The war has been won against KJVO?

Or, "Where are Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton when we need'em?"

 

Where's that guy who put the battery in the snowball when the Cowboys were in town?

 

Lacy Evans:Where's that guy who put the battery in the snowball when the Cowboys were in town?

Still trying to make Rocky's statue come to life by installing a battery...

 

I've been away from the office today until now. I must finish preparing for prayer meeting. Perhaps after church or tomorrow I can list some examples.

 

Even so, these two MSS are the basis for the MVs we have today. The critical text has been manufactured with heavy reliance on these two conflicting MSS.

Philip Mauro implied in his work, Which Version? Authorized or Revised? That Aleph was originally copied from the Received Text and that “deliberate changes were intentionally made to modify it to suit the theological disposition of the correctors.”

It is obvious that W/H’s objective was to make a text that was far removed from the Textus Receptus. Hort himself referred to the TR as “vile.”

I would conclude that a man would be quite biased against a text he thought was “vile.”

Textual historian Jakob Van Bruggen said,

Bruggen’s point is that most modern textual critics approach the textual issue not only with subjectively, but a distinct bias and foregone conclusion against the Received Text. Touch Not The Unclean Thing pg. 131

That Hort would add his own theology to the text is clear by the words of his son Arthur Hort.

In other words, what he believed was the best reading.

W/H did not hesitate to add their own conjecture even in the face of significant mss evidence.

These men had no qualms about throwing out all evidence and adding their own opinion to the text.

With these thoughts in mind, I believe that their agenda was far more than translating a Greek text. Their objective was to manufacture a text to fit their ideals and philosophies. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, preach it Pastor Bob. I had no idea that Westcott thought of the TR as "vile."

According to Webster

Vile - morally despicable or abhorrent, of little worth or account, tending to degrade, disgustingly or utterly bad.

Now that makes me want to go out and buy a modern version.

 

If that is what you wish to believe, then so be it. I however believe otherwise.

 

In what way?

You mean that the first TR was published the year prior to Luther's 99 Theses? Or that Erasmus' work was rejected by the RCC? Or that Erasmus was so virulently anti-Catholic in his writings that the RCC made up uncomplimentary names for him? Or that official RCC historians, writing under the RCC's imprimatur have described Erasmus as a "heretic from Rome" and a "thorough Protestant?

Who did?

 

Of course not! They despised it! They referred to it in their personal letters as "that vile Textus Receptus."

Except the reliable Roman Catholic historians who say he was a heretic from Rome (a term they applied to early Protestants).

Really? And where did you read that? Did Erasmus say he included the comma due to pressure from the RCC?

Sorry, just striving for accuracy.

 

This first example shows the intentional changing of the text to support the Unitarian beliefs of Dr. Vance Smith whom W/H chose to be on the revision committee. In fact, when several Anglican clergymen demanded that he be removed, the Upper House passed a resolution stating that “no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scripture.“

To that, Westcott, writing to Hort said, “I never felt more clear as to my duty. If the Company accept the dictation of Convocation, my work must end. I see no escape from the conclusion.” Life and Letters of Westcott 1:394 The Convocation backed down and Dr. Smith remained on the committee.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

1 Tim 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh , vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. (RSV)

The justification given for this change was:
“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word ‘God’ into their manuscripts, a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word , and therefore as ‘God manifest in the flesh.’” Revision Revised pg. 515

This second example shows the evolutionary beliefs of W/H resulted in a change in the text.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him , and for him: (KJV)

Col 1:16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. (RSV)

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(KJV)

1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (RSV)

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV)

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (RSV)

 

Except the reliable Roman Catholic historians who say he was a heretic from Rome (a term they applied to early Protestants). </font>[/QUOTE] What doctrine of the Roman Church did they claim Erasmus denied?

But beyond that, where in Erasmus' own writings is there evidence that he denied the RCC- its major doctrines or authority?

We know that he and Luther had heated exchanges over whether salvation was by grace alone. Is there any evidence that Erasmus changed on this, the most important, of all doctrinal errors in the RCC?

 

Skan, I appreciate your references. They are helpful and impressive... but not conclusive.

I am far more interested in the writings of Erasmus himself.

Erasmus certainly had a great role in the reformation- whether intentional or not. He was certainly despised by Catholics for exposing clergy/church abuses.

But where is the proof behind the charges leveled above. Did Erasmus simply question beliefs and thus offended churchmen not used to a critical approach? Suggesting that Erasmus had serious doubts is not the same as proving he rejected a doctrine. Is there evidence from his writings (in his own words) that he rejected one or more of the RCC's peculiar beliefs?

You may not have these resources. I am not being antagonistic at this point. It would be great if someone posted his refutations of RCC doctrine. I have seen excerpts from his exchanges with Luther. They showed no sign that he accepted salvation by grace through faith alone- to the contrary.

It would be a blessing to discover that someone as valuable as Erasmus to modern Christians had become a genuine believer.

 

If Westcott and Hort were unbelievers, what do you think why they call the TR "vile"? Possible?

 

How do you know they were unbelievers?

They were certainly "unbelievers" in your KJVO/TRO myth... is that really a good enough reason for you to question their salvation though?

 

I researched on them and learned they were unbelievers and are in hell right now. I did not question them concerning their salvation, but their testimony showed that they are unbelievers.