NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Might I suggest that rather than look for ammunition to support your point of view that you approach your research with a desire to learn and discern with spirit of inquiry?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions we’re not suppose to ask
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
Might I suggest that rather than look for ammunition to support your point of view that you approach your research with a desire to learn and discern with spirit of inquiry?
Steven2006
New Member
I love the KJV, I grew up reading it, my pastor preaches from it, and I still enjoy reading it regularly today. I am also blessed when I read other translations as well. I often find it very beneficial to be able to reference a few different translations when I am studying a particular passage.
The questions I have for those that view the KJV as inspired and perfect is this. Why then did the original translators add thousands of marginal notes, many often giving an alternate reading? Why when they themselves stated that their work was not perfect and that other English translations were to be considered the word of God do people now elevate it to something the translators themselves specifically didn't intend?
The questions I have for those that view the KJV as inspired and perfect is this. Why then did the original translators add thousands of marginal notes, many often giving an alternate reading? Why when they themselves stated that their work was not perfect and that other English translations were to be considered the word of God do people now elevate it to something the translators themselves specifically didn't intend?
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi C4K
You suggested.......
You suggested.......
This is my plan. (Always looking for the truth.)
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that. Your 'ammunition' phrase threw me off. In the last twenty years or so I have learned so much when I started looking with an honest spirit of inquiry. For the first 15 or so years that I was a Christian I researched to support my own view, and wish I had started looking for truth not based on my biases much sooner.
That oughta be written in the Bible somewheres. :laugh:
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello again everyone
I have been rather critical of Westcott and Hort, here on the BB; But since they seem to be kind of heros here, I thought it would be wise to check them out, to see if all that I had heard about them was true.
Here is what I have learned.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is the most positive “subjective” opinion, that I could find about them......
Freqently Assaulted Quotations (or "...things have been calumniated")
vs.
Fully Accurate Quotations
In recent years, there has been an outbreak of false information about Westcott and Hort. Many things have been written (especially by extremist KJV-only authors) that paint a completely false and slanderous picture of Westcott and Hort - the thinking being that if they can discredit Westcott and Hort personally, that would thus discredit the Greek New Testament of 1881 and in turn most of the English Bibles since then. Some claim Westcott and Hort are guilty of "heresy", "occultism", etc., and may are being led to believe completely wrong things about Westcott and Hort. Others are less easily convinced, and are looking for verification and more detail about such quotes, as well as information on what they actually believed. That's why this section exists.
On the left are misquotes (constructed, misunderstood, and/or out of context) and false claims produced and repeated by those intent on discrediting Westcott and Hort, along with some discussion explaining the misuse of the quote. On the right are accurate, verifiable quotes to demonstrate what Westcott and Hort really believed, in their own words.
Most attempts at defamation take the form of misquotes: quotes taken out of context, quotes altered, even quotes constructed by piecing together words and phrases from entirely different chapters or even books. Initially, such misquotes were largely ignored because very few people actually took seriously the ones putting forth the quotes, and of those that did, nobody bothered to verify the references. However, during the last few decades, a snowball effect has taken place where KJV-only authors have fed off each other, using each other's "information" in their own writings. As the KJV-only movement has gained a foothold in some evangelical circles, the number of authors, preachers and laymen who are believing and repeating such misinformation has grown at an alarming rate. A simple search on the internet will reveal website after website where Westcott and Hort are unjustly attacked and falsehoods are repeated.
(It is worth noting here that people like Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, who were comtemporaries with Westcott and Hort and knew them personally, never made such claims against their character and beliefs, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism. Burgon and Spurgeon never called them heretics, never questioned or challenged their Christian faith, never challenged or questioned their doctrinal statements, never accused them of involvement or of condoning of occultic or New Age practices or beliefs, etc.)
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html
I’ll stop after this paragraph, because I found it not to be true.
I located(& downloaded), a book by Dean Burgon, written in 1883(The Revision Revised), where he was clearly, very critical of Westcott and Hort;
(So the picture painted by this site, is less than accurate.)
On page 240 he said......
Drs. Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the original Greek was discovered to ' partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination,'—as we had
anticipated. We became easily convinced that 'those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the
Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.
Now here is a man who knew them personally.
All 602 pages of Burgon’s book are filled with example after example of how Westcott and Hort’s new Greek manuscript was a joke.
I just can’t believe Bible’s were actually made from it.
--------------------------------------------------
There is a wealth of information in the internet about them, and a clear 90% of it is negative: Therefore what follows, seems to the most even handed.......
QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?
ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_44.asp
Believe me, there were many sites, that were much worse: (Or better yet see for yourselves.)
--------------------------------------------------
Some might ask, “What is the big deal with Westcott and Hort?” “Why do I keep talking about them?”
Well the reason is, because they were truly “KJV haters”, and would have done anything to get it replaced.
And they are at the center of this entire discussion, because their fingerprints are on every English Bible, except for the KJV.
I have been rather critical of Westcott and Hort, here on the BB; But since they seem to be kind of heros here, I thought it would be wise to check them out, to see if all that I had heard about them was true.
Here is what I have learned.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is the most positive “subjective” opinion, that I could find about them......
Freqently Assaulted Quotations (or "...things have been calumniated")
vs.
Fully Accurate Quotations
In recent years, there has been an outbreak of false information about Westcott and Hort. Many things have been written (especially by extremist KJV-only authors) that paint a completely false and slanderous picture of Westcott and Hort - the thinking being that if they can discredit Westcott and Hort personally, that would thus discredit the Greek New Testament of 1881 and in turn most of the English Bibles since then. Some claim Westcott and Hort are guilty of "heresy", "occultism", etc., and may are being led to believe completely wrong things about Westcott and Hort. Others are less easily convinced, and are looking for verification and more detail about such quotes, as well as information on what they actually believed. That's why this section exists.
On the left are misquotes (constructed, misunderstood, and/or out of context) and false claims produced and repeated by those intent on discrediting Westcott and Hort, along with some discussion explaining the misuse of the quote. On the right are accurate, verifiable quotes to demonstrate what Westcott and Hort really believed, in their own words.
Most attempts at defamation take the form of misquotes: quotes taken out of context, quotes altered, even quotes constructed by piecing together words and phrases from entirely different chapters or even books. Initially, such misquotes were largely ignored because very few people actually took seriously the ones putting forth the quotes, and of those that did, nobody bothered to verify the references. However, during the last few decades, a snowball effect has taken place where KJV-only authors have fed off each other, using each other's "information" in their own writings. As the KJV-only movement has gained a foothold in some evangelical circles, the number of authors, preachers and laymen who are believing and repeating such misinformation has grown at an alarming rate. A simple search on the internet will reveal website after website where Westcott and Hort are unjustly attacked and falsehoods are repeated.
(It is worth noting here that people like Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, who were comtemporaries with Westcott and Hort and knew them personally, never made such claims against their character and beliefs, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism. Burgon and Spurgeon never called them heretics, never questioned or challenged their Christian faith, never challenged or questioned their doctrinal statements, never accused them of involvement or of condoning of occultic or New Age practices or beliefs, etc.)
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html
I’ll stop after this paragraph, because I found it not to be true.
I located(& downloaded), a book by Dean Burgon, written in 1883(The Revision Revised), where he was clearly, very critical of Westcott and Hort;
(So the picture painted by this site, is less than accurate.)
On page 240 he said......
Drs. Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the original Greek was discovered to ' partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the Imagination,'—as we had
anticipated. We became easily convinced that 'those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the
Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.
Now here is a man who knew them personally.
All 602 pages of Burgon’s book are filled with example after example of how Westcott and Hort’s new Greek manuscript was a joke.
I just can’t believe Bible’s were actually made from it.
--------------------------------------------------
There is a wealth of information in the internet about them, and a clear 90% of it is negative: Therefore what follows, seems to the most even handed.......
QUESTION: Who were Westcott and Hort?
ANSWER: Two unsaved Bible critics.
EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled An Understandable History of the Bible, 1987, Bible Believer's Press, P.O. Box 1249, Pottstown, PA. 19464]
It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.
Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "
Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."
Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.
It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria.
They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new Alexandrian English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version as it was claimed to be.
It has only been in recent years that scholars have examined their unbalanced theories concerning manuscript history and admitted that their agreements were weak to non-existent.
Sadly, both men died having never known the joy and peace of claiming Jesus Christ as their Saviour.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_44.asp
Believe me, there were many sites, that were much worse: (Or better yet see for yourselves.)
--------------------------------------------------
Some might ask, “What is the big deal with Westcott and Hort?” “Why do I keep talking about them?”
Well the reason is, because they were truly “KJV haters”, and would have done anything to get it replaced.
And they are at the center of this entire discussion, because their fingerprints are on every English Bible, except for the KJV.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Exactly which passages have their fingerprints in the NKJV?
Where do you find evidence that they hated the KJV?
How do you support your claim that people here see them as 'heroes?'
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll reply at length later tonight when I get home (my iPhone is terrible at cut and paste.) I will point out that Wescott & Hort are just two ppl from almost 150 years ago that, while important to textual criticism, are not the most used scholars in modern textual critical research. I think, stilllearning, you are overplaying your point.
I don't use W&H in my work because the more modern research is better linguistically and historically. Though I would be remiss not to note their significant impact on modern t.c. research. I surely have problems with someone using a Jack Chick link to add "credibility" to their point. Chick is completely unreliable.
More to come...
I don't use W&H in my work because the more modern research is better linguistically and historically. Though I would be remiss not to note their significant impact on modern t.c. research. I surely have problems with someone using a Jack Chick link to add "credibility" to their point. Chick is completely unreliable.
More to come...
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you stoppedlearning?
It’s as if you don’t even read or understand what you post.
I find it hard to believe that you’ve read the full book of Dean Burgon’s and pulled his quote from "page 240" from it.
You did what the first article charged, you’ve fed from a KJVO site.
Sure Burgon and W+H disagreed, they had vigorous and lively conflicts.
But you can’t find anywhere in his works where he said they were guilty of heresy or occultism.
Try as you will, you’ll never read in his works that they were “unsaved”, apostate or “unchristian”.
You are doing what the first article charged, you're passing on worthless slander.
Stop embarrassing yourself and startlearning.
Rob
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi preachinjesus
And be careful on the road.
You said.......
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......
--------------------------------------------------
And finally.......
I am only interested in the truth.
(And the truth about W&H, is crystal clear.)
And I have found that the only people who don’t like Jack Chick, are those who don’t agree with him.
If you can back up your charge....“Chick is completely unreliable” I would like to see it.
And be careful on the road.
You said.......
I don’t think so. Because of the great influence their manuscript, still has on modern Bibles.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said......
Boy am I glad, that you don’t use them: And from what I have learned, almost ANYTHING is better.
--------------------------------------------------
And finally.......
First, I wasn’t looking for “credibility”: I don’t care what people think.
I am only interested in the truth.
(And the truth about W&H, is crystal clear.)
And I have found that the only people who don’t like Jack Chick, are those who don’t agree with him.
If you can back up your charge....“Chick is completely unreliable” I would like to see it.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello Deacon
And nice to hear from you, “I think”:
You said........
Just because others here may take shortcuts like that, doesn’t mean that I do.
No; I downloaded Burgon’s book(pdf file), and started doing word searches.
(I am not a speed reader, able to read 600 pages in a day
But this “exact” quote, is one of several that “I found”, and with the 10000 word limit here, I knew that I had to settle on just one quote.
(But believe me, the book is full of them.)
And this book is very readable, so I do plan to read it.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....
(Although their heresy is obvious.)
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
(Sorry for the bad news.)
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said.....
Undoubtedly, it was written by more fans of W&H.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........
Your heros Wescott & Hort, were jokes in their time.
(And it is only the passage of time, that has elevated them.)
And nice to hear from you, “I think”:
You said........
You have no idea what I have done.
Just because others here may take shortcuts like that, doesn’t mean that I do.
No; I downloaded Burgon’s book(pdf file), and started doing word searches.
(I am not a speed reader, able to read 600 pages in a day
But this “exact” quote, is one of several that “I found”, and with the 10000 word limit here, I knew that I had to settle on just one quote.
(But believe me, the book is full of them.)
And this book is very readable, so I do plan to read it.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....
You need to study before you post: “I have never accused them of occultism.
(Although their heresy is obvious.)
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
You sound like a real fan.
(Sorry for the bad news.)
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said.....
If you read my post, I showed where “the first article”, was passing on lies about Burgon.
Undoubtedly, it was written by more fans of W&H.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........
I need to pass that advice along to you.
Your heros Wescott & Hort, were jokes in their time.
(And it is only the passage of time, that has elevated them.)
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello C4K
You had three questions.......
(I will borrow his words to answer your question.......)
What the New King James Version has done is to keep much of the poetry of the Authorised Version, but dive into Westcott-Hort text. This has resulted in some surprising changes concerning the doctrine of Christ. Personally, I would prefer for young readers less poetry, but total faithfulness to the Received Text. Poetry does not equal truth. Just because a translation sounds nice, that does not mean it is the real McCoy.
Personally, I feel misled by something calling itself the 'New' King James Bible because it does not rely on the orignal baseline text source that the Authorised Version does - and I know many Christians will have bought the NKJV because they think it is true to the original. At least the NIV is not appearing as something else - it makes no big deal about the fact that it is based on Westcott-Hort.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your next two questions........
Deacon and Winman have answered them for me.
You had three questions.......
Well, back in 2007, a Bible translator calling himself Nigel, came to visit the BB;
(I will borrow his words to answer your question.......)
What the New King James Version has done is to keep much of the poetry of the Authorised Version, but dive into Westcott-Hort text. This has resulted in some surprising changes concerning the doctrine of Christ. Personally, I would prefer for young readers less poetry, but total faithfulness to the Received Text. Poetry does not equal truth. Just because a translation sounds nice, that does not mean it is the real McCoy.
Personally, I feel misled by something calling itself the 'New' King James Bible because it does not rely on the orignal baseline text source that the Authorised Version does - and I know many Christians will have bought the NKJV because they think it is true to the original. At least the NIV is not appearing as something else - it makes no big deal about the fact that it is based on Westcott-Hort.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your next two questions........
and
Deacon and Winman have answered them for me.
Steven2006
New Member
This is taken from the book "From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man" pg 211 & 212
"Quite often , the controversies surrounding the KLV generate more heat than light. On many occasions good and godly men, whose credentials are impeccable and whose faithful service to Christ and to His Word is obvious to all impartial observers, have been attacked for a supposed disloyalty to the KJV or the Textus Receptus (TR). In 1983 I became embroiled in one of these controversies.
I received some information that contained a strong attack upon a godly professor and the school that he represented. This material had been sent out to numerous pastors and Christian leaders in the form of an open letter. I began reading the material with a desire to understand the basis of the controversy. I had a personal acquaintance with those being attacked and was quite concerned.
As I read the material, I became troubled. The professor and school were being accused of supporting heretics and of having departed from their historic Fundamentalist heritage. The basis of the charge was the use of the Westcott-Hort Greek text by the professor and the school. By gathering numerous quotation from the writings of Westcott and Hort, the person making the accusations set out to prove that Westcott and Hort were heretics and apostates. The charges against Westcott and Hort were indeed quite serious. I had more exposure to Westcott's writings than I did Hort's and the accusations against him did not seem to agree with my memory of his writings. I began to wonder if I had not been given all the facts by my mentors of the past. Among other things, Westcott was said to have repudiated Genesis 1-2 as a literal historical account, to have taught the universal fatherhood of God and the divinity of man, and to have denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. His bodily resurrection, and His sinlessness.
I decided to go to my shelves and pull down several of my Westcott commentaries in order to check the quotations being used to prove his heresy. I was in for a shock! Not one of the quotes given in this expose actually proved him guilty of heresy. Westcott was quoted out of context, omissions were made in order to change the meaning of his statements, and there were even word changes in the quotes from Westcott. I became very angry. Was this merely accidental, or was it intentional and malicious? In reality, Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ; in no way was he guilty of "heresy" and "apostasy".
.
"Quite often , the controversies surrounding the KLV generate more heat than light. On many occasions good and godly men, whose credentials are impeccable and whose faithful service to Christ and to His Word is obvious to all impartial observers, have been attacked for a supposed disloyalty to the KJV or the Textus Receptus (TR). In 1983 I became embroiled in one of these controversies.
I received some information that contained a strong attack upon a godly professor and the school that he represented. This material had been sent out to numerous pastors and Christian leaders in the form of an open letter. I began reading the material with a desire to understand the basis of the controversy. I had a personal acquaintance with those being attacked and was quite concerned.
As I read the material, I became troubled. The professor and school were being accused of supporting heretics and of having departed from their historic Fundamentalist heritage. The basis of the charge was the use of the Westcott-Hort Greek text by the professor and the school. By gathering numerous quotation from the writings of Westcott and Hort, the person making the accusations set out to prove that Westcott and Hort were heretics and apostates. The charges against Westcott and Hort were indeed quite serious. I had more exposure to Westcott's writings than I did Hort's and the accusations against him did not seem to agree with my memory of his writings. I began to wonder if I had not been given all the facts by my mentors of the past. Among other things, Westcott was said to have repudiated Genesis 1-2 as a literal historical account, to have taught the universal fatherhood of God and the divinity of man, and to have denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. His bodily resurrection, and His sinlessness.
I decided to go to my shelves and pull down several of my Westcott commentaries in order to check the quotations being used to prove his heresy. I was in for a shock! Not one of the quotes given in this expose actually proved him guilty of heresy. Westcott was quoted out of context, omissions were made in order to change the meaning of his statements, and there were even word changes in the quotes from Westcott. I became very angry. Was this merely accidental, or was it intentional and malicious? In reality, Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ; in no way was he guilty of "heresy" and "apostasy".
.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hello Steven2006
And thank you for your post.
I can sure see how easy it would be for anyone to “misquote” another person’s words;
(And I would greatly appreciate it, if you could quickly alert me, if I ever do this.)
But let me also point out, that I have not used any quotes from W&H;
(I have only been studying their manuscript and what others of their time & today, have to say about it.)
--------------------------------------------------
I noticed that your example, when back to 1983, showing that there was concern about W&H even then(before the internet).
But the source the I sited, went back to 1883(just 2 years after the publication of W&H’s manuscript).
As I have said, all I am interested in is the truth.
(And since the orignal baseline of the MV’s is based upon their work, credible facts about them and their work is very important.)
And thank you for your post.
I can sure see how easy it would be for anyone to “misquote” another person’s words;
(And I would greatly appreciate it, if you could quickly alert me, if I ever do this.)
But let me also point out, that I have not used any quotes from W&H;
(I have only been studying their manuscript and what others of their time & today, have to say about it.)
--------------------------------------------------
I noticed that your example, when back to 1983, showing that there was concern about W&H even then(before the internet).
But the source the I sited, went back to 1883(just 2 years after the publication of W&H’s manuscript).
As I have said, all I am interested in is the truth.
(And since the orignal baseline of the MV’s is based upon their work, credible facts about them and their work is very important.)
Steven2006
New Member
I guess the point would be since this seems to be a passion of yours instead of investing so much time reading and researching what critics say about them why wouldn't you rather take the time to read Wescott's commentaries for yourself and learn first hand what the man taught.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi Steven2006
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
You said........
I have not been......”researching what critics say about them”:
I have been researching what anybody and everybody, has to say about them.
I “was” totally open, to study what their supporters had to say about them, wanting to make sure, that I had not been sold a bill of goods.
And as I was reading one(frankly one, of only two positive sites that I was able to find), I came to a paragraph that they had highlighted, where they boasted that Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, never had anything bad to say about W&H.
This intrigued me, and I started to search for supporting evidence.
--------------------------------------------------
What I found, shocked me;
Because what I found is irrefutable, and yet was out there for the whole world to see.
I was shocked, that ANYBODY(any Christian), would ever come to their defense.
All I could think was, maybe they were unaware of the existence of this book.
--------------------------------------------------
It is kind of like “the birthers”(who say Obama wasn’t born in the USA):
Fox searched out the birth announcements for the date of his birth, and therefore found irrefutable evidence that he was born in America.
This discovery, should forever silence the birthers.
Just as the facts about W&H’s work, should settle this argument once and for all.
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
You said........
Well that is just it:
I have not been......”researching what critics say about them”:
I have been researching what anybody and everybody, has to say about them.
I “was” totally open, to study what their supporters had to say about them, wanting to make sure, that I had not been sold a bill of goods.
And as I was reading one(frankly one, of only two positive sites that I was able to find), I came to a paragraph that they had highlighted, where they boasted that Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, never had anything bad to say about W&H.
This intrigued me, and I started to search for supporting evidence.
--------------------------------------------------
What I found, shocked me;
Because what I found is irrefutable, and yet was out there for the whole world to see.
I was shocked, that ANYBODY(any Christian), would ever come to their defense.
All I could think was, maybe they were unaware of the existence of this book.
--------------------------------------------------
It is kind of like “the birthers”(who say Obama wasn’t born in the USA):
Fox searched out the birth announcements for the date of his birth, and therefore found irrefutable evidence that he was born in America.
This discovery, should forever silence the birthers.
Just as the facts about W&H’s work, should settle this argument once and for all.
Steven2006
New Member
But that is my point. Regardless of how you stumbled on it, why spend so much time reading a book of a critic? If you are going to publicly attack Westcott's beliefs and if the truth is what you are really after why not read the mans actual commentary and see for yourself?