1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Effects in W/H textual criticisms

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salamander, Feb 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 6
  1. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad to hear it. It's doubtful that throwing Bibles away is accomplishing much for the Kingdom.
     
    #21 rbell, Feb 14, 2008
  2. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So , after being proud of throwing God's Holy Word in the trash -- are we supposed to ever think of you having a sound mind and reverence for Scripture ? Shame on you !
     
    #22 Rippon, Feb 14, 2008
  3. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not talk about other things, but I talked about the Word of God. Did He give His Word to these unbelievers?
     
    #23 Askjo, Feb 14, 2008
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    //Nice count, Ed, do you always keep up with those statistics?//

    I didn't see any reason to write them down at the time. It was enough that I receved great blessing to see men and children turing to the Lord with saving faith following true repentence. But it happened mostly when I had a specific pair of pasters back to back who used the NIV (we even got some NIV pew Bibles at that time to go with our KJV pew Bibles.) Since about 1969 I've been a helper at churches (and other settings like Christian movies) with the altar call.

    So I went back and computed some numbers that are probably representative of how many I've seen 'get saved' by Jesus. I know I didn't usually plant, and I usually didn't water, I saw the harvest, for to God must go Glory for the growth. I'm just watching what God does.
    I also did some new convert training like that noted below.

    //People accept the Lord in true repentence of the godly sorrow kind, or NOT at all!//

    Amen, Brother -- Preach it!!

    //We would have nothing less than the pure, undefiled, unadulterated and perfect word of God.//

    That was what I had in the NIV - but you tossed it aside in direct definace of God :( I think that might grieve the Holy Spirit.

    But I know how you feel, my copy of the New World Translation (JW Bible) came from my church. We had bought some low cost nKJV and NASB (the one my Pastor now uses) for the Youth to use (if they don't have their own).

    Consider Origen (c.185-c.254AD) of Alexandrian. People who think they take the Bible more literally than others damn Origen for saying that there is much in the Bible which can only be understood on a spiritual level.

    1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
    But the naturall man receiueth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse vnto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Back in his day, a person prosessing faith in Messiah Yeshua were trained in The Faith for two years before they were Baptized (some were martyred prior to Baptism, blowing the socks off the concept you have to do the Work of Baptism to get saved.) Origen was a Training Mentor for new Converts.

    When Origen came of age, he literally took this Scripture:

    Matt 18:89 (KJV1769 family of Editions):
    Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foote cause thee to offend, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life, halt, or maimed, then hauing two hands, or two feete, to be cast into euerlasting fire. 9 And if thine eye cause thee to offende, plucke it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, then hauing two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

    Origen had his sexual members surgically removed so he would be more interested in Serving Messiah Yeshua than chasing women. I really think Origen is condemned for being way to literal but the words used to condemn him say things like this passage from the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996):

    Like Origen, W&H have been given some bad press by some people trying to create scape goats out of Saints. Of such we are warned by the New Testment that we should not walk with them in the Way.
     
    #24 Ed Edwards, Feb 14, 2008
  5. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    My view is that if anyone wanted a substandard they can dig for that substandard until they grow teeth between their toes.

    I've known godly men to endorse many things I would throw out with the bathwater.

    Since you're refusing to answer my questions, I don't see any reason for your posting in this thread. Also, I will have to conclude that you have no arguement.

    But since you've tried to establish that it is my "zeal for a particular version", may I suggest you address the OP instead of labeling my person?

    BTW, you've done it again by placing some authority over God's word into the hands of men when God placed His authprity over His word.

    Whether you establish "sides" or not, W/H definitely added their theologies into their form of textual criticism, price said they did.

    Now, what are those effects?
     
    #25 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you wish to stick with that which is already established for confidence and familiarity, you would also throw away that which is against those two standards. Of course, unless you want to confuse people with multiple facsimilies of that which remains most familiar.

    That will go on to say that introducing another standard to familiarize the masses with must occur, but then those versions are effected by the theologies of men known as W/H, to those who make themselves known in these discussions.
     
    #26 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  7. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So after showing some one who I led to the Lord the differences between the two versions, I was left with what to do with the TNIV. Since I have no use for it due to the fact I already have the Bible, I had nothing more to do with it.

    You're judging my actions in error. I was very sorrowful that I had no use for it and wondered why people offer something so much less to people who they say they love!

    I really don't care what some one thinks of me who so rashly and oftentimes judges me they way you have.
     
    #27 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  8. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will.

    The Holy Ghost inside of me was only grieved that some would have people to hold less than all of God's word.

    I'm feeling an increase in temperature and what's this fuzzy stuff?

    Exactly why I stay with the KJB.

    So are you saying you're saddened by the ways things changed since his days?

    I thought you just said Origen told others there are some things which must be understood as spiritual?

    Maybe W/H should have followed his lead?
     
    #28 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  9. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why didn't you just ignore the posts on the TNIV, then?
     
    #29 TCGreek, Feb 14, 2008
  10. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frankly speaking, I do not understand your question. The assumptions of your question are endless.
     
    #30 TCGreek, Feb 14, 2008
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a common practice in a debate when you cannot answer the question you're faced with to answer with a question.

    Are you being illusive to the effects W/H's theologies had on their form of textual criticisms and the aftereffects upon those versions which incorporate them?
     
    #31 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  12. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the arguments and frankly speaking your attacks on the critical work of W/H doesn't hold water.

    Tell me what essential doctrines of orthodoxy have been undermined by the CT of W/H?
     
    #32 TCGreek, Feb 14, 2008
  13. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the arguements and frankly speaking, your constant illuding the questions cannot hold water.

    What "non-essential" doctrines are there?
     
    #33 Salamander, Feb 14, 2008
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The un-Biblical doctrine that the name of Satan (title: the deceiver) the Lead Devil (role) is 'Lucifer'. The Bible does not specify his name. This doctrine is based on one and only one verse: Isaiah 14:12 .
     
    #34 Ed Edwards, Feb 14, 2008
  15. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your ideal is singular and it is common knowledge that Lucifer became satan.

    I never knew any Bible Doctrine was not essential and still ask the master TCGreek which ones he considers to be essential, for what cause, and his list of non-essential doctrines.

    Since he knows-it-all, I expect him to reveal some of this elitist knowledge of his.

    The truth still remains: any version that incorporates the use of textual criticisms introduced by W/H risks the possibility of being corrupted by their theological beliefs.

    One of those corrupt ideals is that there are non-essential doctrines along with those that are only "the essential doctrines".:smilewinkgrin:
     
    #35 Salamander, Feb 16, 2008
  16. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you saying that Is 14:12 is "not the word of God"?

    It's in the Bible.
     
    #36 Salamander, Feb 16, 2008
  17. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly when did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that W & H were unbelievers?
     
    #37 rbell, Feb 16, 2008
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    //So are you saying that Is 14:12 is "not the word of God"?//

    I'm saying no such thing. Please don't tell me what I'm saying. It is disrespectful. Not that I really expect respect from somebody who doesn't respect my Bible, my copy of the inerrant Written Word of God: TNIV = Today's New International version (Zondervan, 2006).

    1 Peter 5:5 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible / Holman, 2003/ )
    [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

    I am saying that Isiaih 14:12 is the WRITTEN word of God - but you have misunderstood it and come up with a false doctrine. Two problems I rebuke in what you have done:

    1. Based a doctrine on one and only one verse.
    2. Not even bothered to read and understand the verse in YOUR OWN BIBLE.

    [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Isaiah 14:12 (KJV1769 family of Editions):[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, F76 son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]FOOTNOTES:
    F76: O Lucifer: or, O day star

    Which part of comparing the King of Babylon to the day star, morning star, Venus, or whatever are you having problems with? Which part of the figure of speech 'metaphor' are you failing to deal with? Which preposition are you finding to end your sentence with? TeeHee!     [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

    [/FONT]
     
    #38 Ed Edwards, Feb 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2008
  19. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    god did use W&H

    The god of this world used Westcott and Hort, not the God of the world to come. I highly doubt God used W&H to delete verses from our Bibles. I highly doubt God used W&H to cause the church to doubt where God's word is. I highly doubt God used W&H to take his Sons name out of the scriptures. I highly doubt God used Westcott and Hort to divide and cause confusion in His church. I highly doubt God would want his words changed in thousands of places. I highly doubt that God would use two men who had very little regard for Scriptures.

    "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

    Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: ...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.

    ”And to John Ellerton he writes: But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period. 93”

    See the full story the TRUTH about W&H

    http://www.nivexposed.faithweb.com/custom3.html

    To really see the damage they did check this out.

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

    Links provided for all the "Google" scholars:thumbs:

    Ehud, Exposing Erra and Exaulting Truth in a Truthless Generation
    John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
     
    #39 Ehud, Feb 17, 2008
  20. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh my...

    Well, if it's quoted in a website, it must be true.

    BTW, that first site you mention is a true hatchet job. Several "paraphrases" of quotes...outright lies. Most of this stuff is simply parroting the "eminent scholar," "doctor" Gail Riplinger.

    The best analogy I can use for what she did:

    I'm sure that in the course of my earthly existence, I have uttered the words:

    "I"
    "killed"
    "Billy"
    "Graham"

    If you live in Riplinger-land, you put those "quotes" together, and form an accusation.

    It may be fun, but it ain't ethical. Or scholarly.
     
    #40 rbell, Feb 17, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...