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!

Westcott and Hort Onlyism

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Alex Mullins, Nov 5, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 2
  1. Alex Mullins

    Alex Mullins New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a believer that the KJV is God's preserved word for me in the English language today I am currently involved in a study to obtain a clearer vision as to where these modern versions are coming from.

    Notwithstanding the fact that printing technology has advanced to the point where almost anyone can come up with a newer, easier-to-read version, on demand, so to speak, there seems to a new Bible rolling off the presses at the rate of one every six months.

    Well intentioned believers, in their haste to get the lastest "version", will shell out hundreds of dollars to get their hands on the new leather bound, finger indexed, red-letter edition.

    It is my understanding that none of these new versions are derivatives of the Textus Receptus manuscripts (Byzantine) but rather are based, along with most of the modern versions on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

    As near as I can determine, Westcott and Hort, both, brilliant scholars in England during the mid 1800's, ordained ministers in the Church of England, authors of the Wescott and Hort Greek text, were largely responsible for the modern movement to revise the English Bible.

    Their efforts were responsible for the dethroning of the beloved Textus Receptus, at least in the minds of the upon which the 1611 Authorized Version and the three subsequent revisions to the KJV were based.

    My question is two-fold:

    Question # 1. On the basis of the written eveidence, can anyone tell me if these two men were professing, born-again believers?

    There appears to be precious little evidence to indicate they were.

    Westcott is on the record as "overwhelmingly rejecting the infallibility of the Bible". As members of the Church of England, they both openly denied the Deity of Christ. As brilliant scholars, they are also on record as making many "fuzzy" doctrinal statements about Jesus Christ.

    They both praised the work of evolutionists, socialists and modernists of the day, while criticizing evengelists such as D.L. Moody and the soul-winning Methodists.

    Arthur Hort often had often stated that he used his father's method of "right reading" which was to settle any questions by the light of his own inner consciousness". Never a mention about being guided by the Holy Spirit.

    Their seems to be little or no evidence that either had ever trusted Christ as Personal Saviour.

    Question # 2. Given the recorded evidence, how is it that there opinions have now become the majority opinion in Seminaries and Bible colleges everywhere? The KJV, once the only Bible, is now almost hated and discarded by these same schools of learning and therefore, by their graduates. Have they been given a different description of the theology of these two men?

    Bible believing Christians are flocking to the modern versions which weaken the basic doctrines of our faith in so many ways. Even cults brag about having Bible translations based on the Wescott and Hort theory.

    Yet, there seems to be limited support from fundamentalists, as to the qualifications of wescott and Hort to properly translate the old manuscripts.

    Can anyone give this lowly salesman a reason as to why there is such a difference of opinion over the lifestyles and theology of these two men?

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks and God Bless

    Alex
     
    #1 Alex Mullins, Nov 5, 2002
  2. kman

    kman New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about the NKJV?

    That's one reason I read it because the New Testament is based upon the TR/Byzantine tradition. Also has great footnotes.

    -kman

    [ November 05, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: kman ]
     
    #2 kman, Nov 5, 2002
  3. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are still Bibles being produced off the TR line. The LITV is even more faithful to the TR than the KJV is. The KJV21, MKJV and Third Millennium Bible are other recent TR-based Bibles that come to mind. I'm sure there are others.

    Also, I am aware of *very* few Bibles that are "based" of the Alexandrian manuscripts. Many Bibles take the Alexandrian manuscripts into account, but *in addition* to all the other manuscript evidence. It is certainly not an "either-or" situation.

    Yes, they were. I will post some quotes later, when I get home to my library. I have several of their books, and I assure you they were believers.

    Quote and context?

    Pure hogwash. Quote and context. BTW, the KJV translators were also members of the Church of England.

    Quotes and context. Without quotes and context, such statements are simply slander and should not be allowed on this forum.

    What recorded evidence? And also, the "majority opinion" is that W/H's work was very valuable, but wrong in some respects.

    The KJV was never the only Bible. If it was, there was no Bible before 1611. And since 1611 and before 1881, there have been *dozens* of other Bible produced.

    Please document one school or graduate who almost hates the KJV.

    Yes, one that is based on their own writings, not on KJV-O propaganda.

    Basic doctrines are not weakened. In fact they are often strengthened.

    Guilty by association, eh? ;) Why do the Mormons use the KJV for the OT and NT, and not the NIV? Why were JWs founded on the KJV? Why was Koresh using the KJV and not another Bible?

    Because those who feel that modern versions are a threat to the KJV have resorted to misrepresentation of them, as a tactic to cast doubt on "modern versions".

    [ November 05, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
    #3 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  4. Alex Mullins

    Alex Mullins New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    K-Man:

    All of the modern versions, including the NKJV are based on the Codex vaticanus, Siniaticus Alexandrian manuscripts.

    The only version we have in English today that is uniquely derived from the Textus Receptus is the King James Version.

    It has been revised/updated three times since 1611.

    All of the modern versions (Catholic Bible included) agree against the KJ in the same places. They are complete re-writes, translated from different, corrupt manuscripts. The differences are far greater than a few "thees" and "thous" being replaced.

    Please understand that this topic is not worthy of wasting a lot of time as satan would have you do. It has nothing to do with your salvation. It should never have a negative effect on your fellowship with other believers, but it will, if you push it.

    It has everything to do with truth. That is what the modern version have deorived us of. In the place of truth they have delivered deception and confusion.

    It is certainly worth checking out. Just don't throw out your trusty KJV.

    May the Holy spirit lead you as you search for truth.

    Alex
     
    #4 Alex Mullins, Nov 5, 2002
  5. neal4christ

    neal4christ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alex,

    Could you show me one place where a translation in the NKJV is based on the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus?

    Thanks,
    Neal
     
    #5 neal4christ, Nov 5, 2002
  6. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true, the NKJV follows the Textus Receptus, and leaves information about textual variants in the footnotes. Other MV's, such as the MKJV, also use the TR as their basis.

    A quick way to check a translation's textual basis is by looking at Rev 22:19. The TR reads "Book of Life", but the Majority Text and Critical Text (and every surviving manuscript) read "tree of life". If a translation would part from the TR on any verse, this would surely be one of them. The NKJV and several other MV's render this as "Book of Life" just like the King James.

    Eric

    [ November 05, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
    #6 eric_b, Nov 5, 2002
  7. Alex Mullins

    Alex Mullins New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian:

    There have been many books which have documented the works of Wescott and Hort. They are ovbiously very special to you and I apologize for breaking your bubble.

    Read The Heresies of Westcott and Hort by Rev D.A Waite.

    Also, the preserved Word has been around since Holy men of old were inspired to put it on papyrus. It survived the Catholic Church, the likes of Wescottt and Hort, was and is the "only" Bible to thousands from 1611 to the present day, and will be until He returns. I have a copy today and you can too.

    God did not write 200 Bibles. It makes no sense.

    I know of no one who would make the claim of any of the modern versions being the pure, perfectly preserved word. I know of many who are offended at the possibility of it, though I admit, I do not understand why it is so hard to believe that the God who breathed us into existence could preserve his word so that we could know, with assurance, that we have it.

    When I think of all the ruckus, confusion and sore feelings this issue has caused, since the Garden of Eden, it confirms my belief that Saten indeed is the author of confusion.

    God Bless you as you struggle to find the truth.

    Alex
     
    #7 Alex Mullins, Nov 5, 2002
  8. Alex Mullins

    Alex Mullins New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian:

    There have been many books which have documented the works of Wescott and Hort. They are ovbiously very special to you and I apologize for breaking your bubble.

    Read The Heresies of Westcott and Hort by Rev D.A Waite.

    Also, the preserved Word has been around since Holy men of old were inspired to put it on papyrus. It survived the Catholic Church, the likes of Wescottt and Hort, was and is the "only" Bible to thousands from 1611 to the present day, and will be until He returns. I have a copy today and you can too.

    God did not write 200 Bibles. It makes no sense.

    I know of no one who would make the claim of any of the modern versions being the pure, perfectly preserved word. I know of many who are offended at the possibility of it, though I admit, I do not understand why it is so hard to believe that the God who breathed us into existence could preserve his word so that we could know, with assurance, that we have it.

    When I think of all the ruckus, confusion and sore feelings this issue has caused, since the Garden of Eden, it confirms my belief that Saten indeed is the author of confusion.

    God Bless you as you struggle to find the truth.

    Alex
     
    #8 Alex Mullins, Nov 5, 2002
  9. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is asking you to provide quotes in context breaking my bubble?

    I have. I own it. In fact, I'm working on project which shows Waite's booklet has almost everything out of context, and/or ignores where they plainly stated the opposite or where the KJV-translators had a similar view.

    Waite himself lists in the appendix of one of his books all the English Bibles. The KJV was 17th. That makes more sense, I guess.

    Because to do so is to deny it happened prior to 1611. If there was a perfectly preserved Bible in 1605, the KJV should not have been produced, and/or is wrong for being different from it.

    Yes, more out-of-context appeals to scripture. [​IMG] If you had a 1611 reprint, you would see this. [​IMG]

    [ November 05, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
    #9 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    BrianT:
    Guilty by association, eh? Why do the
    Mormons use the KJV for the OT and NT, and not
    the NIV? Why were JWs founded on the KJV? Why
    was Koresh using the KJV and not another Bible?
    --------------------------------------------------

    Maybe because even a cult knows how powerful the Word of God is. The King James that is.
     
    #10 RaptureReady, Nov 5, 2002
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    On the basis of the written evidence, can you tell us whether Erasmus was a professing, born-again believer? How about Archbishops Bancroft and Andrewes who were in charge of the KJV translation effort? In the case of the last two, their persecution of Baptists, Puritans, and others strongly testify against them. Also, Andrewes preached that the Eucharist was both sacrament (Protestant) and sacrifice (Catholic).

    Ditto.

    How is it that the TR, the creation of a RCC scholar under the Pope's endorsement, became the text of the Reformers? Did they not know that Erasmus rejected efforts by Protestants to draw him away from RCC heresies? Did they not know that he affirmed the papacy and most of the false doctrines of the RCC?

    ... and the largest, richest non-Catholic cult- the Mormons- is KJVO and gives them away on TV.

    Likewise a problem for KJVO's concerning Erasmus and the Anglican translators of the KJV.

    It is not an all or nothing proposition. We can disagree with their theology yet critically look at and accept their scholarship. W and H came up with a scientific way to look at the mss evidence. As I understand it, their particular assumptions aren't even used any more.

    Is there a current translation based on the WH text? None that I am aware of.

    If sound doctrine were prerequisite for sound textual scholarship then we would have to reject the TR as well.
    Alex, having dealt with you before I must ask, are you sincerely looking for help or are you trying to be sneaky and oblique with your antagonism?
     
    #11 Scott J, Nov 5, 2002
  12. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish you guys would figure out if bringing cults into the debate helps or hurts KJV-onlysim. ;)
     
    #12 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have. I own it. In fact, I'm working on project which shows Waite's booklet has almost everything out of context, and/or ignores where they plainly stated the opposite or where the KJV-translators had a similar view.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Brian, Are you saying that this icon of KJVOnlyism might be treating the facts dishonestly?

    You're shameless. ;) :rolleyes: [​IMG]

    [ November 05, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
    #13 Scott J, Nov 5, 2002
  14. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Sometimes I wonder if one can be an icon of KJV-onlyism otherwise. ;)
     
    #14 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  15. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have one question. What does a KJV Onlyist believe, according to the people who say it? And yes this is a serious question.
     
    #15 RaptureReady, Nov 5, 2002
  16. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    That the text of the KJV is perfect, and that only the KJV is the word of God. There are variations, such as those who add "in English". Basically, it is the view that any difference from the KJV is a corruption of the scripture.
     
    #16 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  17. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, thanks. If I said, I believe that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God in the English speaking language and all other versions contain the Word of God, but is not perfect, were would that place me?
     
    #17 RaptureReady, Nov 5, 2002
  18. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you believe only the KJV *is* the word of God (not just "contains") in English, then I personally would consider you KJV-only.
     
    #18 BrianT, Nov 5, 2002
  19. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it is the final authority in all faith and practice. I guess I am guilty.
     
    #19 RaptureReady, Nov 5, 2002
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homebound, I need to point out a truth out for you. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I will be quick.

    God promised perfect preservation of his word in Psalm 12:6-7. I believe that the God who created the earth and breathed life into man is able to keep his word pure.

    The KJV has been revised 14 times. Therefore, it cannot be the word of God. Anything that changes that often must be under confusion.

    The NKJV is the word of God. God foresaw that most of the world would know english. The NKJV has been an untouched translation for over 20 years.

    So, according to promises God made, the biblical position is to be NKJVO. The KJV was a part of the bigger picture.
     
    #20 Daniel David, Nov 6, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2
Loading...