Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Folks...I'm gonna post this attached article for everyone's attention and information by permission of its Editor(and friend),Bro. Steve Van Nattan of the Blessed Quietness Journal. It is a long article so plan on taking it in chunks if you are interested in it. Maybe you'll learn something...maybe you won't...probably depends on your "mindset" going in. Anyway...here it is. I'm not going to engage in any argument on the conclusions of it but maybe some of you "scholarly" types can have a go at it. I'm not learned enough and I'll admit that. Most of you know where I stand on things. For those of you who don't..I'm a KJV Only guy (for english speakers). Here is the link:
Defense of the KJV by a Pastor-- An Analysis of Westcott and Hort's Greek Text

have at it!

Bro.Greg:wavey:

 

[preachinjesus]

So you're going to post something but refuse to interact with critical or appreciative comments? You are happy to post an article but want nothing of the conversation that posting such a link will inevitably bring?

This is a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

OK..Good Point

So you're going to post something but refuse to interact with critical or appreciative comments? You are happy to post an article but want nothing of the conversation that posting such a link will inevitably bring?

This is a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

PinJ...I was just trying to be humble! But............

You are absolutely correct. I will probably have to comment at some point. I simply meant to be honest and convey that I am no expert in these matters. My knowledge of Greek is practically non-existent but I do not believe that having the ability to speak/read Greek is necessarily prerequiste to being able to have a valid opinion on the personalities involved in handling of the texts in question. Saying that here and now is what will form the basis for any contributions I can make to the conversation that may result in this thread.
That said....I will also confess that since it is obvious that these kind of conversations have a tendency to get...how would you say.....somewhat tedious, that I will also have to admit that I lose patience and feel the need to withdraw sooner or later...and sometimes sooner RATHER THAN LATER! LOLOL...Beatin' on a dead horse ain't my favorite cup of tea.

:tonofbricks: Bro.Greg:type:

 

[Mexdeaf]

The author shows his ignorance very early on in the article when he says, "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was recognized early on that there were copying errors but the Apostles and the ante-Nicene Fathers did not consider these to be of significance. Obviously, God was concerned with preserving the spirit of the Word of Truth, not the mechanics. CERTAINLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS HAD BEEN INSPIRED AND INERRANT IN EVERY WAY, DOWN TO THE SPELLING AND THE PUNCTUATION MARKS[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
I am no Hebrew or Greek [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]scholar either but I do know that THERE ARE NO PUNCTUATION MARKS in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures.

That in itself is enough to tell me not to waste any more time reading this slanted article.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[rsr]

Not to mention the erroneous claim that the NIV copyright is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Zondervan, a division of Harper-Collins (which is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.) has the U.S. rights to publish the NIV. It doesn't own the copyright. The copyright is owned by Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society.) And I have no idea what Comcast has to do with the NIV.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A little leaven...

Not to mention the erroneous claim that the NIV copyright is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Zondervan, a division of Harper-Collins (which is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.) has the U.S. rights to publish the NIV. It doesn't own the copyright. The copyright is owned by Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society.) And I have no idea what Comcast has to do with the NIV.

...."a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"... I personally don't EVER think it right that there should be ANY copyright by Any man or Corporation of ANY stripe on ANY part of the Book that is known as the Word of God...in ANY language (non-inspired notes and references excepted of course)! I personally believe that is a situation that God will rectify with extreme prejudice someday soon. That is my personal opinion. It doesn't matter to me what anyone else but the Lord thinks about it.


Bro.Greg

 

[Kevin M]

I prefer my NIV to be copyrighted. That prevents someone from changing it
and legally calling it a NIV; unlike the KJV.

 

[Kevin M]

Quotes from Bro. Steve Van Nattan.

"Yet my gift and calling in the Church is that of a prophet."

"But the goal of Orthodox Christianity and its leaders must ever be to inform by revelation and faith, not by intellect and sight."

"For more than eighteen hundred years in the Church the Orthodox precept of translating had been observed. A translator was to translate, not interpret."

The above statement does not compute

"All of these new translations differ greatly, one from the other."
Only in the mind of a KJVOnlyist.

Can't wait to hear about The Ghostly Guild.

 

[Oldtimer]

Folks...I'm gonna post this attached article for everyone's attention and information by permission of its Editor(and friend),Bro. Steve Van Nattan of the Blessed Quietness Journal. It is a long article so plan on taking it in chunks if you are interested in it. Maybe you'll learn something...maybe you won't...probably depends on your "mindset" going in. Anyway...here it is. I'm not going to engage in any argument on the conclusions of it but maybe some of you "scholarly" types can have a go at it. I'm not learned enough and I'll admit that. Most of you know where I stand on things. For those of you who don't..I'm a KJV Only guy (for english speakers). Here is the link:
Defense of the KJV by a Pastor-- An Analysis of Westcott and Hort's Greek Text

have at it!

Bro.Greg:wavey:

This is going to be an interesting thread. Thanks for posting the link. I glanced at a couple of chapters. When time permits will go back for a more thorough reading/study of what the author had to say.

It's also going to be interesting as to how semantics come into to play once again. Apparently that's already happened with "spelling and punctuation" because it appears the author didn't use the term "jot and tittle". I must admit that I have to read the authors comments, in context, to verify that statement.

There's more, but to be fair, I need to STUDY what the author had to say before putting foot into mouth.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Here's a quote from the preface:

It was the Bible of John Knox, Jeremy Taylor, George Whitefild, John Westley, J. B. Lightfoot, Matthew Henry, G. Campbell Morgan, Charles Spurgeon, James Strong, Benjamin Warfield, Charles Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, Jonathan Edwards, D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, Hudson Taylor, Andrew Murray, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham to name a few.

This is a sensational statement. Several of these people criticize or move away from the KJV when they think it is wrong. In fact, one of the ones mentioned (B. B. Warfield) actually wrote an entire book on textual criticism defending the Westcott-Hort text. LOL! This is ridiculously funny!

 

[jonathan.borland]

The very next sentence:

Now, at the end of the age, a heady, dialectic, and elite gang of arrogant seminarians have jumped up to claim that it is flawed, dishonest, out of touch and preferred only by novices, fanatics, and fools.

I guess he means B. B. Warfield, whom he just praised in the previous sentence. LOL, too stinkin funny!

 

[jonathan.borland]

but a few things need to be made clear at the outset.

1. I am not, and do not claim to be, a textual scholar.

No joke, Sherlock!

 

[jonathan.borland]

My library consists of less than five hundred volumes, mostly books that I have read in whole or in part.

Of course this statement means nothing. It could mean that he has 10 books of which none he has completely read.

 

[annsni]

...."a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"... I personally don't EVER think it right that there should be ANY copyright by Any man or Corporation of ANY stripe on ANY part of the Book that is known as the Word of God...in ANY language (non-inspired notes and references excepted of course)! I personally believe that is a situation that God will rectify with extreme prejudice someday soon. That is my personal opinion. It doesn't matter to me what anyone else but the Lord thinks about it.


Bro.Greg

You DO realize that the KJV has a "copyright" but it is just not from the US? Also, the copyright expires 50 years after the author's death so other older Bibles do not have copyrights as well. It has nothing to do with the Word of God nor does it affect its legitimacy. This is just another straw that KJVOliers have been brainwashed with.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Okay, I see now that he has done no original research. Everything is merely gleanings or paraphrases from Wilbur Pickering's The Identity of the Original Text of the New Testament.

 

[John of Japan]

You DO realize that the KJV has a "copyright" but it is just not from the US? Also, the copyright expires 50 years after the author's death so other older Bibles do not have copyrights as well. It has nothing to do with the Word of God nor does it affect its legitimacy. This is just another straw that KJVOliers have been brainwashed with.

While it is true that the idea that the KJV has no copyright is a myth, there is a legitimate position taken by not-KJVO scholars that we should not copyright the Word of God. Note the following interview by Dr. David Alan Black of Dr. Maurice Robinson: http://daveblackonline.com/interview_with_maurice_robinson1.htm

The Byzantine Textform Greek NT was copyrighted (to prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of the editors' work and claiming it for their own), and then put into the public domain purposefully. This is our intention with the Japanese NT we are translating.

 

[Logos1560]

Steve Van Nattan of the Blessed Quietness Journal.

In this article, Steve Van Nattan asserted: "The point is, translators and revisionists do not have the right to interpret."

He seems to ignore the fact that the KJV translators, who were also revisionists of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, made some revisions or translation decisions that involved interpretation. Is this author asserting that the KJV translators were wrong to interpret how they understood the original language texts?

At some points, translators do end having to interpret before they can translate.

Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "Every translator must make decisions about the meaning and purpose of the text" (Future of the Bible, p. 105). Bruggen noted: "Translators invariably must interpret, and godly interpretation requires the ministry of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 46). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Gordon Clark stated: “Every translation is to some extent a commentary or interpretation” (p. xiv). KJV defender David Sorenson admitted: "To a certain degree, all translation is subjective" (Touch Not, p. 242). William Einwechter, who defends the KJV as the best available English translation, acknowledged: "All translation involves some degree of interpretation" (English Bible Translations, p. 16). William D. Mounce wrote: “All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 24).

John Owen (1616-1683) stated: "To reject all interpretation would thus be to deprive themselves [those who do not know the original languages] of the Scriptures entirely, for all translation is, of necessity, interpretation" (Biblical Theology, p. 806).

William Ames (1576-1633) observed: "Among interpreters [translators], neither the seventy who turned them into Greek, nor Jerome, nor any other such held the office of a prophet; they were not free from errors in interpretation" (Marrow of Theology, p. 188). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators also referred to translators as "interpreters" and not "prophets." Morgan Edwards (1722-1795) said: "The Greek and Hebrew are the two eyes of a minister, and the translations are but commentaries, because they vary in sense as commentators do" (Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 362). Max Margolis commented: “The right kind of translation must not turn itself into a diffuse commentary, but an abbreviated commentary every translation must necessarily become. When the original admits of more than one interpretation, the translator must chose one to the exclusion of the others” (Story of Bible Translations, p. 122). Gary Gilley acknowledged that “all translations involve a certain amount of interpretation” (This Little Church, p. 84).

Every translator interprets the text to some degree since he renders it as he understands (or misunderstands) it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Okay, I see now that he has done no original research. Everything is merely gleanings or paraphrases from Wilbur Pickering's The Identity of the Original Text of the New Testament.

And this is exactly the kind if junk article that wastes our time debunking and refuting. Essentially when these things come around they are written by admitted non-technical "experts" who lack historical and textual knowledge and likely have never been exposed to the languages.

I've yet to encounter an informed KJVO proponent, probably because education broadens one's horizons to realize that such a limited position is untenable in light of scholarship and knowledge.

Good catches about Warfield btw, really good points. :thumbs:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I Admit I'm Biased

This is going to be an interesting thread. Thanks for posting the link. I glanced at a couple of chapters. When time permits will go back for a more thorough reading/study of what the author had to say.

It's also going to be interesting as to how semantics come into to play once again. Apparently that's already happened with "spelling and punctuation" because it appears the author didn't use the term "jot and tittle". I must admit that I have to read the authors comments, in context, to verify that statement.

There's more, but to be fair, I need to STUDY what the author had to say before putting foot into mouth.

Oldtimer...I appreciate your sense of gentlemanly balance and gravity...I admit I have become biased since being introduced to reading your posts on the BB. I'm a fan! Keep up the good work. This place needs some balance....particularly when there are people like ME around!:smilewinkgrin:

For the "detractors" in our midst....I know of no man whom I would be so blind as to endorse 100% . The author of this article is no exception. I agree with the basic premise and teaching of the article but being a man, there are bound to be some imperfections present. When eating the watermelon, you are to be reminded that it is sometimes necessary to spit out the seeds....as we say in the backwoods of South Carolina!:smilewinkgrin:

Carry on Oldtimer!

Bro.Greg:thumbs:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

More of the same....

And this is exactly the kind if junk article that wastes our time debunking and refuting. Essentially when these things come around they are written by admitted non-technical "experts" who lack historical and textual knowledge and likely have never been exposed to the languages.

I've yet to encounter an informed KJVO proponent, probably because education broadens one's horizons to realize that such a limited position is untenable in light of scholarship and knowledge.

Good catches about Warfield btw, really good points. :thumbs:

It is exactly this kind of "I'm smart and you're ignorant" type of hi-brow attitude that makes me somewhat nauseous. However, scholarship is not a bad thing when it's product is a humble acknowledgement of truth. I say again as I've said before...every one of us is a product of the evidence for or against our chosen positions on this issue of Bible Versions,Manuscript Evidence, and the men or personalities that handle them. I think, based on that evidence, that Westcott and Hort were a couple of corrupt, bible correcting heretics and their work is flawed in the least and fundamentally corrupt at worst. That modern textual criticism is based upon and built upon their teachings and their Greek text is in my mind what makes it a house of cards in a divine WINDSTORM. That OPINION is based on the evidence that I have read over the course of many years. I will however, acknowledge that there are proponents of this issue ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LINE that have or will twist some of the facts in their favor. I'm not saying that about this author but I know it is true in general. The ONLY Book any of us can truly TRUST is the Word of God.....BUT...if you are a part of the crowd that says it is an imperfect book that contains errors that are dependent upon XYZ scholars to straighten out, then you have NO RELIABLE source of final authority. My crowd (the KJV crowd) tells me that I HAVE a final authority that I can trust. At the end of the day...that is the only sane position to take and have confidence in my Bible. Ya'll can rip and tear this article to bits per/your particular bias to your hearts content. It won't change my mind one bit because I have NO TRUST or CONFIDENCE in your "facts" either. I posted the article with Brother Steve's permission to spur legitimate and lively debate. It's working!:smilewinkgrin: Matter of fact...if you REALLY want to stoke the fire...here's a link to Bro. Steve's website...lots of interesting stuff to read. Make sure you check out his Bio. He has led an "interesting" life.

BLESSED QUIETNESS JOURNAL-- Teaching the Word of God and Thrashing the devil's

Bro.Greg:type: