Westcott & Hort

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Westcott & Hort (RV) & Genesis -

    I am going to try to post the letter written by Westcott. I will also post the source for this
    letter, so that if it does not post right, others can still view it.

    in which he makes it quite clear that 1) he did not take Genesis Literally and He did not think others would...


    Notice on pp 69, how he states that no one who
    Critically examined the first 3 chapters of Genesis would take them literally.

    If this is what this Westcott believed about the Genesis, then what are the implications for the Fall of Man, and the Sin Nature, and the Need for Jesus Christ as A Redeemer and Savior ??? The Fall of Man is in the First Three Chapters of GENESIS.


    Surfer
     
  2. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Westcott & Hort (RV) & Genesis -

    Here is the letter written by Westcott in which he makes it quite clear that 1) he did not take Genesis Literally and He did not think others would...

    SCROLL DOWN TO THE SECOND HALF

    It may take some time to load

    [​IMG]


    -
     
  3. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    [If it does not post, the source is at: www.geocities.com/churchill333/Westcott1JPG.jpg]


    Sorry that the image is so big. But it does make the point...that Westcott rejected the message of the Bible though he translated it (or claimed he did...)

    The following letter was written by Westcott,
    One of the 2 main translators of the RSV, whose
    Greek Text also serves as the basis
    For the NASB, the NKJV and the NIV.

    Notice on pp 69, how he states that no one who
    Critically examined the first 3 chapters of Genesis
    would take them literally. If this is what this
    Westcott believed about the Genesis, then what
    are the implications for the Fall of Man, and the
    Sin Nature, and the Need for Jesus Christ as
    A Redeemer and Savior ??? The Fall of Man is
    in the First Three Chapters of GENESIS.


    That is the reason why Jesus came to save us


    ------
    What was going on ? Westcott says that he never could understand how anyone could Genesis literally, but having said that - he also states that those chapters disclose to
    us "A" gospel...and then says "so it is probably elsewhere".

    What was he talking about ?

    Remember that Westcott & Hort were trained in Textual Criticism. The goal of this anti-God philosophy [which has a scientific sounding name: "textual criticism"] was to re-write the Bible in every way possible, to prevent people from putting their faith in it. 99% of those who taught Textual Criticism were not Christian, including Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf, and Griesbach.


    If all of this sounds impossible, it won't once you investigate the lives of the translators.

    In order to understand translations, you have to know the background of the purpose of the Revisions. THey were done because the Textual Critics determined - a priori - that the KJV and the Textus Receptus HAD to be a false text. In other words, they began by rejecting the Bible that had been used by Christians for 2000 years. Then, they began to try to find other texts to justify their research.

    Look into the lives of those who started the field of Textual Criticism, and see what they believed about Jesus, and about the Bible, and about Christianity.
    Names of Textual Critics
    - Bengel
    - Semler
    - Wettstein
    - Griesbach
    - DeWette
    - Lachman
    - Tischendorf
    - Westcott
    - Hort

    These were anti-Protestant, anti-Reformation "scholars". Most of them acquired their reputations by attacking the Bible that so many of us revere. And the claim that these men loved God, or knew him personally, is hardly a claim that most of them made themselves. More often, these claims are made today by those who try to excuse the work of the bible-attackers (textual critics).


    Most of these men hated God, never made a profession of faith, and spent their entire lives in the pursuit of religion, but rejecting God, the Bible and the personal message of salvation by Faith alone through Christ Jesus (and for the record, they were protestants officially, but subverters actually).


    Westcott believed that within the Bible there were several texts that were overlapped...according to Him, those texts were transposed wrong, and the real Bible had been lost.

    [This is not something that 1) they ever proved and 2) it flat out disagrees with the Thousands of Greek Manuscripts of the Bible that we have recovered...but that did not interest Westcott & Hort.]
    For example, Christians believe that God in the Old Testament has several names including Jehovah and Elohim. But Textual critics said that the separate names had to be different Gods and not the same one. From that premise, the texts of Jehovah had somehow become mixed in with the texts of Elohim and the texts of El-Shaddai, etc.

    Therefore textual critics took the Bible appart verse by verse, offering instead their own unscientific analysis of the text. They ASSERTED that the Bible Manuscripts had to have been changed, because they asserted this to be true.

    In actual fact, these men simply hated God, and Jesus Christ and the Reformation.

    But Westcott & Hort lived in the 1800s, and this discovery had not yet been made. As a result, they led the charge against the King James Version and the Greek text it relies on
    the Textus Receptus.

    The Textual Critics (Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf & others)thought that they had won. But their victory was very premature.

    Westcott & Hort believed that the Bible used today contained portions of a "real" Bible authored by the followers of Jesus. But they themselves could not state which portions of the Bible were the true ones, and which ones were the false.

    What they actually did was use already corrupted manuscripts
    that disagree with the Textus Receptus (the historical Bible in Greek) and 95% of the Bible Manuscripts that exist.

    Their false version of the Bible (in Greek and English) continues to be used in the production of the Modern Versions of the Bible.


    The Source for this letter, is Life & Letters of Westcott.
     
  4. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets try this again.

    http://www.geocities.com/churchillfive/Page15.html

    Ok, it does appear to be working. This is a letter by Westcott which is at the Bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 (That is why you will see the pages #s).

    Now, at least it can be read a bit more clearly than before...


    [​IMG]
     
  6. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the post(s) Surfer5. I have posted before about Westcott & Hort from the following website http://jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm, but the modernist say that these quotes are wrong and that this website is a bad source. The quote from the letter is also on the website. Plus there are a number of other quotes from these men that proves to me that maybe they had another motive than getting the word of God out.

    HomeBound
     
  7. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homebound,

    I only wish you were wrong, but I have not found this to be the case yet. I also would like to be able to believe in the integrity of Westcott & Hort, though research did not lead me in that direction.

    One of the things that is not being addressed is the public side of W & H versus the private side of W & H. Many of their friends wrote biographies and articles, and how MV advocates represent W & H, and how the friends of W & H represent them, are not the same. One side [MV Advocates] or the other [friends of W & H] is missing the full picture.

    Keep up the good work.

    Surfer
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys keep talking abouat people who are irrelevant. Westcott and Hort, whatever they believed, did not make these readings up. They altered no readings whatsoever. They dealt with the evidence that was before them. It does not take a saved person to judge between readings. Anyone who can read Greek can do that. You are wasting your time chasing men who nobody cares about. The WH text is not used today for anything except historical reference. No modern translation is translated from the WH text.

    So in teh end, your whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the issues of texts and translations. It is a lame attempt to slander God's word and it is used because every other tactic (i.e., actually talking about God's word) has been shown to be wrong.

    I don't know either of their spiritual states and if someone says they do, they are lying. We simply do not know. But it doesn't not matter one bit in this discussion. Get past it and talk about relevant issues.
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    This quote does not mean he disbelieves the creation account, only that a strictly literal interpretation is not what he thinks should be employed (for the first few chapters are in poetical form in the Hebrew). There are many Christians who don't take a strictly literal view the creation account (I woudl suspect the KJV translators, also being Anglican, held similar views as Westcott on this issue). He still believes the truths of Genesis (God the creator, etc.), as evidenced by the following quote:

     
  10. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well know you see the problem ? Whether it is this westcott or that westcott, He says he does not take the 3 chapters of Genesis litterally. You say that this only applies to creation, but I have not found anywhere where he states that he believes in Original Sin or in the falleness of man.

    So you suggest that the quote applies only to creation but the quote itself takes about the First THree Chapters of Genesis. That includes the Spiritual Fall of Man into Sin.

    If WEstcott says he does not believe in the first 3 chapters of Genesis, that would mean the entire content of those 3 chapters. You cannot pick and chose how you wish to qualify the statement that is by Westcott's choice of what to say, itself not qualified.

    I think that this statement of Westcott is in context. And I think the conclusion is clear: Westcott rejected Original Sin and the Fall of Mankind.
     
  11. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    ummmmmm...I wish that were true. The Nestle-Aland Text is the Greek Text of Nestle. Now Nestle on Page 1 of his Greek Translation lists 2 sources for his Greek Version:

    1. Westcott & Hort, and

    2. Tischendorf


    Seems as though there may be relevance about Westcott & Hort, and their Greek text - after all.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will provide quotes later this evening if you want them.

    I'm just trying to balance it all. Obviously Westcott *DOES* believe in the first three chapters of Genesis, he just did not believe the were a "literal history". You are trying to read way too much into that quote, especially when Westcott said things like what I quoteed above.

    Read the quote again: it is about "literal history". It is not about doctrinal stances on original sin or the fall of man. Again, you're reading way too much into those few words. I will provide quotes specifically addressing original sin and the fall of man later this evening if you want.
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]You have one problem with one verse contradicting Westcott's faith and Genesis. Look at this verse:

    John 5:47 "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I don't. Westcott didn't disbelieve Genesis, he disbelieved in a specific *interpretation*. John 5:47 doesn't say "But if ye believe not his writings are always entirely historically literal in every detail, how shall ye believe my words?", at least not in my version - how about yours?
     
  15. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, when you can - in the next few days - I would have a great interest in seeing those...

    Surfer5

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I don't. Westcott didn't disbelieve Genesis, he disbelieved in a specific *interpretation*. John 5:47 doesn't say "But if ye believe not his writings are always entirely historically literal in every detail, how shall ye believe my words?", at least not in my version - how about yours? </font>[/QUOTE]The Word of God is intact because Proverbs 30:6 said, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I don't. Westcott didn't disbelieve Genesis, he disbelieved in a specific *interpretation*. John 5:47 doesn't say "But if ye believe not his writings are always entirely historically literal in every detail, how shall ye believe my words?", at least not in my version - how about yours? </font>[/QUOTE]The Word of God is intact because Proverbs 30:6 said, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. So don't add to the words. The verse doesn't say But if ye believe not his writings are always entirely historically literal in every detail, how shall ye believe my words?" even though you are trying to imply it does.
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you need to keep your mouth shut about the KJB translators;the Bible they produced is what I am concerned over.
     
  19. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Then you need to keep your mouth shut about the KJB translators;the Bible they produced is what I am concerned over. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, blessed be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love.......
     
  20. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    This statement was directed to the people mentioned in John 5:16.
     

Share This Page

Loading...