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]

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.

Marke: This is a debate site. Fee free to offer dissenting opinions or refutations.

[historia]

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.

I agree completely!

But I'm afraid that consigns to the trash bin most of the arguments made here and in other threads -- paclebofactor's in particular -- suggesting that the KJV is superior because it agrees with 95% or 97% of manuscripts, or that the Textus Receptus is somehow synonymous with the Majority Text. It isn't. The Greek text on which the KJV is based disagrees with the Majority Text in over 1,000 places.

[placebofactor]

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.

I agree completely!

But I'm afraid that consigns to the trash bin most of the arguments made here and in other threads -- paclebofactor's in particular -- suggesting that the KJV is superior because it agrees with 95% or 97% of manuscripts, or that the Textus Receptus is somehow synonymous with the Majority Text. It isn't. The Greek text on which the KJV is based disagrees with the Majority Text in over 1,000 places.

Let me show you the Watchtower's hypocrisy and the confusion within its own organization. I have before me a 1942 Emphatic Diaglott of the Original Greek Text, New Testament, published by the International Bible Students Association Watch Tower Bible and Track Society. They used the Vatican manuscript, # 1209 in the Vatican library.

Each page has two columns. The left column is in Greek, the right column is their translation of the Greek.
1942 Edition. John 1:1, "In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."

1984 Edition of the N.W.T. John 1:1, "In (the) beginning the Word was and the Word was with God, and the Word as a god."

2013 Edition of N.W.T. John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

They had it right in 1942. Since then, they claim to have had new light, which must have been the light from the moon, or a flashlight.

1942 Edition of Emphatic diaglott: Revelation 1:1, "A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out to his servants the things it is necessary to have done speedily; and which he signified, having sent by his angels, to his servant John." Ended verse with period.

1984 edition of the N.W.T. "A revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angels and presented (it) in signs through him to his slave John," (ended verse with a comma.

In their 2013 Edition of the N.W.T. they took the brackets from the word (it,) otherwise it's the same as the 1984 edition.

The N.W.T. since 1961 has had 4 new copywrites. So, who's confused, it surely wasn't the King James Translators, 400 years of consistency.

N.I.V. Four new copywrites since 1973. The N.W.T. and N.I.V. both use the corrupted A. and B. The N.I.V. people must have seen the same new light as the Watchtower translators. I can't wait until next year to see what they come up with.

[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.

I agree completely!

But I'm afraid that consigns to the trash bin most of the arguments made here and in other threads -- paclebofactor's in particular -- suggesting that the KJV is superior because it agrees with 95% or 97% of manuscripts, or that the Textus Receptus is somehow synonymous with the Majority Text. It isn't. The Greek text on which the KJV is based disagrees with the Majority Text in over 1,000 places.

Marke: Burgon outlined the hundreds of disagreements between texts used by Westcott and Hort to alter the Greek and the Textus Receptus as well as the hundreds of disagreements between various Westcott and Hort texts and themselves.

The Revision Revised

§ 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.

[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.

Marke: This is a debate site. Fee free to offer dissenting opinions or refutations.

There is no proof presented to debate....
Without proof to debate its just pointless. Its just someone saying 'you're wrong' the other then saying, 'no you're wrong'. Completely useless discussion without actual detailed explanation. If you can't provide that, you have lost the debate and lost any chance of pursuing anyone to see your viewpoint.

[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

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

Marke: This is a debate site. Fee free to offer dissenting opinions or refutations.

There is no proof presented to debate....
Without proof to debate its just pointless. Its just someone saying 'you're wrong' the other then saying, 'no you're wrong'. Completely useless discussion without actual detailed explanation. If you can't provide that, you have lost the debate and lost any chance of pursuing anyone to see your viewpoint.

Marke: It looks like everything posted on this KJV debate site from every side can be challenged as lacking proof.

[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.

Marke: This is a debate site. Fee free to offer dissenting opinions or refutations.

There is no proof presented to debate....
Without proof to debate its just pointless. Its just someone saying 'you're wrong' the other then saying, 'no you're wrong'. Completely useless discussion without actual detailed explanation. If you can't provide that, you have lost the debate and lost any chance of pursuing anyone to see your viewpoint.

Marke: It looks like everything posted on this KJV debate site from every side can be challenged as lacking proof.

I'll leave you to your opinions and the opinions of those who you get them from.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #157]

K.J.B.
Matthew 28:6, The angel at the tomb said to Mary, “He (Jesus) is not here: for he is risen, as he said, Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”

N.W.T.
Matthew 28:6, “He (Jesus) is not here, for he was raised up, as he said. Come see the place where he was lying."

Here’s the problem, the Watchtower attaches an altogether different meaning to the empty tomb, claiming that the Father “disposed of” Jesus' body:

The Watchtower, November 15, 1991, page 31. “God disposed of Jesus' body, not allowing it to see corruption and thus preventing its becoming a stumbling block to faith.”

Studies in Scriptures, Volume 7, page 57. “We deny that he was raised in the flesh, and challenge any statement to that effect as being unscriptural.”

But Jesus said to the Jews, speaking of his body, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

The N.W.T. even states that Jesus said, “I will raise it up.”

So why does the Watchtower deny the resurrection of Jesus bodily? Because the facts related in Scripture contradict Watchtower's teaching on heaven, hell, and the afterlife in general. Christians understand that Christ’s spirit remained alive in the invisible world during the time his body lay in the tomb, but the Witnesses deny it.

K.J.B.
1 Corinthians 11:24, “And when he (Jesus) had given thanks, he broke it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

N.W.T.
1 Corinthians 11:24, “and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”
“My body is in your behalf.” What the heck are they talking about? Behalf of what?

[onewithhim]

[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.

You have a wild imagination!

[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

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

Marke: This is a debate site. Fee free to offer dissenting opinions or refutations.

There is no proof presented to debate....
Without proof to debate its just pointless. Its just someone saying 'you're wrong' the other then saying, 'no you're wrong'. Completely useless discussion without actual detailed explanation. If you can't provide that, you have lost the debate and lost any chance of pursuing anyone to see your viewpoint.

Marke: It looks like everything posted on this KJV debate site from every side can be challenged as lacking proof.

Not at all. JWs here have presented scriptural proof as to what we have been saying. Others here have not, as in "God the Son" being scriptural. It is not. That statement by you is not proof.