King James Version vs New World Translation?

[yogosans14]

Which one is more accurate?I have both

 

[ananda]

Kjv.

 

[LST 1154]

The New World Translation is recognized by ONE sect, The Jehovah's Witnesses. Christians who have compared it to a good translation will find it sorely lacking and in fact blasphemous. For instance in John 1:1 the NWT says that "the Word was 'a' God." No other translation inserts the word "a" in this passage. This was done to supposedly "prove" that Jesus is not God (YHVH). There are hundreds of other changes that are heretical. I got a copy back when I got saved and then compared a number of verses to the KJV, the NIV, the ESV, the RSV and the ASV. I then burned my copy of it.

LST

 

[Epiphoskei]

KJV, and that's saying something.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

King Jimmy

 

[Lovely Lane]

Now that I know that the New World Translation is of the JW persuasion I have to vote for the KJV.
But doesn't the KJV have it's translation problems also? That thing with a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
But I prefer the NKJV and the NLT.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Rome and Erasmus have no meaningful impact on the KJV. It translated the texts available honestly and fairly as if they were written in Classical Greek. We discovered better texts and better linguistics, and so the new translations are different. That's all.

 

[Hentenza]

Which one is more accurate?I have both

The NWT is not really a bible but a book edited and published by the Watchtower Society to resemble a bible.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Rome and Erasmus have no meaningful impact on the KJV. It translated the texts available honestly and fairly as if they were written in Classical Greek. We discovered better texts and better linguistics, and so the new translations are different. That's all.

Thanks.

 

[Standing Up]

Which one is more accurate?I have both

So, which one you going to throw away? Or too early to tell?

 

[DeaconDean]

KJV, and that's saying something.

My brother here would agree with me.

In the original language, Greek, a classic example of how the NWT is wrong is Jn. 1:1.

"en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV." (Jn. 1:1 GNT) Rendered in the KJV as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The key phrase here to focus on is "ton qeon" and "kai qeoV hn o logoV".

In the KJV, the word "ton" (the, this, that, these) is left out because it is not needed in the English. The same applies here: "kai qeoV hn o logoV".

The Greek version that the JW's use render this phrase as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

What they fail to see is that the article "o" means the same as "ton".

Compare:

"ton"
Greek Lexicon

"o"
Greek Lexicon

"ton" is the Genetive of "o".

Anyway, of the two, I'd stick to the KJV.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ChetSinger]

Which one is more accurate?I have both

The KJV was a fantastic Bible for 1611. But in the last 400 years our language has changed. Also, more and earlier Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have come to light. So these days I go to the ESV for its prose, and to the NET Bible for it's footnotes.

The NWT was created by the Jehovah's Witnesses. No churches use it, afaik. It alters the text to deny the deity of Christ. I don't consider it a Bible at all, but a heretical book of propaganda.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Well said

 

[pescador]

Kjv.

Not KJV

 

[pescador]

The NWT is not really a bible but a book edited and published by the Watchtower Society to resemble a bible.

This is 110% correct. The NWT was created to prove the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not in agreement with the rest of the translations that are acceptable to Protestants, Catholics, or Jews.