Westcott and Hort

I think context decides the English rendering of the Greek, don't you Doc?

Not really, the KJB translators straightened out what the vulgate misled in translation. Yes W/H did rely upon the Alexandrian MSS, that is why they made so many errors in their rendition of the Greek texts.

Everyone knows to follow the harmony in regard of MSS by the Byzantine MSS, except those who demand a new translation and that solely upon the Alexandrian MSS and then they follow the methodologies of W/H. Duh!

 

Sal, About the only good thing about being on Doc's skewer is that he'll let you off if you'll shut up... (says the voice of personal experience).

 

'Tis very hot on the Doc's skewer..(says the second voice of perosnal experience.)

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Even this natural fear
of the heart Christ has lightened. There is no-
thing in the fact of death, nothing in the con-
sequences of death, which Christ has not en-
dured for us: He was buried. He descended into
Hades, the place of spirits.( I checked your refrences and here they are.) Thanx and God Bless
P.S. What are MV's?

 

The WH text is from the Alexandrian Greek manuscript tradition, not from the Latin Vulgate. In fact, it is the KJV that relies heavily on the Vulgate, not the WH text.

They had several Greek manuscripts, not "a" manuscript.

They didn't find anything. the Sinai manuscript was found by Count Constantin von Tishendorf, and it wasn't in a trash can, it was in a manuscript vault wrapped in protective red leather.

If you are going to participate at least do a little study first so you will have a vague idea what you are talking about. (Not to mention you might want to learn to spell if you expect to be taken seriously. His name was spelled “Westcott,” “believe” not “believe” “writings” not “writtings” etc.) </font>[/QUOTE]Well I thank God that he chose a few fishermen, and not a bunch of [personal attack deleted], to listen to the Holy Spirit,and not the teachings or commandmets of men. Furthermore, I'm only a HVAC Master Tech. Whats your excuse?

[ April 06, 2006, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

HAHA, well I'm glad that both Erasmus and the KJV translators completely reject your idea of anit-intellectualism!

I find the funniest part of KJVOism is precisely when they resort to defaming the men who created the very bible they elevate above all others! Not just "they arent perfect people", but flat out rejecting the things that were MOST IMPORTANT to them, such as not losing your brain as you grow your faith.

[ April 06, 2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Mexdeaf: //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.//

Amen, Brother Mexdeaf - Preach it!
Unchecked quotation is what the Bible condemns as 'gossip'.
Also, these errors are condemned time and again on this very
Forum. Those who read this Forum frequently will NOT BE IMPRESSED
by the integrity of one who dosn't think enough of the others here
to report gossip again.

Also not impressive is one who quotes another document without
checking their source (as Bro. MExdeaf said: "Please check your sources
against the facts"). It would have been more honest to quote
the source from which one took the quote, rather than only the
source quoted. Quite frankly, the quote comes from an unrelible
source. Recommend getting one's doctrine from THE BIBLE not from
a lying gossiper. Again, the one who uses these bad debate
techniques, thier integrity will always be questioned (we aren't allowed
here to question their intellegence )


-------------------------
Originally posted by william s. correa:
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
-------------------------
Rsr: //How about more of the quote?//

"All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced
that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present
I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth — I reject
the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming.
Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve,
and which I never hope to solve ... "
--------------------------------------------

Thank you brother Rsr for repeating past corrections.
This misquote reminds me of this scripture:

2 Peter 2:12 (KJV1769):
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and
destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in thier own corruption;

Whomever:
-----------------------
or a greek manuscript,
------------------------
TCassidy: //They had several Greek manuscripts, not "a" manuscript.//

Little known fact: 'Textus Receptus' is a plural Latin phrase.

 

Textus Receptus is a plural phrase as it is from many manuscripts. My question is whether it is another name for the Majority Text.

I feel the KJV is more reliable because of the agreement of manuscripts, but then I am only KJV-preferred.

I have issue with the idea that the oldest manuscript is necessarily the best. If God's preservation plan for His word was to hide copies in caves from the 2nd century, why not hide the original autographs in the cave and remove all doubt? He certainly could have done this if He wanted to.

W&H method is the issue I have with their text, not any perceived personal belief issue. I think the most reliable translation would be one based on the highest agreement among available manuscripts on the basis that the best copies should have been used for subsequent copies down through the years.

This also means that God's preservation of His word was available to all generations, not only the last 200 or so years that these older texts have been found.

 

Who preserved which texts is important as well,i.e. which texts have the true believers who were persecuted for their faith while the Bibles were burnt and eradicated, preserved is to be checked.
If TR-KJV didn't record 1Jn 5:7 Comma,then few people would have considered it as a part of genuine Bible today.

 

Actually, there arent very many "new" readings in the Alex. texts. The majority of the differences are the additions of words and phrases in the Bzy. , which it is arguable whether or not they are added by the Byz., or deleted by the Alex.

Actually, this is misleading. DO you not think there was persecution in the 2nd-4th century? I cant for the life of me understand why having a TR based bible would make ones martyrdom more respectable than having a bible based on other manuscripts. I am sure they knew they were dying for the same Christ and for the same reasons.

Therefore, to say we should use this textform because of who else used results in choosing tradition over everything else.

 

Hmmmm even though I agree the majority text is probably preferred (IMHO) over the Alexandrian, you present an interesting theory.

Might we also note that these people from the 17th century also had the Apocrypha in their Bibles.

Just something to think about.

How about all of the persecuted people that were holding the Geneva Bible?

 

Initially 2-4 c people's motive was different from what I mentioned. They might have the notion that they should make Bible " more believable" or " more acceptable" to the pagan stricken people so that Gospel might reach more people, even though no human being could improve what God had done already.
But later on, Rc tried to eradicate the Bibles and after KJV was published, their strategy was changed to spreading fake ones.
I understand Geneva Bible was persecuted in a certain sense, but it might be extremely small fraction compared to what the true believers have suffered from under Bible Ignoring people. That doesn't deter my belief that TR was organized under the providence of God, which resulted in the reaction from the other sides like W-H.

 

Today, users of the KJV are not under persecution. In China, persecution is widespread and severe but God is saving many souls... and from the information I have seen the Chinese have 4 versions of the Bible in significant use... all of which are based on the CT and not the TR.

So if your rule holds, the TR is to be rejected since its use is not currently witnessed by the more severe persecution.

 

Eliyahu,

I fear you need to catch up on your church history. There were many rulers during the early church period whose main crusade was to persecute christians and destroy bibles. Perhaps you have heard of Nero?

Also, I must wonder why you think the TR "resulted" in a reaction by W-H. Do you not feel that they had a valid point, believing that manuscripts closest to the time of the originals should carry more weight? You DONT have to agree, but acting as if they simply wanted to refute the TR is simple dishonesty.

 

That is a pretty interesting claim since the mss used by Erasmus had long been in the hands of Catholics. They were more than likely the products of either Catholic or Orthodox (eastern Catholic) scribes. Moreover, the TR was put together by a RCC scholar... and the KJV was made by Anglo-catholics.

Some of these Anglicans wanted to rejoin the English state church to Rome. Lancelot Andrewes, the overall supervisor for the KJV translation, leaned toward Rome and Romish doctrines.

Now, comparatively, Catholics have had much less to do with modern translations and modern texts. That doesn't mean these are better... only that your "guilt by association" argument is fatally flawed.

Another interesting statement since it was produced by men in exile due to direct Catholic persecution.

By the criteria you seem to be favoring... the Geneva Bible is far more qualified for our acceptance than the version authorized by the state church of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

Really? That's interesting since in the 1630's it became a crime to print, bind, or distribute the Geneva Bible within the British Empire. Why? Primarily because the people continue to prefer it to the KJV.

So upon what do you base the notion that a RCC scholar was providentially used by God but two Anglican scholars (members of the same but less statist-authoritarian than the KJV translators themselves) were by necessity a "reaction from the other sides"?

You are entitled to believe what you want. But the fact is that what you posted is contradicted by easily attainable facts.

 

It was only between the covers and never considered to be part of the Bible.