Westcott and Hort...

michelle said:

They were following Kings orders and the law.

Gee . . . we've never heard that before.

 

Michelle said "They were following Kings orders and the law."

Who do you think influenced the king and made the law? The leaders of the Church-State. The leaders of the Church of England. Archbishop Bancroft, for one.

 

They recommended, the King followed through.

Your rationalization sounds like romish Jesuit casuistry michelle and others guilty of the slaughter of innocents "we were only following orders".

For shame michelle, these were our spiritual brethren burned at the stake for following their conscience regarding the Word of God and not pado-baptist who had a form of baptismal regeneration .

"We ought to obey God rather than men".

HankD

 

Once again the "irrelevant" trump card is played.
I think someone is stacking the deck (oops, were Baptists).

HankD

 

So were our Baptist forbearers in America who rebelled against the CoE's commands not to preach. Not to mention all of the founding fathers who thought that it was OK to rebel against those who denied religious liberty.

Yes. And the KJV translators were uniformly on the wrong side- with the Church-State and against the Baptist desiring religious freedom.

Did you know that many believed that the royal families of Europe were all of the Hapsburg line and that this line originated with the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdeline? Did you know that some of them believed that the divine right of kings was inherited and not simply bestowed on a king by God?

Do you really want to get into conspiracies, Illuminati, Knights Templar, and the like? Your CoE and English Monarchs are every bit as vulnerable to this silliness as those who rebelled against them of these "secret satanic society" charges.

You have no more proof that the KJV translators were "christian and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and his word of truth" than you do that "Westcott and Hort did not."

Your nose is growing Michelle.

 

Michelle, Excatly!

Natters, I agree with Michelle's comment here.

 

Askjo said "Natters, I agree with Michelle's comment here."

Of course you do. Especially since you have read so many of their books for yourself. How many again did you say you have read?

 

Mis-Informer, False witness! The link that YOU picked, contradicts with W/H's books. Here is NO TRUTH!!!!

I can't tell you more details on the link that you picked, but I noticed some information MISSING in the YOUR favorite link. Why are they missing there is because the link that you picked, is mis-informational.

Michelle and I are witnesses and learn the factual comments from them. Not our mouth, but THEIR mouth that you called, "True witness!" How would you call their mis-informational comments, "True witness"?

I noticed you called Michelle and me, "false witness." However we realize you are STILL in denial for everything what you defend W/H, MVs, distorted doctrines in MVs, etc.,

I will answer your favorite 2 words, "False witness" in my next post.

 

Askjo said "The link that YOU picked, contradicts with W/H's books. Here is NO TRUTH!!!!"

Askjo, the link I picked contains their books.

Askjo said "but I noticed some information MISSING in the YOUR favorite link. Why are they missing there is because the link that you picked, is mis-informational."

No, it is not because it is misinformational, but rather because it takes time to convert entire books into web pages.

Askjo said "Michelle and I are witnesses and learn the factual comments from them."

Yes, but then you twist the facts into false witness.

Askjo said "Not our mouth, but THEIR mouth that you called, "True witness!" How would you call their mis-informational comments, "True witness"?"

What mis-infomational comments from their mouth are you referring to? I don't understand what you are saying.

Askjo said "I noticed you called Michelle and me, "false witness.""

Good, at least now I know it is possible for you to read something and not misinterpret it.

Askjo said "I will answer your favorite 2 words, "False witness" in my next post."

Yay!

 

YOU said I am.

Their testimony obviously showed that they are unbelievers.

Their double-faced mouth and life contradicted each other. I do not see how they became Christians.

That means you disagree with MVs.

You deny that. I researched and found they are gone back to the WH texts. I checked some passages in most MVs and found out that they are SAME. Nothing new! They are W/H ancestors.

Many verses that I noticed, are gone back to the W/H text.

You call History, "Slander"! because History proves they are unbelievers. I am not a slander.

They did not affect any doctrines. Therefore they are the Words of God.

You denied between history, W/H and Scriptures. Let me tell something with evidence and Scriptures. History agrees with me:

HISTORY: Evidence:

Westcott wrote, "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three Chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history -- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."

Hort wrote, "I am inclined to think that no such as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants. "

SCRIPTURES: Evidence:

John 5:45-47

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

History and Scriptures showed EVIDENCE:

This Scriptures warn if W/H did NOT believe in the Book of Genesis, therefore they did NOT believe in Jesus Christ, you will be surprised to see who will accuse them: MOSES!

Do you think W/H are with the Lord in Heaven? For sure, God sent W/H to hell.

I am not a slander, but you ignore the facts about W/H AND the Scriptures.

YOU complain AGAINST the Scriptures: John 5:45-47 because this Scripture is a slander against W/H. However I am not a slander.

 

That phrase grieves me more than I can say. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Wrong, the link missed others.

 

Askjo said "YOU said I am."

Do you know the difference between a question and a statement? How can you have such a poor grasp on the English language, yet be in a debate about English language?

Askjo said "Their testimony obviously showed that they are unbelievers."

False witness.

Askjo said "Their double-faced mouth and life contradicted each other."

False witness.

Askjo said "I do not see how they became Christians."

Try actually reading one of their books one day. That might help. Just a guess.

Askjo said "You call History, "Slander"! because History proves they are unbelievers. I am not a slander."

False witness, history does not prove they are unbelievers. You are correct, you are not a slander. You are a slanderer.

Askjo said "They did not affect any doctrines. Therefore they are the Words of God."

My phonebook does not affect any doctrines. Therefore, it is the Words of God?

Askjo said "Westcott wrote...Hort wrote..."

It would be beneficial to look those quotes up in context, as well as weigh them against typical Anglican thinking (reminder, the Translators of the KJV were also Anglican).

Askjo said "This Scriptures warn if W/H did NOT believe in the Book of Genesis, therefore they did NOT believe in Jesus Christ, you will be surprised to see who will accuse them: MOSES!"

Westcott did not say he did not believe in the Book of Genesis. He like most Anglicans did believe it but doubted how literal the first three chapters were (the writings of Moses are much more than the first three chapters, by the way). Wescott did believe God created everything, as is evident in other quotes.

Askjo said "For sure, God sent W/H to hell."

For sure, you should become a comedian.

Askjo said "I am not a slander, but you ignore the facts about W/H AND the Scriptures."

You are not a slander, but you are a slanderer - and one who ignores facts about W/H AND the Scriptures.

Askjo said "John 5:45-47 because this Scripture is a slander against W/H."

No it isn't.

Askjo said "However I am not a slander."

Neither are you a grammar.

 

Askjo said "Wrong, the link missed others."

Explain.

 

Askjo said "W/H did NOT believe in the Book of Genesis"

From this link:

"I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth...This acknowledgement of God as the Creator of things visible and invisible brings with it many deep and helpful thoughts. It reminds us that as all that is came into existence by the will and power of God, so it is sustained by Him alone; for the fact of creation involves the necessity of preservation, of unfolding. It reminds us that the greatest and least objects by which we are surrounded, the Sun in its glory and the stars in their countless multitude: mountains and all hills: fruitful trees and all cedars: beasts and all cattle: worms and feathered fowls were made by Him who made us, and that they therefore fill a place in His vast counsel of love, and minister to His glory." ("The Historic Faith", B.F. Westcott, page 38, 1890)

 

Askjo said:

Natters, I agree with Michelle's comment here.

Well, of course you do. You can't be a good KJV-onlyist if you have an independent thought.

The only thing I can't figure out is, with the two of you agreeing with each other, who's doing the thinking?

 

It is amazing to me how KJVOist line step better than the most die hard liberal Democrats!

Proverbs 29:1(NASB),"A man who hardens his neck after much reproof
Will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.

So many KJVOist are too stiff necked to turn around and face the truth!

 

David J said:

It is amazing to me how KJVOist line step better than the most die hard liberal Democrats!

You can't be a good Independent Fundamental KJV-onlyist without toeing the party line!