Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

[Ryan.Samples]

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

...

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

The fact the author doesn't comprehend this fundamentally basic translation concept demonstrates his utter lack of qualification to offer any level of commentary on the matter. He lacks the basic education, formal or informal, to tackle this kind of issue.

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!

If you are doing more seed-spitting than fruit-eating, methinks you need to find another watermelon. Reading the preface alone lets me know we need a different watermelon. The author is sorely unqualified to offer any kind of critical evaluation here. His opening arguments alone are sufficient to warn off anyone seeking a legitimate discussion of the issues at hand.

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:

Concur. Again, if you aren't even remotely qualified to offer an opinion, you probably should exercise great care when trying to publish one.

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 am saddened to read these words. You seem more concerned with supporting your position rather than actually interacting with any honesty on the matter at hand. How terribly sad. You really don't have the right to get upset when you post what proves to be a very poor article that others immediately recognize as woefully inadequate.

 

[Ryan.Samples]

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.

I would rephrase your comment, but I support its underlying principle.

Incidentally, since it contributes to the issue and serves to build off the quoted comment, can anyone identify any contemporary scholars [trained in textual criticism of the original languages] who support the KJVO position? I'm not implying they aren't out there, I simply don't know of any and never really went looking for them.

 

[annsni]

I'd like to know what the OP thinks of the issues with the link he posted that have been brought up. The inconsistencies are glaring....

 

[Rippon]

I know of no man whom I would be so blind as to endorse 100%

You need to apply that to a Bible version which you endorse 100%.

... being a man, there are bound to be some imperfections present.

In that the KJV was revised by mere men there were bound to be imperfections within the text.

 

[Rippon]

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.

Your thought-line is disgraceful. Based on the "evidence" from that unoriginal author you dare to call Westcott and Hort heretics. May you have the capacity to be shamed.

You constantly maintain that the KJV is perfect and in no need of improvement. Of course it can be corrected;as any mere translation is in need of correction.

The ONLY Book any of us can truly TRUST is the Word of God

You have to come to the understanding that the Word of God is not the KJV alone. The NIV and many other Bible translations are also the Word of God.

Ya'll can rip and tear this article to bits per/your particular bias to your hearts content.

May the Lord grant you the humility to recognize that the source you cite so confidently is filled with error.

 

[Logos1560]

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.

It is the KJV-only theory that implies that the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek New Testament text had errors that are dependent upon an exclusive group of Church of England scholars to straighten out and upon later KJV editors to straighten out the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Would not the KJV-only view imply that the pre-1611 English Bibles had errors and imperfections that were dependent upon an exclusive group of Church of England scholars to straighten out?

How can you seem to suggest that a final authority was established in 1611 when the final authority clearly existed before 1611?

 

[Van]

If we set aside that the author thinks modern scholarship stabbed God's Word in the back, and that many posters today say the author is too laughable to listen to, lets consider what he said.

Romans 5:15 reads: "But not as the offense, so also [is] the free gift" in the KJV, but most modern translations read: "But the free gift is not like the offense." The author then takes the obscure wording and tells us it means just as we suffered from the offense of another, we also benefit from the grace of another. And therefore the "federal mediation doctrine" taught in the passage is obliterated by the modern translations.

I do not have an opinion yet on whether the KJV did most accurately capture Paul's idea, but even if this idea is assumed to be correct, could not a modern translation advocate find a verse where the modern translation does more justice to the message than the KJV? Of course. Therefore to point to several verses where the KJV hits the mark, does not demonstrate that the other translations do not do a better job of presenting the whole word of God.

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's a quote from the preface:



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!

Forgot to add Moses and Paul!

And that the reformers preferred the Geneva bible!

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is foolishness to present half-truths, which are in effect whole lies, and NOT to expect people who are supposed to LOVE TRUTH to criticize it.

It is even sadder to see a brother in Christ have the attitude that the lies really don't matter.

I was around when this issue rose it's ugly head back in the 1970's when Ruckman and company brought it up and I was sure that it would do no good even back then. It has done nothing but split churches, fellowships , missions organizations and cause missionaries to lose support over something that is a NON-ISSUE for 95% of the people in the world that DO NOT READ English.

The sooner "KJVO" dies the better off Christendom will be.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Simple really...

I'd like to know what the OP thinks of the issues with the link he posted that have been brought up. The inconsistencies are glaring....

Ann...my answer to that is simple really. I don't trust the opinions of anyone that would take the position that ANY of the MV's OR the Greek and Hebrew are in any way superior to my KJV or that my Bible contains mistakes. I believe that the KJV is an "equivalent" english language translation of the CORRECT Greek and Hebrew original language texts. From what I know of Westcott and Hort, I wouldn't trust any Greek or Hebrew text they had anything to do with. I believe that the doctrine of Preservation is equal too, if not possibly even more important in our day as the doctrine of Inspiration. Inspiration is a finished work completed when the canon of Scripture was complete. Preservation of the text (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, latin, english, spanish...and on and on and on as the scriptures are translated into more and more languages in our day)...is even now an ongoing work that began when the very first word of scripture was penned and will likely continue until the Lord comes. It is a divine work that probably no mortal man (or woman) will ever be able to quantify or understand completely.

I know that on this Board that makes me less respected and by some, maybe even hated or disliked....but I am at peace with God about my convictions. In all honesty, if the Holy Spirit ever convicted me that I was wrong and had been misled and I needed to get right and be corrected about these convictions I hold I would change and go the other direction in a New York second (or less)! It is far more important to be right with God and be pleasing in His sight than it is to please either myself or anyone else. I have said before and I'll say again....EVERY ONE OF US are/is a product of the specific evidence for our respective positions that we have chosen (for whatever reasons) to embrace. There are NO VERSES OF SCRIPTURE in either the KJV or ANY of the MODERN VERSIONS that definitively support EITHER POSITION. I personally believe that the verses most often quoted in support of either Inspiration OR Preservation (in the KJV of course) more readily support the spirit and heart of my convictions and conclusions about the Bible of my choice (KJV). That is what I believe...so far the Lord has NOT moved me (inspite of my willingness) to change my mind. It's as simple as that.

As for any supposed or proven errors in the information in Bro.Van Nattan's article...well....I will have to admit that my personal bias may be getting in the way of being able to recognise them.....(I personally don't believe Bro.Steve would deliberately publish erroneous information).......but then again...the obvious bias of his detractors may be doing the same to them. I know that none of us are either perfect or infallible. That said....I'm hearing these objections from people that would tell me that the Bible I hold in my hand is NEITHER infallible OR perfect. It is kinda hard for ME to take THEM seriously either. I have a Perfect God...He made sure I have a Perfect Book. From there the argument goes on and on and on........ If I'm wrong I'd be happy for the Lord to correct me. He knows how to get that done in a willing heart if He needs to. I trust Him.:saint:

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Batt4Christ]

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.

Kind of like throwing a piece of raw meat into the middle of a large pen with hungry lions - it's called "baiting"...

My opinion: If you are going to start a debate (or fight), you need to be ready to be a part of it.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Never said OR Implied That.....

It is even sadder to see a brother in Christ have the attitude that the lies really don't matter.

Just for the record....I don't have any such attitude that "lies really don't matter".

It's just that nobody has convinced me or definitively proven to me that there are any lies in the article in question. A "lie" is a deliberate thing and it is completely malicious to accuse someone of lying unless you can prove it. I recognize that some information presented could potentially be inaccurate....that happens even in the best sources....but caution should be exercised when making accusations because that implies potentially EVIL or WICKED motive.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

And the truth is....

Kind of like throwing a piece of raw meat into the middle of a large pen with hungry lions - it's called "baiting"...

My opinion: If you are going to start a debate (or fight), you need to be ready to be a part of it.

You must not of read my follow-up post about that...point taken and corrected.:thumbs:

I just can't claim to have the credentials or the brains to "fight the fight" as it were. I read things...have opinions and form conclusions based on the information compiled by others just like everybody else does. That I am NOT an expert should never disqualify me from participating in an open forum such as this. I come here to learn and grow...and hopefully to enjoy some fellowship with other believers that I may never meet face to face until I get to heaven. That's why I'm here. But yeah..PiJ was right...and I told him so!

Bro.Greg:type:

 

[Van]

If we set aside that the author thinks modern scholarship stabbed God's Word in the back, and that many posters today say the author is too laughable to listen to, lets consider what he said.

Romans 5:15 reads: "But not as the offense, so also [is] the free gift" in the KJV, but most modern translations read: "But the free gift is not like the offense." The author then takes the obscure wording and tells us it means just as we suffered from the offense of another, we also benefit from the grace of another. And therefore the "federal mediation doctrine" taught in the passage is obliterated by the modern translations.

I do not have an opinion yet on whether the KJV did most accurately capture Paul's idea, but even if this idea is assumed to be correct, could not a modern translation advocate find a verse where the modern translation does more justice to the message than the KJV? Of course. Therefore to point to several verses where the KJV hits the mark, does not demonstrate that the other translations do not do a better job of presenting the whole word of God.

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

[InTheLight]

A "lie" is a deliberate thing and it is completely malicious to accuse someone of lying unless you can prove it. I recognize that some information presented could potentially be inaccurate....that happens even in the best sources....but caution should be exercised when making accusations because that implies potentially EVIL or WICKED motive.

Bro.Gregraying:

How would you characterize this statement from the article?:


Rupert Murdoch also owns the NIV. How long will it be before the NIV comes with a centerfold playgirl after Malachi?

 

[Van]

Anyway, returning to Romans 5:15, did the modern translations throw out the baby with the bath water?

Pretty much all the modern translations point to the difference between the two, rather than the similarity claimed to be found in the KJV, and also translated literally in YLT, Darby, and a few other old translations.

 

[InTheLight]

Just for the record....I don't have any such attitude that "lies really don't matter".

It's just that nobody has convinced me or definitively proven to me that there are any lies in the article in question. A "lie" is a deliberate thing and it is completely malicious to accuse someone of lying unless you can prove it. I recognize that some information presented could potentially be inaccurate....that happens even in the best sources....but caution should be exercised when making accusations because that implies potentially EVIL or WICKED motive.

Bro.Gregraying:

From the author's web site:

Fenton John Anthony Hort, co-translator of the Greek Bible to English with Brooke Foss Westcott, was a very wicked man given to strong drink, the occult, and was very fond of the Eastern Roman Cathoic Church forms and rituals. You can learn how wicked the man was reading this biography written by his son online.

LIFE AND LETTERS OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT- Vol. 1
http://archive.org/stream/lifeandlettersf02hortgoog#page/n3/mode/2up

LIFE AND LETTERS OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT- Vol. 2
http://archive.org/details/lifeandlettersf01hortgoog

OK, I went to the biographies written by his son. They are available in their entirety thanks to Google Books. There is a search feature. In the search box I plugged in "wine", "beer", "liquor", "drunk", "imbibe", "intoxicated", "scotch", "whiskey" No matches for any of the words except wine, which was referenced in regards to Holy Communion.

Next I tried "occult", "ritual", "rite". No matches were found.

So apparently the author is a liar.

 

[Batt4Christ]

Having now read it, I am more disgusted by the flowing borderline hate in the "article". Of course, using the NIV, the best selling and one of the more Liberal translations isn't necessarily a "fair understanding" of the issue. And his statement of adding a centerfold girl between the OT and NT was way out of line (Rupert Murdoch has what connection to anything related to centerfolds? He is a media mogul via his NewsCorp organization, and they own Zondervan).

And as has been pointed out by others - his "evidence" from 'standard bearers" falls well short. Indeed - this man's "defense" of the King James Authorized Version falls well short - many much better defenses have been made-

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

OK..I Think That...

How would you characterize this statement from the article?:


Rupert Murdoch also owns the NIV. How long will it be before the NIV comes with a centerfold playgirl after Malachi?

Yeah..even I would have to admit a statement like that is ill-advised and "over the top". That said, I can attest to the fact that Bro.Van Nattan does have a tendency to get angry when he believes the Word of God to be under attack. I have observed that in other writings of his that I have read. Sometimes that is expressed with the same kind of sarcasm I have seen on this very board many times by otherwise (apparently) even-tempered and godly people. None of us can claim perfection.(myself DEFINITELY included) BUT, while according to another post I read earlier in this same thread, Murdoch may not be the "direct" owner of the copyright on the NIV, but he is at least in the ownership "chain" as it were and if I am not mistaken, he does own other interests that include pornography concerns. I'd have to re-research that to be able to quote any details but I know I have seen and read it before. My main contention is that since the overall subject we are talking about IS the Word of God, we are talking about something that NO MAN should ever be able to "OWN" or "lay claim too" in any way, shape, or form....be it a copyright or any other means....be it Rupert Murdoch or anyone else.

Bro.Greg:type:

 

[preachinjesus]

When you don't have a good argument...ad hominem ad infinitum.

If you can't argue the facts you sure can confuse the issues.