Does Accepting MV's make One a Wescott/Hort Man?

A little exaggeration. All the Greek NTs are actually *very very much* alike.

I don't know the answer to your question.

 

No.

I am not a W&H man. I disagree with their basic premise that older is better, shorter reading is better and dislike their their fixation on Aleph and B sometimes to the exclusion of all or almost all other witnesses (although in could be possible but improbable IMO that for a given passage such a choice could be accurate)

However the modern versions are just that, modern.

As such they fulfill one of the basic requirements of the qualities of the pure Word of God in that they are in the common tongue (for the most part).

The other requirement : faithfulness to the original language text is another.
So, I compare the several modern translations and often find that one or more of the MVs do a better job (word choices, syntax) than the KJV for a given passage and I use the word choices from the translation for that selected passage.

Obviously, not willing to give Aleph and B a lot of "weight" and not caring for their "older and shorter" theory, I would not be W&H, but I use the MVs none the less (the KJVO would probably say I am a "closet W&H" man).

When there is an original language word variant of any substance, I go with the Traditional Text (Scrivener 1894/5).

To give myself a label with a name attached to it as one whom I feel a kindred spirit, I would say John Burgon.

HankD

 

I believe "W/H person" is just another Onlyist label, invented by them in an attempt to cover their lack of evidence for the veracity of their man-made doctrine.

 

I do not have the work, so I am very loosely paraphrasing - but if you read the textual commentary on the UBS text by Bruce Metzger, he says, effectively, that Westcott and Hort's primacy in the field of textual criticism is ended.

This commentary was written in the 1970s. KJV-onlyists are living in the past, obviously in more ways than one.

 

Modern Textual Critics follow some but not all of W&H ideas.

Here is my impression of things:


* W&H thought codex B was nearly identical with the autograph(minus scribal foibals and some omissions). This is position is not held by modern textual critics. They do respect codex B as being one of the most valuable witnesses, but understand and accept it isn't perfect.

* W&H thought the combination of Aleph + B was almost assuredly the correct reading. This isn't held by modern textual critics either.

* W&H held what they called Western non-interpolations to be the correct reading. This is no longer held by modern textual critics.

However..on the other side:

* W&H did attempt to prove the Byzantine (Koine/Imperial) Text was late and confligate.
The idea that the Byzantine textual stream is late and of the least value of the other textforms in textual criticism is still held by many textual critics (Metzger, Aland for example).

* Modern textual critics agree with W&H that
the Alexandrian Textual stream is the purist
of the others (Western, Caesarian, Byzantine).


I tend to agree with the modern eclectic method of textual criticsm, although I'm not comfortable with their stance on the Byzantine Text.

-kman

 

Ransom and Robycop are both correct. Therefore, I'll stop typing now....

 

Join the Catholic conspiracy?

 

Neither does mine.BTW,you are not telling the whole story here;the manuscripts--Vaticanus(Rev 17) and Sinaiticus(trash can version)--that these so called "easier to read" "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities) did in fact contain the Apocrypha;the manuscripts the KJB hails from did not..

 

Then where did the KJV translators get their primary sources when they translated the Apocrypha?

 

Dr. Bob Griffin said:

It makes us Catholics? Amazing leap somewhere.

Remember to consider the source . . .

Askjo claimed only a few days ago that because Westcott and Hort wrote letters in which they discussed "Mariolatry," they were secret Catholic practitioners.

Claims like that are a few epistles short of a canon, if you get my drift.

 

Once again here's the old line about Sinaiticus being rescued from the trash heap. So what? Since when has the origin or surroundings of anything ever dictated its worth? Jesus Himself wasn't born in some grand Palace- he was born in a manure-filled stable. According to the same line of reasoning, what should we then infer about our Lord and Savior?
Another way of looking at Sinaiticus could be that it wasn't burned or destroyed- but that God intervened & preserved it for use by future translators.

 

One of MY Bibles contains both the Apocrypha and a fairly long list of Saint's Days-and a list of Holy Days that includes Easter, Christmas, and the Nativity of Mary. I read this Bible almost every day, and have taken it to church on occasion, so by the standards of some people, I'm a RC.


The Bible I'm talking about? My replica AV 1611.

 

Not only that... but who was trying to destroy it??? Evil Catholic monks, that's who!!!

So on the one hand we have a Bible produced from a text created by a Catholic scholar... and on the other hand we have Bibles that pay great respect to a text that the RCC tried to destroy... not to mention one that the Vatican tried to hide from the world.

 

No, what I believe on the history of the Bible is what the Catholic system does not believe. What you believe on the history of the Bible is what the Catholic system believes . See the differences! The Catholic system loves modern versions more than the KJV. Why?

The W/H's favorite manuscript is the Vaticanus. Ok, look at the NAB (New American Bible) that I found from the website. The NAB was translated by 50 Catholics and five Protestant scholars. Interestingly, the NAB is modern translation for the Roman Catholic Church.

Ok, let us look closely at the Catholic NAB and other non-Catholic modern versions:

Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 18:11 (NAB) omitted it.

Matthew 18:11 (NIV) omitted it.

Matthew 18:11 (NASB) omitted it.

Matthew 17:21 (KJV) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Maathew 17:21 (NAB) omitted it.

Matthew 17:21 (NIV) omitted it.

Matthew 17:21 (NASB) omitted it.

Acts 8:37 (KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 8:37 (NAB) omitted it.

Acts 8:37 (NIV) omitted it.

Acts 8:37 (NASB) omitted it.

James 5:16 (KJV) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

James 5:16 (NAB) Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

James 5:16 (NIV) Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

James 5:16 (NASB) Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

Will you confess your sins to Catholic Father?

And so on..... That's enough!

[ December 03, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

No, what I believe on the history of the Bible is what the Catholic system does not believe. What you believe on the history of the Bible is what the Catholic system believes . See the differences! The Catholic system loves modern versions more than the KJV. Why?

The W/H's favorite manuscript is the Vaticanus. Ok, look at the NAB (New American Bible) that I found from the website. The NAB was translated by 50 Catholics and five Protestant scholars. Interestingly, the NAB is modern translation for the Roman Catholic Church.

Ok, let us look closely at the Catholic NAB and other non-Catholic modern versions:

Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 18:11 (NAB) omitted it.

Matthew 18:11 (NIV) omitted it.

Matthew 18:11 (NASB) omitted it.</font>[/QUOTE]Luke 19:10 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Luke 19:10 (NAB) For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

Luke 19:10 (NIV) For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

Luke 19:10 (NASB) "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."


Looks like it's in the "Catholic Bibles" after all.

Luke 2:37 (KJV) And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Luke 2:37 (NAB) and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.

Luke 2:37 (NIV) and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying.

Luke 2:37 (NASB) and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.


Acts 14:23 (KJV) And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts 14:23 (NAB) They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.

Acts 14:23 (NIV) Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Acts 14:23 (NASB) When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.


"Prayer and fasting" are in the "Catholic Bibles" too.

KJV Acts 16:30-31 (KJV) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 16:30-31 (NAB) Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved."

Acts 16:3-31 (NIV) He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household."

Acts 16:30-31 (NASB) and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Salvation by "believing in Christ" is in the "Catholic Bibles" as well!

Where does it say "confess your sins to Catholic Father?" It says "confess your sins to *one another* -- the priesthood of *all* believers.

Not quite... there's one more.

KJV Luke 14:10 (KJV) But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

Luke 14:10 (NAB) Rather, when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, 'My friend, move up to a higher position.' Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.

Luke 14:10 (NIV) But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests.

Luke 14:10 (NASB) "But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.

Hmmm... the KJV says it's all right to "worship" mere human beings -- perhaps like all those saints whose days of veneration were listed at the beginning of the 1611 KJV? -- while "Catholic Bibles" don't. Interesting.

I wonder which is the real "Catholic Bible?"

 

I blame a lot on Pope Riplinger.

 

Greetings BrianT!

WORSHIP, n. [See Worth.]

6. Honor; respect; civil deference.

Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14.

Webster's 1828