In the article that I copied before Al says that ALL ALL ALL MV's use the Westcott and Hort Greek text this is a sentiment I have heard many KJVO people say this is a LIE. There are many MV'S that don't use Westcott and Hort Greek NT text.
KJVO Lies
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by DeclareHim, Jul 24, 2004.
Page 1 of 13
-
-
Of course. Very few use Westcott & Hort's text--practically none. It's been superseded by fresher manuscript discoveries accumulating over a century.
-
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.
-
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. -
Sure most MV's are translated from Alexandrian texts. KJVO say that ALL Alexandrian mss are W/H text why? Because W/H was an Alexandrian mss. Pure hypocrisy.
-
-
-
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. -
-
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 -
-
gb,
Don't ask me - I was just clarifying askjo's point ;) -
Page 1 of 13