Featured Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs?

I ask "why?";

"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The (Westcott and Hort) theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive... (?)

"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; (?)

Why should they be practically worshipped as idols, to the extent that it is "considered textual heresy to deviate from their position"?

Why, in the Name of God, has there been no universal question mark placed on these two rascals? and the works produced from their efforts?

"All modern translations are based upon the reconstructed Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Romanist-oriented scholars, whose purpose was to replace the Protestant and Baptist text with those of the Roman Church and thereby wean back Protestants to the Roman fold.

"These two men denied the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, exalted Mary worship and the Romanish mass, denied the Genesis record, and were ardent evolutionists and had universalist tendencies.

"About 95 percent of all Greek manuscripts that we have are of the Byzantine type.

"This means that the Westcott and Hort texts disagree with 95 percent of extant sources, including Scripture quotations from the writings of the early church fathers, who antedated the texts on which the Westcott and Hort reconstruction was based.

"The Westcott and Hort texts came from Rome and Egypt, depicted as God's enemies in Scripture, whereas the text of the KJV came from Syria and Greece, the areas of the initial outreach of Christianity.

"All translations since 1611 have not been made entirely from the Textus Receptus.

"These did include some of the Textus Receptus but they largely depended on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus was found in the pope's library in A. D. 1481 and Codex Sinaiticus was taken from a waste basket on a Mt. Sinai monastery in 1859.

"Both of these manuscripts include the apocryphal books outside of the New Testament canon.

"This makes the new translations based largely on these texts essentially Roman Catholic translations.

"They resemble Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Rheims-Douai versions of 1582 authorized by the Roman Catholic Church at the infamous Council of Trent."

From: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

"Two hundred and seventy years passed which brings us to 1881 and the publication of the Revised Version. Three brilliant scholars dominated the whole committee; Brooke Foss Westcott (later Bishop of Durham) and Fenton John Anthony Hort, both professors at Cambridge University;

"Bishop Ellicott, Chairman of the committee who some years before was solidly in favor of the Received Text and the position of John Burgon.

"Ellicott was swung over to the position of Westcott and Hort, so much so that he aided and abetted them in the pledging of the rest of the committee to absolute secrecy when each received a copy of the newly published Westcott and Hort Greek text.

"Why the secrecy?

"That remains to be seen.

"Our study, over a period of ten years, of this whole subject has confirmed the conviction that this was what Burgon calls, in his own language, "a conspiracy."

"Neither Westcott nor Hort ever stated or believed that the Bible was the Verbally Inspired, Inerrant Word of God.

"They have gone on record as saying it was to be treated like any other book.

"It is our studied belief that this was one of Satan's subtlest assaults on the purity and integrity of God's Holy Word and the repercussions of this assault have been felt through the decades to this very hour.

"All of this has to do with the Westcott and Hort Textual theory which the vast majority of evangelicals have accepted at its face value without being given the truth about it.

"Both of these Cambridge professors, for one thing, elevated antiquity above accuracy and thus championed the two oldest manuscripts of the Scriptures in existence, Codex Aleph or Sinaiaticus and Codex B or Vaticanus, both dating from the 4th century. Both of these have been branded by Herman Hoskier, John Burgon, and Prebendary Scrivener as being filled with errors and contradictions; two of the "foulest" of manuscripts, in the words of Burgon.

"W & H (Westcott and Hort) put all of their eggs in these two baskets, completely ignoring and at times deprecating the hundreds of Greek manuscripts which agreed with the Received Text, on which the King James Version was founded, in 90 to 95 percent of their contents.

"It is clearly shown in the writings of some of the greatest scholars in Which Bible? that the oldest manuscripts have been proved more often than not to be the worst and the least trustworthy.

"W & H invented some clever cliches' and plausible arguments in favor of their theory such as "intrinsic probability," "transcriptional probability,"
"Syrian recension," etc., all of which prove to be entirely subjective with no real facts to substantiate them save the opinion of the scholar.

"This method is much easier than the very laborious one of comparing manuscript with manuscript and thus establishing a sound factual basis for their conclusions.

"Practically every version of the Bible from the publication of the Revised Version of 1881 down to the present has followed the Westcott and Hort Greek text and theory almost in full.

"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has been considered by some the acme in the textual criticism of the New Testament.

"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question.

"During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken."

"To continue Dr. Martin's presentation. "Most work in textual criticism today has at least a Hortian foundation;

"nevertheless there are fashions in criticism as in women's clothing, and the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the original Westcott-Hort position.

. . . An amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself; many of the textbooks, books of Bible interpretation, and innumerable secondary works go on repeating the W & H dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who would logically be expected to be Hortians."

From:
Is the King James Version Nearest
to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller

 

I do like the scholars that brought us the KJV.

"These men were the greatest scholars of their day or any day, so erudite and learned that the scholarship of today pales in comparison."

Their dependence on Codex Aleph or Sinaiaticus and Codex B or Vaticanus, (that disagree with each other 3,000 times in the four Gospels alone), have handicapped any efforts of all Modern versions to be any more than "death in the pot".

I believe God is greatly offended by deletions of His Triune GODHEAD, for starters.

How did you let this happen on your watch?

What do have to say for yourself about this before the Lord?

That since there is no acceptable alternative to the KJV, then the only people who prefer it are automatically pointy-headed Dutchman? who worship the Bible and not God?

I John 5:7;

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

New Living Translation
So we have these three witnesses—

English Standard Version
For there are three that testify:

Berean Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

Berean Literal Bible
For there are three bearing testimony:

King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

New King James Version
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

New American Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

NASB 1995
For there are three that testify:

NASB 1977
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Legacy Standard Bible
For there are three that bear witness:

Amplified Bible
For there are three witnesses:

Christian Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

American Standard Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.

Contemporary English Version
In fact, there are three who tell about it.

English Revised Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
There are three witnesses:

Good News Translation
There are three witnesses:

International Standard Version
For there are three witnesses —

etc., etc., etc.
...

 

From:
Is the King James Version Nearest
to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller


"We do not say that the KJV does not permit of changes. There are a number that could be and should be made BUT there is a vast difference between a change and an error.

"In the early church there came a time, or times -- just when or where we have no reliable record -- when some godly men definitely directed of the Blessed Holy Spirit of God selected the twenty-seven books which comprise our New Testament and arranged them in that order. That this was done over a long period of time could well be and probably was, but it was done -- we have the evidence at hand to prove it.

"This writer is just as firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit played a very definite part in bringing together the brilliant scholars who in time produced the King James Version of 1611. These men were the greatest scholars of their day or any day, so erudite and learned that the scholarship of today pales in comparison.

"To illustrate; John Boys, one of the translators was able to read the Bible in Hebrew at the age of five years! He was a proficient Greek scholar at the age of fourteen and for years he spent from 4 o'clock in the morning till 8 o'clock at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages!

"The Chairman of the overall committee was Lancelot Andrewes who was the greatest linguist of his day, being at home in twenty different languages. He spent five hours a day in prayer and was so respected by King James that the monarch ordered all levity to cease whenever Bishop Andrewes was present. (See "The Learned Men" by Terence Brown, Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London. England, Which Bible?, p. 13.)

"You see, these men were not cursed with television, radio, telephones!

"They had time to think, meditate and study. They were not caught in the trap of flitting from one Bible conference to another with little or no time for preparation or prayer. God the Blessed Holy Spirit knew what He was doing -- as He always does -- when He gathered these dedicated minds together for such a purpose.

"True, there were High Churchmen among them and those with whom we might disagree on minor points of doctrine but ALL without exception held in highest regard and deepest reverence the Bible as the Verbally Inspired Word of God -- and treated it as such.

"We venture to say, never in all history has there been such a convocation of scholarly men of God who produced the masterpiece of the King James Version, hailed by the greatest of literary lights in every age since then, as the Lodestar of Literature that has led all writings to the present hour.

"The 1611 scholars used as the basis for their version the Textus Receptus which was originally collated by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam and later improved by Sturnica, Robert Stephens, the Elzivirs and Beza's 5 editions.

"The Renaissance of Europe produced that giant intellect and scholar, Erasmus. The common proverb then was "Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it." To quote one scholar, "Endowed by nature with a mind that could do ten hours work in one, Erasmus, during his mature years in the earlier part of the sixteenth century was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing and publishing.

"Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers.

"It is customary even today with those who are bitter against the pure teachings of the Received Text, to sneer at Erasmus. No perversion of facts is too great to belittle his work.

"Yet, while he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom at his own price; the Emperor of Germany did the same. The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience. In fact, had he been so minded, he perhaps could have made himself Pope. France and Spain sought him to become a dweller in their realm; while Holland prepared to claim him as her most distinguished citizen.

"Book after book came from his hand. Faster and faster came the demands for his publications. But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek.

"At last after one thousand years the NEW Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) In the original tongue. Astonished and confounded, the world, deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospels.

"The effect was electric. At once, all recognized the great value of this work which for over four hundred years (1516-1930) was to hold dominant place in an era of Bibles.

"There were hundreds of manuscripts for Erasmus to examine -- and he did; but he used only a few. What matters?

"The vast bulk of manuscripts in Greek are practically the Received Text; of course, not identical but most of the variations are superficial; and in general character and content they represent the same kind of text.

"If the few Erasmus used were typical, that is, after he had thoroughly balanced the evidence of many and used a few which displayed that balance, did he not, with all the problems before him, arrive at practically the same result which only couId be arrived at today by a fair and comprehensive investigatlon?

"Moreover, the text Erasmus chose had such an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, that it constituted an irresistible argument for, and proof of, God's providence.

"God did not write a hundred Bibles; there is only ONE Bible, the others at best are only approximations.

"In other words the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, known as the Received Text, is none other than the Greek New Testament which successfully met the rage of its pagan and papal enemies. (The above may be found in full in Which Bible?, pp. 142-144.)"

 

Thanks Rob.

I spent the day reading in five of W or H's commentaries.

I found buried behind their crafty wording, that aided them in keeping their jobs with The Church of England, intentionally vague but entirely convincing denials of every major Doctrine of the Christian faith.

"This information perfectly harmonies with their alterations to the Greek text and the subsequent deletions and additions adulterating all modern versions of the Bible, in their denials of every major Doctrine of the Christian faith, at every opportunity, especially regarding Deity, Depravity, and any and all the Divine Attributes of Jesus Christ.

In fact, the errors and departures from Christianity in their writings were do vast that one writer systematized them into the following categories:

CONTENTS
Background Information
The Theological (BB expletive deleted) of Westcott and Hort in:

BIBLIOLOGY
THEOLOGY PROPER
ANTHROPOLOGY AND HAMATIOLOGY
SATANOLOGY
ECCLESIOLOGY
PNEUMATOLOGY
ESCHATOLOGY
SOTERIOLOGY
CHRISTOLOGY

I have enough reference material for 100 God-Honoring, faith-contending posts.

There is only so much activity here for me to fit in a couple here and there. So the defenders of W&H can chill out.

THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY
Dr. Phil Stringer

The Fundamentalist Defenders of Westcott and Hort

"There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)!

"J. B Williams writes, "I have three of Wescott's commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine."

"Keith Gephart writes, "In reality, Wescott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ. In no way was he guilty of (BB expletive deleted) and apostasy." In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, "I cannot help but suspect that. . . some blinding presupposition. . .drives you to prove him a (BB expletive deleted) at any cost."

"Dr. Stewart Custer writes, "Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of."

"Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to "restore the original text."

"It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote?

"It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).

"Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them).

"Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines.

"Both of their sons admit that they were accused of (BB expletive deleted) because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.

"Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church. Modernism found it's home in the High Church Party.

"Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.

"No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!

"Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly than their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public.

"The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias.

"It is interesting that some men can't face the real record about Wescott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort.

"However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Wescott and Hort only.

"To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.

"Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not (BB expletive deleted) at any cost. It appears that "scholarship" requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence.

"Their defenders do not spend any time quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons. Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion, because no such testimonies exist." (underlining the original author's).

 

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

"Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

. . . Psalm 12:6-7 . . .

...

The King James Only Controversy.

"You don't have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only controversy."

"Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to "refute the 'King James Only' cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today."

"Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the "veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of 'King James Onlyism'."

"Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as "miss-informers" and as "a cancerous sore."

"Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, (BB expletive deleted).

"Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents "undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself'.

"Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common.

"Some refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the "King James Only Cult".

"Another common term is the sneering reference to the "King (BB expletive deleted)."

"However the use of the "King James Bible only" wasn't always so controversial."

 

Correct. However, the KJV was not translated like the W&H text, where, "they largely depended on the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus."

That is, has been, and always will be the issue.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

Who is a, "KJVOnlyist"?

"When a KJVOnlyist condemns other Bibles, he condemns the KJV along with it!"

That may be base on a little misunderstanding (below), but no, I am not the one condemning the KJV.

This might be a good time to ask, the way it used to be, why was the RCC the only group that rejected and condemned the KJV for hundreds of years?

Misinformed about what?

This statement:

...wasn't intended to be a conclusion from this comment, exclusively:

The problem is:

That is the reason for the final take that:

And they most assuredly do.

Horror.

Are some of the following what is supposed to be 'slanderous'?

...etc., etc.,...or some other?

Did I try to advance some false doctrine(s)?

The more I have learned about Westcott and Hort and their work, the worse it gets. Have you ever heard of them? Do you have any idea what they stand for?

You may remember or imagine the chagrin resulting from revelations surfacing about Dr. C.I. Scofield as in
"Cyrus Ingerson Scofield:
Charlatan and (BB prohibited word)".

His works effected Christian views on salvation and plenty more, too.

Division from him and a great portion of his body of work is prudent, to use one word.

Westcott and Hort's beliefs and influence which produced the Modern bibles has been available for decades.

Dozens and dozens of their statements in their writings and correspondences run crossways with our church's statement of faith.

Yours?

Much less, the effects they had myriad alterations, deletions and additions to what are called 'bibles', themselves.

They deny everything about Christianity and don't record a profession of faith that anyone can find for some reason.

Why would anyone jump up and automatically assume that they and their efforts are "of God"?

They made a switch, from one underlying text used in 'translating bibles', to another.

Should that suggest we take caution, at such a proposal?(?)

There was a monumental change in the text used for the 'translation of bibles' and from every indication I see, it was as deceitful and deceptively evil a change as humanly possible.

Or, maybe not entirely humanly possible.

The Bible is not important enough to give them any scrutiny? at all?

Vail them is secrecy?

Why not just go back to have all versions available written in Latin?

What in Name of God is going on here?

 

Thanks Rob,

Translation is an imperfect process.

You know they did not place the highest authenticity on that with the least Integrity.

"God used and blessed", by comparing extensive other research materials, in search of what could be used and blessed.

Not to make faultiness their cornerstone benchmark priority.

Looks like they can't exactly be accused of, 'KJVOnlism'.

"should not be judged solely"

Try their persons by their faith.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:

"because many false prophets are gone out into the world." I John 4:4.

I hope we still allowed to say, "spirit(s), here(?)

"presented them openly to be studied and read by all."

I think that is what I am doing.

Along with posting a Biblically educated guess or two, of mine and others.

 

The wording used to say, 'meanest', instead of 'poorest'.

Similar wording, similar question, similar answer.

From: Far Eastern Bible College | Articles in Defence of VPP

This question was directed to who he assumed were Ruckmanites (to "KJVOnlism Cultists") but "Hudson’s" question is followed by the Far Eastern Bible College's answers from a KJV-superiority perspective.

(2) Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the meanest translation” is still “the word of God”?

"The 1611 Preface of the KJV is often used by anti-KJVists to support the corrupt modern versions. They argue that in that Preface the KJV translators themselves viewed even the worst English versions as the Word of God.

"Did the KJV translators really say that every translation of the Bible even if filled with grammatical, translational, or doctrinal errors could be rightly called the Word of God?

"They certainly did not. The context in which they wrote those words clearly reveals this: “Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God:

"as the King’s speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace.”

"It is clear that by the word “meanest” they do not mean “worst” (i.e., “evil in the highest degree”). Who would dare mistranslate the king’s speech?

"Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By “meanest” they meant poor in literary grace.

"When beginning Greek students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God.

"The KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, certainly did not humour wicked or corrupt versions.

"It is utterly ridiculous and absurd to suggest that they did.

"The KJV translators were certainly not “liars,” but anti-KJVists have put words into their mouths to make them mean what they did not mean by “meanest” in a mean attempt to demean the pro-KJV position."