Quotes of Westcott and Hort

It depends on the day for me. There are days when one conversation with someone seems excessive (though I have not reached that stage on this board).

 

I don't have that book (on the canon by W.) here, so I cannot attest to this. When I can, I will try to get more of his works.

 

As far as I know, they would be.

The short answer is that its going to depend, not on Erasmus, but on the Ancient Greek Manuscripts that Erasmus happens to agree with. But where or IF Erasmus goes solo, then his beliefs would play a part in the choices he made. Those beliefs may nor may not be true, but at least they merit consideration and examination.

However, dealing with Erasmus is kind of like dealing with Luther. One has to be careful to note at what stage of their lives and theological understanding they were at, because they do seem to fluctuate on certain issues.

I am not sure how. Hodges and Farstad seem to have relied much more on Von Soden for their M.T. version. So the views that would matter would be Von Soden's - IMO.

Yes they did do textual work, or bad textual work. I think actually its known as isogetical textual emmendation.

Oh, you're just saying that because its true. No, actually I hope to demonstrate the falseness of the later work in much of this field as well (Textual Crit., that is). So it would not be based "merely" on the bad work of Westcott & Hort. There is also the bad work of Tischendorf.

But I had to start somewhere...



Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

What was Westcott talking about when he made this statement in the process of commenting on Genesis ?

 

I wasn't. I was trying to show you where to find the answer...

 

As far as I know, they would be.</font>[/QUOTE] OK. They baptized babies. Believed in prelacy. At least some of them including the head of the work Bishop Andrewes believed that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice. Believed in persecuting dissenters like Baptists et al..

Others can add on but this should suffice to show you that those you so fully trust were in many ways much worse than those you seek to condemn.

The short answer is that its going to depend, not on Erasmus, but on the Ancient Greek Manuscripts that Erasmus happens to agree with.</font>[/QUOTE] This is a double standard. Your arguments against WH have been first against their theology. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to prove them unsound in beliefs then extend that to their judgment and scholarship. Now you are willing to ignore Erasmus' Catholicism because it suits your predetermined beliefs.

Erasmus trusted the Latin Vulgate enough to back translate the last 7 vss from it into Greek. He then failed to revise those verses through 4 subsequent editions even though he had Greek resources to do so. Since he worked alone and the first edition of his text was to be an interlinear for the Latin Vulgate, it would be a very fair assumption that the LV had a significant impact on the text of the TR.

Really? You have persisted in your efforts to draw a straight line from singular dependence on Vatinicus and Sinaiticus through WH and to modern texts and Bibles. Why wouldn't it be just as legitimate to draw a straight line through the Byzantine texts through Erasmus, Von Soden, and HF?

His views on theology or textual criticism? Assuming for the sake of argument that Von Soden was unsaved, I would see a parallel that undermines your TR-only position if you are willing to be consistent. An unsaved man uses mss from the Byzantine family to develop texts that are later refined by men of better theological positions and great scholarship. The biggest difference is that by your count Von Soden used over 400 mss of about 5000 while Erasmus used less than 10 mss plus a late copy of the Latin Vulgate.

But where you have started is not their methods nor their evidence, you have started with their theology. The problem is that you have not likewise applied your theological standard to Erasmus or the KJV translators.

The truth is that the textual works of all these people have been evaluated by sound conservative and fundamental scholars. Which ever line of texts and scholarship you choose, the doctrines and teachings of the originals are preserved. God's Word is perfectly (completely) preserved.

 

From Westcott:

In order to attempt to be clear, I acknowledge that the person who posted this quote originally either misunderstood, was sloppy, or was intentionally misleading. I can only hope it was not the latter (being intentionally misleading).

I am glad that at least my own brief record is one of actually putting the pages up and attempting to cite sources. When people put up quotes that are not accurate, that is difficult to deal with. I am especially dismayed to find even one occasion of this within the KJVO camp.
I do not find those often, but I do find them
occasionally. When I do, I will certainly be at least as critical of either the sloppiness or error of the quote - as anyone else will be.

We can all become tired, and makes mistakes - (though no excuse for intentionally misquotes can stand). I can only watch for myself what I do, and talk with others if & when I find this is the case.

OF course, I do not deal with those among the MV advocates who misquote on multiple occasions on the net, since this is - for better or worse - what I simply expect (though I know there are some with integrity, among which are several here).

I am only posting on this topic...to attempt to be somewhat clear.

I will address other matters later...

Surfer5

 

Elite translators who fail to inform

I do believe that there are people in the MV groups, that do intentionally mislead others. But
I do not think that 95% of those people are laymen or from normal walks of life.

I believe that they are among the "Scholar" class, men who have used their own credentials to get into positions from which they can damage Christianity.

I do not believe that MV advocates will admit this. But regardless, when I am referring to those MV advocates who will deceive or attempt to, I am not referring as a rule to laymen.

Laymen just pick up the misinformation and pass it on, but not before seminarians have led the way. So first I think that MV advocates at the top are part of the problem, and that they mislead seminarians, who then mislead others.

One example that comes to mind is the work of Carlo Martini on the Nestle Aland Cttee. This man is the Archbishop of Milan and is in charge of the Pontifical Institute in Rome, and oversees all theological training of the Vatican and all of its orders of priests.

I have no doubt that He works against the Protestant Reformation and all protestants. I also am aware that the UBS Nestle-Aland group decided that he should be on that committee (with the aproval of Metzger and Eugene Nida). I also know that the UBS Nestle-Aland group signed an agreement with the Vatican in the 1960s, that gave them substantive control over the Nestle-Aland editing group.

But anyway, my point is that Carlo Martini is among those working in Catholic Church interests against Protestants of all shapes/size, and it is in the interest of top MV advocates to NOT communicate this - with the vast majority of evangelical laymen, including Baptists.

But, most of the time, when I am referring to those MV advocates who wilfully deceive, I am not talking about laymen.

(I will respond to most other posts here later)...

Surfer

 

Surfer5,

I'm just curious: What do you make of the fact that millions are growing spiritually & that large numbers of souls are led to Christ in churchs that use your dreaded MV's?

 

how many of ur own KJBO sources r u able to list who intentionally mislead others? or perhaps u're blissfully unaware?

in case u forget to respond to those other posts, here's a link: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001002;p=2