Westcott and Hort

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
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.

good for u, Thomas. really apprec ur stand for the truth. perhaps it's time--grief, we're on the 11th page n still no honesty fr some--that we call a spade a spade.

was ur position against lying in DBS concerning its lying abt WH? this seems to be the case of Waite's disciples in Singapore, who still routinely enjoy burning their effigies.

do u think those who continue to slander WH here without evidence shd be named n exposed? haven't they been warned over n again? it appears it's gone beyond "mindless" accusation; there's something deliberate going on here. n we know who's the father of lies.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

>Originally posted by william s. correa: Your Display name says it all: "In the cross will I glory ever",

that's not really my display name, is it? mine says Forever settled in heaven, n what all it says is that we DON'T need to help Him preserve the Word thru anti-Westcott-Hort lies or mind-worshipping KJB-Only theories of preservation. holding up a lie doesn't add much to glorying in the cross.

> lets just hope W/H got saved before their untimely departure into eternity.

we know who's the father of lies n where liars go, n so far on this forum, it's NOT WH who've been lying.

> What is your favorite "ism"? and should we have more than one translation in the engish language and why? Thanx and God bless!

i dunno. maybe Fundamentalism; it's Fun!

shd we have more than 1 translation? maybe, but isn't the NIV enuff for now?

u're welcome! take care!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
was ur position against lying in DBS concerning its lying abt WH? this seems to be the case of Waite's disciples in Singapore, who still routinely enjoy burning their effigies.

I was at the meeting of the Executive Committee when Dr. S.H. Tow (Tow Siang Hwa) was considered for membership. I was against Dr. Tow's being a member for many reasons, not the least of which is the polity of the denomination he superintends in the far east plus the radical and divisive nature of his bibliology. (The DBS was chartered to "Defend the Traditional Texts" but was rapidly evolving into a radical KJVO group.) He was admitted anyway, and others such as Timothy Tow, Jeffrey Khoo and Quek Suan Yew soon followed, all of which take a very radical view of bible preservation and translation that is not only anti-biblical, but which also contradicts the history and doctrinal position of DBS.

That was what began my distancing myself from the DBS, but it was the dishonesty of D.A. Waite himself that ultimately led me to refuse to sign a statement that was dictatorially forced on the Executive Committee by Waite in contradiction to the vote of the Executive Committee the previous year.

do u think those who continue to slander WH here without evidence shd be named n exposed? haven't they been warned over n again? it appears it's gone beyond "mindless" accusation; there's something deliberate going on here. n we know who's the father of lies.

Yes, I do believe such blatant falsehood should be exposed. There is no excuse for such falsehood coming from supposedly regenerate men.

Just an aside regarding what is going on with Tow, Khoo, et al. They have now come to the point where they seem to have adopted the "bad seed" theory of regeneration. Quek Suan Yew has stated that he prays for the salvation of the souls of those who do not use the KJV, implying they are not saved. My son-in-law, and his family, use the CUV. To say that prayer is needed for their salvation because they use the CUV is an attack on the very regenerating power of the Lord Jesus Christ, implying that He is unable to redeem those using the CUV (or by implication other versions except the KJV).

That heresy much be exposed and eradicated from the Body of Christ. It is a cancer that will destroy the very Gospel itself if left unchecked.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I was at the meeting of the Executive Committee when Dr. S.H. Tow (Tow Siang Hwa) was considered for membership. I was against Dr. Tow's being a member for many reasons, not the least of which is the polity of the denomination he superintends in the far east plus the radical and divisive nature of his bibliology. (The DBS was chartered to "Defend the Traditional Texts" but was rapidly evolving into a radical KJVO group.) He was admitted anyway, and others such as Timothy Tow, Jeffrey Khoo and Quek Suan Yew soon followed, all of which take a very radical view of bible preservation and translation that is not only anti-biblical, but which also contradicts the history and doctrinal position of DBS.

That was what began my distancing myself from the DBS, but it was the dishonesty of D.A. Waite himself that ultimately led me to refuse to sign a statement that was dictatorially forced on the Executive Committee by Waite in contradiction to the vote of the Executive Committee the previous year.
...
Yes, I do believe such blatant falsehood should be exposed. There is no excuse for such falsehood coming from supposedly regenerate men.

Just an aside regarding what is going on with Tow, Khoo, et al. They have now come to the point where they seem to have adopted the "bad seed" theory of regeneration. Quek Suan Yew has stated that he prays for the salvation of the souls of those who do not use the KJV, implying they are not saved. My son-in-law, and his family, use the CUV. To say that prayer is needed for their salvation because they use the CUV is an attack on the very regenerating power of the Lord Jesus Christ, implying that He is unable to redeem those using the CUV (or by implication other versions except the KJV).

That heresy much be exposed and eradicated from the Body of Christ. It is a cancer that will destroy the very Gospel itself if left unchecked.

amen n amen!!

i have personal interest in the Tow-Khoo-Quek triumvirate that's wrecked the Bible-Presbyterian movement in Singapore, n i'm grateful for the stand u've taken. nor am i alone, as i know people in the BP movement directly affected by the cancer n resulting schism.

btw, if u're comfortable with it, wld u let us know what form of dishonesty was involved concerning Waite himself that made u separate fr DBS, whether it concerned the handling of MSS evidence or WH or readability tests or somesuch? having read portions of his Defined KJB n 4-Fold Superiority, it's hard to pinpoint where the dishonesty lies ... it's all over!

good for ur son-in-law to stand w the CUV. it's one of the good translations available, even if it's not TR-only (n it's certainly not KJB-based!). in order to retain their Chinese-speaking supporters, the Singaporean disciples of Waite avoid pointing out the differences n offer a special dispensation to the CUV until such a time a 4-Fold Superior Chinese Bible can be created based on the TR n Bomberg, ha!

their principles can be pretty dynamic in certain situations, it appears!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
btw, if u're comfortable with it, wld u let us know what form of dishonesty was involved concerning Waite himself that made u separate fr DBS, whether it concerned the handling of MSS evidence or WH or readability tests or somesuch? having read portions of his Defined KJB n 4-Fold Superiority, it's hard to pinpoint where the dishonesty lies ... it's all over!

The issue that finally broke this camel's back was over the use of the word "inspired" regarding bible translations. At the Executive Committee meeting Waite tried to push through a resolution that no DBS member could use the word "inspired" to refer to any bible translation. The year before I had presented a paper that dealt with the doctrine of derivative inspiration. I believe translations are inspired in the derivative sense. That is, the history of the translation is inspired history, the promises are inspired promises, and the prophecy is inspired prophecy. In the plenary sense a bible translation can be said to be inspired, but not in the verbal sense. That has been the orthodox position for several centuries, possibly for a couple of millennia.

However Waite declared, by fiat, that no DBS member could use the word "inspired" to refer to his English bible. I disagreed, and stood up and said so. I often hold my bible up and declare it to be the inspired word of God. Everybody knows, when I say that, I am not referring to the words of the KJV English, but that the bible, by derivation, is authentic and reliable and the word of God even if it is given by way of translation. I explained that there is a big difference between the term "inspired" and the much more precise (and biblical) term "given by inspiration." I would never say my English bible was "given by inspiration." We discussed (argued) about it for about an hour and when it because obvious that he would not prevail, we voted that we would not use the term "given by inspiration" when speaking or writing on behalf of the DBS, but could use the term "inspired" in the derivative sense. That passed and I thought the controversy was settled.

Much to my surprise the next year when I got the paper to sign agreeing to the doctrinal statement of the DBS it said that I agreed not to use either term when referring to the English bible, and did not limit that restriction to speaking or writing for the Society but was all inclusive suggesting to me that I was being told what I could and could not say from my own pulpit. It was, in my opinion, dishonest and not what we had agreed to in the Executive Committee meeting. I refused to sign it and by so doing gave up my seat on the Executive Committee.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I explained that there is a big difference between the term "inspired" and the much more precise (and biblical) term "given by inspiration." I would never say my English bible was "given by inspiration." We discussed (argued) about it for about an hour and when it because obvious that he would not prevail, we voted that we would not use the term "given by inspiration" when speaking or writing on behalf of the DBS, but could use the term "inspired" in the derivative sense. That passed and I thought the controversy was settled.

Thx for the sharing, Thomas. sounds like they went back on their word.

but i was wondering abt "given by inspiration" in Timothy's situation; wasn't the "all scripture" a Greek translation of the OT (possibly the LXX)?

seems to me even that precise, biblical term was used in a derivative sense also.

just a quick off-topic rabbit trail, n then back to catching the little lyin' foxes, eh?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
>Originally posted by william s. correa: Your Display name says it all: "In the cross will I glory ever",

that's not really my display name, is it? mine says Forever settled in heaven, n what all it says is that we DON'T need to help Him preserve the Word thru anti-Westcott-Hort lies or mind-worshipping KJB-Only theories of preservation. holding up a lie doesn't add much to glorying in the cross.

> lets just hope W/H got saved before their untimely departure into eternity.

we know who's the father of lies n where liars go, n so far on this forum, it's NOT WH who've been lying.

> What is your favorite "ism"? and should we have more than one translation in the engish language and why? Thanx and God bless!

i dunno. maybe Fundamentalism; it's Fun!

shd we have more than 1 translation? maybe, but isn't the NIV enuff for now?

u're welcome! take care!

The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.If fundamentalism is your favorite, what is so Fundemental about about the NIV beeing [another attack against a modern translation deleted]. Surely your joking and base everything on W/H theories which has no Solid fundemental truth in any of their teachings, Jesus is the only foundation which is the true Word of God relies.And as for Liars they will have their part which Burns with fire and Brimstone, If they got saved their in Heaven with Jesus, and Jesus covered their lies with his Blood. On the other hand what if your dead wrong? Maybe just maybe the W/H society is deceiving and beeing deceived, They will have to answer to Jesus. The way I see it there is no second guessing Gods Word and if there is a Question then there is Doubt, where there is doubt,there is no way you can get a conviction in a court of Law."The Proof is in the Batter"

[ April 10, 2006, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Mexdeaf]

/qb][/QUOTE]The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion[/QB][/QUOTE]

I am sure that this will be news to the NIV translation committee.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

> Originally posted by william s. correa: The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.

whatever. sounds like what Eve heard in the Garden: "Yea, hath God said?" my NIV's God's inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16), thank u very much.

> If fundamentalism is your favorite, what is so Fundemental about about the NIV beeing it has no real foundation;

ew, the Holy Bible "has no real foundation"? hmm, which ism is YOUR favourite?

> meaning its just a book.

BIBLE means book, if that's what u mean. i wldn't say "just" a book, though.

> Surely your joking and base everything on W/H theories which has no Solid fundemental truth in any of their teachings,

does 2 Tim. 3:16 sound like a W/H theory?

> Jesus is the only foundation which is the true Word of God relies.

but He gave us His Word in written form, too, which is profitable for doctrine n able to make the man of God perfect, throughly furnished to all good works. surely u don't deny that?

> And as for Liars they will have their part which Burns with fire and Brimstone, If they got saved their in Heaven with Jesus, and Jesus covered their lies with his Blood. On the other hand what if your dead wrong?

actually i meant to ask KJBOs that question. i've not been the one spouting unsubstantiated accusations against WH. just a thot: does getting Jesus blood to cover one's lies give him/her a LIEcence to LIE?

> Maybe just maybe the W/H society is deceiving and beeing deceived, They will have to answer to Jesus.

i dunno abt that. i know there's a Dean Burgon Society n a Trinitarian Bible Society, but what's the W/H society?? who does NOT have to answer to Jesus?

> The way I see it there is no second guessing Gods Word and if there is a Question then there is Doubt, where there is doubt,there is no way you can get a conviction in a court of Law."The Proof is in the Batter"

does "Yea hath God said" qualify a second guessing the Holy Bible? are u trying to shake my faith in His inspired Word?

 

[Ed Edwards]

William S. Correa: //The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.//

Please delineate your definitions of 'translation' and
of 'version' such that your statement is correct. Thank you
for helping us understand what it is you are saying.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

When a member of the DBS lies it is just as unconscionable as when anybody else lies. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that Dr. Waite is a liar?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.If fundamentalism is your favorite, what is so Fundemental about about the NIV beeing [another attack against a modern translation deleted]. Surely your joking and base everything on W/H theories which has no Solid fundemental truth in any of their teachings, Jesus is the only foundation which is the true Word of God relies.And as for Liars they will have their part which Burns with fire and Brimstone, If they got saved their in Heaven with Jesus, and Jesus covered their lies with his Blood. On the other hand what if your dead wrong? Maybe just maybe the W/H society is deceiving and beeing deceived, They will have to answer to Jesus. The way I see it there is no second guessing Gods Word and if there is a Question then there is Doubt, where there is doubt,there is no way you can get a conviction in a court of Law."The Proof is in the Batter"

I am going to publicly warn you one more time that saying the NIV is not the Word of God is against the rules in this forum, long before you came here. Either obey them or you will earn yourself an all expense paid vacation. This is the webmaster's website and he establishes the rules, you obey or you are history.

Do not say that you will obey the rules and turn around and continue to make attacks on God's Holy Word!..and I am referring to what the BB refers to as His Holy Word, not your unscriptural opinion. Are we clear?

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Are you saying that Dr. Waite is a liar?

that shdn't be too hard for anybody.

his bizarre claims on his Defined KJB n readability, as well as his attacks on Scriptures, have been documented: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/alexandra/849/revDKJB.htm

i thot Thomas Cassidy might've nailed him on his slander on WH, but it was over something else. in his Defined KJB, Waite calls WH "Servants of Satan--Doctors of Deceit," "Haters of Evangelical Truth," "Clever Apostates," and "Fabricators of a Fictitious Greek Text." nor is he above accusing the NIV n NKJV's translators of a "pro-gay bias"!

not unlike some KJBOs on this board who've been making scurrilous ad hominems on a hit-n-run basis.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
but i was wondering abt "given by inspiration" in Timothy's situation; wasn't the "all scripture" a Greek translation of the OT (possibly the LXX)?

Probably not. It is true that Timothy's father was Greek, but his mother was Jewish and it is most likely that he learned Hebrew as a boy from both his mother and grandmother (and presumably his grandfather). The Scriptures (writings) Paul was referring to were most likely the scrolls found in both the synagogs and Hebrew shool that Timothy most likely attended as a boy.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Westcott wrote:
quote:" 'my flesh' ... not of atonement" page 106.

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

You have turned me, and several others here for that matter, into prophets.

You will not post this statement, nor any others, without the use of .......

You have been exposed, and you have refused to be honest.

Proverbs 10:18
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Proverbs 18:8
The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

There is NNE HERE who has actually read the quotes you are refering to who agrees with you.

May I ask you a question?

HAVE YOU READ THE QUOTES IN THEIR ENTIRETY, OR DID YOU SIMPLY TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD FOR IT?

Very simple question. Will you answer or spin?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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]Askjo, thank you for replying. Please understand that the fragment you gave us is so short and disconnected from anything its impossible to use it for verifying what you say it means.

Some unscrupulous people take fragments of people's words and use them to make the person seem to mean the OPPOSITE of what they really mean.

The use of short out of context words like that to do such a thing by the person who can see the whole paragraph is obviously a sin.

Did you see the whole paragraph and pick the words out yourself? If so, could you please share the whole paragraph?

Or did you take the word of someone else that these very short snippets mean something? Did they sin against you by misleading you about what Westcott wrote?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
William S. Correa: //The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.//

Please delineate your definitions of 'translation' and
of 'version' such that your statement is correct. Thank you
for helping us understand what it is you are saying.

OK, The KJB is TR; and all other MV's are not! They may contain words that have some TR, and some LV, and some GB, But not all agree. like Acts 8:37 NIV Ommited, the blood, missing where it should be and many ommitted texts tha are vital to the faith. I will not bow down, I am not for sale' and wont compramise; OK? I dont have to defend the Word "it will defend itself" If only God would open some blind guides eyes,lest we all fall in the ditch we should stick to tradition and sound doctorine. That's the one thing that has kept Fundamentalism from crumbeling. People can say MV's are Inspired thats fine but by whom? If I'm History today from the BB well it's been real and it's been fun,but it hasn't been real fun! seeing there are so many Translations, versions,etc.....I get a headache tryingto keep up with 21 Questions on W/H; Shame on them! Jesus said "take my yoke upon you for it is light", I'm sure you all will do just fine squabbling over what or which Bible. I'm no quitter: and will continue to fight the Good fight. I appreciate Phillip in trying to be a good moderator and pointing me to the NKJV, but in that version, 2 Timothy 2:15 dosen't tell us to "Study to show thyself approved,a workman that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth"AV 1611; the only place in the Holy Bible it tells us to Study but they had to "Change"and"Change". Its Sad; but when I got called to preach I never thought that the "Wars and Rummors of wars" would be in our own back yard. I bet you any thing that Phillip has got his finger on the delete button as I'm wrtting this, thank God we dont have to worry anymore in glory. I beleive the Truth will make us free only if we "Continue in His Word" john 8:31-32. well got to go Thanx and goodby.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Westcott wrote:
quote:" 'my flesh' ... not of atonement" page 106.

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

You have turned me, and several others here for that matter, into prophets.

You will not post this statement, nor any others, without the use of .......

You have been exposed, and you have refused to be honest.

Proverbs 10:18
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Proverbs 18:8
The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

There is NNE HERE who has actually read the quotes you are refering to who agrees with you.

May I ask you a question?

HAVE YOU READ THE QUOTES IN THEIR ENTIRETY, OR DID YOU SIMPLY TAKE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD FOR IT?

Very simple question. Will you answer or spin? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus said if you hate you brother with out a cause you are no diffrent than a murderer, and if you say "Thou FOOL" we are in Danger of hell fire. Every Idle word.... ,"watch and pray." Jesus words are enough for me.
thanx and goodby

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
Are you saying that Dr. Waite is a liar?

that shdn't be too hard for anybody.

his bizarre claims on his Defined KJB n readability, as well as his attacks on Scriptures, have been documented: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/alexandra/849/revDKJB.htm

Waite said WH "Servants of Satan--Doctors of Deceit," "Haters of Evangelical Truth," "Clever Apostates," and "Fabricators of a Fictitious Greek Text." nor is he above accusing the NIV n NKJV's translators of a "pro-gay bias"!

. </font>[/QUOTE]By George I think he's got it!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]"Thou art unexusable, oh man"