Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

Preachinjesus, thank you for accepting the challenge. And for putting some meat on the bones of your position. IMO, far too often, people simply put forth what they've heard others say and have nothing more than that to backup their viewpoints. The old 80/20 rule comes to mind. Perhaps with things Baptists (in general) tend to discuss it's more like 90/10. That makes it much more difficult to get to the truth when we have to walk through the crowds, if you know what I mean.

While, I probably won't buy the book you referenced, I do want to spend some time with the links you've provided. As I mentioned earlier, what I'd seen on his sexual orientation was written well after his death. And, apparently in the time frame of the turmoil that you wrote about. Thus I need to weigh your links against that. And, the end result may indeed be that you'll change my mind.

Wish I had time to do that today. But, I've already committed to continue work on the project previously mentioned. Another but.... that doesn't mean that I'm going to make excuses, as I intend to follow through on what I've said. It just may be a while before I can do just that.

Again, thank you for a well thought out and respectful reply to a layman seeking the truth. That's greatly appreciated on several different levels.

 

IMO, you've made a good point. In trying to work through this issue, there's far too much "muddled conversation" that gives too much importance in relatively insignificant issues. (Not that King James is insignificant.) Verbal fights over upper/lower case Spirit/spirit is an example. Another is batting each other over the head regarding the first printing of the AV. Especially, when it's quite apparent that a MV proponant is deliberately baiting another person by "misunderstanding" the other's choice of words.

On to Westcott and Hort. I respectfully disagree. As translators of the Holy Scriptures, their lives are an issue, IMO. It's right beside translators indepth, fluent, knowledge of both languages involved. I believe that only true born again members of the body of Christ should be responsible for the translation of God's word. Or, at a minimum, the majority with the authority to override any members of the team who may have a questionable profession of faith.

The Joy of Cooking cookbook is a standard and is highly rated. As I like to cook, I was given a copy of the 75th anniversary edition. If this book were to be translated into Spanish, for example, should the translators be practicing vegans? (I realize this is a simplistic example.) How much would their views on avoiding any animal based foods influence the finished product? Wouldn't their normal bias inject a negative influence where direct word for word translation isn't possible. Either through omitting objectionable recipes and adding footnotes that cast doubt on the validity of the book. Or, substituting, where opportunity presents itself, more vegetable based instructions.

When I read the Bible, I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. And I presume others in the body of Christ do, as well. Shouldn't I expect that those translating God's word do the same? Would I expect translators involved in worldly activities, condemmed by the body of Christ, to render a faithful translation of the scriptures?

Search at BibleGateway.com - sodomite
KJB: Deut 23: 17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Total 5 instances of sodomite

NIV 1984: 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

NLT: 17 “No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Holman: 17 “No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Message: 17-18 No daughter of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute; and no son of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute. And don’t bring the fee of a sacred whore or the earnings of a priest-pimp to the house of God, your God, to pay for any vow—they are both an abomination to God, your God. Zero instances of sodomite

NKJB: shall be no ritual harlot[a] of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. Footnote: qadesh, that is, one practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals. Two instances of sodomite. The other is 1 Tim 1:10

In your response to this, please reference the specific manuscripts used by the translators, so as to know the exact applicable word to be translated into English.

That's all I have time to address this morning as I've got to leave in a few minutes. Hope this is enough to continue the conversation.

 

Take a look at the most relevant verse in the New Testament regarding homosexuality and tell me which translation gives the clearest condemnation:

1 Cor 6:9 [KJV]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? What does that mean?


1 Cor 6:9 [NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


1 Cor 6:9 [NKJV]
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

 

KJVO's want to argue the KJV against everything else instead of the KJV against it's own source texts.

 

Not to pile on but...from Adam Nicolson's book God's Secretaries;

"He [King James] became chronically vulnerable to the allure of beautiful,elegant,rather Frenchified men..." page 7

"...the ridiculous aspects of James;his extravagance,his vanity,his physical ugliness,his weakness for beautiful boys,his self-inflation,his self-congratulatory argumentativeness." pages 60 and 61.

 

Some snips from an article discussing this phrase. Someone with expertise can check/challenge this far better than I can. And in comparing usage in the various versions of the bible, a true comparison would also include observations of which manuscripts had what. All use the same Greek source word?

For the KJB and homosexuality could/would placing focus on the word "effeminate" better illustrate same sex?

Same with this. I don't have the expertise to evaluate Greek words, in context, and whether the usage is the same in the various manuscripts used by translation teams.

 

Brother Greg, thank you for your kind words.

Truthfully, I'm also hitting my limits within this type of debate. I don't have any training in other languages (except 2 years of highschool French long forgotten). Thus, I'm very much limited when debating with those who have those skills. This also forces me to place an uneasy trust in *some* internet resources. Uneasy, because it's usually difficult to discern how close to the truth any site may be positioned.

I'm also hitting my limits with time to study. While it would be nice to spend hours, it's been hectic the last few weeks and months. I still haven't had (taken) the time needed for the OP. (sigh) Plus, there's been 2 phone calls from different people on the same subject, while reading/replying to this thread.

That's probably more than you'd ever want to know. :tonofbricks:

IMO, there's a good side of this. However slowly, however much I agree or disagree, I believe that I am learning. Slowly moving forward. The scriptures don't say that it's easy to move from milk to meat. The main thing, IMO, is seeking truth, whether it's revealed in scripture study by the Holy Spirit or elsewhere.

2 Tim 2:15 always.

 

Instead of drive by shooting how about also replying to my last post in response to Preachinjesus. At this point, I have no idea what his research will turn up. Therefore, I have no premature opinion on his results.

Perhaps just this point, instead.

Should Bible translators be in the body of Christ? Or, is it acceptable that anyone with credentials be considered suitable for this task? Does that include those from non-Christian faiths, non-believers in any God, members of assemblies considered to be "Christian cults", etc.

And/or if you prefer, address the use of the word sodomite in the referenced scriptures. When you stop to think about it, that does, indeed, check the KJB "against it's own source texts".

Uhmmm..... Thinking about the title of this thread. The whole premise of this thread is to pit the KJB against MV using manuscripts influenced by Hort and Westcott. Based on that premise, isn't the idea that each side should be looking at the "source texts" of the other? If everyone stopped to look at the "source texts" of their own preference, this thread would come to an end. Wouldn't it?

 

Well, first of all, the term "sodomite" is seldom applied to homosexuals today. It now means a practitioner of a certain type of sexual act that can be performed by men and women as well as men with men.
The word "homosexual" didn't come about until C.1897, so the KJV makers didn't have it to use. However, WE do, and it's the most-common term used to describe one who is sexually oriented toward his/her own gender. Also, most other names used today for other sexual perversions weren't around then.

And don't think the KJV wasn't/isn't used for profit. The earliest copies offered for sale bore the king's TAX STAMP, placed there by Sir. Robert Cecil, KJ's financial minister. This priced the AV outta financial reach of most common British. And, if the KJV wasn't selling enough copies, it'd soon go outta publication. Those printers don't make Bible copies for free!

And applying "God is not the Author of confusion" to English Bible versions goes AGAINST the KJV, since it's not in OUR English style. No need to repeat the umpteen words that now have a different meaning now than what they had in 1611. Thus, modern versions eliminate what is often a source of confusion to the English Bible reader.

 

So if the two parts of the word are rendered "man" and "beds" how in the world do KJV translators come up with "abusers of themselves with mankind"? Where is the "bed" component in their translation and where did they get "abuser"?

I think the modern translations have got it correct. The context of the verse lists fornicators and adulterers, two sexually related sins, then you have effeminate and "man" and "bed" listed. How is effeminate men and beds taken in the context of adultery and fornication NOT translated homosexual or sodomy?

 

Great post. The KJV was copyrighted, just as modern translations are nowadays.

I dare say if you asked 1,000 people what "abusers of themselves with mankind" meant you wouldn't get a single reference to homosexuality. That phrase is confusing.

 

Only one thing to say . . . YUCK!!!

 

Don't think I've every been snipped before. Apologies to all. Shouldn't happen again.

 

There is a kind of problem here with the homo King James. It's kind of like Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt commissioning a new version of the Bible.

 

So now that we've, hopefully, agreed that dragging the personal lives of scholars into a discussion about original language manuscripts isn't benefiting the larger conversation since we've all got problems on all of our sides...

So what specific issues do those opposed to the Westcott and Hort process raise concerning the method and conclusions of their research?

More to the point: what areas of concern do KJVO/P raise against the process of critical engagement (note: this doesn't mean negative engagement) in considering various texts and textual features which exist in older manuscripts as they are accumulated, evaluated, and recommended for study in constructing a Greek and Hebrew text that more accurately reflects the original autographs?

If we can move into this point of the conversation and away from the red herrings about personalities, I think this would benefit us to see an actual exchange from respectable positions.

 

That would be nice, but it will never happen- because people would find that the two sides are actually closer together than they otherwise have thought.

As for the "drive by"- I pastor, work two part-time jobs and attend grad school full-time. "Drive by" is about all I have time to do. Plus I have wasted years on this silly debate and really, other than trying (mostly hopelessly) to help KJVO people see the lies and double-speak, I don't get involved much any more.

 

Thank you for your comments, John. I agree that in contemporary speech "jot" and "iota" have basically synonymous meaning. However, when speaking technically (literally) there is a distinction.

Actually, it seems that "jot" comes to us through the Latin jota (although the Vulgate seems to have "iota"), and this Latin word in turn derives from the Greek iota itself. Remember, the Greek iota can also be transliterated as j, in addition to i. But English did not originally even have a character for J; in fact, early English versions spelled the English word here variously as "iott", "iotte", and "iote" (the 1611 spelling). The RSV still had "iota". When did we get "jot"? Is it possible that "jot" is some sort of typographic error that has beem held over?