Westcott and Hort

Dr Cassidy, thank you for the correction.

 

What we carefully have to think about in this case is that the logic of the earlier the better or the more accurate is not working unless you can prove that p66 added Hagion after p75 was recorded. I don't think the people at the time of p66 inserted Hagion into the same papyrus as p75.

[ April 04, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

Sorry, my comments lag the real-time board
about 16 hours:

Scott J: //W-H for all their real and possible flaws were not attempting to
refute God's Word. They made a scholarly effort toward reconstructin
the originals based on what they thought were good evidences and assumptions.

//It is blatantly un-Christian and dishonest to demonize a person's
motives without reason simply because they disagree with you.//

Amen, Brother Scott J -- Preach it!

Ransom: //It's a "slam" to say that Spurgeon and Burgon didn't demonize
Westcott and Hort? What planet are you on?//

What part of DOUBLE STANDARD are you having trouble with???
Fortuntely, the access of their double standards exposes thier
perfidy.

Recall how a third rate Science Ficiton hack made a religion
and became a millionare religious quack. I don't say his name
in public, as his religion/scam is outlawed in Germany.
By applying such double standard logic to W&H, the third rate
Anglican compilers of Greek Bible lore look FIRST RATE in the eyes of the majority
ONE STANDARD folk. Strange, eh???

 

Dr Cassidy,

Do you have the data of those you mentioned about Jn 7:39? In other words, do the following mss have the Hagion in Jn 7:39?

L,N,T,W,δ,θ,ψ,.... Byzantine texts that you mentioned.

B states Αγιο&#957 δεδομενον.

In other words, even B disagree with Aleph.

 

Dr. Cassidy, thank you very much. Someone claims p66 dates back to 125 AD, while Zane Hodges/Farstad say 200AD. If 125 is correct it is nearly from the same generation as the autograph. Could you verify a little further?

 

My understanding is it was said that it COULD be as early as 125 AD.

This tactic is used very often, and is quite misleading.

 

Who is the someone?

 

If you had checked what I posted, you could have found one:

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html

But I remember some other papyrus dating to 1 century AD, supporting TR, which I cannot remember exactly.

 

I have not read this book in person but the quote from Book Review is this:
******
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts by Philip W Comfort and David P. Barret, Wheaton Illinois, 2001, USD 44.99

P4, P30, P45, P46, P49, P64, P66, P67, P90

With regards to P46, it is interesting to note that in their revised edition, editors assign a new date of middle second century (p203) in contrast to their earlier judgment of early to middle second century (1999 edition p 193). There is a longer discussion of textual characteristics and correctors of p66 . (p 406, Novum Testamentum 45.4, 2003 issue 4)

 

Okay, I will. Wrong!

Wrong again!

And wrong yet again!

Wow! Wrong on every point! That really takes talent! </font>[/QUOTE]Thanx: Now prove it!

 

Hell:
(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning. (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). Sounds like trash to me

 

Okay, I will. Wrong!

Wrong again!

And wrong yet again!

Wow! Wrong on every point! That really takes talent! </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matt. 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote

 

At the very least the first quotation is a mis-quotation. I am no fan of MV's, but I detest truth-shading. Please check your sources against the facts.

http://www.tegarttech.com/wh/books/historicfaith/chap6.html

 

For those who are counting...

6 pages of this thread about why W&H are the devil, and (unless I missed some) only 2 actual sources are listed - both showing the orginal quotations to be misquotations.

(Note: "Wescott Page 5" is not quoting a source. Wescott wrote several books, all of which have at least 5 pages.)

 

and you wont JW.

This is the problem in this whole debate, one side at least attempts to provide evidence for their claim, and is willing to admit when the other side has a point.

However, the other side refuses evidence save for when it supports them, and cares nothing about accurately characterizing their opponents position.

Tis the nature of the beast.