Jehovah's Witnesses
And they have a very sly way of trying to get you to THINK they believe Christ is God, but they don't really believe that.
Also, Wescott and Hort had an issue with blood sacrafice for the remission of sin. Do some leg work on that. They didn't like it, so their Greek manuscript was rewritten to "fix" that!
I'll say it again...go do some research on Wescott and Hort and see who they REALLY were. BTW, make sure a google a picture of Charles Taze Russell in his funeral garb! That should give you a start clue about what JW' think, believe and do.Back to post #25.
I figured we would get here.
Since it's all Greek to me, I've told JWs that I would use any Bible to study with them other than the NWT.
Even a Confraternity Edition.
Usually end it.
So, let me get this straight.
JW doctrine comes from a different Bible than "everyone" else uses.
Oh..... kay....... fine.
Comparing Bible Versions
American Standard Version
Score: 100%
The American Standard Version, once considered “the rock of Biblical honesty,” was a rather good version. It uses the consensus text of its day, the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, which today would be considered inferior by most scholars. However, it was a very good translation of that text, and can serve as an excellent basis for comparing the accuracy of modern versions, which are largely based on a similar text. One difficulty with the ASV is that, while published in 1901, it retained old Elizabethan English. While not nearly as difficult to read as the King James Version, it still uses a vocabulary quite alien to people today.
Analytical-Literal Translation
Score: 100%
The Analytical-Literal Translation is a translation of only the New Testament. It is extremely accurate to the Greek. It can be fairly difficult reading at times because it adheres so closely to the source language, but it certainly brings out concepts from the Greek that no other translation does. Reading the Analytical-Literal Translation is an experience that I highly recommend. It utilizes creative ways of expressing the Greek tenses in our language. It also has an “analytical” feature that shows, right in the text, possible variant translations. It is really the ultimate version for getting down to what the word really says (and means) without interpretive gloss of any kind.
As its textual base it uses the Byzantine Majority Text (more recently known as the Byzantine Textform, to dispel the myth that its textual choices are based simply on counting manuscripts). The Byzantine Majority Text is the logical successor to the Textus Receptus (or Received Text) that the KJV/NKJV are based on.
King James Version
Score: 100%
The King James Version receives a 100% grade on this test. This is not to say that there are no areas in which the King James does not have the best possible translation or to claim there are no benefits in language updating. However, it is by any account an excellent Bible version and has none of the serious, deliberate doctrinal deviations that we are looking for in this test.
I have some reservations toward people picking up the King James Version as a main Bible in this day and age, because the language differences since 1611 could easily frustrate a person in Bible study or cause them to get the wrong ideas. Many words in English have actually reversed meaning since 1611. Nevertheless, I think everyone should have one for comparison. If you know Elizabethan English, it is actually a pleasant, captivating read. I’ve read the King James New Testament a number of times, and there is a pleasing reverence in the language. The New Testament is translated mainly from the Textus Receptus (in English, the Received Text), which is a fairly good though somewhat dated representative of the Byzantine text.
New American Standard Bible *
Score: 100%
I have a great appreciation for the NASB’s accuracy and its plain, easy to understand English. Also worthy of appreciation is the fact that the Lockman Foundation produces this Bible not as a commercial venture; it is a non-profit organization. The only thing about NASB that I have to mention is that it uses the Consensus Text, so people really need to decide for themselves which underlying text is better in order to choose between NASB and NKJV. One or the other is the best translation in the world today. Personally, I prefer a more Byzantine text (such as the text underlying the NKJV) but I also prefer the English style of the NASB.
New King James Version *
Score: 100%
I recommend the New King James Version above the King James Version because the language updating is necessary. Some of the words in the King James Version have even reversed meaning since its translation in 1611. In addition, we have learned things about the Hebrew and Greek languages in the time between 1611 and the present. This additional knowledge necessarily enhances the translation. Finally, where the NKJV and KJV differ, most frequently the NKJV is proven to be the more accurate version when compared against the original languages. Both the KJV and NKJV are translated from the Textus Receptus in the New Testament.
The NKJV is available in the form of some very good (and some not-so-good) study Bibles. For best results, I would recommend avoiding study Bibles, especially for new Christians, as this is a means of re-introducing the problem of man’s interpretations, to the detriment of even good translations.
And since deaf people are reading impaired....
New World Translation *
Score: 10%
Unless you are a cult researcher, you have no use for the New World Translation. I have read most if not all of the New World Translation in my former life as an unwitting unbeliever. Practically none of the essential truths of the Bible could ever be discovered from the New World Translation.
Supposedly translated from the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, in reality none of the four “translators” actually knew Biblical Greek (this was proven in court some years ago). The NWT is actually a doctrinally modified paraphrase, probably of the American Standard Version.
Only Acts 2:38 was translated accurately, and that is only because the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in baptismal regeneration. In Genesis 1:2, “Spirit” is translated “active force.” Neither word present in the text or implied by the meaning. Zechariah 12:10 substitutes “the one whom they pierced” instead of “on Me whom they pierced” to obscure the Trinity. Matthew 21:32 does not indicate a repentant change of mind, only regret. Mark 1:4 inserts an interpretation, not the word of God. Mark 1:15 presents the command to repent as a way of being, not as an action to take. Luke 24:45- 47 replaces “in His name” with “on the basis of his name,” obscuring the sense. John 1:1- 4 has a grammatically impossible rendering of “a god.” John 14:26 depersonalizes the Holy Spirit. Acts 13:48 dispenses with the concept of destiny which is present in the real text. 2 Timothy 2:25 is changed from an acknowledgment of the truth, and introduces a concept of “infavorable disposition” rather than “in opposition.” This is not to mention that the word “Jehovah” is inserted 237 times throughout the New Testament, though not one Greek NT manuscript contains the word.
If you have a copy of the NWT, please do not take this version to a used bookstore to get rid of it. Let its damage stop with you and take a stand against false doctrine by throwing it out yourself
My favorite:
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
And they have a very sly way of trying to get you to THINK they believe Christ is God, but they don't really believe that.
Also, Wescott and Hort had an issue with blood sacrafice for the remission of sin. Do some leg work on that. They didn't like it, so their Greek manuscript was rewritten to "fix" that!