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.

[onewithhim]

Just reread my response above I colored blue. Try also reread John 17:3, what really did Jesus prayed. That is what? ______life,? to know who? One or two?

Jhn 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Eternal life is knowing the Father---the only true God---AND the one the Father sent forth, Jesus Christ. It does not indicate that Jesus Christ is God.

So, we understand that's the subject matter of the verse, and it also does not say that Jesus is not God, but John 1:18 proves that Jesus is God based on original Greek wording from Westcott and Hort, and it is not a translation.

I have listed 16 versions that do not call the Son "God" at John 1:18. They call him "Son." John 1:18 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Yes, but most of them are paraphrase translations.
Westcott and Hort I'll say again is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

You quote the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear on the other thread, but I believe Emphatic Diaglott is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

[Capbook]

Eternal life is knowing the Father---the only true God---AND the one the Father sent forth, Jesus Christ. It does not indicate that Jesus Christ is God.

So, we understand that's the subject matter of the verse, and it also does not say that Jesus is not God, but John 1:18 proves that Jesus is God based on original Greek wording from Westcott and Hort, and it is not a translation.

I have listed 16 versions that do not call the Son "God" at John 1:18. They call him "Son." John 1:18 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Yes, but most of them are paraphrase translations.
Westcott and Hort I'll say again is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

You quote the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear on the other thread, but I believe Emphatic Diaglott is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?q=1864+em ... e&ie=UTF-8

Regarding the John 1:18, KJV is not one of the translations I've posted.
I believe I've already make you acquainted with the Westcott and Hort's original Greek of the New Testament.
It is not a translation, below is their original Greek rendering of John 1:18;

(Greek NT Westcott and Hort+) θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

[onewithhim]

So, we understand that's the subject matter of the verse, and it also does not say that Jesus is not God, but John 1:18 proves that Jesus is God based on original Greek wording from Westcott and Hort, and it is not a translation.

I have listed 16 versions that do not call the Son "God" at John 1:18. They call him "Son." John 1:18 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Yes, but most of them are paraphrase translations.
Westcott and Hort I'll say again is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

You quote the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear on the other thread, but I believe Emphatic Diaglott is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

[Capbook]

I have listed 16 versions that do not call the Son "God" at John 1:18. They call him "Son." John 1:18 does not prove that Jesus is God.

Yes, but most of them are paraphrase translations.
Westcott and Hort I'll say again is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

You quote the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear on the other thread, but I believe Emphatic Diaglott is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

[onewithhim]

Yes, but most of them are paraphrase translations.
Westcott and Hort I'll say again is not a translation, it is original Greek of the New Testament.

You quote the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear on the other thread, but I believe Emphatic Diaglott is not a neutral ground for your support because it is your Church's Watch Tower Society that sold the Diaglott inexpensively (offering it free of charge from 1990). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_Diaglott

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

[Capbook]

So what? The Watchtower has offered the King James Version as well. Should we ignore completely the KJV? Also, the Emphatic Diaglott is not a Watchtower production, just like the KJV and all the other versions. They didn't produce it. They just offered it.

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

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 point I'm going to establish there is the word "waiting". Verse 7 speaks about Jesus' coming in the clouds and all eyes will see Him including those who pierced Him. Verse 8 speaks about the One who is coming, the Almighty and in verse 9, John as waiting for Jesus.
I strongly believe that these three verses are speaking about Jesus, and is the Almighty, verse which is in the midst of them.

[onewithhim]

Can you check the link below, it doesn't say about what you've said.
The 1864 Emphatic Diaglott translates John 1:18 as: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". https://www.google.com/search?

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

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.

[Capbook]

My copy of the Emphatic Diaglott says this: "God no one has seen ever: the only begotten SON that being in the bosom of the Father he has made known." (1891) Word-for-word, from the Greek to the English.

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

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.

[onewithhim]

Would that mean that there was an alteration made of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott?
I was able to find the PDF of the 1864 Emphatic Diaglott, would you mind posting here from your copy the translation of Revelation 1:9?
Thanks in advance.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

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.

[Capbook]

It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an alteration. You'll have to check it out by comparing the two.

Revelation isn't in my copy of the E.D. It is Book I and only goes up to Acts. I've got to find Book II.

The Interlinear Bible says: "I, John, the even brother of you, and co-sharer in the affliction and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, came to be in the island being called Patmos, for the word of God and because of the witness of Jesus Christ."

What is your point?

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.