Very Important Information about Bible Translations

[Netchaplain]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

Can We Trust Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament? Evaluating the “Occultist Unbelievers” Charge and the Reliability of Their Text - Christian Publishing House Blog

Do claims of “occultism” discredit Westcott and Hort? The manuscript evidence confirms their 1881 text’s reliability and early-witness alignment.

christianpublishinghouse.co

Read article...

CAN WE TRUST THE WESTCOTT AND HORT 1881 GREEK TEXT?: Were Westcott and Hort Occultist Unbelievers?

Skip down to...
The Occult and Unbelief Accusations

"There are quite a number of conservative Bible scholars who might disagree with the Greek text of Westcott and Hort and there favoring the Alexandrian family of Greek texts. Some of those who stand out the most are from the fundamentalists of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries. The most radical within the fundamentalist movement are known as the King James Version Onlyist. Gail Riplinger quotes them in her book New Age Bible Versions. In her book, she accuses Westcott of being involved in the occult..."

The author argues not just that it was the defense of the KJV-Only group that prompted this smearing of Westcott and Hort, but that quotes indicating they dabbled in occultic investigation early in their lives, abandoning it later, were altered to make it appear they had not repented of that activity in their youth.

But you can read the article for yourself. The KJV-Only group really cannot prove the early Alexandrian manuscripts were not genuine, and as such, much to be considered along with the Majority Text. And they cannot prove the Byzantine texts had not been altered or modified many times by mixing texts or introducing scribal additions.

Instead of making this a war between texts, we should consider all credible input, in my view. In particular, the earlier manuscripts should be given greater weight.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

The fact tht it was highly praised by the National Council of Churches should be a giant red flag for any believer.

 

[marks]

In particular, the earlier manuscripts should be given greater weight.

With the massive level of disagreement between them, and considering the massive level of agreement within the Majority Manuscript, why?

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

With the massive level of disagreement between them, and considering the massive level of agreement within the Majority Manuscript, why?

The Majority Text is a compilation of manuscripts, which have been subject to corruption, additions, and "polishing." If you had an important political document today, and it was a copy, you would have to go back to the earliest form of the document to determine if the copy you now have is legitimate.

The earliest manuscripts that contributed to the Majority Text are less than a thousand years old. What did they look like hundreds of years before that?

If there are several early copies of the document that are in sharp disagreement, you would still have to use them--you would simply have to determine how important these differences are and try to figure out why the disagreements and what disagreements are likely caused by errors or vested interests.

Early manuscripts that have less words indicate that manuscripts with more words may have been scribal "additions." Manuscripts that are repeatedly copied over centuries are subject to "polishing," which means they tend more and more to look like they were originally all in agreement, even if they weren't.

 

[marks]

and it was a copy, you would have to go back to the earliest form of the document to determine if the copy you now have is legitimate.

Of course, none of these were considered accurate or to be used until modern times.

One was even found in a kindling pile. They knew what it was worth.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If there are several early copies of the document that are in sharp disagreement,

That would be a big clue that at least 2 if not all three were very inaccurate.

You don't just compile them all together as though "This is it!"

Unless you are trying to pull something.

Myself, the correct approach is to reason that there is a reason they are different.

Much love!

 

[IndianaRob]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

The Bible says there’s only one Christ and many false Christs or antichrists.

Doesn’t common sense say that if people will falsely claim to be Christ, then they’ll also write false bibles?

Is the idea really that the many antichrists are just lone wolf nutjobs? Or could it be that some of them are extremely wealthy and powerful people or groups secretly working against Christ?

 

[Randy Kluth]

That would be a big clue that at least 2 if not all three were very inaccurate.

You don't just compile them all together as though "This is it!"

Unless you are trying to pull something.

Myself, the correct approach is to reason that there is a reason they are different.

Much love!

There could be a vested interest in being partial to the Majority Text and ignoring the discovery of earlier manuscripts? The correct approach is to be objective, and not make decisions based on what others have said, perhaps out of corrupt interests. "Party spirit" is a dangerous temptation in the Body of Christ. Love believes all things (that come from God).,

 

[marks]

There could be a vested interest in being partial to the Majority Text and ignoring the discovery of earlier manuscripts?

With me? My interest is in the truth. That's why I initially converted.

Ignoring the discovery? Not at all! Say! Do you have a vested interest in these originally discarded manuscripts? You do realize that these were not generally considered real Bibles until the modern day, yes?

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

With me? My interest is in the truth. That's why I initially converted.

Ignoring the discovery? Not at all! Say! Do you have a vested interest in these originally discarded manuscripts? You do realize that these were not generally considered real Bibles until the modern day, yes?

Much love!

Actually, most versions today, including KJV, make use of the Alexandrian text. I'm no more interested in a "party spirit" than you are! I was suggesting not you, but your sources, as the ones who may have a "party spirit" or "vested interest." Do you know where you first came to think the Alexandrian Text type was an "evil" thing?

 

[PS95]

Westcott And Hort Occultists Or Christians You Decide 11x 17 : Peter D. Arvo : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Westcott and Hort abandoned the traditional text and created a new Greek text, which relied heavily upon newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus, along with...

archive.org

 

[marks]

Do you know where you first came to think the Alexandrian Text type was an "evil" thing?

Evil thing? Your words.

My opinion was formed out of faith. "forever O LORD thy word is preserved in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations."

Bible copies which were lost to the sands of time for a 1000+ years don't qualify. And particularly when they show themselves so defective as we compare them to each other.

Much love!

 

[Netchaplain]

Can We Trust Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek New Testament? Evaluating the “Occultist Unbelievers” Charge and the Reliability of Their Text - Christian Publishing House Blog

Do claims of “occultism” discredit Westcott and Hort? The manuscript evidence confirms their 1881 text’s reliability and early-witness alignment.

christianpublishinghouse.co

Read article...

CAN WE TRUST THE WESTCOTT AND HORT 1881 GREEK TEXT?: Were Westcott and Hort Occultist Unbelievers?

Hi Randy! Thanks for the information, but I'm uncertain if the authors of the articles favor Wescott and Hort. Let me know. Thanks and God bless!!

 

[Netchaplain]

The Bible says there’s only one Christ and many false Christs or antichrists.

Doesn’t common sense say that if people will falsely claim to be Christ, then they’ll also write false bibles?

Is the idea really that the many antichrists are just lone wolf nutjobs? Or could it be that some of them are extremely wealthy and powerful people or groups secretly working against Christ?

Hi IR, thanks for the reply! I truly believe it is still Satan continuing his attack on the Word, ever since the first false words-"Yea, hath God said" (Gen 3:1). God bless Brother (I had a twin brother named Robin)!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy! Thanks for the information, but I'm uncertain if the authors of the articles favor Wescott and Hort. Let me know. Thanks and God bless!!

Hi N.Chaplain: I'm always afraid to run counter to you because you're on my list of "good guys." But I'm committed to God to speak my mind, even though at times I'm dead wrong.

My older brother, who I respect a lot, gave me some books by Aland some years back. He's an advocate for making use of the Alexandrian text-type, and translates the Bible from both Hebrew and Greek. It is my understanding that the Majority Text-type and the Alexandrian Text-type are different largely in negligible matters. And virtually all modern versions, including the KJV, make use of it, if only in notes.

The idea that small differences indicate a conspiracy from the Devil is typically what we do when we're afraid that what we think is orthodoxy is being questioned. It is right to question. But if we're to really judge we need to do some homework to see if the hysteria is real or imagined.

 

[Netchaplain]

It is my understanding that the Majority Text-type and the Alexandrian Text-type are different largely in negligible matters. And virtually all modern versions, including the KJV, make use of it, if only in notes.

Hi Brother Randy, appreciate your replies and candidness! I want to try to make this as informative as I can; you may already be familiar with much or all of it. All Bibles derive from one of two manuscript groups: the Minority Text and the Majority text.

The Minority text contains all of the older texts which are primarily derived from the recently discovered oldest manuscript copies: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (this manuscript copy was never used for common translations because it's written by too many scholars, making it hard to read, and more importantly has much less Scriptures, and more mistakes)

The Majority text contains most of extant manuscript copies, about 5000 copies, as apposed to the primarily three in the Minority Text; and the antiquity of these three is why they are often favored. But the only reason these are still in existence is due to the fact they they were abandoned for 1500 years, as the scribes would not use them for coping purposes.

Only the Majority Text can produce a plenary translation (Mat 4:4), as too many passages are omitted and changed in the Minority Text.

I noticed that soon after the modern translations were produced, many believers ceased from studying the Word, largely to the fact that many of the passages were so different from the KJV that it was more difficult to memorize the passages, which were quite different from the Majority Text, making the translation no better than a "paraphrase" version. Saints stop growing spiritually when they stop studying the Word.

The salvation of an individual cannot be changed, but Satan can keep them from growing in Christ. The devil has always attacked God's Word. The first strike was when he said, "Yea, hath God said" (Gen 3:1). It's much easier to remember passages we are familiar with in the KJV and NKJV. No way this could be so with the modern translations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Brother Randy, appreciate your replies and candidness! I want to try to make this as informative as I can; you may already be familiar with much or all of it. All Bibles derive from one of two manuscript groups: the Minority Text and the Majority text.

I'm part way there. When I have serious questions I go to my brother. I don't call the Alexandrian text-type the "Minority Text," although I can understand why some do that.

The Minority text contains all of the older texts which are primarily derived from the recently discovered oldest manuscript copies: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (this manuscript copy was never used for common translations because it's written by too many scholars, making it hard to read, and more importantly has much less Scriptures, and more mistakes)

"Hard to read" may indicate it is more original, as opposed to something being "polished" over the course of centuries by copiest monks who believe the texts require "cleaning up" for purposes of better understanding them. Really dedicated monks would not do this. However, whenever has there not been more "liberal" monks who take it upon themselves to "help God?"

The Majority text contains most of extant manuscript copies, about 5000 copies, as apposed to the primarily three in the Minority Text; and the antiquity of these three is why they are often favored. But the only reason these are still in existence is due to the fact they they were abandoned for 1500 years, as the scribes would not use them for coping purposes.

Manuscript copies that are more abundant does not suggest originality if they are at best only about a thousand years old? That leaves plenty of time before those copies to have been "tampered with."

The reason the Alexandrian manuscripts were ignored is because the Roman Empire survived in the East, in the Byzantine Empire, after the fall of Rome. It had nothing to do with showing disfavor with the Alexandrian manuscripts that I know of?

The natural manuscripts used in the East would be what they had there, and were compiled, mixed, or changed to produce the various Byzantine manuscripts now available from the 12th or even the 9th century.

We don't know how much "tampering" was done with those? We just know that the older Alexandrian manuscripts could not have had as long a period of being "tampered with!"

Only the Majority Text can produce a plenary translation (Mat 4:4), as too many passages are omitted and changed in the Minority Text.

Omissions could indicate originality, as opposed to additions and ammendments being applied over the course of centuries in later manuscripts.

I noticed that soon after the modern translations were produced, many believers ceased from studying the Word, largely to the fact that many of the passages were so different from the KJV that it was more difficult to memorize the passages, which were quite different from the Majority Text, making the translation no better than a "paraphrase" version. Saints stop growing spiritually when they stop studying the Word.

A polished work can be more readable, and thus invite more students to read it. That alone is not a good reason to put your stock in something that could've been "polished."

Take, for instance, the writings of the Church Fathers. How many people give up on their studies to avoid reading them, or simply don't bother with looking at them at all? Is this good? Of course not!

The salvation of an individual cannot be changed, but Satan can keep them from growing in Christ. The devil has always attacked God's Word. The first strike was when he said, "Yea, hath God said" (Gen 3:1). It's much easier to remember passages we are familiar with in the KJV and NKJV. No way this could be so with the modern translations.

I grew up with the RSV--not the KJV, and over the last 45 or more years with the NIV. The NIV was produced not to be "word for word" but to include more scholarly contributions to make this version true to the text and also readable. I don't find to be true at all any notion that modern versions based on or including the Alexandrian manuscripts "discourage Bible study."

The biggest problem with the let down of Bible Study is our failing culture, ie our post-Christian society. It discourages the supernatural, or anything that obstructs the free exercise of carnal human choices.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Honestly, i do not think translations matter, the context stays the same. Words are different but the meaning of the passages stays in tact.

 

[David Lamb]

Honestly, i do not think translations matter, the context stays the same. Words are different but the meaning of the passages stays in tact.

But translations do matter. Some translations make the verse men something completely different. Just one example is the New World translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the first of John's gospel, that version says something like: "And the word was a god." That means something different to the usual translation of that phrase: "And the Word was God."