Westcott and Hort

DesiderioDomini · Apr 7, 2006

Originally posted by william s. correa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well I thank God that he chose a few fishermen, and [deleted by moderator], to listen to the Holy Spirit,and not the teachings or commandmets of men.

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. [/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." [/QUOTE]Interesting, since Psalm 32:9 says: "PS 32:9 Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding," but I guess if you are dead set on anti-intellectualism, then no matter of fact will do. As for me, I refuse to believe that God wants me to be an idiot. Why else would Paul be quoting contemporary poets of his day, if he was not educated? Am I not more useful in sharing the gospel if I know a little more about culture, history, even sports or music? Are these not great ways to start conversations?

It appears you have bought into the "us against them" mindset.

As for your quote, the dishonesty of these accusations against W-H continue, as you refuse to even give a reference. You have shown you care ONLY about defaming someone, and care NOTHING about backing it up with fact. If only you were the first.......

william s. correa · Apr 7, 2006

Originally posted by C4K:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C4K:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
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. [/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) [/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"? [/QUOTE]Sure it does, we walk by faith not by sight. As I recolect in talking to a Roman Catholic Priest and I do Qoute " Have you ever heard a story told, that's what Genesis is' and " Do you Know when Abram was told to sacrifice his son, was it really God or a god of that pagan time? read magog and gog"
and many other false doctorine issues that separate truth from fictitious folk as Westcott and Hort who live in a fairy tale by their own words. They should of let it go and let God. I'm no Bible Scholar but I am saved and I hear the voice of my shepard and no other will I hear .Thanx and God Bless.

Hope of Glory · Apr 7, 2006

Originally posted by Scott J:
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.

Yep. Ironic, isn't it?

william s. correa · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well I thank God that he chose a few fishermen, and [deleted by moderator], to listen to the Holy Spirit,and not the teachings or commandmets of men.

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. [/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." [/QUOTE]Interesting, since Psalm 32:9 says: "PS 32:9 Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding," but I guess if you are dead set on anti-intellectualism, then no matter of fact will do. As for me, I refuse to believe that God wants me to be an idiot. Why else would Paul be quoting contemporary poets of his day, if he was not educated? Am I not more useful in sharing the gospel if I know a little more about culture, history, even sports or music? Are these not great ways to start conversations?

It appears you have bought into the "us against them" mindset.

As for your quote, the dishonesty of these accusations against W-H continue, as you refuse to even give a reference. You have shown you care ONLY about defaming someone, and care NOTHING about backing it up with fact. If only you were the first....... [/QUOTE]First of all the only mindset I have is Christ's ,and the references that you ask for are in the AV 1611, the Word of God. Jesus said " Woe unto you when men shall speak well of you for my name sake for so did the False prophets" The Word is all I need to rebuke,(Titus 2:15) what is not of God, I have spoken Evil of no one and if I have I apologize. The quote from Psalms 32:9 says "Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle,lest they come near unto thee." if only you would have read the previous verse, which says "I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go:I will guide thee with mine eye" I'm sure if God teaches me or you and instructs us we cannot be idiots. Thanx and God bless

Phillip · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by william s. correa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C4K:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
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. [/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) [/QUOTE]Uh, 'scuse me but what do you mean the AV1611 didn't need to be fixed considering the changes made to get to the version we use today? Or would you prefer us to use the real AV1611 complete with Apocrypha sitting right between the Old and New Testaments?

Also, could you please tell us which Textus Receptus that you are referring to? Mind you, I do agree that all three versions that we have access to contain the Word of God; including the one that was reverse engineered after the fact.

How do you explain that the KJV often used the Latin Vulgate and the fact that the KJV translators did what most modern translators do, and that is use multiple manuscripts?

Please provide the PROOF that W & H were spiritualists.

Finally, you yourself said that God doesn't need anybody's brain, but only their mouth, so even if W & H were not "perfect" then you are saying God could use them?

Askjo · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith."

Correct! We see how these men, as textual critics and unbelievers, rejected TR and produced their new corrupted text.

Askjo · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by C4K:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
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. [/QUOTE]C4K, please explain why I agree with Correa concerning his answer. I read many posts saying, "proof, proof, proof!" I see many posters refused to open the curtains on the window because they are reluctant to see "proof" there. This sounds like the satan blinded many Christians when they fall away by saying, "proof!" An example of Peter and Jesus' warning concerning "DENIAL" is very obvious. Peter did not believe Jesus's warning. Later the result, as 100% proof, SHOWED that Peter DID DENIED Him thrice times. Likewise TODAY Christians said, "proof" but they refused to open the curtains and SEE 100% proof there.

W/H did not believe many doctrines such as Heaven, Hell, Jesus Christ, etc,. They wrote 5 books. Their books are what they believed, NOT what we believe. Their books are obviously heretical. Well, many posters denied them and asked for proof. I remember watching Star Trek on TV. An alien asked a captian how many lights did he saw. He answered to an alien, "5" but this alien denied "5" lights there, but an alien believed in "4" lights there. All this alien wanted is "PROOF" likewise today Christians asked for "proof." Consistently Christians ALREADY provided their proof to naturalistic Christians, but naturalistic Christians rejected this proof.

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Apr 8, 2006

I would also like to see proof, in context, that they denied Jesus Christ.

Hope of Glory · Apr 8, 2006

We see you citing references that are known to be filled with lies, not the writings of W-H themselves. I could write a book claiming that C4K is an alien with purple polka-dots that hides it with makeup. That doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you cite my book.

Deacon · Apr 8, 2006

C4K does look purple in his picture.

As for alien, LOOK

He's got TWO heads.

An YOU are the alien, you said it yourself.
And I quote...

"I could write a book claming that C4K is an alien with purple polka-dots...

Rob

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
I could write a book claiming that C4K is an alien with purple polka-dots that hides it with makeup.

How did you know

?

rsr · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by Askjo:

I read many posts saying, "proof, proof, proof!" I see many posters refused to open the curtains on the window because they are reluctant to see "proof" there.

And some posters refuse to open the curtains because they don't want to find out the "proof" is not there.

W/H did not believe many doctrines such as Heaven, Hell, Jesus Christ, etc,.

What exactly are you trying to say? That they had doctrines about those subjects that don't agree with yours? To say that Westcott, for example, did not believe in a doctrine of Jesus Christ (whatever you think that means) has already been refuted from his own writing, which you pointedly ignore. Read The Historic Faith referenced earlier and tell me exactly where Westcott disagrees with an orthodox christology.

They wrote 5 books.

No, they didn't. It has been shown they wrote dozens of books. The "five books" you keep referring to — without taking the time to name them — are a figment of someone's imagination.

Their books are obviously heretical.

Well, I could say that your views are obviously heretical, but that wouldn't make it so.

I remember watching Star Trek on TV. An alien asked a captian how many lights did he saw. He answered to an alien, "5" but this alien denied "5" lights there, but an alien believed in "4" lights there.

I would be happy if you could provide specific reference to 4, 5 or 123 books. You can't.

Consistently Christians ALREADY provided their proof to naturalistic Christians, but naturalistic Christians rejected this proof.

And we're back to where you started: Anyone who denies your "proof" is a naturalistic Christian. Case closed, I guess.

Ransom · Apr 8, 2006

Askjo said:

C4K, please explain why I agree with Correa concerning his answer.

Because you amen every KJV-only theory that comes down the pipe? Just a guess.

Mexdeaf · Apr 8, 2006

Askjo · Apr 8, 2006

Originally posted by C4K:
I would also like to see proof, in context, that they denied Jesus Christ.

* Hort and Westcott denied that Jesus is GOD.

* Hort denied that Jesus is LORD.

* Westcott split the person of the Lord Jesus Christ into Jesus and the Christ.

* Westcott misleadingly said that the Scripture did not speak of Christ's atomement.

You see the proof here. Are you satisfied?

[ April 08, 2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

TCassidy · Apr 9, 2006

Originally posted by Askjo:
* Hort denied that Jesus is LORD.

In what writing did Hort deny that Jesus is Lord? Title, publisher, and page, please.

* Westcott split the person of the Lord Jesus Christ into Jesus and the Christ.

In what writing did Westcott split the person of Jesus Christ into Jesus and the Christ? Title, publisher, and page, please.

* Westcott misleadingly said that the Scripture did not speak of Christ's atomement.

In what writing did Westcott make such a statement? Title, publisher, and page, please.

You see the proof here.

No, I haven't seen any proof, just more mindless accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

Are you satisfied?

No.

william s. correa · Apr 9, 2006

Originally posted by Phillip:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C4K:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
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. [/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) [/QUOTE]Uh, 'scuse me but what do you mean the AV1611 didn't need to be fixed considering the changes made to get to the version we use today? Or would you prefer us to use the real AV1611 complete with Apocrypha sitting right between the Old and New Testaments?

Also, could you please tell us which Textus Receptus that you are referring to? Mind you, I do agree that all three versions that we have access to contain the Word of God; including the one that was reverse engineered after the fact.

How do you explain that the KJV often used the Latin Vulgate and the fact that the KJV translators did what most modern translators do, and that is use multiple manuscripts?

Please provide the PROOF that W & H were spiritualists.

Finally, you yourself said that God doesn't need anybody's brain, but only their mouth, so even if W & H were not "perfect" then you are saying God could use them? [/QUOTE]I'm glad we agree that the TR is the word of God, out of which three I'm not sure I understand, but I will try to explain the best way I can; as for Proof They are their own proof by their "fruits" we shall Know them. OK; As I understand, William Tyndale in the early 1500's was trying to smuggle his version of the "Sciptures" into England from Brussels; about 1535 or so he was caought and tried under the Anglican Chuch for beeing an Heretic and some more unfounded charges which later burned him at the stake. His last words were "God open up the eyes of the King": So some seventy years later we have the AV 1611; But not just anybodies translation but wuold'nt you know it William Tyndales was used. Now I beleive in answered prayer and brother if there was ever a prayer to be answered that was it; the kjv of today may be revised but not translated,and it has the Authority of a King, King Jesus. When man made translations in the flesh get airborn like the plague, you need the "Word like a hammer" to wipe out the flu like disease of [insult to the Word-Of-God removed edited--please read rules of posting for this thread] "versions". I said the proof is in the Word.

[ April 09, 2006, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

william s. correa · Apr 9, 2006

Originally posted by C4K:
I would also like to see proof, in context, that they denied Jesus Christ.

Westcott and his famed partner, Hort, were among the founders of the Ghost Society in the 1850s. Fascinated by the spirit world, their club was dedicated to pursuing knowledge of ghostly encounters with spirits.

It was also Westcott and Hort who worked together to discard the centuries-old preserved words of God upon which the King James English Bible was based, replacing them with a polluted text gleaned from manuscripts provided by the Roman Catholic Church. Little wonder that their texts omitted many Scriptures which the pope found embarrassing!

It was used for all modern translations, including the recent NIV and NASB. As more manuscripts are discovered, their theories are being discredited, but the public is unaware of it. In her thorough book, New Age Bible Versions, educator Gail Riplinger peels away layer by ghostly layer from the Hort and Westcott myth, showing that the Bibles they influenced are setting us up for a One World Religion, based upon the principles of the occult New Age. Hort and Westcott would have been proud.

What kind of church is being produced by these new Bibles? Perhaps it can best be described in Westcott's own words, "There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things." He wrote: "That time has happily gone by."

Riplinger provides us with a powerful call to return to the only Bible available today which is based upon the text proven true through history, the AV 1611. You won't find more evidence anywhere.

william s. correa · Apr 9, 2006

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith."

Correct! We see how these men, as textual critics and unbelievers, rejected TR and produced their new [insult to word-of-God removed--see posting rules for this thread] text. [/QUOTE]" Like a tree planted by living waters" Brother! Jesus is the way,and the truth, and the life, and "NO" man cometh to the Father but by Him. John 14:6

[ April 09, 2006, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

Paul of Eugene · Apr 9, 2006

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C4K:
I would also like to see proof, in context, that they denied Jesus Christ.

* Hort and Westcott denied that Jesus is GOD.

* Hort denied that Jesus is LORD.

* Westcott split the person of the Lord Jesus Christ into Jesus and the Christ.

* Westcott misleadingly said that the Scripture did not speak of Christ's atomement.

You see the proof here. Are you satisfied? [/QUOTE]* Hort and Westcott NEVER denied that Jesus is Lord or God

* Westcott NEVER split the person of Jesus Christ into Jesus and Christ

* Westcott NEVER said the scripture did not speak of Christs Atonement

There, you see the proof they are innocent of all charges.

What, mere assertions aren't enough for you?

See, that's exactly why your mere assertions aren't good enough for the rest of us.

It takes QUOTES from THEM to make your case.

WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THEM? Not suspected lies posted by their enemies, their writings, please.

Should be a piece of cake, they have so many enemies they would have done your work for you by now.

Westcott and Hort

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Late-Administator Emeritus

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member