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.

[2timothy316]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

[EYR]

NWT is produced by Satan's Own Organisation - Watchtower, and naturally as he was a liar from the very beginning having spoken the first recorded lie to Eve, we can expect his Bible ot be full of lies and mistruths as it definitely is.

Turning to Jesus dying on a stake or a cross - maybe if you understood that hanging Jesus on an Asherah stake is making him a sacrifice to Baal - Satan's imaginary god to whom the Old Tetsamenters sacrificed their children so often that GOD regularly destroyed them en masse - just as he will destroy all JWs without hesitation via His son Jesus.
Hanging Jesus on a cross ws the Roman way and carried no connotations to the onlookers that he was being sacrificed to Satan or Baal.

Once again, the lie that he died on an Asherah stake can be placed at Satan's feet.

[marke]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

[onewithhim]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

Can you summarize and explain this in your own words please?

[marke]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

Can you summarize and explain this in your own words please?

Marke: I am poorly equipped to list all the details Burgon outlines in his book that explain why he said what he said in the Preface.

[onewithhim]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

Can you summarize and explain this in your own words please?

Marke: I am poorly equipped to list all the details Burgon outlines in his book that explain why he said what he said in the Preface.

You don't have to list all the details Burgon outlines. You apparently don't really understand what he's saying or you could summarize his thoughts in a few words.

[onewithhim]

NWT is produced by Satan's Own Organisation - Watchtower, and naturally as he was a liar from the very beginning having spoken the first recorded lie to Eve, we can expect his Bible ot be full of lies and mistruths as it definitely is.

Turning to Jesus dying on a stake or a cross - maybe if you understood that hanging Jesus on an Asherah stake is making him a sacrifice to Baal - Satan's imaginary god to whom the Old Tetsamenters sacrificed their children so often that GOD regularly destroyed them en masse - just as he will destroy all JWs without hesitation via His son Jesus.
Hanging Jesus on a cross ws the Roman way and carried no connotations to the onlookers that he was being sacrificed to Satan or Baal.

Once again, the lie that he died on an Asherah stake can be placed at Satan's feet.

Not necessarily so, as there are examples of people dying on stakes via of the history of the Romans. It is not clear what Jesus died on, but it very well could be a stake. The "stauros" is translated as stake or tree in non-JW renderings (Galatians 3:13, KJV). The Hebrew word for "tree" is also used with regard to the stake or post on which a body was hung. (Genesis 40:19; Deu.21:22,23; Joshua 8:29; Es.2:23) And I am not cognizant of the idea that an "Asherah stake" was involved with Jesus' death. That's new to me.

Be careful which group you accuse of being of the Devil. The Watchtower organization is run by Jesus Himself and I imagine he doesn't take lightly your accusations.

[EYR]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #147]
Watchtower is a Satanic organisation and has been for 100 years or more.
They show their allegiance to Satan by putting subliminal images of Zeus, Pan, demons, beast, etc in every picture in every publication.

[marke]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

Can you summarize and explain this in your own words please?

Marke: I am poorly equipped to list all the details Burgon outlines in his book that explain why he said what he said in the Preface.

You don't have to list all the details Burgon outlines. You apparently don't really understand what he's saying or you could summarize his thoughts in a few words.

Marke: Nonsense. Here is more from page 18:


which ‘your learned Whitbyus’ takes for the sacred original
in every syllable.” (P. 354.)
§ 5. On referring to the passage where my “simplicity” has
afforded amusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation is
[xviii] always a delight to me, I read as follows,—
“It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of
a copy of Lloyd's Greek Testament, in which alone these
five manuscripts are collectively available for comparison in
the Gospels,—the serious deflections of A from the Textus
Receptus amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount
to 1798: in B, to 2370: in , to 3392: in D, to 4697. The
readings peculiar to A within the same limits are 133: those
peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while
exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D (within the same
limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit that these facts
are not altogether calculated to inspire confidence in codices
B C D.”
12 yield divergent testimony; and therefore, so
habitually contradict one another, as effectually to invalidate
their own evidence throughout. This has never been proved
before. It can only be proved, in fact, by one who has
12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below (at
p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against the risk of future
misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other places. He will find that my
only object in them all was to prove that codices A B{FNS C D{FNS
Preface. 15
laboriously collated the codices in question, and submitted to
the drudgery of exactly tabulating the result.


Marke: The old English may be hard to follow but reading these paragraphs in the full body and context of their delineation makes them easier to understand.

[2timothy316]

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.

So why did John Burgon convince you? Was it because he said what you wanted to hear?

Marke: I again recommend Burgon's book, The Revision Revised, for its many persuasive arguments against unacceptible manuscripts and for acceptible manuscripts. If looking for at least one quote among hundreds, here is one from the Preface:


I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in
defiance of their instructions,1
the Revisionists of “the Authorized
English Version” had been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in
elaborating,—was a wholly untrustworthy performance: was full
of the gravest errors from beginning to end: had been constructed
throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory. Availing myself of
the published confession of one of the Revisionists,2
I explained
the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott
and Hort; a copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the
most vicious in existence) had been confidentially, and under
pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every [xii]
member of the revising Body.3
I called attention to the fact that,
unacquainted with the difficult and delicate science of Textual
Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil hour, surrendered
themselves to Dr. Hort's guidance: had preferred his counsels to
those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
inevitable—result. All this I explained in the October number of
the “Quarterly Review” for 1881.4

This is an opinion piece. LOTS of accusations with no proof.