KJVO Lies

Of course. Very few use Westcott & Hort's text--practically none. It's been superseded by fresher manuscript discoveries accumulating over a century.

 

1. Eclectic texts followed UBS and Nestle/Aland texts.

2. UBS followed Nestle/Aland text.

3. Nestle/Aland text followed Nestle text.

4. Nestle text followed the W/H text.

These 4 Greek texts are gone back to the W/H text.

TEV, NIV and JB followed Eclectic text gone back to the W/H text.

LB and NASB followed ASV. ASV followed RV. RV followed the W/H text.

The JW Bible followed the W/H text.

Modern versions and the cult JW bible are gone back to the W/H text.

 

Dear Askjo,

Can you please explain to me what you mean in this post? I don't understand it at all.

 

I think the point of Askjo's thread was that they MVs can be traced, indirectly possibly, back to W/H.

 

Amen, Brother DeclareHim -- Preach it.

Already we have a KJVO condemning the
non-Westcott/Hort translations along
with the Westcott/Hort translations.

What is really wierd is over on the Chick
Comic pages when they condemn the
KJV1611 and KJV1873
in praise of the KJV1769.
I wonder if the KJV1873 was 'contaminated'
by Hort/Westcott?

 

Just as there are many "TR"'s which follow the Byzantine text types and have differences, there are many "eclectic" texts which follow the Alexandrian text types (particularly Aleph and B) and have differences.

When askjo says a W&H Bible I'll second-guess him and say that he means a Bible which follows the W&H theory (roughly-older reading best, shorter best, more difficult best, Aleph/B), but not necessarily the text that they themselves produced in accord with that theory).

Generally speaking, the Burgon theory weighs the Traditional Text and Church Fathers over "oldest".

All MV's (in my experience) are a combination of both text types unless they are specifically noted as TR types such as the NKJV.

This is my understanding and yes, this is a bit of an over simplification.

HankD

 

Craigbythesea asked:

Can you please explain to me what you mean in this post? I don't understand it at all.

He means that if you let the KJV-onlyists define what the "W/H text" is, then all modern Bible versions use the "W/H text."

Or, put another way, the KJV-only inmates are demanding to run the asylum again.

 

Modern versions derived from the W/H text. The W/H text derived from Alexandrian mss.

 

Man are you outdated. I was never taught such nonsense.

 

I personally am interested in knowing which MV was not influenced by Westcott & Hort's Text. Could somebody clue me in?

Lacy

 

You have brought a measure of logic back into the argument Bro Lacy - the key here is your word "influence" as opposed the the previous phrase used "based on" or "derived from."

 

It's semantics.

HankD

 

Don't think so Hank.

I am sure that not all MV are based on WH, but am pretty sure all have been influenced by WH.

 

According to this statement they can:

 

I already said the first part of this statement, the NKJV, and the KJV21 for another.

Also I was referring to the difference between the words "influenced by" and "derived from" as being "semantics".

The differences between the accepted texts (TR,W&H) when all the shouting is over is about 3% of the mass of words in the original lauguage texts.

In addition new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Papyri (especially 66 and 75) have dilluted the issue by showing that examples of both types of readings existed prior to Aleph and B.

HankD

 

Which one of the 35 TR texts do the KJVO's trace their KJV back to?

 

gb,

Don't ask me - I was just clarifying askjo's point

 

According to this statement they can:

</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely yes!