Omitted verses.

[John146]

The point is that the authenticity of Rom 8:1b is questionable. There are Greek manuscripts that do not have the phrase. Some translations include it, some do not.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans 8:1

That the KJV includes it does not mean the KJV is correct.

Well, Romans 14 says otherwise as it clearly states that condemnation is possible (as I posted in #269).

 

[John146]

Now I know for sure you're not genuine.

What? Agenda? I'm not sure where that came from, but see you later I guess.

 

[ResidentAlien]

What? Agenda? I'm not sure where that came from, but see you later I guess.

That's okay, you don't have to get it. There are a lot of things you don't get.

 

[cv5]

The enemy wins if a person goes by a modern version.

So anyone reading anything other than the KJV is hopelessly lost and inevitably damned to eternal punishment?

 

[John146]

So anyone reading anything other than the KJV is hopelessly lost and inevitably damned to eternal punishment?

The context is not about being lost. Please read it before responding. Thank you.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

.

 

[Dino246]

Those who read the ESV do not have clarity that there is condemnation for walking after the flesh. I have personally heard it said over and over, "If you're ever in Christ, you never will face condemnation. Praise the Lord, there is no condemnation in Christ!"

Instead of attributing this to the work of the enemy, apply Occam's Razor.

Since the KJV has the phrase repeated, it is likely the one in error... probably from following a manuscript tradition that follows a simple transposition of words. Since the truth is not found in isolation of verses, but in context, there is nothing here that is lost in the new versions.

 

[Dino246]

Have you ever noticed Genesis 3:16? Take a look at the difference. The ESV states that Eve's desire will be contrary to her husband. What's funny is that footnotes say, "or towards". Which is it? Here it is as stated in the KJV.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


ESV
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to[f] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

And? You don't know which is correct; you just assume the KJV is correct. All we have here is a difference.

 

[Dino246]

Here's another...

The Doctrine of fasting to cast out and remove unclean spirits.

Matthew 17:21 tells us that casting out strong and persistent devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, the verse is totally removed in the new versions. One of the key doctrines of fasting that Jesus commands is gone. The enemy wins if a person goes by a modern version. I've never encountered this before in my life, but if I did, I would certainly pray and fast as the Lord commands.

This isn't a "doctrine" issue; it's a practical one.

Stop claiming that verses have been "removed" in the new versions; you are attributing conscious bias on the part of the translators, which is only your very biased opinion. Try something a little less combative.

 

[cv5]

Let me just begin by prefacing this: Various versions may translate a phrase (or phrases) differently from one another and that will impact word count greatly. Consider the ESV, or NASB. They were both translated from the same underlying Greek apparatus as the NIV — Nestle Aland 28 — but they each have different word counts, because it is possible to render phrases with some slight variation. Take a simple genitive as an example: “the day of the Lord.” This could be alternatively translated, “the Lord’s day.” We took five words down to three, but both communicate the same thing.

The particular question you are asking about, refers to "missing" verses, when really it's quite a bit more complex than that: "textual criticism." One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. This idea can be used to illustrate which readings were the most common throughout the Christian world.

Let me give you just one example: 1 Peter 3:14–15. The KJV translates it in this way,

"…and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts…” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV)​

​

However, other translations do not read this way. Translations such as the NASB, Lexham, ESV, NIV, NET, and so forth, each read in this fashion,

"But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy"​

​

The reason for this, is because the textual decision made by Nestle Aland 28 is based off an earlier, and more broadly (geographically) attested reading, as found in p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement.

Imagine you were to plot each manuscript that contains the reading, “the Lord God” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV) on a world map. How many would there be, and from what region(s) would it be most prominent? You'd be able to get a pretty good visual of the region (and time period) from which that variant gave rise. Likewise, if you plotted the manuscripts that alternatively read, “Christ the Lord” on a map, you would see that it already had broad geographic attestation by the time the alternate reading really (“the Lord God”) had any significant prominence. Already by the 3rd-5th centuries versional witness of the Greek NT were being translated with the use of “Christ the Lord” (Coptic, Syriac, some Latin).

What is most fascinating about 1 Peter 3:14–15 is that it is an allusion to Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX,

​

Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord himself as holy​

1Peter 3:14-15​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy​

​

Think about the implications of that. If attributed to “Christ the Lord,” then the text attributes to Christ what the OT says of YHWH, following the exact same verbal pattern. Might I suggest that the scribes transcribing the manuscripts underlying the KJV saw this allusion to Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX, which is why they opted for “the Lord God.”

The real question you should be asking, is: What underlying Greek textual apparatus’ did the version in question use? And how are they different from the Greek textual apparatus’ used in the translation of other translations?

Welcome to the wonderful world of “textual criticism.”

This NU "earlier variant" seems to me to be extremely important. What do you think of the differences between this and the TR?

https://christianchat.com/threads/calvin-did-not-invent-the-doctrines-of-grace.209781/post-5032116

 

[williamjordan]

God never promised to preserve his words in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek.

Oh no, He just decided to preserve His words in a language (and that of, the “inspired” KJV) that up until the last couple hundred years ago only 1/8th of the world’s population began to speak. What “inspired” version of the KJV was in circulation prior to the KJV? What Bible did the ("inspired") translators of the 1611 KJV use? And if the translators were “inspired” men of God, then from which Bible did they use to obtain their faith, trust, and inspiration from? That is the Bible which we need to be using!

You believe the KJV (an English translation) is the “inspired” word of God. Are other translations which are based off the TR (i.e., MEV, Tyndale, Geneva, or any of the versional translations) also “inspired”? And what do you do when the two translations of the same document, disagree? Essentially, if they don’t read 1611 English, then they are practically screwed. Welcome to the unpractical, and illogical world of KJV Onlyism.

This tells me you live in a tiny little bubble, and probably don’t get out a whole lot. You probably need to rethink the whole “KJV is the inspired word of God” bit, and argue more for “the TR is the inspired word of God,” if you’re going to be consistent; otherwise, you run into problems galore.

 

[John146]

What “inspired” version of the KJV was in circulation prior to the KJV?

The promise was to preserve it. Read it again. You've been educated out of any bible belief, instead, it sounds like you rely on your education.

 

[williamjordan]

The promise was to preserve it. Read it again. You've been educated out of any bible belief, instead, it sounds like you rely on your education.

No, because I’m a “Wherever the Evidence Leads” Onlyist. And my version is quite flexible, and in complete harmony with orthodoxy. Prove me wrong.

Your reply seems to be standard fair of someone living in the back foothills of Arkansas that doesn’t come out of their home. I happen to believe that Chinese Christians, and others spread abroad can safely say they have the word of God. And the people who existed in the 3rd and 4th c. who were not born with a KJV at hand, had the word of God.

You were the one that came along early in this forum and pretty much condemned anyone and everyone that doesn’t use the KJV. That’s telling a whole lot of Christians that they never had the word of God until the 1611 KJV came into existence.

Your response seems to be the standard way you react when you’ve been trounced.

 

[Dino246]

if you’re going to be consistent; otherwise, you run into problems galore.

Being consistent would destroy his position. Either he knows that, and is afraid to deal with it, or he is so deeply deluded that he is beyond human help.

 

[fredoheaven]

The fact that κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”) is found early on in various textual streams weighs heavily. Your favored reading does not have this kind of early/broad attestation.

So in light of this, by bringing up more modern Spanish, German, Italian versions, this does not quite carry the same weight. The only thing you prove by it took 16 centuries for “God as Lord” before it became widespread. So this really does not work in favor of your argument, but counteracts it.

You keep stating that the NA28 lists add’l justification for “God as Lord,” but it does not mention anything any differently than what I have been saying this entire time. Do not forget that in the primary text, NA28 has κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”), and gives this the reading primacy over “God as Lord.”

For what purpose did you decide to include a photo of p72? p72, as shown in above photograph, is not on your side, but as evidenced in the NA28, UBS, and other critical editions, supports κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (“Christ as Lord”).

So I guess thanks for wasting my (including yours) time?

Hi, again Williamjordan,

You may not opt to answer this and expect it you would not because it's a time waster. Just review some of your comments and I would only look at some that are necessary.

For 1 Corinthians 10:9, this is what I believe. I believe that 1 Cor. 10:9 favors the KJB reading in both the external base on the science of textual criticism and internal evidence itslef.

Accordingly, Caroll D. Osburn’s data has by far more detailed than any other apparatus: in support of Χριστόν, Osburn listed P46 , D, E, F, G, K, L, Ψ 056 0142 0151 and 489 minuscules (including 1 6 18 35 69 88 131 205 209 323 330 424 440 451 489 517 547 614 618 629 630 796 910 945 999 1241 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1353 1424 1448 1505 1611 1646 1734 1738 1739 1827 1852 1854 1881 1891 1912 1982 1984 2125 2200 2400 2412 2492 2495), numerous Old Latin witnesses including itar, b, d, dem, e, f, g, o, x, z and the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the main text of the Harklean Syriac, the Sahidic version, and the Bohairic version.

Κύριον, meanwhile, is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and the Ethiopic version.

To summarize in accordance with the canon of textual criticism, the KJB reading has surmountable weighty evidence and numerous witnesses. It is the reading of the oldest manuscript; it is the reading of the most manuscripts (by far); it is the reading of the most diverse array of manuscripts.

But as said I always go to the text itself as my strongest evidence and no one can beat the word of God as put its context.

Many English versions say “Neither” which is to introduce us to mentioned alternatives. Paul addressed and discussed with the Church of Corinth what happened in the past as an example of not following what the Israelites did. When Paul refers to the OT example he used “God” as in v. 5, now “neither” is about to address these believers not to tempt him (Christ), as in the Old Testament did tempt God.

So not only the external evidence favored the KJB reading but most importantly the internal evidence.

Well, am not trying to prove “God as Lord” but rather the direct “Lord God” in 1 Peter 3:15. The evidence of late origin that according to the canon of textual criticism carries a little weight but this is not true to me since even if it is of late origin if it’s true to the faithful copies of the original then the earliest could not be the correct reading. “Witnesses are to be weighted not counted” is a subjective axiom since the number is the most ordinary ingredient of weight and even the ordinary human witness requires this element and cannot be cast away.

Of course, I do believe that the best apparatus would still be the context as what the scripture says in 1 Cor. 2:13 of “comparing spiritual things with spiritual”. The external is not above the internal evidence. In your argument, “Christ as Lord” is the correct reading over “Lord God” for KJB reading but the association of KJB is much clearer in Isaiah 8. You may don’t even realize the ever-changing critical text as a whole is in error in this particular text. The critical text is not identical to “Christ is the Lord”. for “Christ” should not only be likened to the Lord by the word “as” which you are defending which may denote a comparison of higher quality but not identical quality. Here are examples used by Peter for the word “as” in a proverbial sense:

1 Peter 1:19 “as of a lamb” is not a literal lamb

1 Peter 1:24 “as grass” is obviously not a literal grass

1 Peter 2:2 “as newborn babes” not literal babies but spiritual babies

1 Peter 2:5 “as lively stones” where the stone is not literally used.

“as sheep” or “as a roaring lion” are instances of not a literal rendering and likewise of “Christ as Lord”

Btw, as a side note to what you have posted that using the critical text or argument can win your way to JW but I just keep smiling as this approach, would not win your case. I can simply use the English KJB using the “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” approach and that is simpler. In fact, the JW used the critical text of their New Testament.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970927

 

[williamjordan]

Hi, again Williamjordan,

You may not opt to answer this and expect it you would not because it's a time waster. Just review some of your comments and I would only look at some that are necessary.

For 1 Corinthians 10:9, this is what I believe. I believe that 1 Cor. 10:9 favors the KJB reading in both the external base on the science of textual criticism and internal evidence itslef.

Accordingly, Caroll D. Osburn’s data has by far more detailed than any other apparatus: in support of Χριστόν, Osburn listed P46 , D, E, F, G, K, L, Ψ 056 0142 0151 and 489 minuscules (including 1 6 18 35 69 88 131 205 209 323 330 424 440 451 489 517 547 614 618 629 630 796 910 945 999 1241 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1353 1424 1448 1505 1611 1646 1734 1738 1739 1827 1852 1854 1881 1891 1912 1982 1984 2125 2200 2400 2412 2492 2495), numerous Old Latin witnesses including itar, b, d, dem, e, f, g, o, x, z and the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the main text of the Harklean Syriac, the Sahidic version, and the Bohairic version.

Κύριον, meanwhile, is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and the Ethiopic version.

To summarize in accordance with the canon of textual criticism, the KJB reading has surmountable weighty evidence and numerous witnesses. It is the reading of the oldest manuscript; it is the reading of the most manuscripts (by far); it is the reading of the most diverse array of manuscripts.

But as said I always go to the text itself as my strongest evidence and no one can beat the word of God as put its context.

Many English versions say “Neither” which is to introduce us to mentioned alternatives. Paul addressed and discussed with the Church of Corinth what happened in the past as an example of not following what the Israelites did. When Paul refers to the OT example he used “God” as in v. 5, now “neither” is about to address these believers not to tempt him (Christ), as in the Old Testament did tempt God.

So not only the external evidence favored the KJB reading but most importantly the internal evidence.

Well, am not trying to prove “God as Lord” but rather the direct “Lord God” in 1 Peter 3:15. The evidence of late origin that according to the canon of textual criticism carries a little weight but this is not true to me since even if it is of late origin if it’s true to the faithful copies of the original then the earliest could not be the correct reading. “Witnesses are to be weighted not counted” is a subjective axiom since the number is the most ordinary ingredient of weight and even the ordinary human witness requires this element and cannot be cast away.

Of course, I do believe that the best apparatus would still be the context as what the scripture says in 1 Cor. 2:13 of “comparing spiritual things with spiritual”. The external is not above the internal evidence. In your argument, “Christ as Lord” is the correct reading over “Lord God” for KJB reading but the association of KJB is much clearer in Isaiah 8. You may don’t even realize the ever-changing critical text as a whole is in error in this particular text. The critical text is not identical to “Christ is the Lord”. for “Christ” should not only be likened to the Lord by the word “as” which you are defending which may denote a comparison of higher quality but not identical quality. Here are examples used by Peter for the word “as” in a proverbial sense:

1 Peter 1:19 “as of a lamb” is not a literal lamb

1 Peter 1:24 “as grass” is obviously not a literal grass

1 Peter 2:2 “as newborn babes” not literal babies but spiritual babies

1 Peter 2:5 “as lively stones” where the stone is not literally used.

“as sheep” or “as a roaring lion” are instances of not a literal rendering and likewise of “Christ as Lord”

Btw, as a side note to what you have posted that using the critical text or argument can win your way to JW but I just keep smiling as this approach, would not win your case. I can simply use the English KJB using the “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” approach and that is simpler. In fact, the JW used the critical text of their New Testament.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970927

You were right about one thing (and only one). And I think you happen to know what that “one thing” is. I’m not getting into this whole “correcting fredohaven” thing again. There’s much bigger (and badder) things to do with my day than have to spend it correcting more inaccuracies.

Regarding 1 Cor. 10:9, you listed Κύριον amongst readings found in several mss, including Alexandrinus (A), where in fact Κύριον is not found. Alexandrinus (A) has an altogether different variant reading. Instead of “Christ” (p46) or “Lord” (B), Alexandrinus says, “God.”

You’re trying to borrow the argument I made in defense of 1 Peter 3:15 (Lexham, ESV, NASB) and use it to argue for the KJV’s rendering of 1 Cor. 10:9 (of which I happen to agree with). But for the very reason I think the KJV is wrong at 1 Peter 3:15, is the very same reason I think the KJV is right at 1 Cor. 10:9.

But now for the problem: You don’t even use the very standard which you applied at 1 Peter 3:15 to 1 Cor. 10:9. My basis for taking “Christ” (1 Cor. 10:9) and “Christ the Lord” (1 Peter 3:15) as original are for the very same reasons. They are both early and widely attested. You, on the other hand, say that because 1 Peter 3:15 alludes to an OT text (just like 1 Cor. 10:9 does) that the KJV is reflective of the original reading. Yet, you don’t use that same standard at 1 Cor. 10:9 (as you did with 1 Peter 3:15), else, you just argued yourself out of the KJV.

You are using two very different standards, and depending on whichever fits your (in the heat of the moment) position, is the one you’re going to go with. That’s where you are inconsistent.

"As" (pun intended) for this entire argument you are attempting to raise regarding the word "as" ("Christ as Lord") is rather insignificant to the discussion. The discussion is about the variant reading "Christ the Lord" vs. "Lord God." Whether one needs or wants to include the word "as" to help the translation flow smoother is something of no value to the disucssion.

Now let's address your last statement regarding JW's and the NWT. While the NWT does use the Westcott-Hort 1881 apparatus in their translation of 1 Peter 3:15, nowhere in their study materials do they ever cross reference this text to Isaiah 8:13-14. And that is where the burn comes in.

The NWT places the Divine Name (YHWH or Jehovah) into the body of the NT text when alluding to OT-YHWH texts. For example, Rom. 10:13 (cf. Joel 2:32). This is clearly a reference to Jesus as "Lord," as the context makes clear (v. 9), but the NWT attempts to redirect the passage's attention to the Father (who they argue, is the only one referred to as "Jehovah"). So when a JW reads Rom. 10:13, they see the name "Jehovah," and immediately think "Father."

The reason 1 Peter 3:15 comes in so handy is because for one, it is in their Bible; and they are forced to accept what it says. They cannot argue a text has been corrupted (like they will do for the entire KJV). Yet, what I often point out when engaging JW's is that this is an allusion to Isaiah 8:13-14, and Peter (following the exact same patter used of YHWH in Isaiah 8:13-14) identifies Christ as "the Lord." So now they can no longer attempt to use Isaiah 9:6 to refer to Jesus as "a mighty god" (but not the "Almighty"). And neither can they argue that 2 Peter 1:1 is the only place in the Petrine epistles that speak of Christ in this such high esteem.

 

[williamjordan]

Many English versions say “Neither” which is to introduce us to mentioned alternatives. Paul addressed and discussed with the Church of Corinth what happened in the past as an example of not following what the Israelites did. When Paul refers to the OT example he used “God” as in v. 5, now “neither” is about to address these believers not to tempt him (Christ), as in the Old Testament did tempt God.

Also, one last thing that I didn’t address. You said (regarding 1 Cor. 10:9) that, “believers not to tempt him (Christ), as in the Old Testament did tempt God.” But that is not what the text says, does it? This is not a comparison, i.e., “don’t tempt Christ like they did to God back there.”

The passage uses what’s known as an ellipsis. An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several) in order to avoid repeating the preceding clause, though the element may be recoverable (or even inferable) from what precedes it. For example, when I said in the previous sentence, “An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several),” the parenthetical comment is an ellipsis and can be taken to mean, “An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several [elements]).” The bracketed term “elements,” though originally lacking in the parenthetical clause, is being supplied or inferred from the preceding clause. Likewise, when 1 Cor. 10:9 states (v. 16), “do not test Christ as some of them did [test Christ] and were destroyed by snakes,” the referent is of Christ. The direct antecedent of “as some of them did,” is “test Christ.” You have read “God” into the text when it is nowhere inferred.

 

[williamjordan]

Not to mention that every mss you supplied in your list (even the variant readings) support the standard reading of the text, hence, why the need to adjust "Christ" to "Lord" or "God" in the first place. So in a matter of a couple paragraphs, you cited the evidence against your interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:9.

 

[williamjordan]

Also, one last thing that I didn’t address. You said (regarding 1 Cor. 10:9) that, “believers not to tempt him (Christ), as in the Old Testament did tempt God.” But that is not what the text says, does it? This is not a comparison, i.e., “don’t tempt Christ like they did to God back there.”

The passage uses what’s known as an ellipsis. An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several) in order to avoid repeating the preceding clause, though the element may be recoverable (or even inferable) from what precedes it. For example, when I said in the previous sentence, “An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several),” the parenthetical comment is an ellipsis and can be taken to mean, “An ellipsis is a clause that lacks an element (or perhaps even several [elements]).” The bracketed term “elements,” though originally lacking in the parenthetical clause, is being supplied or inferred from the preceding clause. Likewise, when 1 Cor. 10:9 states (v. 16), “do not test Christ as some of them did [test Christ] and were destroyed by snakes,” the referent is of Christ. The direct antecedent of “as some of them did,” is “test Christ.” You have read “God” into the text when it is nowhere inferred.

I made a fat finger,

1 Cor. 10:9 states (v. 16), “do not test Christ as some of them did [test Christ] and were destroyed by snakes,”

I had explained an ellipsis to someone else, and carried over some of the comments here, and in doing so forgot to take the lined out (above) portion.

 

[fredoheaven]

You were right about one thing (and only one). And I think you happen to know what that “one thing” is. I’m not getting into this whole “correcting fredohaven” thing again. There’s much bigger (and badder) things to do with my day than have to spend it correcting more inaccuracies.

Regarding 1 Cor. 10:9, you listed Κύριον amongst readings found in several mss, including Alexandrinus (A), where in fact Κύριον is not found. Alexandrinus (A) has an altogether different variant reading. Instead of “Christ” (p46) or “Lord” (B), Alexandrinus says, “God.”

You’re trying to borrow the argument I made in defense of 1 Peter 3:15 (Lexham, ESV, NASB) and use it to argue for the KJV’s rendering of 1 Cor. 10:9 (of which I happen to agree with). But for the very reason I think the KJV is wrong at 1 Peter 3:15, is the very same reason I think the KJV is right at 1 Cor. 10:9.

But now for the problem: You don’t even use the very standard which you applied at 1 Peter 3:15 to 1 Cor. 10:9. My basis for taking “Christ” (1 Cor. 10:9) and “Christ the Lord” (1 Peter 3:15) as original are for the very same reasons. They are both early and widely attested. You, on the other hand, say that because 1 Peter 3:15 alludes to an OT text (just like 1 Cor. 10:9 does) that the KJV is reflective of the original reading. Yet, you don’t use that same standard at 1 Cor. 10:9 (as you did with 1 Peter 3:15), else, you just argued yourself out of the KJV.

You are using two very different standards, and depending on whichever fits your (in the heat of the moment) position, is the one you’re going to go with. That’s where you are inconsistent.

"As" (pun intended) for this entire argument you are attempting to raise regarding the word "as" ("Christ as Lord") is rather insignificant to the discussion. The discussion is about the variant reading "Christ the Lord" vs. "Lord God." Whether one needs or wants to include the word "as" to help the translation flow smoother is something of no value to the disucssion.

Now let's address your last statement regarding JW's and the NWT. While the NWT does use the Westcott-Hort 1881 apparatus in their translation of 1 Peter 3:15, nowhere in their study materials do they ever cross reference this text to Isaiah 8:13-14. And that is where the burn comes in.

The NWT places the Divine Name (YHWH or Jehovah) into the body of the NT text when alluding to OT-YHWH texts. For example, Rom. 10:13 (cf. Joel 2:32). This is clearly a reference to Jesus as "Lord," as the context makes clear (v. 9), but the NWT attempts to redirect the passage's attention to the Father (who they argue, is the only one referred to as "Jehovah"). So when a JW reads Rom. 10:13, they see the name "Jehovah," and immediately think "Father."

The reason 1 Peter 3:15 comes in so handy is because for one, it is in their Bible; and they are forced to accept what it says. They cannot argue a text has been corrupted (like they will do for the entire KJV). Yet, what I often point out when engaging JW's is that this is an allusion to Isaiah 8:13-14, and Peter (following the exact same patter used of YHWH in Isaiah 8:13-14) identifies Christ as "the Lord." So now they can no longer attempt to use Isaiah 9:6 to refer to Jesus as "a mighty god" (but not the "Almighty"). And neither can they argue that 2 Peter 1:1 is the only place in the Petrine epistles that speak of Christ in this such high esteem.

Yep, that "A" stands for the Aleph, and for the rest seems your changing from "Christ as Lord" to Christ as the Lord" and yet a staunch JW may still insist on not having an identical value. Using KJB, you can just easily compare scriptures in Jeremiah 32:18, Psalms 50:1. Here we have the Almighty God is seen as the Mighty God whereas Jesus is the Mighty God in Isaiah.9:6 can be compared to Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 11:17 and that could be easy for me.