Westcott and Hort

[Ed Edwards]

Searching Google for: //"Ghost Society" Hort Westcott//
I found 217 'hits'

Here was the most intersting:

http://www.nccg.org/nccm/KJV17.html

//There is a "KJV-Only" network of publications that,
by quoting each other, are mass instigators of misinformation,
each seeming to to feel its own publication is the last line
of defense before the capitulation of Fundamentalism to the Enemy.//

I won't be so kind.
187 of the 217 were following the 'party line':
the gossip and character assassination that
somewow Hort and Westcott founded 'ghost society'.
This rumor is baseless.
My Bible (an MV by the way) as well as my three different
KJVs that I use on a daily basis call
gossip a sin, character assassination murder,
and rumor mongerors damned by God.
And those who do so will be exposed here every change
I get.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It was used for all modern translations, including the recent NIV and NASB.

If your stand is so righteous, why do you spread lies? (I'm not saying that you yourself are a liar, but you are spreading them.) For example, neither of these translations is based on the W-H text.

Gail Riplinger has been discredited in more than one area, including (but not limited to) outright lies.

 

[Phillip]

Brother Correa, I believe you are new to the Baptist Board, but please read the rules of posting for this thread written by Doctor Bob. I quote one here:

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.

There is nobody here that will argue with you on the fact that the King James Version is the Word of God. There are also MANY here who are KJV preferred. In fact, C4K and I both tend to lean heavily in the direction of Majority Text Preference and the fact that the texts used in the King James may be superior to those in the Critical Text.

The problem here is that you are calling Modern Bibles as "Corruptions". It may suprise you, but the majority of the mainstream Modern Translations are also the Word of God. My NASB tells me about the same Jesus - the Christ - the Son of God that the King James tells me of. It tells me the exact same stories about how the Adam and Eve sinned and God provided His Son, born of a Virgin as the ultimate sacrifice to those who will accept Him to save us from Eternal Damnation.

Since the NKJV is in modern English and uses many of the general stream of texts I would suggest to you that if you do not like the Critical Texts you will consider it as a good translation of God's Word in the English we speak today.

There are translations that are better than others and some that are so bad that most of us will not accept them as good enough to trust. This would include "The Message" among others.

But, when you start claiming the text used for these Bibles are "Corrupt" as a general term you are going too far. Now, if you were to say that there were "corruptions" or "mistakes" that would not be such a big issue, but we would also have to say the same thing regarding the TR. Are they the Word-Of-God? ABSOLUTELY.

Let me give you another clue. It appears that you have been reading Ripplinger's stuff. Stick to your Bible (King James is fine), but I would highly advise that you take most everything that she says with a grain of salt.

In fact, I have a LOT of difficulty believing that Mrs. Riplinger actually believes the trash that she writes. Is she ever right? Sure, all good con artists mix in a certain amount of truth with the lies. This makes the lies sound credible.

Most King James preferred people will not even associate with Riplinger. It is my opinion that she is purposely deceitful in her writings--you cannot twist truth the way she does without doing it intentionally.

I think you will find that your posts will be taken with more credibility if you don't quote from her trash. ..and I WILL be blunt and call it trash, because anybody who calls a translation like the NASB "satanic" is not a person I care to even read about.

So, lets discuss Westcott and Hort without the SPIN placed on them by someone like Riplinger.

Now, if you wish to please provide us with documented evidence that they started this Ghost society be my guest, because you will be wrong. When they were kids in college (I believe was the time), one joined a club that ALREADY EXISTED that studied the existence of ghosts. This lasted all of about six months. Historians here, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think either one had anything to do with starting a club, unless it was just a passing fad in their early years.

Askjo, I also ask you to quit making blunt statements about how evil Westcott and Hort were with absolutely no factual evidence. Just because you type it here, does not make it true. If you cannot provide sources, then I highly suggest that you quite slandering their names.

They were simply Biblical Scholars and came up with a theory for their textual criticism. Does this make them evil? Do you think the translators of the King James version were all sinless and believed in every Baptist doctrine?

The King James version became number one over the Geneva Bible because the King James commanded it. Was King James a perfect man with perfect beliefs?

Can God not use people who are sinners to bring us new translations?

Does everybody who translates the Bible have to believe everything exactly the way we do?

Has the KJV produced fruit? ABSOLUTELY. Has the NIV produced fruit? Has the NASB produced fruit? Did the Geneva produce fruit?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

William,

You are so incredibly misinformed that I dont know where to begin. You have obviously read someone like Riplinger, who has been denounced even by many KJVO, and you have refused to check her sources.

This is why you are unable to do 2 things:

1) either name the work and page number so we can look up these reference ourselves
2) post said quotes without the use of ........

In Christianity, we call that dishonesty. Know this, NNE HERE will trust a single word you type until you are willing to offer evidence.

Christianity isnt about some guy telling everyone else what to believe. I, (and most others here) believe in the PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER, which means I am accountable BEFORE GOD, NOT YOU!!!!! That is why the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if this Jesus guy was legit. That is why the KJV translators wrote the preface to the reader for the KJV. That is why Paul said "Let every man be convinced in his own mind" when it comes to issues not addressed in scripture.

Here you come in, making accsations against certain people, and refusing to offer evidence. That is called "slander" in YOUR KJV. Other synonyms are gossip, libel, dishonesty, deceit, I could go on.

Now, say I wished to claim that you are a heretic. The only evidence I have is your dishonest accusation against W-H. I would have more evidence against YOU than you do against THEM, since I actually have EVIDENCE to prove that you are making unfounded accusations!!!

Now, if these accusations were true, then you would not be able to WAIT to post these quotes and call us to repentance, or more likely, shut us up.

There is a reason why you will not post the full quote here on this board: You have never read it.

That is a fact.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Searching Google for: //"Ghost Society" Hort Westcott//
I found 217 'hits'

Here was the most intersting:

http://www.nccg.org/nccm/KJV17.html

//There is a "KJV-Only" network of publications that,
by quoting each other, are mass instigators of misinformation,
each seeming to to feel its own publication is the last line
of defense before the capitulation of Fundamentalism to the Enemy.//

I won't be so kind.
187 of the 217 were following the 'party line':
the gossip and character assassination that
somewow Hort and Westcott founded 'ghost society'.
This rumor is baseless.
My Bible (an MV by the way) as well as my three different
KJVs that I use on a daily basis call
gossip a sin, character assassination murder,
and rumor mongerors damned by God.
And those who do so will be exposed here every change
I get.

"change" then

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rippon:
In reality , Westcott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ ; in no way was he guilty of'heresy ' and 'apostasy .'

Isn't it amazing how two different people can quote an author and claim two completely different mesages by the same person. The problem at least one is a lie. </font>[/QUOTE]Not necessarily. Keith Gephart, whom I know, is mistaken in his affirmation of Westcott's orthodoxy, however, there is no reason to call it a lie (i.e. an attempt to deceive). One of the problems with the whole textual criticism issue is the overstatement of one's position with emotionally laden words such as lie used here. A lie is something with the idea of deception behind it, not just a misstatement or a wrong statement.

The problem in this particular case concerning Westcott is that Gephart misread Westcott who sounds quite orthodox in places and heretical in others. In reading these early liberals, one must realize that they were trained in orthodox theology and adopted a scientific rationalism in philosophy. Therefore, their language sounds very orthodox at times because they are using an orthodox vocabulary but their meaning, understanding and beliefs are heretical. Furthermore, one must remember that men actually change their views over a lifetime. It is possible, for example, to use Luther to refute Luther depending upon whether you quote him from the early, middle or late Luther.

This whole quote refute quote system of argumentation over textual criticism is confusion because each side is jockeying for advantage without regard to balance or conceptualization. In sum, Gephart is wrong in his conclusion but he didn’t lie. He made a naïve error in his approach to judging Westcott’s orthodoxy.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Are you satisfied?

No. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you not satisfied with the Dean Burgon Society where you are a member of?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Not necessarily. Keith Gephart , whom I know, is mistaken in his affirmation of Westcott's orthodoxy , however, there is no reason to call it a lie (i.e. an attempt to deceive). One of the problems with the whole textual criticism issue is the overstatement of one's position with emotionally laden words such as lie used here. A lie is something with the idea of deception behind it, not just a misstatement or a wrong statement.

The problem in this particular case concerning Westcott is that Gephart misread Westcott who sounds quite orthodox in places and heretical in others. In reading these early liberals, one must realize that they were trained in orthodox theology and adopted a scientific rationalism in philosophy. Therefore, their language sounds very orthodox at times because they are using an orthodox vocabulary but their meaning, understanding and beliefs are heretical . Furthermore, one must remember that men actually change their views over a lifetime. It is possible, for example, to use Luther to refute Luther depending upon whether you quote him from the early, middle or late Luther.

This whole quote refute quote system of argumentation over textual criticism is confusion because each side is jockeying for advantage without regard to balance or conceptualization. In sum, Gephart is wrong in his conclusion but he didn’t lie. He made a naïve error in his approach to judging Westcott’s orthodoxy .

See the bold and italics. Excellent point! You are 100% correct.

 

[paidagogos]

posted by Paidagogos:
[snip]

This whole quote refute quote system of argumentation over textual criticism is confusion because each side is jockeying for advantage without regard to balance or conceptualization. In sum, Gephart is wrong in his conclusion but he didn’t lie. He made a naïve error in his approach to judging Westcott’s orthodoxy.

Oh, the tricks that our minds play on us! I must have missed a synaptic connection somewhere when I typed conceptualization in the above post instead of the intended contextualization.

 

[paidagogos]

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

Although not specifically answering your question of denying Christ, I recommend that you read Westcott's Commentaries on St John's Gospel for his view of works salvation. Although a superb technical commentary, it is fatally flawed, IMHO, for its aberrant soteriology. Steward Custer, longtime BJU professor and Bible Department Chairman, wrote a glowing and complimentary review of it in the Biblical Viewpoint meanwhile admitting that it taught works salvation. This, I cannot to this day understand and reconcile. After all, the purpose of John’s Gospel is that we might believe and be saved!

Can we praise a fine technical performance that concludes in error? If a man is dead wrong on one major doctrine, how can you trust him on other doctrines even though he has technical expertise? For this reason, I do not read Mormon, Roman Catholic, or Church of Christ theologians, except for information as an academic interest. IMHO, Bible-believing Christians should only glean theological content from known spiritual men of God who hold to all of the fundamental doctrines of the faith once delivered. If one believes, as Westcott did, that Christians should know and learn from other religious traditions, he will soon find himself mired in error and embracing ideas that are not Christian at all.

No, I have not read Ruckman, Riplinger, Chick, et. al. except for research to verify what they teach. On the other hand, they are nuisances to me because people bring up their asinine arguments to hang around my neck whenever I state my position.

Westcott and Hott lived and worked in an academic milieu that was shaped by Darwinianism, the Social Gospel, scientific rationalism, mysticism, etc. that influenced their thoughts and beliefs. Their views, although not as radical as the theological liberalism on the Continent, were products of their age and the children of English rationalism as much as the JEDP Theory was of German rationalism. In comparison, they were much more conservative than the radical German rationalism but herein lies the danger of error not being recognized as error.

Although the original Westcott-Hort critical text may not the basis of most modern translations, it has a line of illegitimate grandchildren that promulgate the error today. My objection is with the original theory, not necessarily the details, and the methodology that is the basis of almost all modern Biblical texts, except for the Majority Texts. The problem is that few folks have read Westcott-Hort’s original book defining their critical text theories (Yes—I have the book and read the theories). In the spirit of Darwinism and scientific rationalism, Westcott and Hort thought they could scientifically and systematically restore the corrupted text of Scripture. Today, anyone who is knowledgeable of scientific research design would immediately realize how naïve and credulous they were in their venture. Except for the unsophisticated faith of aspiring theological intellectuals, one would see that Westcott-Hort critical text theories, upon which modern textual criticism is based, are as bankrupt as the discredited JEDP Theory. IMHO, it is high time that we junk Westcott-Hort too.

BTW, if we are going to praise and promote Westcott and Hort as giants of the faith, then we may as well do the same for Martin de Wette, Constantin von Tischendorf, Walter Rauschenbusch, Juilius Wellhausen, et. al. The only difference is that Westcott and Hort are the English flavor of rationalism which we seem to prefer.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
Bismarck,

Westcott and Hort claimed that the readings found in the older MSS were actually and consistently older than the readings found in newer MSS, and therefore the older MSS were better on those grounds. Can you argue a few places where Westcott and Hort may have been wrong? Of course I'm asking you for arguments regarding internal evidence of readings that contradict those of Westcott and Hort at any given place in the Greek NT.

So, how do you know older is always better? This is a pretty big assumption without considering the possible permutations.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by paidagogos:

BTW, if we are going to praise and promote Westcott and Hort as giants of the faith, then we may as well do the same for Martin de Wette, Constantin von Tischendorf, Walter Rauschenbusch, Juilius Wellhausen, et. al. The only difference is that Westcott and Hort are the English flavor of rationalism which we seem to prefer.

I must have missed it when W-H were awarded the BB 'Giants of the Faith' award. No one was doing that, we are just asking for HONESTY IN STATEMENTS MADE. If W-H were Ghostbusters, devil-worshippers, Bible-burners or whatever... just show us the proof IN CONTEXT.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
* 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.

I give you one example (as seen the bold above).

John 6:51 (KJV)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh , which I will give for the life of the world.

Westcott wrote:

" 'my flesh' ... not of atonement" page 106.

You cover his comment, but I uncover his comment here.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
Bismarck,

Westcott and Hort claimed that the readings found in the older MSS were actually and consistently older than the readings found in newer MSS, and therefore the older MSS were better on those grounds. Can you argue a few places where Westcott and Hort may have been wrong? Of course I'm asking you for arguments regarding internal evidence of readings that contradict those of Westcott and Hort at any given place in the Greek NT.

So, how do you know older is always better? This is a pretty big assumption without considering the possible permutations. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess without trying to explain all the efforts that go into scientific analysis, it will be difficult to explain to you that this is simply a theory that they provided in an effort to determine which manuscripts may be closest to the originals. Even with the Majority texts, this theory is sometimes accurate. As with all theories presented, there will be positives and negatives. Many scholars today still use this theory and many are thinking that the Majority texts are more accurate for other reasons. Presenting a theory of textual criticism certainly does not make a person evil; it was simply their method of trying to get to the facts.

The bottom line is that their manuscripts still contain the Word of God. They may or may not be closer to the originals, there is no way to prove this. I tend to believe the Majority text is closer to the originals, but there just ain't that much difference to call the men evil and "Bible corrupters".

I think the KJV may have used better underlying texts, but it didn't even use the so-called TR in its entirety. It relied heavily on other English translations and the Vulgate in some places. The NKJV used the TR almost exlusively.

The bottom line is that these men were not evil for attempting to use their style of textual criticism to determine the true manuscripts. They just may not be the most accurate. To put it into simple English. Get it?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Are you not satisfied with the Dean Burgon Society where you are a member of?

I am never satisfied by lies or by liars. If you can prove your assertions against Westcott and Hort by giving me the title of the writing, and page number, do so. If not, then you should be honest and retract your false accusations.

When a member of the DBS lies it is just as unconscionable as when anybody else lies.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards //And those who do so will be exposed here every change
I get.//

William S. Correa: // "change" then//

My bad
should be

And those who do so will be exposed here every chance
I get.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Brother Correa, I believe you are new to the Baptist Board, but please read the rules of posting for this thread written by Doctor Bob. I quote one here:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.

There is nobody here that will argue with you on the fact that the King James Version is the Word of God. There are also MANY here who are KJV preferred. In fact, C4K and I both tend to lean heavily in the direction of Majority Text Preference and the fact that the texts used in the King James may be superior to those in the Critical Text.

The problem here is that you are calling Modern Bibles as "Corruptions". It may suprise you, but the majority of the mainstream Modern Translations are also the Word of God. My NASB tells me about the same Jesus - the Christ - the Son of God that the King James tells me of. It tells me the exact same stories about how the Adam and Eve sinned and God provided His Son, born of a Virgin as the ultimate sacrifice to those who will accept Him to save us from Eternal Damnation.

Since the NKJV is in modern English and uses many of the general stream of texts I would suggest to you that if you do not like the Critical Texts you will consider it as a good translation of God's Word in the English we speak today.

There are translations that are better than others and some that are so bad that most of us will not accept them as good enough to trust. This would include "The Message" among others.

But, when you start claiming the text used for these Bibles are "Corrupt" as a general term you are going too far. Now, if you were to say that there were "corruptions" or "mistakes" that would not be such a big issue, but we would also have to say the same thing regarding the TR. Are they the Word-Of-God? ABSOLUTELY.

Let me give you another clue. It appears that you have been reading Ripplinger's stuff. Stick to your Bible (King James is fine), but I would highly advise that you take most everything that she says with a grain of salt.

In fact, I have a LOT of difficulty believing that Mrs. Riplinger actually believes the trash that she writes. Is she ever right? Sure, all good con artists mix in a certain amount of truth with the lies. This makes the lies sound credible.

Most King James preferred people will not even associate with Riplinger. It is my opinion that she is purposely deceitful in her writings--you cannot twist truth the way she does without doing it intentionally.

I think you will find that your posts will be taken with more credibility if you don't quote from her trash. ..and I WILL be blunt and call it trash, because anybody who calls a translation like the NASB "satanic" is not a person I care to even read about.

So, lets discuss Westcott and Hort without the SPIN placed on them by someone like Riplinger.

Now, if you wish to please provide us with documented evidence that they started this Ghost society be my guest, because you will be wrong. When they were kids in college (I believe was the time), one joined a club that ALREADY EXISTED that studied the existence of ghosts. This lasted all of about six months. Historians here, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think either one had anything to do with starting a club, unless it was just a passing fad in their early years.

Askjo, I also ask you to quit making blunt statements about how evil Westcott and Hort were with absolutely no factual evidence. Just because you type it here, does not make it true. If you cannot provide sources, then I highly suggest that you quite slandering their names.

They were simply Biblical Scholars and came up with a theory for their textual criticism. Does this make them evil? Do you think the translators of the King James version were all sinless and believed in every Baptist doctrine?

The King James version became number one over the Geneva Bible because the King James commanded it. Was King James a perfect man with perfect beliefs?

Can God not use people who are sinners to bring us new translations?

Does everybody who translates the Bible have to believe everything exactly the way we do?

Has the KJV produced fruit? ABSOLUTELY. Has the NIV produced fruit? Has the NASB produced fruit? Did the Geneva produce fruit? </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for enlightening me concerning the post rules. When Peter was intructed to "Not" preach in the name of Jesus he answered" ought we not to obey God (paraprhrased), and in doing so he suffered persecution, as did Paul, Silas, etc.. I don' read to much of any thing other than the Word, I do have alot to learn and I'm willing to learn: But only as the "Comforter" leads me.I appreciate your edit and am willing to comply with the post rules. Furthermore we are a KJB beleiving, devil hating, Jesus praising, Independant Fundamentalist Baptist Church, which will reach the lost at any cost. Jesus prayed that we would all be like minded; So I'll leave it up to God to separate the Sheep[another personal attack clipped!],(W/H)!"As for me and my house we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24:15 Thanx and God bless.

[ April 10, 2006, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:

Westcott wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />" 'my flesh' ... not of atonement" page 106.

You cover his comment, but I uncover his comment here. </font>[/QUOTE]hello Askjo:

1. name of book, pls.

2. what's omitted by the ellipsis marks?

3. paragraph of the quote, n paragraphs before n after?

i may have had some differences w TCassidy in the past, but i'm glad that he's taken the step to get out of the blatant dishonesty of one branch of KJBOism. perhaps u'd consider doing that too.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Ed Edwards //And those who do so will be exposed here every change
I get.//

William S. Correa: // "change" then//

My bad
should be

And those who do so will be exposed here every chance
I get.

Thanx Bro Ed I was once lost and headed for hell but now I'm saved and all is well. Let God be true and every man a Liar. God bless you and your posts, " Bright in the corner where you are"

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:

Westcott wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />" 'my flesh' ... not of atonement" page 106.

You cover his comment, but I uncover his comment here. </font>[/QUOTE]hello Askjo:

1. name of book, pls.

2. what's omitted by the ellipsis marks?

3. paragraph of the quote, n paragraphs before n after?

i may have had some differences w TCassidy in the past, but i'm glad that he's taken the step to get out of the blatant dishonesty of one branch of KJBOism. perhaps u'd consider doing that too. </font>[/QUOTE]Your Display name says it all: "In the cross will I glory ever", lets just hope W/H got saved before their untimely departure into eternity. What is your favorite "ism"? and should we have more than one translation in the engish language and why? Thanx and God bless!