Westcott & Hort

So are you now ready to embrace the Apocrypha? If not, you just threw the KJV translators under the bus.....

 

Yes, when you can - in the next few days - I would have a great interest in seeing those...
</font>[/QUOTE]Here's some I found. There are likely many more in "The Gospel of the Resurrection" in the chapters that discuss the reasons and nature of the resurrection of the human body (ie. restoration of what was corrupted due to the fall), but I didn't quickly find those, so I'll maybe look for them later. As it is, here's what I *did* find (sorry for the length, but I'd rather have too much context than not enough. )

"Secondly, observe that the first evil is distinctively religious evil. The temptation comes through the fruit; but the great force of the temptation lies in impatience of the restraint which God for good reasons ordained; in trying to be independent of Him, in other words, of being as gods. And the first loss is a religious loss. To fly from God's presence is the immediate thought of those who before the fall had rejoiced in it. Then the other outward curses follow. The earth is no longer a garden but a place of thorns for those who have become estranged from its Maker and their own. Yet God does not hate His rebellious creature, though He visits him severely. From the very beginning He provides a way of return. Toil and sorrow are henceforth man's lot." ("Sermons on the Books of the Bible", Hort, page 30)

"The Passion was necessary for the redemption of men fallen. This is a fact to be thought over. The presence of evil amongst us and in us, in its manifold forms of suffering and selfishness and loss and crime, is a reality which no ingenuity can hide or dissemble. Revelation did not cause this terrible affliction, but it shews that it does not belong to the essence of creation or to the essence of man. It shews therefore that it is remediable: that it can be removed from man without destroying his true nature, nay rather that his true nature is vindicated by the removal. The idea of Christ's sufferings, the idea of redemption, presupposes the idea of a Fall. Such an ida is, I will venture to say, a necessary condition of human hope. No view of life can be so inexpressibly sad as that which denies the Fall." ("The Historic Faith", Wescott, pages 66-67)

"It [Christianity] assumes, that the world was made by God (Gen i. 1): that man was made in the image of God (Gen i. 27): that man by self-assertion has broken his rightful connexion with God (Gen iii. 9-24). It follows from these assumptions that the world is for the Christian in all its parts an expression of the will of God: that man can hold fellowship with God: that man needs the help of God for the fulfillment of his destiny, in the sense that he requires not only growth but restoration." ("The Gospel of Life", Westcott, pages 183-184)

"We go back therefore to 'a beginning' in our endeavor to grasp the full import of the Christian message. From this point of view the whole narrative of the Creation and the Fall, and not one isolated verse, contains, when rightly apprehended, the real Protevangelium, the primitive Gospel of the world. That narrative presents in a vivid form the truths which stand out more or less distinctly in all the following Books. But it differs from most other parts of Scripture in this, that the lessons which it conveys do not lie in the details of the narrative but in the general ideas which the narative embodies.
It would probably be quite impossible for us (or for man, as he is, at any time) to apprehend the exact circumstances of Creation, or of the original constitution of man, or of the Fall. Language must be to the last inadequate to express the results of perfect observation. But that which it concerns us to know as to the religious import of the origin and destiny of finite being is wrtten in the cardinal sentences which sum up the contents of our divine Book of Origins.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold it was very good. Gen. i. 1, 31a
And God said Let us make man in out image after our likeness: and let them have dominion...So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him : male and female created He them. Gen. i. 26, 27.
And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him Where art thou? And he said I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself..." (Ibid, pg 185-187)

"This brings us to the third point in the Divine portraiture of man's religious position. He failed through self-will to fulfill his right destiny.
And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him Where art thou? And he said I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself... Gen. iii. 9, 10, 23, 24.
The absolute, childlike, freedom of the communion between God and man is here seen to have been interrupted. The picture answers to universal experience. There is something to be hidden : something of which we are ourselves ashamed. So far we are only placed face to face with an unquestionable fact. But Revelation illumnates the fact which it recognises. This interruption is shewn to be due to the action of some power distinct from ourselves. It does not belong to the essence of our nature, and therefore it can be remedied. The very Fall in its consummation is so brought about that it leaves man still man, and therefore still retaining essentiall God's image.
This truth finds distince expression at the second religious starting-point of the human race. In the Covenant with Noah the life of man is declared to be sacred 'for in the image of God made He man' (Gen. ix. 6), where the argument requires that the image should still remain, and not merely once have been. And so St Paul speaks of man as man being 'the image (eikwv) and glory of God' (1 Cor. xi. 7); though being what he is he needs continuous renewal to gain his ideal state (Col. iii. 10; comp. James iii. 9; Luke xv. 8).
The sense of this fact, illuminated by the promise connected with the Fall, explains the remarkable silence throughout the Old Testament as to the Fall itself. The Jew did not dwell with a regretful retrospect on a lost Paradise: his thoughts were turned to a more glorious future.
While therefore we must keep firm hold on the fact of the Fall and on the consequences of the Fall, we must not exaggerate the change which it brought to man. The 'original righteousness' which he lost can best be conceived of as the result of the harmonious development of life under the action of the Divine Communion. In one sense it was natural, so far as it answered to the Divine purpose for man: in another sense it was supernatureal, so far as the power by which it was wrought was not in man but from God. When the fellowship was broken the continuous support necessary for perfect and progressive holiness was withdrawn. Yet conscience bears witness to the destiny for which man was made and which by himself he cannot reach." (Ibid pages 194-196)

 

When you comment later, keep in mind I'm not interested in a dissection of those quotes, nor of defending every comment they make. I simply provided them because you earlier said "And I think the conclusion is clear: Westcott rejected Original Sin and the Fall of Mankind", and these quotes are provided to show that is simply not the case.

 

ummmmmm...I wish that were true. The Nestle-Aland Text is the Greek Text of Nestle. Now Nestle on Page 1 of his Greek Translation lists 2 sources for his Greek Version:

1. Westcott & Hort, and

2. Tischendorf


Seems as though there may be relevance about Westcott & Hort, and their Greek text - after all.

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for proving what I said. Historical reference means that other people reference it for its historical value. But if you compare these texts, you will see that NA is a different text, that used many other texts, including all of the Greek manuscript evidence for reference. So in your effort to disprove what I said, you actually ended up proving it.

 

Then you need to keep your mouth shut about the KJB translators;the Bible they produced is what I am concerned over. </font>[/QUOTE]I have long said that the KJV translators are irrelevant. If you would read, you would have known that and not said this about me. Most of us here feel that way. Any discussion of the KJV translators is simply an attempt to show that your side is grossly inconsistent because you try to make a big deal of the translators of modern versions while giving a free pass to the translators of the KJV. We simply encourage you to be consistent. In the end, the translators is not the issue; whether or not the text is a faithful translation is the issue. The KJV passes that test, as do many modern versions.

 

Then you need to keep your mouth shut about the KJB translators;the Bible they produced is what I am concerned over. </font>[/QUOTE]i believe it was the KJBO camp that started this thing, so why don't u tell ur kind to ... well, whatever u said before (above).

otherwise, i for one wldn't mind discussing James I n Robert Carr, the Baptist Persecuting Bishop, the SDA Don Ben Wilkinson, Dr. Ruckman, Mrs. God-And R, n many others--a nice lineup that wld make Carlo Martini look positively GOOOOOOOD

 

Ditto.