NWT Removed Scriptures?

The claim for not including these in the NWT is simple: The earliest manuscripts (according to JWs) do not include the texts for those phrases and sections.

Unfortunately, the claim doesn't have much going for it. We know that there are no original manuscripts which can be used to establish whether something was added or omitted. Even dating the manuscripts doesn't work well, because an omission may have been made in one area and not made in another. The later mss may or may not include the omitted text.

We simply do not know. A decision was made by men what to include and not include. Nothing was directed by any inspiration or revelation in the matter and no claim was made that inspiration and/or revelation had told the translating committed (whose members and credentials are not identified) was ever made. It was a decision that, given some of the omitted material, causes one to think of intentional manipulation to exclude certain passages of scripture.

There is a new King James Bible coming out in the near future that has God's name in it almost 7000 times, go to www.dnkjb.net to see it, and you can place and order if you like.

I might point out Jehovah Witnesses had nothing to do with this translation of the King James Bible, it is the same as your KJ except the name has been added.

What version of the Bible do I find the best to read, (New World Translation) it's just like you speak in your language.

The KJ uses words that do not have the same meaning today as they did 400 years ago when the KJ was written, take 1 Cor. 10:25 it says (everything you find in the shambles you may eat) what does the word shambles mean to you today? More than likely you would say ( a mess, this place is really a mess) the word shambles 400 years ago meant (a meat market) if a person was reading that scripture in the KJ they would not understand the meaning of the scripture.

The New World Translation of the Bible & some other translations corrects this scripture with the words (mean market) now you can understand the meaning of the scripture. There are also other words that have been corrected also.

I read here that some manuscripts do not have certain things. We would

need this evidence for that, wouldn't we? And then we would want to know

WHICH manuscript is being followed and if this group adheres strictly

to that manuscript or if they go from one to the other searching for what

'fits' their notions of what should be said.

Then, I'd want to read someone who writes on the difference having vs. not

having these scriptures makes. I think it makes a LOT of difference.

I used to think it bad that the KJV, not being translated by Christians, strictly speaking,

but by scholars in the Greek & Hebrew Languages was a bad thing but now I am

glad this happened because a scholar would not try to impose a belief on

the bible, thus I would lean towards the KJV always checking Strong's for

example, (as the Spirit led), over the NIV, for example, which apparently

I read was translated by homosexuals, so they altered those verses,

so I read anyway.

To make your point, you must accept another 'translation' as 'correct'. The KJV (for instance) is a poor translation of a flawed underlying text. Any 'Translation' that does not respect Ex 23:13, and avoid using the names of heathen mighty ones (like 'god' and 'lord' ) for YHVH is not a fit translation.