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!

Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Gregory Perry Sr., Oct 15, 2012.

  1. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    101
    Hey folks, to square something up here real quick: we are all aware that the Word of God in the NT is Jesus Christ, right? (John 1:1-5)

    The Bible isn't the Word of God in any sense of holding divinity. Because if we get this confused we are in big trouble. The Bible is not divine.
     
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did the KJV get it right at Romans 5:15, or did Paul not set the framework for federal mediation?
     
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. Your preference for the KJV has blinded you to the hate and lies in the article that was presented in the OP. Several of those blatant half-truths have been pointed out by others in this thread.

    You cannot "play Obama" (have I coined a new term here?) on this issue and hide behind the fact that the author "went over the top a little" or refuse to debate just because you don't want to.

    The KJV is a wonderful version. I appreciate and love my many friends and brethren that prefer it over any other version. But I cannot stomach the continual lies against W&H, slanders about other versions, and outright dishonesty that is used to supposedly prove the superiority of the KJV to other versions.

    We need to spend less time bragging about our "swords" and more time using them.
     
  4. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But not [us] but the fall of another, thus also the gracious gift.

    Was this the intended message of Paul at Romans 5:15. Have all the modern translations missed the message and thrown the baby out with the bath water?

    Apparently it is much easier to bash than to address his arguments. Why evade discussion of one of his points?
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is not the main point of the OP, not would it be the point of the BV/T forum. If you want a discussion of that, why not start another thread? It is really that simple.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yet you seem to advocate complete trust in the textual criticism work and translating work of a group of Church of England scholars in 1611 that had similar Church of England doctrinal views as those of Westcott and Hort.

    Perhaps you have been misinformed concerning Westcott and Hort by biased KJV-only sources and are uninformed concerning the doctrinal views of the KJV translators. Perhaps you should read a little about the KJV translators.

    Westcott and Hort may be sometimes associated with the doctrinal views of leading KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes.

    Gustavus Paine stated that Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), who headed the Westminster group of the Old Testament, was "the real head or chairman" of all the translators, directly under Archbishop Bancroft (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 16, 70). Donald Brake asserted that Andrewes “became the chairman of the translation committee and the most influential of the translators” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 91). Hamlin and Jones maintained that companies of translators was “all under the general supervision of Lancelot Andrewes” (KJB after 400 years, p. 7). Adam Nicolson noted that Andrewes “could be relied on to do Bancroft’s work for him” (God’s Secretaries, p. 86). Paine asserted that Andrewes "chose many other translators" (Men, p. xiii), and that he was "among the highest of the high churchmen" (p. 143). Opfell also observed that "Andrewes suggested other scholars and assisted in the preliminary arrangements" (KJB Translators, p. 27). John Mincy affirmed that Andrewes was one of the "three men who screened suggestions for prospective translators and presented them to the king" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 133). Nicolson confirmed that “Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible” (God’s Secretaries, p. 26). Pattison described Andrewes as the "most distinguished" of all the translators (History of the English Bible, p. 98). Hewison noted that "in 1616 Andrewes nearly became Archbishop of Canterbury" (Selected Wrings, p. x).

    Higham observed that the faith of men such as Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

    Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). George Fisher wrote: “The ‘Anglo-Catholic theology’--the way of thinking represented by such men as Laud and Bishop Andrewes--with its doctrine of the necessity of episcopal ordination to the exercise of the ministry in any church, its feeling of the exalted importance of the sacraments among the means of grace, and with the ritualistic spirit with which it was imbued, had been growing up since the last days of Elizabeth’s reign” (History, p. 404). The reference work Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). Ashton referred to "the more liberal theology, associated in England with the name of Lancelot Andrewes and across the North Sea with that of Arminius" (James I, p. 173). McClintock wrote: "To express his theological tenets briefly he [Andrewes] was of the school which is generally called the school of Laud" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 223). Trevor-Roper identified Andrewes as the "founding father of Laudianism" (Catholics, Anglicans, p. 243).


    Brightman observed that "in broad outline the theology which he [Andrewes] preached" is "the Creed, professed by a Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Ghost, through a ministry of apostolic succession and divine right, regenerates men in baptism, confirms them by the imposition of hands, absolves them by a second imposition of hands, in the exercise of the keys, 'the Church's act,' by which 'God ordinarily proceedeth'" (Private Devotions, p. xlvii). Trevor-Roper stated that "Andrewes pronounced the English Church to be apostolic, bishops to rule by divine right, and good works to be necessary to salvation" (Archbishop Laud, p. 31). McGrath claimed that Andrewes “declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history” (Christian Theology, p. 8). Dorman cited Andrewes as explaining the Christian faith as “one Canon given of God, two testaments, three symbols, the first four councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers therein” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 9). G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [Andrewes'] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, p. 216). Dorman suggested that in 1595 Andrewes “reinterpreted the Lambeth Articles in a more Catholic light” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 5). Andrewes' works have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.

    Dorman observed that “Andrewes advocated auricular confession” (Andrewes, p. 19). Dorman wrote: “The other sacrament that Andrewes emphasized as important in the life of a Christian is the sacrament of Penance, or Confession” (p. 128). In a sermon on John 20:23, Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147). The Dictionary of Literary Biography confirmed that "in 1600 Andrewes gave direct offense by preaching in defense of priestly absolution" (Vol. 172, p. 5). Dorman cited from his Visitation Articles where Andrewes wrote: “By the minister he [the parishioner] may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience” (Andrewes, p. 128).
     
  7. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    OK....


    Mex...I will...as graciously as I know how...acknowledge your right to disagree with me...but I do at least hope for the same courtesy. As always...in this very polarized debate... we both are adherents of different positions and interpretations of the "facts" we believe. I just don't think W & H are the "heroes of the faith" the MV crowd have them painted up to be. Fact is...you and I would both probably be willing to "fall on our own swords" defending things we can't definitively prove to ANYONE one way or another. I know most of those who frequent this part of the BB don't agree with me about my conclusions.....and frankly..even I have to admit that I'm not a skilled enough "apologist" for my position to adequately defend it. Even I wonder why I bother sometimes. I wish I had a mind like the one Logos1560 has that could "catalog" that much raw information but at my age that probably ain't gonna happen. Nonetheless, I believe I have a perfect Bible that I can trust....no thanks to guys like W & H. I will die happy one day believeing that. If by some chance I am or could be wrong,I'm sure the Lord will correct that issue at His Judgement Seat. As for any "inaccuracies" with Bro.Van Nattan's article ( I refuse to call them outright lies)..well..take it up with him. Go to his website...log into HIS blog(this link)BALAAM'S ASS SPEAKS and argue/dispute/contend/accuse to your hearts content. I'm sure he can defend himself far more ably than I can. I know of no man with whom I agree 100% including him and I don't expect everybody to agree with me. My whole point in even being here is to contribute things to the discussions that take place and to benefit from the viewpoints of others (when possible). I have no desire to engage in some form of war with those who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. If anyone in here finds me offensive that I ask for forgiveness and hope it will be extended. We all believe what we believe and are all at different stages of growth in our spiritual lives as Christ works in us to conform us into His image (Rom.8:29). The comment by one of the previous posters about this discussion being something like 'throwing a piece of raw meat into a group of hungry lions'...was an understatement! That's all I have to say at this time.:praying:

    Bro.Greg
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    is the word of God to us today the Greek/hebrew texts, or the KJV?
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJVO crowd view the Bible as Muslims do the Koran, as it is literally somehow of God and to be worshipped as being almost like God in a Book!

    The Bible is without errors/mistakes in the originals, but NOT God, nor to be worshipped as the 4th person of the Godhead!
     
  10. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    A Question for a question....


    From a purely practical standpoint I would say the KJV simply because I speak English...not Greek and Hebrew. But...there are those in today's world that speak Greek and Hebrew as well so they certainly never ceased to be "the Word of God". Some seem to almost "worship" the Greek and Hebrew as we that adhere to the KJV are accused of as well.

    My question for YOUR question (and thus the answer to yours) is...what language do YOU speak as your primary language?

    Not trying to be a smart-aleck...just practical.:thumbs:

    Bro.Greg
     
  11. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    Not semantics....

    This is not simply semantics as some would suppose, but the practical truth is...the perfect-error free "originals" (the Autographs)are no longer with us. They truly are "forever settled in heaven" because they are no longer materially present with us here on this earth. So...that being true....do we have the Word of God in perfect form IN PRINT TODAY?...or did God allow His perfect Word to be butchered, corrupted, and diluted in and by the hands of unscrupulous men from then until now? Remember that the Word of God has been under attack by Satan ever since his encounter with Eve in the Garden of Eden. That attack continues in our day and if anything is even more pitched and feverish as the end approaches. Satan knows that very Word seals his doom and he is none too happy about it. You can bet he knows every word of every version of that Book in every language it has ever been printed in and he hates every one of them. He is subject to the spoken/written Word(s) of the Creator of this universe because he, like us, is a created being. We will all bow in Jehovah's presense....some to eternal life...some to eternal damnation...by the testimony of that Word. I do reverence it because I will be measured by it. For me,because of Christ my Lord and the imputation of His righteousness, I will be measured by it in respect to reward...or the loss thereof...not judgement...since my sins were "judged" at Calvary. Amen and Amen!

    For the record...I "reverence" the Word of God...and worship the God of the Word. No printed object should ever be displayed as an object of worship...respect..yes..worship..NO!...there IS a difference. If I wanted to worship any object I'd probably be a Catholic.

    Bro.Greg:godisgood:
     
    #51 Gregory Perry Sr., Oct 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2012
  12. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    1. Truth does not require argument or defense.

    2. God deals only in truth; so should we who choose to be called by His Name.
     
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We are supposed to be discussing Bible versions, i.e the KJV, and translation, i.e. how the KJV translates Romans 5:15 differently than the modern translations. This issue was raised as a significant point in the linked article. We should discuss it, rather than go over the same ground, the KJVO crowd are mistaken, again and again. So its on topic, consistent with the forum's purpose and evasion of the topic is based not on considering others as more important than ourselves.
     
  14. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    Pa-rum-pa-pum-pum...

    Thank you Van...keep beating that drum!:thumbsup: I myself will try to contribute at some point.

    Bro.Greg:type:
     
  15. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    2
    As mentioned elsewhere, I've had DSL problems and have been off line for 2 days. Plus, have spent about 16 hours since Tuesday morn, helping improve the lot of a disabled person in our community. While NOT missing both Wed. morn & evening Bible study at church.

    So I've got some catching up to do before adding my penny or two to this thread addressing Hort & Westcott. IMO, the core of the KJB vs MV debate.

    That is, if I return to this thread.

    I fully intend to return to the original link and others, along with re-reading the well thought out replies on both sides. However, sometimes I wonder if there's any good to be gained by becoming another target? A target that gets splattered with mud by -- how to say this diplomatically -- . I won't try, I'll leave the sentence unfinished.

    The question that I'm left with this morning is this. When putting on the full armour of God, does that include engaging with individuals who seem to relish throwing stones at anyone who takes a stand for his or her beliefs?

    Rock - question salvation
    Rock - question intelligence
    Rock - accusation of idol worship
    Rock - accusation of falsehood
    Rock - belittle for less education
    Rock - pull out the semantics card
    Rock - there's more, but I've got to leave to finish that project started on Tuesday.

    Sigh...................
     
  16. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    2
    How do you think such men could uniformly corrupt all the copies of all the churches? If you don't think so, then the changes that any one man inflicted on some manuscripts should be pretty easy to discern when compared to all the rest, no?

    Oh, and beware the logical fallacy: KJV people actually must believe that God allowed "His perfect Word to be butchered, corrupted, and diluted in and by the hands of unscrupulous men" until the blessed Erasmus and after him the even more blessed Bèze came along [facetiousness mine].

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  17. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sigh... it's just too easy to start a new thread- if you want something done properly around here you have to do it yourself.:laugh:

    See http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82094
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where have those who may use an English translation other than the KJV painted Westcott and Hort as "heroes of the faith"?

    Perhaps it is the KJV-only crowd that attempts to paint the Church of England translators of the KJV as "heroes of the faith."

    KJV-only advocates seem to use unrighteous divers measures or weights [double standards] in their attempts to smear or villify Westcott and Hort and all modern translations by a guilt by association argument while they overlook or whitewash all the problems with the doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Westcott and Hort are not the core of the KJV vs MV debate. Westcott and Hort can be villifed or smeared all you may desire, and it would not provide proper evidence for a KJV-only view. Are you attempting to create a false dilemma that implies that if you do not accept KJV-onlyism you have to be associated with Westcott and Hort? At least some if not all of the Church of England translators of the KJV held similar Church of England doctrinal views as those held by Westcott and Hort.

    The text of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, of the NKJV, of the Modern KJV by Jay Green, or of the 1994 KJ21 has no association with Westcott and Hort.
     
  20. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    101
    I'm curious as to this point:

    It is often said that some of us question the intelligence of others in these debates. Point in case, I noted that those who who, admittedly, do not have skills in the original languages are at a disadvantage in this debate because they are happy to make points and accusations about the textual basis of the Scriptures without the requisite knowledge for backing up these conclusions. This is then rebuked or responded with I'm questioning someone's intelligence or such.

    In fact, even as the author of OP and the article's author have both noted, they lack training in the original languages. To say this presents a problem for their making a complete case isn't to question their intelligence, it is to point out that technical discussions about the original languages of the Scriptures requires training. If you don't have this education this doesn't make you an idiot, it simply means you're not as trained in this area.

    My point is that if someone admits that they don't have education/training in the languages and then goes on to involve themselves in a deeper discussion about the nature of the biblical text they are at somewhat of a disadvantage because of this lack of training. It isn't because they are "ignorant" or "unlearned."

    Too often we take criticism too critically.
     
Loading...