Why the question on the last sentence?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Calvin helped create Unitarianism
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Why the question on the last sentence?
Because I disagree with Calvin's pontification that denying that the sun revolves around the earth makes one a monstrous demon-possessed frenetic.
Don't you?
No no your misunderstanding my question. Im asking you why the quote wasnt a definitive statement, when it is in fact quoted as a question...with a ? mark.
Most New Testament translations in English and foreign languages are based on the Critical Text --not the TR or the Majority Text.
Are you trying to say that the translators of these modern versions are Unitarian,have Unitarian sympathies,or want promote Unitarianism through the pages of the New Testament?!
You are in total error if you attempt to pin any of those charges of the translators now or in Westcott's and Hort's efforts with the English Revised Version.
Most of the so-called "missing verses" that you refer to are found in the pages of the modern versions in small print,in italics, or in the footnotes.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
Isn't this now past the 10 page limit... can we put this silly thread out of its misery.
That makes no sense. You insist aren't trying to besmirch Calvin yet you call him names neverthless.
[personal attack deleted]
I especially think that you need as much help as possible from godly men who will assist you to understand and apply the Word of God to your life and conduct and to lead you in the way of everlasting life.
Your Jesuit remark is so absurd.
Last edited by a moderator:
No Calvin wasn't asking a question, I was asking can you believe he said such a thing?
MY question mark was intended to indicate incredulousness at Calvin's statement/screed.
Irrespective of our present day translations, one might want to look into the personal lives of Westcott and Hort. Nazaroo may be right about them ascribing to Unitarianism. It started to become popular at then end of the 19th century. They weren't exactly the conservatives of their day.
No. I'm trying to say that the authors of modern versions have been duped by bogus theories of textual transmission, and this happened because they didn't do their homework.
I'm trying to say that selling 'modern versions' is a multi-billion dollar industry, which is now out of the hands of Bible-believing Christians, and out of control.
Hort began as a heretic, doubting and rejecting most mainline Christian doctrines, like the Atonement, the concept of ransom (found in the NT), vicarious substitution, Providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures, etc. etc.
Since Hort never updated his views or corrected them, he remained a heretic, which at that time made him about the same as almost every other Anglican idiot posing as a priest.
No surprises there.
Since he openly expressed his dissent from orthodoxy, and insisted that a Unitarian remain on the Revision committee, its up to those claiming Hort was 'orthodox' to show how and when.
Yes. The disparaging and doubting footnotes in modern versions are LEGION. [offensive statement deleted]
The Authenticity of John 8:1-11
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
The 85 homoeoteleuton blunders Hort passed of as original
The self-contradictory theories of Textual Criticism
Last edited by a moderator:
You certainly should look into the lives and doctrine of W&H. In particular Westcott's works will shame you with respect to the absurd charge that he ascribed to Unitarianism. Charles Spurgeon highly commended his works,especially BFW's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.
Dr.D.M.Lloyd-Jones called him "a great teacher and expositor."
In commenting on 1 John 4:14,15 BFW notes :"In the Holy Trinity we conceie of the perfect union of the Father and the Son as realized through the Spirit."
Wescott fully affirmed the Divinity of the Son and solid belief in the Trinity. One can't entertain Unitarian ideas with Westcott's doctrine.
I think you have placed too much reliance on David Sorenson and D.A.Waite. They are not reliable guides when it comes to Bible translations and honesty regarding W&H.
B.F.Westcott's Gospel of John was the best selling commentary of that Gospel in the latter half of the 19th century. Even today many conservative pastors value it very highly.
quantumfaith
Active Member
And so we see our human dilemma, "My biblical commentator is bigger or better than yours" (or sells more copies). Before you respond, I acknowledge this "equation" has two sides.
I'm not ashamed, since I never ascribed Unitarianism to Westcott.
Hort was the flake.
Which reminds me of a quote:
"How can you believe,
which receive honor one from another,
and seek not the honor that comes from God only?" (John 5:44)
Westcott who? Floyd who?
Westcott wasn't particularly bad, or brilliant,
as far as lukewarm Anglican's [edit] from the tail end of the 19th century go.
Good thing they're all gone,
after shipwrecking the faith of the British people.
With those clowns at the helm,
the whole affair reads like the story of the Exxon Valdez.
Too much communion wine, not enough common sense.
Sorenson who? Waite who?
If sales volume indicated theological prowess,
then we should be genuflecting to Michael Jackson,
oh wait, he died of AIDS and drugs. Guess he's too busy these days for accolades.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me give you an example of the times that these people lived in.
I use Albert Barnes commentaries a fair bit. They are easily available.
In reading David Beale's book "In Pursuit of Purity," a history of Fundamentalism, I found this paragraph (at the end of chapter 10) that describes the nature of those times:
This is just history. Beale has nothing to gain or lose. The New England theology that they are referring to is that which came out of Oberlin, that which Finney taught--a denial of Original Sin, that man himself is fully responsible for his sin, or Pelagianism. Albert Barnes was originally tried for accepting and believing this theology, though later aquitted. Many of the Presbyterians were going that direction. Hard to believe isn't it? However, it was a day and age when liberalism was sweeping the land. Unitarianism was a part of it.
Dr.Beale's a good man --I have met and corresponded with him. But I don't understand your citation of his having anything to do with the facts which I brought up in my post #111.
Dr.Westcott had no sympathy for Unitarianism. Spurgeon and Dr.Lloyd-Jones nver held him to be sub-orthodox --plenty of praise for him though. It's strange why you,Naz,Sorenson,Waite and other KJVO folks spread these lies about the character of godly men such as Westcott.
What lies?
All I said about Westcott was that he was mediocre Anglican,
and unfortunate enough (and dumb enough) to have been sucked into Hort's garbage.
I wouldn't call him "orthodox" either.
Most Baptists don't accept the Anglican view of Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, the priesthood, or other flakey semi-Catholic dogmas. If this is your test for "orthodox", then we should all be sprinkled by a priest and worship wafers of unknown origin.
What trash you spread around.
Please furnish any evidence for any of the above.
And please,tell us why so many folks from Europe flooded Geneva --if it was so bad? Your foolish assertions remind me of anti-american talk and then --"But I'd really like to live in America."
No,you didn't say that Westcott was a mediocre Anglican. You said that they and others were reponsible for the mutilation of the New Testament. You went on to say these _______Anglicans were responsible for some betrayal. Then you went on to wonder how these Unitarians acquired the numbers and strength to do such damage. Check out your post #13.
Where is the source informing you that Hort led Wescott around by the nose?
This is fairly common history even without sources--at least concerning the Anglican Church. Hort and Westcott were both Anglicans. The Anglican Church during the last half of the 19th century had become quite liberal. Every "neutral" source I have read describes Westcott as a liberal as opposed to being a conservative. It was a radical change for them. This is coming from secular sources.