NASB versus NWT and the KJV.

Ok so you proved both use the modern Greek text. You want me to make a chart comparing the douay Rheims and the kjv?

 

Ohh and the kjv with the TR would be closer to what the apostle's gave? You know with verses like 1 John 5:7 with literally zero Greek support.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

How does calling Jesus the only begotten son hurt the Jehovah witnesses belief? They called the him the only begotten son in John 3:16. Obviously only begotten son is not a problem with them. And for Ephesians 3:9, the JWs could have translated and explained this verse the same way they do Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17. Saying they chose it for doctrinal reasons is retarded. If they used the TR, nothing would be changed. Begotten son is not a problem with them. And neither is eph 3:9.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

I would say the modern Greek text is closer. Erasmus had very few manuscripts at his disposal and for texts like the end of revelation he had none. At the least the modern Greek text has a manuscript for every single one of its readings. It may be few as in John 1:18, but it at least has support. Some readings in the TR have zero support.

Why would the nwt translators use the TR? Every single translation today follows the modern Greek text, so why would they go back to the TR? Would them using the TR make any sort of difference in what they believe and teach? It would be the equivalent of someone using an older car made in the 60s. Like why would you use that car (nostalgia and liking the look of old cars aside) compared to a more modern car. The more modern car is going to have better gas mileage, easier to repair, much more practical and so on and so forth. Now I know this is isn't a perfect example, and doesn't correlate 100%, but gets the idea across.

You just said you don't believe 1 John 5:7 is authentic then turned around and said people Who aren't saved can't hear his words. I'm assuming by that you mean the nwt chose the modern Greek text and it's readings along with everyone else who does so because they don't recognize which words are true or not. If you understand that verse to refer to variants than you have some serious issues that need to be resolved. 1 John 5:7 first and foremost. Going by your logic, how is everyone who includes it in their Bible saved? Next it ignores the fact that until more recently not even the books of the Bible were nailed down. Men like Martin Luther thought books like James didn't belong. It took many years for people to accept revelation as authentic. What about those who read the Vulgate and Septuagint which contain so many more variants and definitely adds and takes away more words and phrases. Did everyone who used those versions blind? That verse means the same thing in Romans 1. Those who are lost think the Gospel and what God says are both foolishness. Creation, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc. The Christians stand on these make no sense to a lost person. They don't understand why they can't sleep with their girlfriend before marriage. They think it's absolutely retarded to believe one God created a universe. The flood to them is absolutely ludicrous along with every other miracle Jesus did. There is zero reason for a lost man to accept or understand any of the things mentioned above.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

I have read Pickering's word and own his Bible. And yes technically you are correct there are Bibles that use different Greek texts. However the nkjv is a revision of the kjv, they specifically state that. It's not a new translation it's a new revision. As for Pickering's version, I have used it for a bit and like it. However I have never seen a church use it. And outside of this forum specifically made to discuss topics like this, I have never heard anyone as much mention Pickering much less his translation. Just about every church (aside from a select few that use the nkjv) uses a modern version based off of a modern greek text. These versions are certainly the majority.

And if that is not where you were going with the verse in John, then I'm sorry. I have just heard many people use that verse or similar verses in that way. But did you see opinion on it. No major difference to me between that verse and Romans 1.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

John 1:18 (NET) 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

I like Dr. Wallace's take on this verse, which demonstrates my "confirmation bias."