The Holy Bible IS The Word of Almighty God

For information on the W&H text

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Even if Waite's reputation for being less than even handed on this issue were not widely known, the inflammatory words and unsubstantiated charges he chose within just the introduction of this article would make me suspicious.

Phrases like "false and erroneous", "irresponsible scholars" (repeated without citation or context), and "serious error" suggest that Waite assumes his conclusion and is on a mining expedition to find support.

Section B starts off within an interesting "reasonable" approach to the topic: "Many of those who despise the Textus Receptus today"... This is an indirect lie. Saying that the TR is not perfect or needs revision does not amount to despising it.

Burgon himself said that it was in need of revision.

Waite is appealing to emotion, not reasoning on the facts.

I won't answer every point but it is amusing that Waite cites Otis Fuller as an authority... taking us directly back to the father of modern KJVOnlyim- Wilkerson.

Point 6 refutes your arguments in favor of the "Comma". The support for the Comma is not of "universal antiquity". The support is not widespread and almost exclusively Latin.

To make the long story short... Waite is promoting an opinion, not arguing the facts.

I believe that the MT is probably more representative of the originals than either the CT or TR. I believe there is a great deal of risk associated with so heavily weighting a very small number of mss even considering their great age. That said, neither the CT nor TR render a text that cannot rightly be called "God's Word". They both reflect the originals and compliment each other sufficiently to reject those who would discard either one.

Is one text better than the other? That is an academic question... not a basis to question someone's spirituality.

Waite's article is long on bias and emotion and woefully short on any kind of reasonable proof from facts.

 

IMO, Waite's whole agenda was to promote the KJVO myth through a side door.

 

In several threads or topics at this forum, Waite has been shown to be a unreliable source
of information.

 

Yes, since almost all the "modern" versions in all languages are based on the Greek Text produced by either the United Bible Society, or that of Nestle and Aland, you will find that almost all those responsible for these "Texts" were unreliable men, many of whom even doubted the Infalability and Inerrancy of Scripture, both which I believe are the "touch-stone" for anyone who undertakes such a work as a Bible Verions.

You can see some evidence here
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern2.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yes, and the Anglicans were such a responsible people, torturing other Christians who disagreed with them to make the KJV the only Bible of "choice"...LOL...Now that's a real laugh! They were no more reliable than W/H.

 

AVL;
I have seen that charge numerous times but I have yet to see proof.
The Anglican church DID persecute folks, of this there is no doubt. But for you to make the leap and assert they did it to promote the KJV is a bit too far of a leap to make.

Prove it here and now please.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Adequate proof has been posted in many other threads, Jim. I'm not going to go back and do your searches for you. "PROMOTE" was your word of choice, not mine. And, as stated by you yourself, the Anglicans did indeed persecute folks who did not agree with them. It's not such a "leap" to know that they didn't like the previous versions of the Bible, even by the notes provided by the Anglican "translators"...trying to remove the "popish" influences...Now that's a real laugh considering the King/Queen is the head of the Anglican church...A Popish influence in and of themselves! Get real!

 

icthus said:

I have NEVER said that the KJV are the "original writings".

Good for you. Case in point #1: The not-so-veiled insinuation that your opponents do not accept the Bible (in some format) as the Word of God. Case in point #3: Pretending that my objection was to you labeling something the "Word of God," and not your disingenuous assertion that I reject it.

Your intellectual arrogance grows tiresome.

 

icthus said:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

Anyone can be an armchair critic. I'm guessing you've never even bothered to interact with Westcott and Hort's work yourself. Relying on secondary sources is intellectual laziness.

 

Jim, would you claim that when the Church of England did not permit other English translations such as the Geneva Bible to be printed in England at times that it did not promote or help the KJV?
Would you claim that around 1637 when Archbishop William Laud made it a high commission crime to import, sell, or have bound a copy of the Geneva Bible that it did not promote or help the KJV?
Do you remember that Archbishop Laud and the Church of England burned some copies of the Geneva Bible?

When the government as head of the Church of England or the Church of England had Henry Jessey,
a Baptist pastor who was working on a new English translation, ejected from his church around 1660 by the cruel Act of Uniformity and imprisoned and prevented his translation from being published, did that help the KJV?

 

I never stated the TRANSLATORS were the ones who tortured, icthus. That was YOUR reading into what I said. But, I wouldn't expect anything less. I can defend quite well what I believe, and you have no idea where I stand. You state the "truth has been shown"....really...where??? All you need to know is that I am a Christian. Again, in response to David Clouds article....David Cloud is OFTEN wrong in his assessment. This is not just this posters opinion, but the opinion of many of his own group of IFBers.

 

My view of Bible translation has nothing to do with Westcott/Hort or the Critical text. Thus, I have no need to defend them. I notice that you have not yet responded to the documented evidence that showed that your claims about the KJV translators were incorrect. The documented evidence did show that some of the KJV translators were involved in the persecution of others for their faith including the persecution of believers. The documented evidence also shows that the doctrinal views accepted by the KJV translators were not all correct. You might be surprised to find how much in common the views of KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes was with the views of Westcott and Hort.

 

My direct challenge was to AVL but I'll be glad to include you if you like.


Show where the CoE tortured(AVL's word) people for using any other Bible but the KJV.
First hand documentation with the charges listed please.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Reliable documented evidence has already been provided that shows that the Church of England's High Commission Court persecuted others and
sometimes that persecution could be considered torture. Reliable documented evidence has also been provided that shows that Archbishop William Laud made the importantion, selling, and binding of the Geneva Bible a high commission crime.

Why would you demand first-hand sources when you should know that the Church of England at that time controlled the press and did not license, approve, and permit some books to be printed? Some of the things that went on during this period of censorship could only be reported
later. THE DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY noted that Archbishop John Whitgift (1530?-1604) caused to be passed in the High Commission Court in 1586 the following decree: "No manuscript was to be set up in type until it had been perused and licensed by the archbishop or the bishop of London" (Vol. XXI, p. 133). In addition, you likely know that some first-hand unprinted manuscript sources [used by some later reliable sources]may have burned in one of the big fires in London.

 

I guess according to Jim, being ejected from ones church and imprisoned isn't torture....Hmmmm, I guess he'd like to go the full distance and have the people who disagreed with the Anglicans to be drawn and quartered. Figures!

 

Torture;
Severe pain inflicted judicially, either as a punishment for a crime, or for the purpose of extorting a confession from an accused person. Torture may be and is inflicted in a variety of ways, as by water or fire, or by the boot or thumbkin. But the most usual mode is by the rack or wheel.

Nope, not according to Jim.

Now. Care to provide evidence to your origianl assertion which I challenged?

Or would you be willing to retract and reword your assertion? I would be willing to accept the fact of history that folks were imprisoned or persecuted for having a different Bible or even publishing one, but torure? NOPE!

In HIS service;
Jim