"Modern versions" in a Nutshell

[Dr. Walter]

And by what means have you determined that?

And as I said before,I was not defending Davidson because I am not familiar with him.



He established no such thing. Naz offered no substaniation for any of the scurrilous charges he laid at their feet.

Why do you say such a thing with no proof to do so?

Are we talking about the same men I defended or others such as Davidson who I am not defending?

You are missing my point altogether (or ignoring it)! What kind of "Christianity" would characterize YOU if YOU invited Unitarians like Davidson, Noyes and others to participate in such a work?

What kind of "Christianity" would characterize YOU if you agreed and accepted such men as your partners in such a work?

Are you telling this forum that YOU would approve and accept and invite such to participate with YOU in translating the Scriptures? If not, why not????

Is there any other work more scacred than the work of forming and presenting a translation of the scriptures???? Are you saying that the translator's doctrinal views wouldn't matter to you in determining who you invited, accepted and approved to work with YOU on such a project?

What type of "Christianity" would it take to invite and work with such an EXTREMELY diverse group of scholars?? (1) Conservative types? (2) Moderate types? (3) Liberal types;

How would you classify YOURSELF in comparison to David's expressed views of His own type of Christianity? Remember, he classified those who opposed his views as "orthodox" and "conservative" types!

I beleive at the very minimum it would require a "moderate" type to consent, accept and invite such and most likely the vast majority were "liberals". But what type would YOU have to be to do the same thing?

 

[Rippon]

You are missing my point altogether (or ignoring it)! What kind of "Christianity" would characterize YOU if YOU invited Unitarians like Davidson, Noyes and others to participate in such a work?

You must be having a senior moment or something. I have never defended Davidson because I am not familiar with him. I have defended Lachmann,Tregelles and Tishendorf. All three had nothing to do with the ERV. So I have no idea why you are going on as you have. Again,Naz provided nothing but slander against these godly men. Do you agree or not?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You must be having a senior moment or something. I have never defended Davidson because I am not familiar with him. I have defended Lachmann,Tregelles and Tishendorf. All three had nothing to do with the ERV. So I have no idea why you are going on as you have. Again,Naz provided nothing but slander against these godly men. Do you agree or not?

Tishendorf and Davidson were very very close friends. Davidson considered Tischendorf one of his closest friends.They exchanged letters often and some of his letters are found in Davidson's autobiography. When Tischendorf died it was a senior moment for Davidson.

I can't find anything that would suggest that Lachmann or Tregelles were Unitarians. Of course Tischendorf could only be classified as a friend of a Unitarian.

 

[Nazaroo]

Tishendorf and Davidson were very very close friends. Davidson considered Tischendorf one of his closest friends.They exchanged letters often and some of his letters are found in Davidson's autobiography. When Tischendorf died it was a senior moment for Davidson.

I can't find anything that would suggest that Lachmann or Tregelles were Unitarians. Of course Tischendorf could only be classified as a friend of a Unitarian.

It goes deeper than that.

You can't find anything that would suggest that Lachmann was anything other than an ex-Catholic apostate, having little interest in Evangelical Christianity. He had more in common with Erasmus than Warfield.


Davidson and Tregelles were also close friends. They commandeered and fraudulently re-wrote Horne's Introduction together.

Tregelles and Tischendorf exchanged their apparatus and collations, and published near-simultaneously, working together to correct collations of the ECWs.

Davidson and Gregory translated Tischendorf's Text into English.

Gregory wrote the final Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th edition.

Hort wrote the final Prolegomena to Tregelle's GNT.

They were all in it together, holding each other's hands and conspiring to dethrone the Textus Receptus and the KJB.

Hort's text was essentially an abbreviated Student's version of the consensus of the three previous textual critics, Lachmann, (with the improved collations of) Tregelles and Tischendorf.

Hort offered nothing original, but simply produced a synthesis of Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf's methodology and text.

They were all astounding heretics, but played their hands guardedly, after seeing what happened to Davidson and Tregelles.

Hort believed in Darwin's theory of Evolution. Westcott believed in Unitarian mysticism. All of them except Tregelles rejected orthodox Christian dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, Ransom and penal substitution, verbal inspiration of the text in possession of the Church, etc. etc.

Westcott began to become a hapless alcoholic, promoting beer, instead of Jesus.

They were all products of their age, an age of dire apostacy within and without the Church of England, in which the strongest 'Christian' left was probably C.S. Lewis, after the death of Dean Burgon.

The only unique person of the bunch was Tregelles, who is best described as a "dupe out of the loop".
He was the only rabid anti-Romanist, as witnessed by his book on Daniel.

The rest were all closet papists.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It goes deeper than that.

You can't find anything that would suggest that Lachmann was anything other than an ex-Catholic apostate, having little interest in Evangelical Christianity. He had more in common with Erasmus than Warfield.


Davidson and Tregelles were also close friends. They commandeered and fraudulently re-wrote Horne's Introduction together.

Tregelles and Tischendorf exchanged their apparatus and collations, and published near-simultaneously, working together to correct collations of the ECWs.

Davidson and Gregory translated Tischendorf's Text into English.

Gregory wrote the final Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th edition.

Hort wrote the final Prolegomena to Tregelle's GNT.

They were all in it together, holding each other's hands and conspiring to dethrone the Textus Receptus and the KJB.

Hort's text was essentially an abbreviated Student's version of the consensus of the three previous textual critics, Lachmann, (with the improved collations of) Tregelles and Tischendorf.

Hort offered nothing original, but simply produced a synthesis of Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf's methodology and text.

They were all astounding heretics, but played their hands guardedly, after seeing what happened to Davidson and Tregelles.

Hort believed in Darwin's theory of Evolution. Westcott believed in Unitarian mysticism. All of them except Tregelles rejected orthodox Christian dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, Ransom and penal substitution, verbal inspiration of the text in possession of the Church, etc. etc.

Westcott began to become a hapless alcoholic, promoting beer, instead of Jesus.

They were all products of their age, an age of dire apostacy within and without the Church of England, in which the strongest 'Christian' left was probably C.S. Lewis, after the death of Dean Burgon.

The only unique person of the bunch was Tregelles, who is best described as a "dupe out of the loop".
He was the only rabid anti-Romanist, as witnessed by his book on Daniel.

The rest were all closet papists.

I must admit that I have not done sufficient research on these particular persons. However, I think you are going to have to provide the evidence rather than just make assertions. I am more than open to any evidence that would demonstrate they were "modernists."

From what research I have done, the appearance seems to substantiate your assertions but I don't have hard facts to prove it. Perhaps you can provide the hard facts.

 

[Rippon]

I must admit that I have not done sufficient research on these particular persons. However, I think you are going to have to provide the evidence rather than just make assertions. I am more than open to any evidence that would demonstrate they were "modernists."

From what research I have done, the appearance seems to substantiate your assertions but I don't have hard facts to prove it. Perhaps you can provide the hard facts.

Naz is an assertion specialist --hard facts are too hard for him to come up with. I have asked him repeatedly to do so to no avail. Naz rewrites history to suit himself.

 

[Rippon]

They were all in it together, holding each other's hands and conspiring to dethrone the Textus Receptus and the KJB.

You are the conspiracy king Naz. I knew your KJVO fanaticism would come out full-bloom.

They were all astounding heretics, but played their hands guardedly, after seeing what happened to Davidson and Tregelles.

You are one pathetic case Naz. You ought to feel shame but you don't know how to blush when say the demeaning things you do about these men."Astounding heretics" my foot. You need to take it down several notches and prove your gross charges.

Westcott believed in Unitarian mysticism.

Prove it --don't merely assert it. I may not be the only one here who doubts your veracity.

All of them except Tregelles rejected orthodox Christian dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, Ransom and penal substitution, verbal inspiration of the text in possession of the Church, etc. etc.

Prove your wild accusations.

Westcott began to become a hapless alcoholic, promoting beer, instead of Jesus.

Prove it --don't just claim it.

They were all products of their age, an age of dire apostacy within and without the Church of England, in which the strongest 'Christian' left was probably C.S. Lewis, after the death of Dean Burgon.

Guess you never heard of J.C.Ryle and other warm evangelicals of the Church of England in the latter 19th century. But it wouldn't be the first time that you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in areas which you pretend to be knowledgeable.

The only unique person of the bunch was Tregelles, who is best described as a "dupe out of the loop".

Speaking of loopy Naz...

The rest were all closet papists.

What has been my constant refrain with respect to your disgraceful conduct --prove it, or shut your mouth (in this case cease to type your tripe.)

 

[Nazaroo]

You are the conspiracy king Naz. I knew your KJVO fanaticism would come out full-bloom.

I don't like the KJV.

I prefer the original languages, but I'll tolerate Young's Literal.

Nazaroo: Westcott believed in Unitarian mysticism.
Pippin: Prove it

Westcott's Translational Quirks < - - Click here.

B.F. Westcott is identified as "a mystic" by the standard reference work of his day: The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911). Princeton University Press' recent book, The Christian Socialist Revival (1968, Peter d'A Jones) says B.F. Westcott was "a mystic" (p. 179). The highly respected Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics identifies both B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort as Alexandrian mystics (see 'Alexandrian Theology' et al.). The Occult Illustrated Dictionary even cites our Bible correctors B.F. Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot.

Nazaroo: "All of them except Tregelles rejected orthodox Christian dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, Ransom and penal substitution, verbal inspiration of the text in possession of the Church, etc. etc. "

Nippy: Prove your wild accusations.

Hort's Theology < - - click here.

Cambridge Theology 19th century < - - click.

"Chapters five and six center on the ideas and activities of the Cambridge triumvirate, or rather quartet, as Thompson includes Edward White Benson, archbishop of Canterbury, in his investigation of B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot and F. J Hort and their use and popularization of textual criticism. Thompson's analysis in these two chapters is especially good. The fuller treatment given Hort's theology in chapter six reflects Thompson's desire to show that Cambridge theology was concerned with more than the defense of Christianity, as Hort is, for Thompson, a true liberal, willing to learn from those who have different views. "

Nazaroo: Westcott began to become a hapless alcoholic, promoting beer, instead of Jesus. "

Sneezy: "Prove it --don't just claim it."

Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L., sometime Bishop of Durham (1903)



1893 - "My father was a frequent advocate of the cause of
the Church of England Temperance Society both on
public platforms and otherwise, but he was, of course,
temperate in his speeches on this subject, and would
not condemn the moderate use of pure beer. In fact,
his zeal in the cause of pure beer involved him in a
correspondence which was published in the newspapers
in the latter part of 1893, and his picture, together
with some of the following words spoken by him, was
utilised for the adornment of the advertisement of a
brewer of pure beer :

My idea is that they might have a public-house in which
good beers alone would be sold. ... If they were to estab-
lish what I would call a temperance public-house, it should
be limited to the sale of good beer together with non-intoxi-
cants. I would rigidly exclude wine and spirits.

The Bishop proceeded to define pure beer as " the
product of barley malt and hops only, no chemical or
other injurious substitute for malt being used."

The Bishop was himself a teetotaller because of
the present necessity, and although he sometimes with
seeming seriousness professed to be much drawn towards
beer, I never saw him taste any of the seductive fluid."

Read between the lines.

Guess you never heard of J.C.Ryle

No. Who cares?

What has been my constant refrain with respect to your disgraceful conduct --prove it, or shut your mouth (in this case cease to type your tripe.)

When hell freezes over.

 

[Rippon]

Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., D.C.L., sometime Bishop of Durham (1903)



1893 - "My father was a frequent advocate of the cause of
the Church of England Temperance Society both on
public platforms and otherwise,


The Bishop was himself a teetotaller

I never saw him taste any of the seductive fluid."

Yet you said in post #44:Westcott began to be a hapless alcoholic promoting beer,instead of Jesus."

You have a serious sin problem Naz. You represented Westcott terribly,now instead of apologizing for those horrible statements you just note the above in some strange way still trying to smear him --but coming up dead-empty. It's really hard for a teetotaller to be a hapless alcoholic!

No. Who cares?

You have a reading comprehension problem in addition to your other more serious afflictions.

You had claimed that the strongest Christian left in the C of E was probably C.S.Lewis. And I,desiring to point you in the direction of some needed historical perspective said that J.C.Ryle (who died in 1900) was a very warm-hearted Evangelical --friends with Charles Spurgeon and George Mueller.

You need to care about your myopic views.

When hell freezes over.

So you stubbornly want to continue typing tripe --so be it. I will continue to address your lies with truth.

 

[Nazaroo]

[URL="http://www.archive.org/stream/a613719002westuoft#page/n7/mode/2up"]Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott

, D.D., D.C.L., sometime Bishop of Durham (1903)



1893 - "My father was a frequent advocate of the cause of
the Church of England Temperance Society both on
public platforms and otherwise,


The Bishop was himself a teetotaller

I never saw him taste any of the seductive fluid."

[/URL]

Its obvious you can't read yourself.

Westcott was a BISHOP, and presided over Anglican Mass weekly, including drinking the cup.

It was the Baptists in North America that later introduced unfermented grape-juice as a substitute for alcoholic wine in the Eucharist.
To do this, they had to invent and adopt a form of pasteurization, thus bringing to birth the Welch's Grape Juice company, when universal demand outstripped local supplies.

Westcott, like all Anglicans in the 19th century,
was an alcoholic.

The absurd claim of his son is understandable,
but its an utter fabrication, designed to steer away
inquiries into Westcott's questionable endorsement
of booze and local drinking establishments,
which at the time caused great embarrassment
to both his family and the Church of England.

 

[Amy.G]

http://www.archive.org/stream/a613719002westuoft#page/n7/mode/2up
Westcott, like all Anglicans in the 19th century,
was an alcoholic.

ALL Anglicans in the 19th century were alcoholics? I don't think so.

 

[Dr. Walter]

ALL Anglicans in the 19th century were alcoholics? I don't think so.

It may be an exergeration but not far from the truth. Even today, alcoholism is a major problem within the Roman preisthood due to the fact they alone drank the wine.

 

[Nazaroo]

It may be an exergeration but not far from the truth. Even today, alcoholism is a major problem within the Roman preisthood due to the fact they alone drank the wine.

Yes. And along with it, diddling young boys.

 

[Nazaroo]

ALL Anglicans in the 19th century were alcoholics? I don't think so.

Sorry, did I say Anglicans?
I meant all Anglican priests.

Alcoholism - a constant thread...
...
In an astonishly candid interview – his first since disappearing from Sligo eleven years ago, having abandoned the priesthood to live for more than a year with a married mother of seven – the man still referred to locally as 'Fr. Page', tells of

his long battle with alcohol and depression, when he would regularly drink a bottle of brandy a day

his regret at the hurt he caused to the local woman for whom he initially left the priesthood

how he once celebrated Mass in Sligo while drunk

why he now attends weekly services at a Church of England church rather than a Catholic church

why he considers himself still to be a priest

 

[Rippon]

Westcott, like all Anglican [priests] in the 19th century,
was an alcoholic.

That is sinfully absurd. Folks the words of this individual,Naz,has to be taken with a grain of salt --i.e. lots of caution.

The absurd claim of his son is understandable,
but its an utter fabrication, designed to steer away
inquiries into Westcott's questionable endorsement
of booze and local drinking establishments,...

On the contrary,Westcott never imbibed.But you want to make him out to be a bad guy,so you need him to be a wicked man. You reject what his son says about his father as if if you know better.

 

[Nazaroo]

Westcott, like all Anglican [priests] in the 19th century,
was an alcoholic.

You're right Rippoff.
The above statement doesn't go far enough.
It doesn't force responsibility upon these murdering jerks,
for their wholesale sellout in favour of drug dealing.

The Medieval Christian "Church" is the central reason
why we have today an out of control drug culture,
and a massive international criminal organization,
with a GNP larger than any Empire past or present,
including China, the Soviet Union, and the USA.

Drug Dealers Condemned in the New Testament

Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?

Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.
(Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15, original Greek)
Paul Speaks out against Drugs:
Gal 5:20 "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING (pharmakeia)...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"

John also Speaks out against Drugs:
Rev. 9:21 "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."
Rev 22:15 "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."
Rev 18:23 Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"
Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"

Why Should we translate 'pharmakoi' as Drug Dealers?

The Greek word ‘pharmakeia’ has been used since 500 years before Jesus’ time to refer to the buying and selling of drugs for both recreational and medical purposes, and also to refer to quacks selling ‘miracle cures’ etc. This is the very word we get our modern English word ‘Pharmacy’ from, to refer to a dealer or supplier of drugs, a drug store.


Why isn't this in my English Translation?

It has been known since ancient times that the word means ‘drug dealing’. Abundant references in Classical literature show this beyond dispute. In English bibles the term ‘drug dealing’ was deliberately avoided and a completely different word, ‘sorcery’ put in its place. This is was not just due to superstitious ignorance.
During the Middle Ages the Church became the largest manufacturer
and supplier of the most popular drug on earth: ALCOHOL.
The church sold out to the drug dealing industry,
and God’s Word was intentionally kept obscure.

To this day, the Western Church not only makes its own wine for religious use, but also sells it commercially through various monasteries and companies. There may have been some 'excuse' for this sorry state of affairs in the 16th century, before drug dealing was widely understood and formally criminalized. However, in the 21st century there really is no excuse for failing to properly render the original Greek, and make the truth plain.

You will probably ignore, but should clearly notice,
that I am AGAINST the KJV rendering of these verses,
which COVER UP the drug dealing business, created, organized, and sponsored by the Church.

The fact that Roman Catholic 'modern' versions continue to keep the truth obscure,
only underlines the massive drug conspiracy controlled by the Mafia,
with its central headquarters in the Vatican.

 

[David Lamb]

Westcott, like all Anglican [priests] in the 19th century, was an alcoholic.

You're right Rippoff.
The above statement doesn't go far enough.
It doesn't force responsibility upon these murdering jerks, for their wholesale sellout in favour of drug dealing.

What is your source, I wonder, for this notion that 19th Century Anglican priests were all "murdering jerks" involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing?

The Medieval Christian "Church" is the central reason why we have today an out of control drug culture, and a massive international criminal organization, with a GNP larger than any Empire past or present, including China, the Soviet Union, and the USA.

Sorry, but how do we get from "all Anglican [priests] in the 19th century" being (according to you) alcoholics, to your contention that the mediaeval Christian "church" is the main reason for today's drug culture?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As Rippon and others know well, I am a supporter of the T.R., though not necessarily of the KJV. However, I can't let some of the nonsense being talked here pass without comment. If the modern versions are all tainted with Unitarianism, then perhaps someone will explain the following to me.

Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).

2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘.....To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘....To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).

The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘....our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1.

One reason for all this is that the KJV translators were unaware of the Granville Sharpe Rule which states that when two words are linked by a single article, they must both refer to the same person. Another reason is, I've been told, that the KJV translators were relying on a Greek Grammar written by a Unitarian. Someone might like to check that out.

Compare also Romans 9:5 in KJV and modern versions. If the modern translators are all atheists and Unitarians, how come they support the (correct) Trinitarian translations in these verses?

Steve

 

[Rippon]

As Rippon and others know well, I am a supporter of the T.R., though not necessarily of the KJV. However, I can't let some of the nonsense being talked here pass without comment. If the modern versions are all tainted with Unitarianism, then perhaps someone will explain the following to me...


Compare also Romans 9:5 in KJV and modern versions. If the modern translators are all atheists and Unitarians, how come they support the (correct) Trinitarian translations in these verses?

Steve

That's right Steve. You speak the truth.

 

[Nazaroo]

What is your source, I wonder, for this notion that 19th Century Anglican priests were all "murdering jerks" involved in some sell-out that favoured drug-dealing?

The Inquisition.

Sorry, but how do we get from "all Anglican [priests] in the 19th century" being (according to you) alcoholics, to your contention that the mediaeval Christian "church" is the main reason for today's drug culture?

One thing leads to another.