Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

Or Larry Flynt speaking at Liberty? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Mexdeaf, perhaps I was out of line with my "drive by" comment. Please accept my apologies, as I see your point.

My frustration in all of this is on several levels.

1) Not all KJVO are radicals who claim a person can't be saved if they don't read the KJB. While I don't have any stats to back up my opinion, I believe they are a small minority of KJB readers. Yet, it seems that anyone who takes the KJBO position is stereotyped with the radicals.

2) Yes, I can see the "silly debate" aspects. And, I can see the deadly seriousness in this, too. Far too often, it seems, that God's word is being kicked around like a soccer ball on a muddy field. Who is the real winner when that happens? It sure isn't Christ. It seems that many people get so caught up in winning, at any cost, they fail to see the true cost they are paying in their walk with our Lord. I'm talking about BOTH sides of this controversy. There's only one "winner" when that happens. And he's deadly serious about what he can accomplish before Jesus Christ returns.

3) As I've said many times before, I'm just a layman with much to learn. While you've been involved with this for "years", I haven't. Much to my regret now, I returned to the church about 2 1/2 years ago. That's not your fault. It's mine. Learned of this controversy, maybe 2 years ago. About the time I bought an NIV after struggling with the small print of my dusty KJB. And I struggled with that, too, for different reasons. Thus, began a quest to learn why. At this point, in my life, it isn't a "silly debate". If it were, I would have walked away from it long ago, relatively speaking.

4) FWIW, I appreciate your time restraints. Before I retired, I longed for the days when I'd have plenty of time to do what I wanted to do. God had different plans for me. I'm sitting here with a blister in the palm of my hand from using a scraper to remove broken tile from the floor of a disabled sister in Christ. Mentioned that as a reference point for your comment on "wasting" time. As a pastor, is your time ever wasted, when you repeat what you've already said for a 1,000 times, if you're talking to someone else who's seeking the truth? I can't speak for anyone else. All I know is that I want the TRUTH. I crave the TRUTH whether it's from the Bible as God reveals it, from pastors who preach it, or other laymen who have learned it.

This post is getting way too long, so I must close with much left unsaid. About truths that won't be revealed until God calls me home. About blindly accepting what's presented as truth by those simply repeating what someone told them somewhere in some unknown context. About labeling others opinions as "lies and double speak" with a broad paintbrush. About my own failures to practice what I preach. Etc. & etc.

In the context of this thread, I want to learn as much as possible for this aging mind to grasp and God is willing to reveal through others, the TRUTH with regards to the role Westcott and Hort had to play in what we're fighting over today. My frustration mounts as I continue to read (study?) what many on BOTH sides of this issue use for mud to smear the other side's opinion of man's presentation of God's word.

Thanks for listening, and again my apologies for taking some of that frustration out on you.

 

Haha, good one, John. I'm actually surprised no one has posted documentation for Hort's presence at a channeling session after dinner one evening.

 

Perhaps all forms of making exclusive only claims for one English translation are radical or at least non-scriptural. Typical exclusive only claims for the KJV usually rely on fallacies.

What is your definition of "radical"? Perhaps some of the KJV-only advocates that you consider "radical" may only be stating the actual logical implications of typical exclusive only claims for the KJV. Those who claim to oppose a "radical" form of KJV-onlyism may actually advocate "radical" claims in some aspects of their view while opposing other "radical" claims.

I somtimes find the supposed moderate or balanced defenders of the KJV such as D. A. Waite making some extreme or radical claims for the KJV and against other English translations. There is no easy way to separate or classify the claimed various camps of KJV-only advocates.

Usually only those that are KJV preferred or those who would claim that the KJV is the best overall English translation [not a perfect, inerrant, or inspired translation] may avoid the extreme or radical elements of KJV-only views.

 

Indeed, as the KJV preferred usually resort to the 'fact" of the greek textual basis better in the TR or MT than in the CT texts, but even they say that the Modern versions are still the word of God to us in English, just NOT as good as the KJV!

KJVO appeal to mainly emotionalism and the KJV being "preserved and inspired" by God!

 

I'd like to see that evidence. Please post it.

 

indeed! preserved in the KJV/NASB/NIV/HCSB into English for us today!

 

More...

From Alister E. McGrath's book : In The Beginning :

"Further concerns were expressed over the king's increasingly obvious ho_ _ _ _ _ual tendencies...Although James fondled and kissed his favorites in what was widely regarded as a lecherous manner in public,the court was prepared to believe that his private behavior was somewhat more restrained." (Pages 170,171)

 

Is there a big difference when you seem to make "preservation" in English equal to inspiration of the original language words? In my opinion, the difference does not seem to be that clear, distinct, and big.

Word preservation of the words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would have to involve the actual original language words. Different words in English or other languages would not be actual "word" preservation of the inspired words given to the prophets and apostles.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that what would have to be "meaning" preservation in different words is equal to the actual inspired words given to the prophets and apostles. When you use the word "preservation" or "preserved" concerning the KJV, do you not in effect have to use them in a different sense than "word" preservation of the actual inspired original language words given to the prophets and apostles?

 

Don't the really radicle KJVO hold that the Spirit inspired that translation team to be able to amend and correct the Hebrew and Greek texts were errors were made, so that the English version KJV is literally the word of god, just as much as the penned originals were ?

 

I've seen KJVO/P debates around here, and in other places, for a long time now.

Ironically, none of them get beyond surface level concerns. This thread is no different from all the others and fell into expected patterns. The discussion going on here is fairly surface level with no penetrating insights.

Ultimately this issue tends to remain at a surface level for two reasons: (1) participants on both sides cannot, because of lack of training, engage in deeper discussions about textual issues, (2) both sides argue to the level of the popularized debate because that is what informs most of our positions.

I'd be challenged to find an actual KJVO/P discussion that goes in depth to the textual issues behind the original and revised KJV as well as the undergirding philosophy of translation. Generally the debate is more limited than Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist discussions around here, and this thread is no stranger to that rule.

It is interesting that for many who grew up in fundamentalist backgrounds (which I would consider myself having brushed up against at several point) who then go and pursue thorough education they cannot remain in the KJVO position. In fact I just don't know any major textual scholar who is reputable and has dutifully submitted peer-reviewed work who is in the KJVO category. This isn't to say the academy doesn't want to hear their voices or wouldn't validate their scholarship if it was quality and added to the discussion. I just don't know any significant scholar who can stay in the KJVO category.

Just some rambling thoughts I guess. I'd still love to discussion about what points in Westcott & Hort's method, philosophy, and textual searching process are dubious and worth debating according to KJVO/P proponents.

 

That's been my personal experience.

 

Think that its due to 2 seperate parts in this discussion!

Are the Greek texts used by KJV superior to the CT of today?

that would produce at best KJVP

Is the KJV the ONLY English version for us today?

that disregrads the prior points of this discussion, as it gets down to the Lord preserving and inspiring this version as He did the originals, and thus KJVO!

 

This has been around for more than 100 years, but KJVO people apparently were not bright enough to realize and then publicize it. Of course everyone knows about the Ghostly Guild that Hort and others started in Cambridge in the mid 1800s, and the collecting of paranormal experiences and the writing up of papers documenting the experiences. You may find the actual references at this web address from another discussion board:

Hort participation in seance after dinner

Click here for another discussion.

I'll post the relevant part here just for interested observers (from Arthur Fenton Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort [2 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1896], 2:36):

This was when Hort was 36 years old, 15 years or so after he had started the Ghostly Guild in his undergraduate days at Cambridge.

Check the other links above for what it means to turn tables, or search for turn tables and occult in Google.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Brother Greg,

You do know that John W. Burgon was not a KJVO/TRO guy, right? He was a majority text guy. There is a big difference, since KJVO guys have to defend readings that have no or hardly no Greek manuscript support. The majority text guys always have, well, most Greek manuscripts on their side.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Didn't he support the 1885 revision of the KJV also?

 

I found this:

The Ghostly Guild society is described in the biography of one of its founding members, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by Arthur Hort.

Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Macmillan & Co., 1896, pp. 171-72; pp. 211, 219-20

pp 171-72
The Ghostly Guild, the object of which was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called "psychical phenomenon".


http://archive.org/stream/lifeandlettersf02hortgoog#page/n183/mode/2up

pp. 211
Westcott.....etc. and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. [Dec. 31, 1851]


http://archive.org/stream/lifeandlettersf02hortgoog#page/n221/mode/2up


It appears that they printed up 750 copies of a prospectus/questionnaire to ask people that claim to have seen 'phenomena' to detail their experiences. However they hadn't received any responses as yet. They mention an Edinburgh reviewer that thinks "it's highly unphilosophical of us to assume the existence of angels--which, by the way, we don't do, though I don't suppose any of us would shrink from the assumption." [May 11, 1852]

http://archive.org/stream/lifeandlettersf02hortgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

So what we have is:

Westcott and Hort, on New Years Eve 1851, forming the Ghostly Guild, a society whose purpose is to investigate 'psychical phenomena'. Five months later they have no results.

and

One instance of Hort attending a seance after a dinner in 1864, (which I presume was part of his research into 'psychical phenomena.') Searching "Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I" (AND Vol. II) with search words "ghostly" "phenomena" "psychic", "guild" find no other references.

And this is the KJVO crowd's evidence that Westcott and Hort were occultists? Really?

 

I don't know if they could be called "occultists" but they certainly did dabble in things forbidden by God. Doesn't make me want to read their translation works. Apparently even though they translated the bible, they didn't bother to read it.