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]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

[onewithhim]

The original PDF of 1864 Emphatic Diaglott rendered Rev 1:9, it says;
"I John, your BROTHER and co-partner in the AFFLICTION and Kingdom, and Patient waiting for Jesus, was in THAT ISLAND which is CALLED Patmos, on account of the WORD OF GOD, and the TESTIMONY of Jesus."

That is placed side by side with the Greek of the text, the English translation is at the right side and I copy it accurately with some words in uppercase. It really differs with yours, that proves that there are revisions.

The revisions are on your set of texts. Not on mine or Tygger's. In the original language texts there are no uppercase letters. Wherever they are placed, it is from someone's imagination.

Your statement above just proves that you have not visited the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form.
So, which is to believe, the original or the other?
I noticed that Tygger had visited the website, maybe you ask him the link.

I have the 1891 Emphatic Diaglott Book #1. I don't have Book #2 but I'm trying to find it. In my 1891 copy it is said that "the Logos was a god." I doubt that it was changed from an 1864 translation.

Your copy was changed, Tygger can prove it, I know he had visited the original 1864 the way he quote the verse.
You can ask him the link, so you can how it rendered those verses.

Tygger was saying that "the Logos was God" did not mean that the Logos was the only true God because "the Logos was God" is written with the letters for "God" being in lower-case letters, following the "G." (Which was not really capitalized in the Greek because there are no capital letters in the Greek.) So the phrase should be "and the Word was a god. You don't seem to understand what Tygger was saying. He is not agreeing with you.

[Capbook]

The revisions are on your set of texts. Not on mine or Tygger's. In the original language texts there are no uppercase letters. Wherever they are placed, it is from someone's imagination.

Your statement above just proves that you have not visited the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form.
So, which is to believe, the original or the other?
I noticed that Tygger had visited the website, maybe you ask him the link.

I have the 1891 Emphatic Diaglott Book #1. I don't have Book #2 but I'm trying to find it. In my 1891 copy it is said that "the Logos was a god." I doubt that it was changed from an 1864 translation.

Your copy was changed, Tygger can prove it, I know he had visited the original 1864 the way he quote the verse.
You can ask him the link, so you can how it rendered those verses.

Tygger was saying that "the Logos was God" did not mean that the Logos was the only true God because "the Logos was God" is written with the letters for "God" being in lower-case letters, following the "G." (Which was not really capitalized in the Greek because there are no capital letters in the Greek.) So the phrase should be "and the Word was a god. You don't seem to understand what Tygger was saying. He is not agreeing with you.

Yes, that is only Tygger's and your opinion. But Benjamin Wilson does not say what you both said in his English translation.
Both of you added your un-evidenced opinion. Go, and see it yourself. Request Tygger for the link.

[onewithhim]

Your statement above just proves that you have not visited the original 1864 Emphatic Diaglott of Benjamin Wilson in PDF form.
So, which is to believe, the original or the other?
I noticed that Tygger had visited the website, maybe you ask him the link.

I have the 1891 Emphatic Diaglott Book #1. I don't have Book #2 but I'm trying to find it. In my 1891 copy it is said that "the Logos was a god." I doubt that it was changed from an 1864 translation.

Your copy was changed, Tygger can prove it, I know he had visited the original 1864 the way he quote the verse.
You can ask him the link, so you can how it rendered those verses.

Tygger was saying that "the Logos was God" did not mean that the Logos was the only true God because "the Logos was God" is written with the letters for "God" being in lower-case letters, following the "G." (Which was not really capitalized in the Greek because there are no capital letters in the Greek.) So the phrase should be "and the Word was a god. You don't seem to understand what Tygger was saying. He is not agreeing with you.

Yes, that is only Tygger's and your opinion. But Benjamin Wilson does not say what you both said in his English translation.
Both of you added your un-evidenced opinion. Go, and see it yourself. Request Tygger for the link.

It is your opinion, so you give me the link.

[Capbook]

I have the 1891 Emphatic Diaglott Book #1. I don't have Book #2 but I'm trying to find it. In my 1891 copy it is said that "the Logos was a god." I doubt that it was changed from an 1864 translation.

Your copy was changed, Tygger can prove it, I know he had visited the original 1864 the way he quote the verse.
You can ask him the link, so you can how it rendered those verses.

Tygger was saying that "the Logos was God" did not mean that the Logos was the only true God because "the Logos was God" is written with the letters for "God" being in lower-case letters, following the "G." (Which was not really capitalized in the Greek because there are no capital letters in the Greek.) So the phrase should be "and the Word was a god. You don't seem to understand what Tygger was saying. He is not agreeing with you.

Yes, that is only Tygger's and your opinion. But Benjamin Wilson does not say what you both said in his English translation.
Both of you added your un-evidenced opinion. Go, and see it yourself. Request Tygger for the link.

It is your opinion, so you give me the link.

Why? Tygger didn't give you?
Ok, check Revelation 1:7-9, and you will see the rest of my point. This link: https://books.google.com.ph/books?redir ... 01&f=false

[Capbook]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

Thank you Difflugia.

Here onewithhim, you can see Rev 1:9.
Rev 1:7, states about Jesus coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him.
Rev 1:8 speaks of, who is, who was, and who is to come.
Rev 1:9 read as, the author patient waiting for Jesus.
Before and after verse 8, refer to Jesus, how come verse 8 not?

[onewithhim]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

Thank you Difflugia.

Here onewithhim, you can see Rev 1:9.
Rev 1:7, states about Jesus coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him.
Rev 1:8 speaks of, who is, who was, and who is to come.
Rev 1:9 read as, the author patient waiting for Jesus.
Before and after verse 8, refer to Jesus, how come verse 8 not?

You thanked Difflugia and he just backed up the fact that the verses we were discussing say that "the Word was a god." So says the 1864 version. Looks like the 1942 version was changed a bit. Didn't you say previously that the older renderings were superior to the more modern ones? Now are you changing your mind?

Remember that it is God who gave Revelation to John through Jesus. God speaks directly many times in Revelation; you could say all of Revelation comes from Jehovah. Is it so far-fetched to say that Rev. 1:8 is spoken by God Himself? It's His book!

[Capbook]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

Thank you Difflugia.

Here onewithhim, you can see Rev 1:9.
Rev 1:7, states about Jesus coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him.
Rev 1:8 speaks of, who is, who was, and who is to come.
Rev 1:9 read as, the author patient waiting for Jesus.
Before and after verse 8, refer to Jesus, how come verse 8 not?

You thanked Difflugia and he just backed up the fact that the verses we were discussing say that "the Word was a god." So says the 1864 version. Looks like the 1942 version was changed a bit. Didn't you say previously that the older renderings were superior to the more modern ones? Now are you changing your mind?

Remember that it is God who gave Revelation to John through Jesus. God speaks directly many times in Revelation; you could say all of Revelation comes from Jehovah. Is it so far-fetched to say that Rev. 1:8 is spoken by God Himself? It's His book!

As I've said to you before I relied on the English translation of the author in the right side. That's what Benjamin understand the Greek in English. Didn't you see the link I've sent you?
The Emphatic Diaglott, a famous example, is a Bible translation that displays the original Greek text alongside a word-for-word English translation. https://www.google.com/search?q=diaglot ... e&ie=UTF-8

Then if you interpret it as Father who said it. Is Jesus wrong by saying John 5:37?

John 5:37-38
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
NASB

[onewithhim]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

Thank you Difflugia.

Here onewithhim, you can see Rev 1:9.
Rev 1:7, states about Jesus coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him.
Rev 1:8 speaks of, who is, who was, and who is to come.
Rev 1:9 read as, the author patient waiting for Jesus.
Before and after verse 8, refer to Jesus, how come verse 8 not?

You thanked Difflugia and he just backed up the fact that the verses we were discussing say that "the Word was a god." So says the 1864 version. Looks like the 1942 version was changed a bit. Didn't you say previously that the older renderings were superior to the more modern ones? Now are you changing your mind?

Remember that it is God who gave Revelation to John through Jesus. God speaks directly many times in Revelation; you could say all of Revelation comes from Jehovah. Is it so far-fetched to say that Rev. 1:8 is spoken by God Himself? It's His book!

As I've said to you before I relied on the English translation of the author in the right side. That's what Benjamin understand the Greek in English. Didn't you see the link I've sent you?
The Emphatic Diaglott, a famous example, is a Bible translation that displays the original Greek text alongside a word-for-word English translation. https://www.google.com/search?q=diaglot ... e&ie=UTF-8

Then if you interpret it as Father who said it. Is Jesus wrong by saying John 5:37?

John 5:37-38
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
NASB

I don't see how that fits in with what has been said here.

[Capbook]

Here are the verses you two are arguing about. The first set of images is from a 1942 edition, with links to the same pages in the 1864 edition at archive.org. They're the same. Whatever you two are arguing about doesn't depend on which year it was published.

John 1:1 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)


Revelation 1:9 1942 edition (link to 1864 edition)

Thank you Difflugia.

Here onewithhim, you can see Rev 1:9.
Rev 1:7, states about Jesus coming with the clouds and every eye will see Him.
Rev 1:8 speaks of, who is, who was, and who is to come.
Rev 1:9 read as, the author patient waiting for Jesus.
Before and after verse 8, refer to Jesus, how come verse 8 not?

You thanked Difflugia and he just backed up the fact that the verses we were discussing say that "the Word was a god." So says the 1864 version. Looks like the 1942 version was changed a bit. Didn't you say previously that the older renderings were superior to the more modern ones? Now are you changing your mind?

Remember that it is God who gave Revelation to John through Jesus. God speaks directly many times in Revelation; you could say all of Revelation comes from Jehovah. Is it so far-fetched to say that Rev. 1:8 is spoken by God Himself? It's His book!

As I've said to you before I relied on the English translation of the author in the right side. That's what Benjamin understand the Greek in English. Didn't you see the link I've sent you?
The Emphatic Diaglott, a famous example, is a Bible translation that displays the original Greek text alongside a word-for-word English translation. https://www.google.com/search?q=diaglot ... e&ie=UTF-8

Then if you interpret it as Father who said it. Is Jesus wrong by saying John 5:37?

John 5:37-38
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
NASB

I don't see how that fits in with what has been said here.

Yes, let us be plain here, is Jesus words in John 5:37 correct or wrong to you?