so that's the one I support.

So why then would you support the KJV's rendering of Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, and 1 John 5:7-8? In all three of these verses, it's the ESV that agrees with the majority of manuscripts!

In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, 99.9% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. With Acts 9:5-6, 100% of Greek manuscripts agree with the ESV. The vast majority of NT manuscripts -- including virtually all other ancient translations, such as the Peshitta -- agree with the ESV on all three of these verses.

To quote placebofactor: If 97% isn't a good enough bet for someone, what is?

So, surely then, using your own logic, both of you would have to admit that, when it comes to these particular verses, the King James Version is wrong, and that the ESV and other modern translations are correct. Right?

Marke: The manuscripts with the most number of similar readings does not determine which reading is valid. Manuscript investigations are far deeper and more complicated than that.