MV`s compared to JW`s NWT

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by pilgrim2009, Jul 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    NIV Exposed.

    http://www.scionofzion.com/nivx.htm

    NIV & NASV AGREE WITH JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE.

    http://kingjamescrusader.com/compar.html


    Most, if not all, Christians recognize the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a false religion. They also acknowledge that the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible, is a corrupt work. What they don’t know is that the modern translation they are using is a close parallel to the New World Translation (NWT).

    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/deity.htm

    Some do know this yet ignore it completely.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV agrees with the NWT too in many places. In fact, until the NWT was translated, the JW's used the KJV.

    Weird isn't it?
     
  3. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    What reasoning to protect you favorite version.What is weird is that for 200 years the King James Bible was never refered to as a version.

    It is really The Holy Bible Authorized by King James.Whats even weirder is that my 1611 word for word reprint of the first edition of the KJB says Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuifed [i.e.revise by his majesties special commandment.

    They must of believed God had preserved the Originals through copies.Modern day scholarship has about destroyed that foundation.


    God bless in Jesus.

    Steven.
     
  4. RevGKG

    RevGKG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please provide chapter and verse in which this is stated. If it is not, your premise is a house of cards.
     
  5. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not say it was in a chapter or verse.Its right after the epistle dedicatory introduction.

    Get you a word for word reprint of the original 1611 KJB and compare it to a cambridge edition and you will see only the words were updated to correct typographical errors and then the KJV many revisions theory is a house of cards that has done and fell.

    God bless in Jesus.

    Steven.
     
  6. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    You still didn't answer the challenge Pilgrim. This is a pretty serious charge that you are bringing against every Bible but the KJV. Can you not at least back it up instead of hurling your usual accusations and Jesuit conspiracy theories? Prove it to us.
     
  7. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes the enemy has always tried to duplicate God in everything including His Word.The KJV kept the JW`s from teaching their heresy so they created their own bible with the help of westcott and horts text.

    The NWT does not come from the TR and that is a fact it comes from the kingdom interliner translation of the Greek Scriptures published in 1969 and combines the Westcott and Hort Greek text with the Society's translation and an improved text of the New World Translation.
     
  8. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look up brother.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782

    So the JW's got it right in a few places. Big deal
     
  10. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    My my my.What a pity to think such.
     
  11. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    I looked up. You offered nothing but the typical KJVO stuff. Still no real proof.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It is true that the underlying text of the NWT is almost identical to the underlying text of many newer Bible versions. It is also true that the Hebrew & Greek behind the NWT is (conservatively) 90%-the-same as the Hebrew & Greek that is behind the KJV. Therefore, the problem with this argumentation is that it also self-defeating: for, if one condemns these so-called modern versions for closely aligning with a "corrrupt" NWT, then it would seem to be only logically & ethically consistant to be suspect of the KJV because it is also "parallel" to the overwhelming majority of NWT readings.

    Of course, it is not generally considered good scholarship that any translation work should be solely and completely dismissed on the basis of a comparison to another single translation. (Would guilt established by 2 or 3 witnesses apply here?) But what truly exposes the NWT as unfaithful and deceptive are several gross sectarian renderings at key (doctrinal) passages that cannot be supported by objectively proper and accurate translations from out of any legitimate critical Hebrew & Greek texts.
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Jul 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2009
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Whether the king's revisers believed that God had preserved His words through copies cannot be established by your proceeding comment about a 1611 title page. Your reference to the "Originals" (indicating autograph manuscripts) is not the same as their reference to "Original Tongues" (meaning Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek languages). IOW, it was not a claim by the translators that they had translated out of exact copies of the autographs.

    You are either naively mistaken or desperately trying to put words into their mouths. That is, unless you actually believe that the only place in the world that those ancient languages can now be found is in sacred canonical Jewish & Christian writings.
     
    #13 franklinmonroe, Jul 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2009
  14. rdwhite

    rdwhite
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Attack on the Word of God snipped - Administrative warning]
     
    #14 rdwhite, Jul 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2009
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    No sir, it does not, and here is the reason: You are making an accusation against the underlying text itself, while I was referring to proper and accurate rendering. You should read all of my original statement. Entirely different issues.

    Secondarily, modern versions do not systematically eliminate entire doctrines, verse-by-verse, from their text in the manner of the NWT (where Jesus is never allowed divinity, etc.). Properly-translated conservative newer versions prove Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity and our Savior in many passages despite perhaps not including the TR reading at Acts 8:37. (BTW, I tend to think that the TR is correct at this verse.)
    Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. (Acts 15:34, KJV)

    But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, (Acts 24:7, KJV)

    And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. (Acts 28:29, KJV)
    But do you wonder why the devil was so keen on removing these other verses in Acts? Also very interesting.

    Also, it would seem to me you are breaking the 'spirit' of the rules here (essentially calling modern versions "corrupt" and "garbage"), if not actually breaking the letter of law.
     
    #15 franklinmonroe, Jul 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2009
  16. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    Interestingly, the JW that have come to my door have all used KJVs. I've noticed this on atleast 5 visits recently.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782

    Interesting...I have their NWT on my shelf along with their Guide to understanding the Bible ( I aquired them after winning one of them to the Lord). If they are carrying the KJV then it is most likely a bait and switch tactic. Their usual habit is to not even carry any scripture at all but simply carry their literature that talks about the destruction of the world.
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a FYI. Such language is not tolerated per BB posting rules for the BV Forum.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are absolutely correct. It's obviously silly (and inconsistent) to denounce a translation based on how it compares to another translation.

    What matters is this: Is the NIV (or any particular translation) a solid translation of the scriptural source texts to the language of the day? The answer is yes.

    I believe everyone is in agreement that the NWT is a corrupt work (there's already plenty of evidence for that). That said, if someone wants to condemn a version such as the NIV because it's "similar" to the NWT, then they likewise need to condemn the KJV because of its similarities to the NWT. Objectively, you can't do one without the other.

    BTW, I'm currently reading a Dutch translation of scripture, the Volledige Statenbijbel. I wonder if that should also be condemned because it's a "modern version".
     
    #19 Johnv, Jul 24, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2009
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    OK, from whence then comes the typographical "errors"?

    An error is an error. God is incapable of the smallest error including typographical errors especially after considering the following passage:

    Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

    Translations are the work of man and are flawed.

    To change even one comma in any book including a Bible translation is a "revision".

    Revision - (From to revise):
    transitive verb
    1 a: to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript> bBritish : to study again.
    2 a: to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of <revise a dictionary.

    From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary found in the public domain at:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary


    HankD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...