Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

The fact the author doesn't comprehend this fundamentally basic translation concept demonstrates his utter lack of qualification to offer any level of commentary on the matter. He lacks the basic education, formal or informal, to tackle this kind of issue.

If you are doing more seed-spitting than fruit-eating, methinks you need to find another watermelon. Reading the preface alone lets me know we need a different watermelon. The author is sorely unqualified to offer any kind of critical evaluation here. His opening arguments alone are sufficient to warn off anyone seeking a legitimate discussion of the issues at hand.

Concur. Again, if you aren't even remotely qualified to offer an opinion, you probably should exercise great care when trying to publish one.

I am saddened to read these words. You seem more concerned with supporting your position rather than actually interacting with any honesty on the matter at hand. How terribly sad. You really don't have the right to get upset when you post what proves to be a very poor article that others immediately recognize as woefully inadequate.

 

I would rephrase your comment, but I support its underlying principle.

Incidentally, since it contributes to the issue and serves to build off the quoted comment, can anyone identify any contemporary scholars [trained in textual criticism of the original languages] who support the KJVO position? I'm not implying they aren't out there, I simply don't know of any and never really went looking for them.

 

You need to apply that to a Bible version which you endorse 100%.

In that the KJV was revised by mere men there were bound to be imperfections within the text.

 

Your thought-line is disgraceful. Based on the "evidence" from that unoriginal author you dare to call Westcott and Hort heretics. May you have the capacity to be shamed.

You constantly maintain that the KJV is perfect and in no need of improvement. Of course it can be corrected;as any mere translation is in need of correction.

You have to come to the understanding that the Word of God is not the KJV alone. The NIV and many other Bible translations are also the Word of God.

May the Lord grant you the humility to recognize that the source you cite so confidently is filled with error.

 

It is the KJV-only theory that implies that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek New Testament text had errors that are dependent upon an exclusive group of Church of England scholars to straighten out and upon later KJV editors to straighten out the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Would not the KJV-only view imply that the pre-1611 English Bibles had errors and imperfections that were dependent upon an exclusive group of Church of England scholars to straighten out?

How can you seem to suggest that a final authority was established in 1611 when the final authority clearly existed before 1611?

 

If we set aside that the author thinks modern scholarship stabbed God's Word in the back, and that many posters today say the author is too laughable to listen to, lets consider what he said.

Romans 5:15 reads: "But not as the offense, so also [is] the free gift" in the KJV, but most modern translations read: "But the free gift is not like the offense." The author then takes the obscure wording and tells us it means just as we suffered from the offense of another, we also benefit from the grace of another. And therefore the "federal mediation doctrine" taught in the passage is obliterated by the modern translations.

I do not have an opinion yet on whether the KJV did most accurately capture Paul's idea, but even if this idea is assumed to be correct, could not a modern translation advocate find a verse where the modern translation does more justice to the message than the KJV? Of course. Therefore to point to several verses where the KJV hits the mark, does not demonstrate that the other translations do not do a better job of presenting the whole word of God.

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

Forgot to add Moses and Paul!

And that the reformers preferred the Geneva bible!

 

It is foolishness to present half-truths, which are in effect whole lies, and NOT to expect people who are supposed to LOVE TRUTH to criticize it.

It is even sadder to see a brother in Christ have the attitude that the lies really don't matter.

I was around when this issue rose it's ugly head back in the 1970's when Ruckman and company brought it up and I was sure that it would do no good even back then. It has done nothing but split churches, fellowships , missions organizations and cause missionaries to lose support over something that is a NON-ISSUE for 95% of the people in the world that DO NOT READ English.

The sooner "KJVO" dies the better off Christendom will be.

 

Kind of like throwing a piece of raw meat into the middle of a large pen with hungry lions - it's called "baiting"...

My opinion: If you are going to start a debate (or fight), you need to be ready to be a part of it.

 

If we set aside that the author thinks modern scholarship stabbed God's Word in the back, and that many posters today say the author is too laughable to listen to, lets consider what he said.

Romans 5:15 reads: "But not as the offense, so also [is] the free gift" in the KJV, but most modern translations read: "But the free gift is not like the offense." The author then takes the obscure wording and tells us it means just as we suffered from the offense of another, we also benefit from the grace of another. And therefore the "federal mediation doctrine" taught in the passage is obliterated by the modern translations.

I do not have an opinion yet on whether the KJV did most accurately capture Paul's idea, but even if this idea is assumed to be correct, could not a modern translation advocate find a verse where the modern translation does more justice to the message than the KJV? Of course. Therefore to point to several verses where the KJV hits the mark, does not demonstrate that the other translations do not do a better job of presenting the whole word of God.

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

How would you characterize this statement from the article?:


Rupert Murdoch also owns the NIV. How long will it be before the NIV comes with a centerfold playgirl after Malachi?

 

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

Pretty much all the modern translations point to the difference between the two, rather than the similarity claimed to be found in the KJV, and also translated literally in YLT, Darby, and a few other old translations.

 

From the author's web site:

Fenton John Anthony Hort, co-translator of the Greek Bible to English with Brooke Foss Westcott, was a very wicked man given to strong drink, the occult, and was very fond of the Eastern Roman Cathoic Church forms and rituals. You can learn how wicked the man was reading this biography written by his son online.

LIFE AND LETTERS OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT- Vol. 1
http://archive.org/stream/lifeandlettersf02hortgoog#page/n3/mode/2up

LIFE AND LETTERS OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT- Vol. 2
http://archive.org/details/lifeandlettersf01hortgoog

OK, I went to the biographies written by his son. They are available in their entirety thanks to Google Books. There is a search feature. In the search box I plugged in "wine", "beer", "liquor", "drunk", "imbibe", "intoxicated", "scotch", "whiskey" No matches for any of the words except wine, which was referenced in regards to Holy Communion.

Next I tried "occult", "ritual", "rite". No matches were found.

So apparently the author is a liar.

 

Having now read it, I am more disgusted by the flowing borderline hate in the "article". Of course, using the NIV, the best selling and one of the more Liberal translations isn't necessarily a "fair understanding" of the issue. And his statement of adding a centerfold girl between the OT and NT was way out of line (Rupert Murdoch has what connection to anything related to centerfolds? He is a media mogul via his NewsCorp organization, and they own Zondervan).

And as has been pointed out by others - his "evidence" from 'standard bearers" falls well short. Indeed - this man's "defense" of the King James Authorized Version falls well short - many much better defenses have been made-

 

When you don't have a good argument...ad hominem ad infinitum.

If you can't argue the facts you sure can confuse the issues.