Westcott and Hort

It was only between the covers and never considered to be part of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]In the 1611 printing it was placed between the Old Testament and New Testament and was labeled simply "Apocrypha" with the same lettering as the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" titles.

There was NOTHING said about whether or not it was considered scripture. It was simply between the two testaments we now use.

What is your proof that they did not consider it as part of the Bible, especially since it was RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the rest of the scriptures?

 

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. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Out of sheer curiosity could you tell us exactly which version of the TR are you referring to?

 

If you're talking about mainland China, only one version is in significant use, called the He He Ben, or Chinese Union Version, and it is based on something close to the TR, though I haven't yet figured out what. It seems to be some sort of an eclectic text. The Chinese Union version is the only one produced legally in China, and it is actually produced illegally in even larger quantities. The "underground" believers actually prefer the archaic language of the Union Version, and have issues of distrust regarding the newer versions, similar to KJVOs in the USA. For myself, I prefer the Xin Yi Ben, New Chinese Version. It's grammar and updated word selection makes it significantly easier for me to read at my current level of Chinese.

 

If you're talking about mainland China, only one version is in significant use, called the He He Ben, or Chinese Union Version, and it is based on something close to the TR, though I haven't yet figured out what. It seems to be some sort of an eclectic text. The Chinese Union version is the only one produced legally in China, and it is actually produced illegally in even larger quantities. The "underground" believers actually prefer the archaic language of the Union Version, and have issues of distrust regarding the newer versions, similar to KJVOs in the USA. For myself, I prefer the Xin Yi Ben, New Chinese Version. It's grammar and updated word selection makes it significantly easier for me to read at my current level of Chinese. </font>[/QUOTE]Just how many languages are you fluent in? Seriously.......

 

If you're talking about mainland China, only one version is in significant use, called the He He Ben, or Chinese Union Version, and it is based on something close to the TR, though I haven't yet figured out what. It seems to be some sort of an eclectic text. The Chinese Union version is the only one produced legally in China, and it is actually produced illegally in even larger quantities. The "underground" believers actually prefer the archaic language of the Union Version, and have issues of distrust regarding the newer versions, similar to KJVOs in the USA. For myself, I prefer the Xin Yi Ben, New Chinese Version. It's grammar and updated word selection makes it significantly easier for me to read at my current level of Chinese. </font>[/QUOTE]For the life of me, I can't find my reference.

So at this point I am left to apologize and question my own claim since I can't verify that it was a survey of usage and not of print runs.

What text is the NCV based on? I found info stating that the CUV was not based on the TR but something different from MV's as well. A couple of others were based on the UBS.

The details of my proof I unfortunately will have to retreat on. The conclusion is still the same though even considering that the CUV cannot be confirmed as a critical text version:

The Chinese revival is taking place without a TR version of the Bible.

 

BTW, are your claims concerning Chinese preferences based on objective data or anecdotal?

 

I have seen a Chinese Bible based on TR, in Toronto and the lady said it was translated by a Chinese Jew. I was amazed to see their Bible was exactly same as KJV in controversial verses.
There lived many Jews in China since 7 c. They were granted family name Ssoong during Ssoong dynasty. I refer to TR by Stephanus.

 

I cant for the life of me understand why these scholars, who supposedly rejected the Apocrypha as authorative scripture, would place it in a book which is supposed to contain only authorative scripture, or some explination regarding its translation.

I think there is more here than some let on. If today KJVs were printed with the Apocrypha, would the KJVO object? Would the KJVP?

 

The name is William Simon Correa , Mr. Edwards.By the way
"We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?"

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]God dosen't need your brain;All he will use is that hole in your head you call a mouth for His purpose: Oh By the way read this!
"Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith."

 

I keep hearing these charges repeated, but have yet to see any real proof. BTW, I do not support their work.

 

It is singular, not plural. The plural of textus would be texti.

 

I just speak from my own experience having lived in 3 different regions (and provinces) in the mainland.

The New Chinese Version is based on the UBS Greek New Testament, and has parenthetical notes discussing the readings of ancient manuscripts. The state-sanctioned Chinese Union Version sometimes follows the TR, and sometimes does not, and also includes parenthetical notes.

For example, the New Chinese Version in Mk 9:29 has (in a more literal form so you can see the difference): "Jesus said to them: This kind of spirit, without prayer cannot be driven out" (with no parenthetical note). The Chinese Union Version has: "Jesus said: Without prayer (there are old manuscripts at this place that add the two characters jin shi [i.e., fasting]), this kind of spirit can never come out (or, cannot be driven out of him)" (including both parenthetical notes, the first on the fasting reading, the parantheses indicating its secondary nature, and the second on an alternate way of translating the demon's coming out.

The "to them", which is included in the TR and UBS GNT, is included in the NCV, while it is excluded in the CUV. (It is not really necessary in English or Chinese, but there is no reason to leave it out.) The reading "and fasting" is excluded in both, but a note is in the CUV indicating its presence in "old manuscripts".

So here the Union Version seems to favor the UBS reading but give note to the TR reading.

In Mt. 17:21, however, the Union Version follows the TR by including the verse without a footnote indicating anything about its possible inauthenticity. The New Chinese Version, at Mt. 17:21, has: "(A few manuscripts have v. 21: 'This kind of spirit, if you do not pray and fast, cannot be driven out.)." Something a little humorous about this note is the word "few", seeing how it is not a few that include the verse, but almost all. Anyway, here the Union Version follows the TR without a note of opposition.

 

I keep hearing these charges repeated, but have yet to see any real proof. BTW, I do not support their work. </font>[/QUOTE]If one claims to be a Spiritualist as Hort did,then theres nothing to prove; since by his own admission says such things and then writes his version in english, when the AV 1611 wasn't broken to begin with.If it Ain't broke don't add or take away to Gods word, thats what makes them heretics. Saul became a Spiritualist and look what happenned to him. Textus Receptus is the Word of God.
Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

 

quoted above:

//"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)//

WHICH BIBLE?is a book of low reputation
and frequent character assassination by ellipsis.
Because I tend to cut slack in respect of the honored
dead, I think 'unanswerable' here has a very positive
connotation. I.E. the general thrust of this Hort quote
is that "Darwin is bunk" (only said nicely).

 

I keep hearing these charges repeated, but have yet to see any real proof. BTW, I do not support their work. </font>[/QUOTE]If one claims to be a Spiritualist as Hort did,then theres nothing to prove; since by his own admission says such things and then writes his version in english, when the AV 1611 wasn't broken to begin with.If it Ain't broke don't add or take away to Gods word, thats what makes them heretics. Saul became a Spiritualist and look what happenned to him. Textus Receptus is the Word of God.
Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189) </font>[/QUOTE]Okay- I don't know the context, but lets say they did doubt a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, does that mean they fail "to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith"?

 

Why were you there?

Interesting that you would say that the more traditional Christians would have a KJVO-like adherence to the CUV when it provides alternative readings. KJVO's disdain alternative readings.

Do you have more info on what is happening within China? I have a great interest in the movement of God within that nation.

 

The KJV translators provide alternative readings for many passages, if you read their notes.

 

I am aware of that HoG.

I am speaking of KJVO's, not the translators or version itself.

Many if not most KJVO's reject the notion that a single word can be changed without corrupting God's Word.