Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

[preachinjesus]

addressing Hort & Westcott. IMO, the core of the KJB vs MV debate.

Can we, therefore, also address the rampant homosexuality of King James himself?

Here's the thing, it becomes increasingly clear as one surveys the history of translation that these ad hominems don't work in understanding the nature of what goes into a translation. When someone defaults to that as a primary means of discrediting someone's work it usually means the rest of their points aren't very good or worth considering.

If you have a problem with Westcott and Hort's work address their work.

Talk about the challenges in gathering a Critical Text over a Majority Text. Talk about the nature of scholarship and the horizon of historiographical limitations. Talk about the issues around variants and their contribution to a divided text. Talk about the so-called scientific method and its integration into this process. Talk about the educational and professional backgrounds of the major figures. After you do all of this the life and lifestyle of a scholar(s) can be weighed...though it is really only worth a footnote.

 

[Rippon]

I believe I have a perfect Bible that I can trust. I will die happy one day believeing that. If by some chance I am or could be wrong,I'm sure the Lord will correct that issue at His Judgement Seat.

You could correct your errors regarding your KJVO ways in the here and now.

As for any "inaccuracies" with Bro.Van Nattan's article...

That's being very charitable.

 

[Rippon]

Did God allow His perfect Word to be butchered, corrupted, and diluted in and by the hands of unscrupulous men from then until now?

No.

You can bet Satan knows every word of every version of that Book in every language it has ever been printed in and he hates every one of them.

That's right. He hates the NIV,HCSB,NLT etc. You best not be hatin' on em' either!

For the record...I "reverence" the Word of God.

What a contradiction. You reverence the Word of God yet despise the Word of God at the same time as expressed by many other translations other than the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

No.


That's right. He hates the NIV,HCSB,NLT etc. You best not be hatin' on em' either!



What a contradiction. You reverence the Word of God yet despise the Word of God at the same time as expressed by many other translations other than the KJV.

guess that our brother has "revelation" knowledge that God ONLY gave to those who ONLY see the KJVO as from Him, and no other bible version is today!

 

[Rippon]

When putting on the full armour of God, does that include engaging with individuals who seem to relish throwing stones at anyone who takes a stand for his or her beliefs?

Rock - question salvation
Rock - question intelligence
Rock - accusation of idol worship
Rock - accusation of falsehood
Rock - belittle for less education
Rock - pull out the semantics card

Hmm.. KJVO's really have a lack of consistency. All of the above( with the exception of #5) have been leveled against Westcott and Hort by your cohorts. Shameful,very shameful.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hmm.. KJVO's really have a lack of consistency. All of the above( with the exception of #5) have been leveled against Westcott and Hort by your cohorts. Shameful,very shameful.

remember how the KJVO crowd blasted the 1984 NIV gtroup, for having a lesbian involve din its translation staff, but was found out that she ONLY was consulted for how the commitee had translated as regarding to how it read in the English, NOT actually in the translation aspect!

 

[Rippon]

remember how the KJVO crowd blasted the 1984 NIV gtroup, for having a lesbian involved in its translation staff, but was found out that she ONLY was consulted for how the commitee had translated as regarding to how it read in English, NOT actually in the translation aspect!

Of course I remember the incident about V.M. I am awaiting the lies of the KJVO community to rehash the whole thing again and not admit their false charges after they are proven wrong.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

OK....

Where have those who may use an English translation other than the KJV painted Westcott and Hort as "heroes of the faith"?

Perhaps it is the KJV-only crowd that attempts to paint the Church of England translators of the KJV as "heroes of the faith."

KJV-only advocates seem to use unrighteous divers measures or weights [double standards] in their attempts to smear or villify Westcott and Hort and all modern translations by a guilt by association argument while they overlook or whitewash all the problems with the doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV.

I, of course, disagree with your view but acknowledge that you are nonetheless entitled to it. As for the "church of England" translators....I don't have any particular regard for them as anything more than humble and honest men who had a high regard for the nature of the work they were engaged in. They aspired to nothing more than to try and do the best they could. They never did (as far as I know) BOAST of anything or ascribe to themselves any particular accolades (even though they may have been deserving of them). I'm certain that they had no idea how enduring their "product" would become. I don't perceive ANY of those attributes in the work of W&H or the textual criticism (or "critics")from their "work" forward to the present day. That is my opinion based on the evidence I embrace and regard as true. You think I'm wrong. I'm OK with that....not gonna fight you over it. I'm a happy guy.:love2:

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A valid point....

I'm curious as to this point:

It is often said that some of us question the intelligence of others in these debates. Point in case, I noted that those who who, admittedly, do not have skills in the original languages are at a disadvantage in this debate because they are happy to make points and accusations about the textual basis of the Scriptures without the requisite knowledge for backing up these conclusions. This is then rebuked or responded with I'm questioning someone's intelligence or such.

In fact, even as the author of OP and the article's author have both noted, they lack training in the original languages. To say this presents a problem for their making a complete case isn't to question their intelligence, it is to point out that technical discussions about the original languages of the Scriptures requires training. If you don't have this education this doesn't make you an idiot, it simply means you're not as trained in this area.

My point is that if someone admits that they don't have education/training in the languages and then goes on to involve themselves in a deeper discussion about the nature of the biblical text they are at somewhat of a disadvantage because of this lack of training. It isn't because they are "ignorant" or "unlearned."

Too often we take criticism too critically.

Brother...I know I can get emotional sometimes:laugh:...but you actually do have a valid point there to which I'll expand upon. I can't claim to be an expert about anything. I have no technical training about the original Biblical languages or textual criticism or any of that and I have to admit to that if I am to be an honest man. IN THAT SENSE I am, by definition, "ignorant" and "unlearned". I'm not offended that that is technically true about me and I am contantly trying to read,study, and become better informed (one reason I enjoy the BB). That said, I do not believe that that should ever disqualify me or anyone else from participating in the discourse here. Like EVERYBODY ELSE IN HERE, expert or novice, what I do know I GOT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. In these subjects there is rarely any "original" ideas anymore. We are all the products of our "learning",regardless of the sources and choices of our education. As I have said before...I am the product of the sources of manuscript evidence (in regards to my views on the subjects in THIS forum) that I have felt led to embrace...as are EVERYONE of you. Some agree with me, most don't. I've usually been one to reject the "majority" opinion or the Democratic (mob rule) choice.

On taking criticism too critically...you are exactly right. I think many of us let our feelings get "bruised" too easily. I'm guilty too sometimes. Guess we just all need to pull on our "big boy" pants sometimes!:laugh::thumbs:

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yeah...

Can we, therefore, also address the rampant homosexuality of King James himself?

I'll try my hand at that....While that accusation may or may not be true it doesn't change or affect the following:

-He was merely the "authorizer" of the work...not a participant in the actual work of the translation.

-It doesn't change the fact that the KJV condemns the practice of sodomy in the clearest and strongest terms then known and since. (In my opinion)..none of the subsequent translations,paraphrases,or even commentaries (that I am aware of) do anything to improve upon the clarity of this condemnation. Some, in fact, weaken it I'm sure.

-That would lead me to ask the question that if dear ole KJ was a rampant sodomite, why would he authorize a Bible that clearly and soundly condemns the practice of his pursuit of sensual pleasure? Huh?

I think, true or not, that this is just one more example of (as we say in the SOUTH...that's the holy land ya'll:laugh the fact that God can "hit a straight lick with a crooked stick!" We have many instances in the Word of God of God accomplishing His purposes using the unregenerate. I don't know if King James was actually a saved man or not...heaven knows...but I'm glad He lent his approval to the book that would become my Bible.

Bro.Greg:thumbsup:

 

[Oldtimer]

Can we, therefore, also address the rampant homosexuality of King James himself?

I'm tired. Just got home from working on a project to make life a little easier for a disabled woman. These old bones don't recover as quickly as they used to. So, for right now, I'd like to address just this point.

I'm asking you to please prove your statement. When doing so, if you have a creditable source of evidence of his "rampant homosexuality" that was produced within his lifetime, please provide it. From what I've been able to find, so far, the claim of his homosexuality was made some 20 years after his death.

One of the frequent charges made against King James was that he wanted a new translation that wouldn't challenge his authority as a monarch. If memory serves, there only a couple or so verses / footnotes in the Geneva Bible that would have (could have) been considered as such.

Yet a "rampant" homosexual let stand the utter condemnation, of himself, that is throughout the KJB and I presume the Geneva, too? Logical?

About the time I was first learning of the KJVO controversy, I heard a preacher say that King James was a ________. That was when I heard of this charge being made against him. So far, I haven't found any creditable evidence that this is a true charge. As best that I've been able to determine, this rumor started well after his death and was fostered by those who were opposed to his rule.

If you can prove the claim, I'm more than willing to listen, as above all, I seek the TRUTH. The end result will be that I'll either change my mind or be more firmly convinced that it is a false rumor.

If you'll accept the challenge, now is the time to prove it. If the claim is valid, it won't be the first time I've changed my opinion on a subject, when confronted with the truth. And, I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15 (KJB).........................................

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 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. ...

I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce a specific example of literal translation contrasted with interpretative rendering using your reference to Matthew 5:18 (KJV) --

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ​

Iota (Strong's #2503) is the undisputed Greek word represented above (and by other versions) by "jot". Jot is the name applied to a Hebrew character. Certainly, "jot" is not a straightforward transliteration of ἰῶτα. Additionally, "jot" is not even a literal translation of ἰῶτα; although several 'literal' translations do have "iota" in their text (see Young's, Darby's, and even the ESV).

Matthew records the Lord's speech with Greek words written with Greek letters; and one of those letters is called the iota (that Greek letter is comparable with the ninth English letter, i). The word ἰῶτα identified a Greek letter then, and ἰῶτα identifies that same letter today. Jot indicates a particular character in one language and iota indicates a different letter in another language. So then, how does a Greek term come to be replaced by a Hebrew term? Interpretation. (A good interpretation? Yes. But that isn't the point.)

 

[John of Japan]

I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce a specific example of literal translation contrasted with interpretative rendering using your reference to Matthew 5:18 (KJV) --

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

Iota (Strong's #2503) is the undisputed Greek word represented above (and by other versions) by "jot". Jot is the name applied to a Hebrew character. Certainly, "jot" is not a straightforward transliteration of ἰῶτα. Additionally, "jot" is not even a literal translation of ἰῶτα; although several 'literal' translations do have "iota" in their text (see Young's, Darby's, and even the ESV).

Matthew records the Lord's speech with Greek words written with Greek letters; and one of those letters is called the iota (that Greek letter is comparable with the ninth English letter, i). The word ἰῶτα identified a Greek letter then, and ἰῶτα identifies that same letter today. Jot indicates a particular character in one language and iota indicates a different letter in a different language. So then, how does ἰῶτα come to be replaced by the word "jot"? Interpretation.

That this is not literal is arguable. My English dictionary in Microsoft Bookshelf (American Heritage, 3rd ed.) has for "jot": "The smallest bit; iota." Then for "iota" it has, "1 The ninth letter of the Greek alphabet."

 

[preachinjesus]

Since there are two points from two posters that contain the same question let me answer this question and then I'll reply specifically to other germane points.

I'll try my hand at that....While that accusation may or may not be true it doesn't change or affect the following:

I'm asking you to please prove your statement. When doing so, if you have a creditable source of evidence of his "rampant homosexuality" that was produced within his lifetime, please provide it. From what I've been able to find, so far, the claim of his homosexuality was made some 20 years after his death.

....

If you can prove the claim, I'm more than willing to listen, as above all, I seek the TRUTH. The end result will be that I'll either change my mind or be more firmly convinced that it is a false rumor.

If you'll accept the challenge, now is the time to prove it. If the claim is valid, it won't be the first time I've changed my opinion on a subject, when confronted with the truth. And, I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Okay, well unfortunately you all have asked me a question that I've actually done some research on during my PhD coursework...so....

The issue of the orientation of King James I (VI if you're Scottish) is almost without question in contemporary historical scholarship. Given that we possess the originals of his romantic correspondence between three male lovers the point is without question. The evidence is overwhelming that James had romantic (and frankly sexual) relationships with at least three men: Esmé Stuart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers. If you take time to read the letters you'll want to repent of his sin for him soon after.

I'll refer you to the text King James' Letters of Homoerotic Desire edited by David Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877456690/?tag=baptis04-20

Anyone consulting several of his recent biographies will find discussion of this attraction in James' life. Please refer to the following:

Great Britain's Solomon : James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms by Martin Lee http://www.amazon.com/dp/0252016866/?tag=baptis04-20

Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible by David Teems http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0058M5GMW/?tag=baptis04-20

An additional textual resource is a sexual history of James I's life:
Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland by Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0826207839/?tag=baptis04-20

and

King James & the History of Homosexuality by Michael B Young http://books.google.com/books?id=7hmKQgAACAAJ&hl=en

Frankly, there are other works out there and any number of histories of England of this time will discuss the reality of this fact. Also, a number of recent biographies of the King James Bible produced to honor its 400th Anniversary do recognize the orientation of James.

You can go and look up these resources yourself if you choose. Quite simply the issue is as certain a historical reality as we have. To bring this to somewhat a close I point to a text from Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity vol 2 which is the standard Christian history textbook for most evangelical seminary classes. In his description of James I, Gonzalez writes this:

Jame's personal character did little to increase his prestige. He was a homosexual, and his favorites enjoyed unmerited privileges and power in his court and in his government. While insisting on his right to an absolute monarch, he wavered between stubborn rigidity and weak flexibility. (pg 152)​

I leave you with this evidence. As a final point I simply link to the Wikipedia entry for anyone still unbelieving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

It has links to other works.

 

[jonathan.borland]

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

 

[preachinjesus]

-He was merely the "authorizer" of the work...not a participant in the actual work of the translation.

Not necessarily the case. James was pretty insistent on some theological concepts within the text in order to maintain his kingdom. That said, my overarching point isn't to belabor this discussion with muddled conversation about James, but instead to point out that that there are often many aspects of a person's life that might not sit well with us. For those who accuse Westcott and Hort of, essentially, being pagans I would like to give them pause. Their lives are not at issue, their work in constructing a Critical Text is at issue.

Too often the KJVO crowd, as the article in the OP demonstrates, simply attack the men for their lives and never deal with their scholarship. So my larger point is that you can't have it both ways. In KJVO refuse to engage in discussions of the scholarship of Westcott and Hort's work then I shall simply pivot to the troublesome lifestyle of the man whose name is on the Bible.

-It doesn't change the fact that the KJV condemns the practice of sodomy in the clearest and strongest terms then known and since. (In my opinion)..none of the subsequent translations,paraphrases,or even commentaries (that I am aware of) do anything to improve upon the clarity of this condemnation. Some, in fact, weaken it I'm sure.

I challenge this, I completely challenge this. Name me three contemporary versions that are in widespread use and we'll run down their translations of the relevant passages against homosexuality and we will see, absolutely see, that they continue the same stand against homosexuality in the KJV. I absolutely challenge this.

-That would lead me to ask the question that if dear ole KJ was a rampant sodomite, why would he authorize a Bible that clearly and soundly condemns the practice of his pursuit of sensual pleasure? Huh?

This isn't an argument. James' actual legislative work condemned homosexual behavior more harshly than any king before him. The work of respectable historians has shown that this was done to a) shelter his own oppressed orientation and safeguard it and b) require those in relationship with him to remain so lest they fall into a trap and suffer punishment.

I think, true or not, that this is just one more example of (as we say in the SOUTH...that's the holy land ya'll:laugh the fact that God can "hit a straight lick with a crooked stick!" We have many instances in the Word of God of God accomplishing His purposes using the unregenerate. I don't know if King James was actually a saved man or not...heaven knows...but I'm glad He lent his approval to the book that would become my Bible.

Well this point invalidates your above argument. However, as I've seen God uses broken people to accomplish His work as they yield themselves to Him. Take your point here and apply it to brothers Westcott and Hort. So that removes that line of argumentation against their work.

Now, let's get on with it...show me in the scholarship of Westcott and Hort how they failed to properly construct a Critical Text and how their Critical Text is inferior to the Majority Text.

 

[preachinjesus]

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

 

[jonathan.borland]

Good points and research, preachinjesus! In the spirit of the OP though, I wonder if KJVO people here know about the occult dalliances of anti-Westcott-Hort critic Herman Hoskier. He once got a spirit to tell him that Mark was not written in Latin. Why he needed a spirit to figure this out is beyond me.

 

[preachinjesus]

One of the frequent charges made against King James was that he wanted a new translation that wouldn't challenge his authority as a monarch. If memory serves, there only a couple or so verses / footnotes in the Geneva Bible that would have (could have) been considered as such.

Looking at the history of the text the translation was done to keep himself in power. There was a significant division arising in England during this time, not the least because of James' inability to rule well, and he needed to toss the people a bone. The dissenting religious factions were using the Bishops's Bible and Geneva Bible in opposition to official CoE dogma. The people were clamoring for a text in their vernacular.

To buy himself some time, King James brought together a group of translators out of the CoE and produced the first translation. They later edited it, more than a few problems in the original 1611, and it satisfied the people.

Well it satisfied them until the next king, when the people rose up, led by some chap named Cromwell, and overthrew the monarchy, executed the king, and established a Lord Protectorate. Rather nasty little period for people with grand titles.

Yet a "rampant" homosexual let stand the utter condemnation, of himself, that is throughout the KJB and I presume the Geneva, too? Logical?

See my above post. Really the going points for this is that by standing against something so boldly and publicly, James was able to shelter his own personal life. He didn't care if homosexuality was outlawed in his land, because he was beyond the law. The translation of the King James Bible would be tested by scholars across the land, any derivation from the Greek and Hebrew would be caught and that wouldn't be good.

I don't think this is an effective point of argumentation for KJVO (or KJVPreferred) to use. The text is a decent translation, for its time, of the texts available and it accurately reflects a dynamic approach to bring the text to life in its era.

If you can prove the claim, I'm more than willing to listen, as above all, I seek the TRUTH. The end result will be that I'll either change my mind or be more firmly convinced that it is a false rumor.

If you'll accept the challenge, now is the time to prove it. If the claim is valid, it won't be the first time I've changed my opinion on a subject, when confronted with the truth. And, I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15 (KJB).........................................

I'll look forward to your feedback.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

OK...and....

Since there are two points from two posters that contain the same question let me answer this question and then I'll reply specifically to other germane points.





Okay, well unfortunately you all have asked me a question that I've actually done some research on during my PhD coursework...so....

The issue of the orientation of King James I (VI if you're Scottish) is almost without question in contemporary historical scholarship. Given that we possess the originals of his romantic correspondence between three male lovers the point is without question. The evidence is overwhelming that James had romantic (and frankly sexual) relationships with at least three men: Esmé Stuart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers. If you take time to read the letters you'll want to repent of his sin for him soon after.

I'll refer you to the text King James' Letters of Homoerotic Desire edited by David Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877456690/?tag=baptis04-20

Anyone consulting several of his recent biographies will find discussion of this attraction in James' life. Please refer to the following:

Great Britain's Solomon : James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms by Martin Lee http://www.amazon.com/dp/0252016866/?tag=baptis04-20

Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible by David Teems http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0058M5GMW/?tag=baptis04-20

An additional textual resource is a sexual history of James I's life:
Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland by Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0826207839/?tag=baptis04-20

and

King James & the History of Homosexuality by Michael B Young http://books.google.com/books?id=7hmKQgAACAAJ&hl=en

Frankly, there are other works out there and any number of histories of England of this time will discuss the reality of this fact. Also, a number of recent biographies of the King James Bible produced to honor its 400th Anniversary do recognize the orientation of James.

You can go and look up these resources yourself if you choose. Quite simply the issue is as certain a historical reality as we have. To bring this to somewhat a close I point to a text from Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity vol 2 which is the standard Christian history textbook for most evangelical seminary classes. In his description of James I, Gonzalez writes this:

Jame's personal character did little to increase his prestige. He was a homosexual, and his favorites enjoyed unmerited privileges and power in his court and in his government. While insisting on his right to an absolute monarch, he wavered between stubborn rigidity and weak flexibility. (pg 152)
​

I leave you with this evidence. As a final point I simply link to the Wikipedia entry for anyone still unbelieving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

It has links to other works.

OK...that would seem to be substantial evidence to affirm without doubt that King James was a sinner...and apparently maybe a pretty immoral one. Does that mean we should belittle or reject the Bible that was authorized by him during his reign as King? What does that knowledge add to the discussion on ANY significant level. The way the Book reads it soundly condemns that kind of behaviour. It doesn't add to or take away from the truth about this Bible as far as I can see. It is a shame that the King was apparently entrapped by that kind of moral wickedness. Kinda puts him on par with Solomon...don't you think? depending on how you rate or classify sin.

Bro.Greg:type: