English

I could add to that chart

KJV1611
Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

KJV1789
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life

New World Translation
He that has the Son has this life; he that does not have the Son of God does not have this life.

Both the later edition of the KJV and the NWT translation add to the word of God as expressed in the true KJV.

If we are really going to go with the perfect English of 1611 we have a lot of relearning to do.

 

As an observer on most of the AV vs MV threads since I've been on the BB I would say that both sides are schismatic and divisive. It's very difficult to have a debate or discussion on a topic with every other post being an attack against the person and having nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Frankly it is getting very old and it weakens the position being supported by the poster.

 

Every MV I checked also includes a reference to God in the verse you presented (I John 5:12). Your attempt to side step the facts is pitiful. You present one verse that has a reference to God added, yet you completely ignore the similiarities between MVs and the JW cult's New World Translation.

Now, address the omissions in the MV that align with the New World Translation.

 

Not defending the MVs - just pointing out the illogic of picking and choosing comarisons to the NWT. Guilt by association is not substantive. If we are going to apply this as a 'test' it should apply to every version.


Why did the newer edition of the KJV choose the same rendering as the NWT? The question is not any more 'pitiful' than the list you found.

 

Are you serious? The NWT was begun in the 1940's. The completed version was not printed until 1961. You claim the KJV patterned itself from the NWT? Please! By your own claim, the KJV of 1789 included the words "of God". That is at least 150 years before the NWT was begun.

The list I found is not pitiful, but accurate. And still, you fail to address the facts presented in that list. I don't expect you to address the facts. Your silence speaks volumes.

 

There is no claim that anyone copied the NWT, even from the most severe critic - the claim is that they used the the same method and choices.

I did address your reply - but you ignore it. I don't defend those versions choice in the passages, but not because they are like the NWT. There are better reasons than making that comparison.

So what makes my claim 'pitiful' and yours 'accurate?' Both give examples of translational choices that were the same as the NWT.

The point of this thread is the perfect English of the KJV. If it is perfect why did the KJV1789 or any other version change it?

 

Prior to 1950 (when the NWT New Testament was first published, complete OT & NT in 1961) many JWs generally used the KJV, while at the same time many Christian denominations were reading from the RV. Did that make KJV-carrying Fundamentalists more aligned with the Jehovah's Witnesses during that era? Of course not.

The KJV (or any version) should not be criticized or denigrated simply on the basis that it has been adopted as the primary text of a cult or heretical group.

 

Not to mention that there have been heresies that sprung up from the very earliest days of the writing of the New Testament- when there truly was 'One Version Onlyism'.

 

It is fact that the NWT would be similar in the NT to most "MVs' because of the similar underlying Greek text. However, to give the implication that other 'MVs' must be corrupt because of some correspondence with the JW version is intentional deception. Is the KJV untrustworthy because it parallels (almost 100% in the OT) the NWT, too? Ridiculous and dishonest.

 

C4K
You failed to address even one verse where omissions in MVs align and agree with NWT. Not one. You addressed my post, but failed to address the facts.

Franklin

By your admission, most MV used the same Greek text as the NWT. Yet you say that my comparision is ridiculas and dishonest? My answer to you is simply the response of Amos: Can two walk together except they be agreed?

Also you mentioned that the JW used the KJV previously. They claim the KJV was not accurate. They developed their own translation that is eerily similiar to most MV in use today. IMO, they did not like the way God's word cut to the heart of their sinful ways and beliefs. The easiest thing to do is change God's Word to align with their beliefs. Again I rely on Amos: Can two walk together except they be agreed?

 

I will make it very clear - I do not support the translational choice in those passages because I support the traditional Byzantine text body. I do not like those translations. I do not support them. I do not defend them. There is no need to address them because I think they are wrong. But not because they match up with the NWT, but because none of them are translated by the Byzantine text body. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Now, will you defend how the KJV1789 came up with the same translation of 1 John 5v12 as the NWT did?

 

Not quite correct.

The NWT was made by Freddie Franz(who later became Big Kahoona of the Jabroney False Witlesses) who didn't know a word of Hebrew, and his buddy George Gangas, who knew a little Greek. The work was begun in 1947 at the request of Nathan Knorr, then the JW prez(who also gave them the prohibition of blood transfusions) with the NT completed in 1950. The OT was first released in 1953.

It's not a translation at all, but a revision of the British RV of 1881 made to conform to JW doctrines.

 

Thanks - since the ASV was an americanisation of the same translation that would explain the similarities.

 

Please, please, read some HISTORY of the JWs, LDS, SDA, etc. to see they started out using the KJV. It was about the only readily-available version in the USA when these cults started. And, oh yes, let's not forget the Waco Wacko Koresh & his little gang.

 

Perhaps it would have helped you understand why I think your position is hypocritical had you really considered the questions I asked. Again, the NWT uses essentially the same Hebrew MT as the KJV and yet I don't hear you complaining about that fact. So, is the NWT right or wrong where it's text virtually agrees (probably not identically) with the KJV?

There is no doubt that the JW are in error in many doctrines, and there is no doubt that the NWT has some self-serving renderings. But the fact that it corresponds to some other version has no bearing on the quality of the matching translations (they could both be right, or both be wrong).

 

C4K

I can not find any information as to why that phrase was left out of the 1611. I did, however, read that between 1611 and 1769 there were several corrections of spelling, punctuation, and omissions from type setting errors. It was possibly added to later KJV because of printing errors since it was included in previous English translations such as the Bishop, Tyndale, Wycliff, and Geneva Bibles. It was also included in Luther's German Translation.

BTW, I was unable to get any hits on "KJV1789". Where did you come up with this?

 

Had these cults stayed with the KJV, they may have been corrected in their erroneous ways. It's not as important how we all start, as to how well we all finish. Wouldn't you agree?

What evidence do you have that Koresh used the KJV? I'm not saying he didn't, but I am unable to find any information concerning what translation he used.

 

mea culpa - apologies for typing it wrongly - 1769

So there is at least one mistake in the 1611 KJV? The claim is that we need to use the perfect English of the KJV. When was it perfect?

 

Why would I complain about a portion of a translation that agreed with the KJV? My complaint was where the translations differ. That makes me hypocritical? Your argument is irrational.

How do you reconcile your statement that the NWT has self serving renderings when this translation is almost identical with most MVs? You admit "they could both be right, or both be wrong". I'm sorry that you do not have the confidence in your translation as I have in mine.

 

It has already been shown why it is 'almost identical.' The writers plagiarised the ASV and added their corrupt doctrines.

The fact that these guys plagiarised the ASV does not make the ASV wrong.

The 'guilt by association' doesn't work.

Now, if you want to talk about the underlying texts I would agree with you. I support translation from the Byzantine text body.