KJVO

"Westcott and Hort were...'Fathers' in the Anglican Church" (Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, chapter 30 (page 817 in the electronic edition))

"Westcott was an ordained 'priest' in the Anglican church" (ibid, Apendix A (page 1228 in the electronic edition))

"Hort "was diligently preparing for his ordination" into the Anglican priesthood." (ibid, Apendix A (page 1229 in the electronic edition))

"In the early decades of higher criticism in England the nonconformists followed the intellectual leadership of the Anglicans - Westcott, Lightfoot and Hort" (Benjamin Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, chapter 7, footnote 1 (page 194 of "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller), quoting W.R.Glover Jr's "Evangelical Nonconformity and the Higher Criticism, page 257)

Westcott and Hort are "two Anglican Churchmen" (Rev. D. Waite, Heresies of Westcott and Hort, page 1)

"these men were high up in the ANGLICAN CHURCH of their day" (ibid, page 41)

Westcott is an "Anglican scholar" (according to William Grady, Final Authority, page 273)

"B. F. Westcott was an Anglican bishop" (Rev D. Waite, Summary of Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions, section 7).

"Westcott, and Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University, and Hort - also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge - came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee" (Floyd Jones, Which Version is the Bible, page 55)

See how easy it is? Quote, author, book, page number. I could provide many, more, but I chose these ones because I assumed KJV-only authors (as all of those were) would carry more weight with you.

 

I didn't see the word "theology"in there anywhere.I don't have the electronic edition to verify. Those claime have been proved untrue,massaged ,twisted,manufactured! See how easy it is indeed.

 

Is this really your argument?? You don't see the word "theology" so you don't think it is talking about their theology?

So you are admitting that your KJVOnly authors do massage, twist, and manufacture quotes?? You just got done telling us, in spite of the proof, that Riplinger never did that.

YOu are confused it seems ...

But more to the point, why are Westcott and Hort being talked about?? They are non-issues. I don't know anyone that uses a WH text. This is a straw man, to make some accusations that don't make any difference whether they are true or not. We do not use WH.

 

Once again i agree with BrianT. I don't use the W/H text as my prefered text. That's a big reason it is a non-isssue. But I'm not KJVO b/c the position doesn't answer hard questions, dealing with its logical falacies. red hearings, and ad hominem attacks. if we are going to discuss the texts lets discuss the actual texts themselves. otherwise it is a waste of time. the people involved are unimportant. in the discussion of the texts. or maybe we ought to start a new thread called "the people around the texts"
once again:
1. how can 1611 be final if it was changed?
2. when was the TR "final" ?it went through a lot of little revisions.
3. Were the early Baptists in sin because they rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva Bible?
those are just a couple questions. there are a lot more. I use the KJV. but I've learned enough greek, and info about the texts to understand that one cannot honestly hold to the KJVO view.

 

How do you suppose one is an Anglican without believing Anglican theology?

You don't need the electronic version. I also supplied the chapter or apendix number so you could still find it in the paper edition. Also, you can download the electronic copy off the web for free.

How do you know this, if you just said you didn't verify them? If they were not Anglican, what were they? Please, demonstrate for us that Westcott were not Anglican, and that each of the quotes I provided were doctored to say something opposite. Each of those KJV-only authors said Westcott and Hort were "Anglican". Notice the word was not not "Muslim", "Baptist", "Hutterite", "Jewish" or "shaman". How can the word "Anglican" be massaged?

 

I don't interpret those items the same as you do.I don't think you fully understand the context.Perhaps your edition has been tampered with.

 

How *do* you interpret "Anglican", if not to mean "Anglican"?

I don't think you can explain that.

Yes, maybe Riplinger doctored her own quotes. Maybe she originally meant to say Hindu, but deliberately misrepresented herself to try and make it look like she thinks they were Anglican. She's so good at doctoring everyone else's quotes, maybe she couldn't stop herself.

Edit: But what of the other quotes? Are you suggesting that *all* the quotes I presented, from a variety of authors and decades, were all doctored, and all doctored in the same way???

[ January 19, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

The words have multiple meanings.Anglican is an outdated word.It could have been used to represent many things.In the originals a was in fact b and sounded like c.N was z and sounded like e.G never existed in the originals and is therefore a forgery and must be dismissed.lican on the end of the word represents the location of the author at the time of the writing unless of course it was before they were born and then it applied to the position they were standing in the first time they heard that santa claus was not real. So you see Brian{if that is your real name} Unless you have full understanding of the originals like I do you cannot possiblt expound on anything.Been a pleasure!

[ January 19, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Steve K. ]

 

I see. Rationality is no longer necessary in order to have a reasonable discussion. Just make up anything as a response. OK, how's this: you're wrong because I'm not wearing socks. I'll put on socks tomorrow, but of course that being a Monday, we will have to take into consideration that I like ice cream.

 

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that statement?

 

Steve is like so many liberals we've debated here. Post-It had long debates with many of us over abortion in which we often had to go back and re-establish word definitions. He was adept, more so than Steve even, in playing word games when trapped.

Steve is cornered because he has no facts, has no scripture, and has sided with liars like Riplinger. He has two choices now, fight or flight. He will either get less factual/objective (assuming that's possible) and more personal or else he will stop posting and rationalize that he won and has nothing else to prove.

 

This is what he did when he started posting "Prov 26:4" as his response to everything I said. It was an admission that he had no response.

 

O what a tangled web the KJV-onlyists weave!

The "perfect" KJV isn't perfect.
The "final" authority isn't final.
Spelling and punctuation "errors" aren't errors.
Therefore, their subsequent "corrections" weren't corrections.

And now we have a very confused KJV-onlyist, Steve K., claiming that "Anglican" doesn't mean Anglican. Next he'll be telling us that black is white. I'd suggest that Steve not attend any Christian Identity or Nation of Islam meetings in the next little while.

Ironically, it's the KJV-onlyists who accuse the modern version publishers and translators of being "modernist," while spouting their postmodern rhetoric from the rooftops. Remember when words actually meant something?

 

MV-NEVER'ist to Pastor Larry: "You (among
others) are the ones who doubt the word
of God."

Hummmmmmm. Brother Pastor Larry has over 4,000
posts. I've only read 1,000 or so but i've
never seen him
express any doubt of either the
written word of God or the Living Word
of God, which is Jesus.

I've seen him doubt other stuff.
For esample i suspect Brother Pastor
Larry doubts that God's hands are tied so He is
limited on ONE AND ONLY ONE English
Bible out of hundreds of English version.

Does anybody want to hear my point that
most KJVO folks use a MV? tee hee

-ed, who got kicked off a KJVO board
for DARING to post a Bible verse
from the KJV1611