How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

Askjo · Feb 18, 2005

Originally posted by natters:
If you had actually looked up the quote in context you would see that he did believe in the book of Genesis.
Click to expand...

Natters, please explain how Westcott believed in the book of Genesis but the chapter 3 of Genesis?

natters · Feb 18, 2005

I did. Scroll up. Learn English.

Scott J · Feb 18, 2005

Originally posted by Askjo:
I do not talk about the context. I suppose, for example, that you and I chatted each other. This context does not include our talking here. I said to you, "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" What do you think of this quotation when you hear what I said?
Click to expand...

Don't evade. I am not talking about this particular quote at this point. BTW, Scofield read alot into Genesis also... that didn't make him right about that or wrong about everything else.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You have lifted a phrase out of a quote that misrepresents what the man actually said. That is dishonesty and you should repent rather than evade.
Click to expand...

Disagree.[/QUOTE] Disagree with WHAT?!?!?

This is precisely what you did. You can't deny it because you have been shown these quotes in context before. Those of us who have been around for awhile have witnessed it. You should repent and cease from trusting the people who have fed you that garbage.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Because they looked at the evidence and came to different conclusions. Neither believed what you believe. In fact, both denied what you believe.
Click to expand...

Ok, which is right? Burgon or Westcott? [/QUOTE]Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes neither. If you want a personal opinion- I think the original text lies somewhere between the Byzantine and Alexandrian. I would tend more toward the Byzantine majority as a personal preference.

rsr · Feb 18, 2005

PoR said:

"Thank you for finally admitting it."

I admitted nothing; I simply knew what argument (which I find weak at best) you were talking about.

Spoudazo · Feb 18, 2005

Have ya'll seen Ruckman's book, _The Scholarship Only Controversy_

tisk, tisk,

Anyone read it?

HankD · Feb 18, 2005

Have ya'll seen Ruckman's book, _The Scholarship Only Controversy_
Click to expand...

Give us a book review!

HankD

Spoudazo · Feb 18, 2005

I haven't read it yet

I do however, have about 3 years worth of his Bible Believer's Bulletin on my computer.

AND I just ordered the DVD series of debates between Gipp and two other "KJV onlies" vs Dr. White, Dr. Wallace, etc.

natters · Feb 19, 2005

Many orthodox Christians, and most Anglicans, believe that the beginning of Genesis is poetical in form - not that it isn't true (they affirm it is true!), but that it just isn't in "literal" form.

Here’s the entire section by Westcott, containing the quote Askjo is asking about.

" The picture which you draw is sad, but I too, in my way, know that it is true. We want--and I know that I want, which is something--a living faith. When we are quite sure God is speaking now--and He is speaking--we shall not grow wild in discussing how He once spoke.
I have purposely refrained from reading Lux Mundi, but I am quite sure that our Christian faith ought not to be perilled on any predetermined view of what the history and character of the documents contained in the O.T. must be. What we are bound to hold is that the O.T., substantially as we receive it, is the Divine record of the discipline of Israel. This it remains, whatever criticism may determine or leave undetermined as to constituent parts. No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history--I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did--yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses, in regard to the use of popular language on physical objects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the "sun rising," it was no less necessary that He should use the names "Moses" and "David" as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History: this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.) As far as I can judge, the young High Church party need patient discipline, and they are quite out of sympathy with the generation above. It will be most disastrous if for want of loving sympathy they are driven to revolt..." (Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott, pp. 68-69)
Click to expand...

We can find out more about his views on creation and Genesis, and what exactly he means about “literal” and “poetic”, and the Gospel of Creation (the “Protevangelium”) in some of his other quotes on the subject:

"I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth...This acknowledgement of God as the Creator of things visible and invisible brings with it many deep and helpful thoughts. It reminds us that as all that is came into existence by the will and power of God, so it is sustained by Him alone; for the fact of creation involves the necessity of preservation, of unfolding. It reminds us that the greatest and least objects by which we are surrounded, the Sun in its glory and the stars in their countless multitude: mountains and all hills: fruitful trees and all cedars: beasts and all cattle: worms and feathered fowls were made by Him who made us, and that they therefore fill a place in His vast counsel of love, and minister to His glory." ("The Historic Faith", p. 38)
Click to expand...

and

" The word heir marks the original purpose of Creation. The dominion originally promised to Adam (Gen i. 28 ; compare Ps. viii.) was gained by Christ. And so, in regard to the divine economy, the promise made to Abraham (compare Rom. iv. 13 ; Gal. iii. 29) and renewed to the divine King (Ps. ii. 8), which was symbolized by the ‘inheritance’ of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 30), became absolutely fulfilled in Christ.” (The Epistles to the Hebrews, pg. 8)
Click to expand...

and

“The creation does indeed involve the consummation of things. The ‘Protevangelium’ is Gen. i. 26f.” (The Epistles to the Hebrews, pg. 8)
Click to expand...

In “The Gospel of Life”, Westcott spends two chapters (5 and 6, pages 121-204) examining and comparing how other religions view the aspect of creation, the meaning of life, etc., and then discussing Christianity’s (and his) views. Here are just a few samplings:

“[Christianity] assumes, that the world was made by God (Gen. i. 1): that man was made in the image of God (Gen. i. 27): that man by self-assertion has broken his rightful connexion with God (Gen. iii. 9-24). It follows from these assumptions that the world is for the Christian in all its parts expression of the will of God: that man can hold fellowship with God: that man needs the help of God for the fulfillment of his destiny, in the sense that he requires not only growth but restoration.
These assumptions are found, I believe, to receive the amplest justification in life. They form the adequate basis for a comprehensive and harmonious view of the facts which fall within our knowledge.” (pp 183-184)
Click to expand...

and

“…God made and rules the world in righteousness. It is assumed that man can hold personal converse with God. It is assumed that the completeness of this potential communication between God and man has been marred by sin, the act of man as a responsible agent, which yet is not irremediable.
These propositions are everywhere taken for granted in the Bible as expressing truths which each man is able to recognize as truths when they are presented to him in an intelligible form. They are not explained or justified, but summarily affirmed or more frequently implied. They are not presented as elements of a specific revelation, but they are taken as the basis of all revelation. The are put forward, so to speak, as the Preface to the whole record of Holy Scripture, which is itself in its fullness the record of the gradual unfolding of the Divine counsel and work. The are indeed literally the Preface to the Bible; for in this respect the opening chapters of Genesis, which have been most unhappily obscured by a flood of irrelevant controversy, bring out the fundamental conditions which make revelation at once possible and necessary.” (p. 185)
Click to expand...

and

“From this point of view the whole narrative of the Creation and the Fall, and not one isolated verse, contains, when rightly apprehended, the real Protevangelium, the primitive Gospel of the world. That narrative presents in a vivid form the truths which stand out more or less distinctly in all the following Books. But it differs from most other parts of Scripture in this, that the lessons it conveys do not lie in the details of the narrative but in the general ideas which the narrative embodies.
It would be probably quite impossible for us (or for man, as he is, at any time) to apprehend the exact circumstances of Creation, or of the original constitution of man, or of the Fall. Language must be to the last inadequate to express the results of perfect observation. But that which it concerns us to know as to the religious import of the origin and destiny of finite being is written in the cardinal sentences which sum up the contents of our divine Book of Origins.”
Click to expand...

I’ll stop short of typing out the 42 pages which comprise the chapter entitled “The Gospel of Creation” in which Westcott discusses the relation of creation, the fall, and the Incarnation of Christ in great detail, never questioning any of them. (The Epistles of St. John, pp 286-328)

Oh, and to keep on topic, all these books are EXCELLENT reading material for (and outside of) the Bible versions debate.

I will gladly scan any of the above pages upon request. Even for you, Askjo.

Phillip · Feb 19, 2005

I have an excellent book on translations and the origin of the Bible. It is called: "The Journey from Texts to Translations" -- "The Origin and Development of the Bible" by Paul D. Wegner.

It is excellent and factual, containing details on manuscripts, and translations.

I find the remarks about the Alexandrian manuscript to be particularly of interest.

Here is an interesting quotation from the book concerning the KJV:
============================================
Reception of the Authorized Version

The Authorized Version was recognized as the standard edition of the Bible relatively quickly, but the Geneva Bible gave it competition for about fifty years, despite the fact that in about 1631 Bishop Laud ordered copies to be burned and forbade its importation from Geneva.
.............
The AV was not without its detractors, however,; among the most fervent were the pilgrams who brought the Geneva Bible to the New World. The AV was rejected for its emphasis on the divine right of kings. Another particularly virulent detractor was Dr. Hugh Broughton.
......................
The English language continued to develop, however, so that in time the wording of the AV would become archaic and in need of improvement. Not only that, only sixteen years after its publication Codex Alexandrinus arrived at the British Museum from Constantinople, too late to be incorporated into this version.
.............................
In (1769) Dr. Benjamin Blayney, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, once again revised the Authorized Version and introduced many modifications dealing with weights, measures and coins. E. J. Goodspeed estimated that this version differed in at least seventy-five thousand places from the Authorized Version of 1611, and it became known as the Oxford standard edition with which we are familiar today.
----------------------------------------------

Askjo · Feb 22, 2005

Natters, thank you for posting on Westcott. I examined them and found the dates disagreeably. I puzzled.

Ed Edwards · Feb 22, 2005

Brother Askjo, I shall shun you until you
apologize to Brother Westcott (he is dead
and in heaven watching our conversation)
for your slander (actualy it is
written so is a libel).

Proverbs 10:18 (KJV1611):

Pro 10:18 Hee that hideth hatred with
lying lippes, and
he that vttereth a slander, is a foole.

natters · Feb 22, 2005

Originally posted by Askjo:
Natters, thank you for posting on Westcott. I examined them and found the dates disagreeably. I puzzled.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, but I don't understand the rest of your post.

Askjo · Feb 22, 2005

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Brother Westcott . [/b]
Click to expand...

WOW! You called him a brother.

gb93433 · Feb 22, 2005

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Brother Westcott .
Click to expand...

WOW! You called him a brother. [/b][/QUOTE]Proverbs 26:12, "Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."

Ed Edwards · Feb 22, 2005

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Brother Westcott .
Click to expand...

WOW! You called him a brother. [/b][/QUOTE]I also
called you a brother. If you
wish to challenge that Westcott is my
brother in Christ; i shall use the same
argument against you being my brother.

Quote of Westcott: " ... If you feel now that it was,
to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak ... "

Westcott called Jesus "the Lord", Westcott
knows that the Lord can speak. (i cannot check
here what Westcott believes about God raising Jesus
from the dead). IMHO Westcott is a Christian and
hense i shall call him brother. Please note
I have NOT made a judgement against Westcott
because of a trunkated quotae.

russell55 · Feb 22, 2005

i cannot check here what Westcott believes about God raising Jesus from the dead)
Click to expand...

How about this, Ed?

For Jesus is risen. Death in our case shows sin's triumph over us, and our weakness in the presence of Satan's power. Resurrection in His case shows His triumph over both sin and Satan. He Who went into the grave came out of it. Let it be distinctly averred that the Son of God, Jesus, Who was dead, now lives again — in resurrection estate surely — but with His own Person complete. It would be just as false to deny His bodily presence on the first glad resurrection day of which we read in John 20, or in Luke 24, as it would be false to deny His bodily presence on the cross or in the grave. Death is an enemy in God's creation as far as man is concerned, and if death for ever secured the body as its prey, then would God's enemy have triumphed. The triumph of God is set forth in Christ's real resurrection, the full result of which will be in the resurrection of the just in its time, and in the resurrection of the unjust in its time (1 Cor. 15; John 5; Rev. 20).

The Son of God has emerged from the grave, victorious, alive again, complete in Manhood after as before, not a spirit (as though His Person were limited to His Spirit) (Luke 24: 36-43), never to die again (Rom. 6: 9), for death has no more dominion over Him. He lives after the power of an endless life, an indissoluble life (Heb. 7: 17). In the risen Son of God, Jesus, we see God's thought for man, ever living, ever beyond sin's power and Satan's reach, for ever living to God, for God's pleasure and will. He is Head, and Pattern, of the new type or order of man on which sin and Satan and death have no power, and in connection with a new scene where everything ministers eternally to the joy of the heart of God. The new position is opened up to us of glory, honour, and incorruptibility. There is opened up to view an era, a resurrection vista, in which the Son of God is the fulfiller of all God's counsels. His Son was marked out Son of God with power, not only by the raising of other dead ones, but by His own resurrection on that first Lord's day. And as risen, in all the vigour and power of eternal life, He is the Model to which His redeemed ones are to be conformed (Rom. 8, 29; Phil. 3, 21).
Click to expand...

From W. H. Wescott on The Person of the Son.

If you want to know more about what W. H. Wescott believed in his own untruncated and unellipsed words, check here.

Ed Edwards · Feb 23, 2005

Thank you Sister Russell55. That just
confirms what i already knew: Westcott
is a Christian Brother. Interesting how one
gets a different picture when a person
is properly quoted then when they are not.
Somebody evil has twisted his words, probably
the twister was supporting his own evil
agenda else he would not have twisted.
It is also a sin to continue the lie, especially
when God has sent others to warn of the
trickery.

LRL71 · Feb 23, 2005

^^^^

Amen, Ed!

Even when KJV-onlies have reviled you Ed, you have remained compassionate and you have responded with Christian integrity!

I'm sure that Brother Westcott is applauding you!

natters · Feb 23, 2005

Originally posted by russell55:
If you want to know more about what W. H. Wescott believed in his own untruncated and unellipsed words, check here.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, W.H. Westcott is not the B.F. Westcott Bishop of Durham who produced the 1881 Greek NT, but probably a relative (perhaps a cousin or nephew).

Ed, if you are interested, this evening I can provide some quotes about B.F. Westcott's belief in the resurrection.

russell55 · Feb 23, 2005

Oops, sorry. I wasn't paying enough attention.

How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

Askjo New Member

natters New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

Spoudazo New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Spoudazo New Member

natters New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

natters New Member

Askjo New Member

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

russell55 New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

LRL71 New Member

natters New Member

russell55 New Member

Useful Searches

How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

Askjo New Member

natters New Member

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b> Moderator

Spoudazo New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Spoudazo New Member

natters New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

natters New Member

Askjo New Member

gb93433 Active Member Site Supporter

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

russell55 New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

LRL71 New Member

natters New Member

russell55 New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter