• 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!

Some Things Have To Be Repeated

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The KJVO-crowd has taken it upon themselves to castigate the beliefs of Westcott and Hort . I had started a thread about them about a year ago on the same subject ( now closed ) . Some non-Calvinists use the term hyper-Calvinist to hurl at true Calvinists . Now some KJVO'ers swing wildly with their baseless claims that W&H were heretics etc. Statements such as W&H were 'lost demon-possessed men and in no sense Christian' are said as casually as " It's going to rain tomorrow ."

I had posted on an old thread some quotes from " From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man " . The book was released by Ambassador-Emerald International . Needless to say -- a very conservative , Fundamentalistic publisher .

James B. Williams , a contributing author of the volume said : " I have three of Westcott's commentaries in my library , and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine . "

Keith E. Gephart said : " Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ ; in no way wasa he guilty of 'heresy' and 'apostasty' .

W&H were not fundamentalists - they were Anglicans , but please ...

Spurgeon and Burgon knew them and yet did not charge them with heresy and such things . And in Dean Burgon's case if anyone would have been likely to accuse them if there was any merit , Burgon would have done so .

Someone new on the BB has said that : all modern versions are very serious corruptions of the God-blessed text . Can these kind of sentiments remain on this forum ?

I was also mentioning in another thread that the 1901 ASV was popular among conservative Christians 100 years ago . According to my weak arithmatic 100 years ago would have been 1907 , not 1901 . I had not said that the American Standard Version of 1901 was the choice of conservative Christians in 1901 .
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Rippon: //The KJVO-crowd has taken it upon themselves to castigate the beliefs of Westcott and Hort .//

Yes, they have.

At the same time they speak (as my Indian friend says):
as with a forked tongue snake accusing brothers/sisters
here of practicing "the old
jesuit tactic of "character assasination".

Tee Hee condemining the old
jesuit tactic of "character assasination"
while performing character assasination on Westcott &
Hort. These things should not be :(
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The KJVO-crowd has taken it upon themselves to castigate the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. I had started a thread about them about a year ago on the same subject ( now closed ). Some non-Calvinists use the term hyper-Calvinist to hurl at true Calvinists. Now some KJVO'ers swing wildly with their baseless claims that W&H were heretics etc. Statements such as W&H were 'lost demon-possessed men and in no sense Christian' are said as casually as " It's going to rain tomorrow."

I had posted on an old thread some quotes from The Mind of God to the Mind of Man. The book was released by Ambassador-Emerald International. Needless to say -- a very conservative , Fundamentalistic publisher.

James B. Williams, a contributing author of the volume said : " I have three of Westcott's commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine."

Keith E. Gephart said :" Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ; in no way wasa he guilty of 'heresy' and 'apostasty'.

W&H were not fundamentalists - they were Anglicans , but please ...

Spurgeon and Burgon knew them and yet did not charge them with heresy and such things. And in Dean Burgon's case if anyone would have been likely to accuse them if there was any merit,Burgon would have done so.

Someone new on the BB has said that: all modern versions are very serious corruptions of the God-blessed text. Can these kind of sentiments remain on this forum?

I was also mentioning in another thread that the 1901 ASV was popular among conservative Christians 100 years ago. According to my weak arithmetic 100 years ago would have been 1907, not 1901. I had not said that the American Standard Version of 1901 was the choice of conservative Christians in 1901.

Another round of W&H bashing is going on in another thread. Here are some facts.
 
Top