King James Version Only...?
- Thread starter LC627
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Hort was a liar:
"Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact."
(The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy)
Davy
Well-Known Member
Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort
There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to sev- eral organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).
Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Fre- derick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible be- liever.
Davy
Well-Known Member
IX. Were Westcott and Hort Saved Men?
The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hart are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.
However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.
While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning MethodistsWhile Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.
Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave any- one any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.
The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hart are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.
However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.
While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning MethodistsWhile Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.
Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave any- one any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Modern NT translations from Wescott and Hort's texts omit many Greek NT passages in the Majority Texts used for the KJV Bible.
Last edited:
From Wikipedia:
F. J. A. Hort, was an Irish-born theologian[
He was born on 23 April 1828 in Dublin, the great-grandson of Josiah Hort, Archbishop of Tuam in the eighteenth century. In 1846 he passed from Rugby School to Trinity College, Cambridge,[3] where he was the contemporary of E. W. Benson, B. F. Westcott and J. B. Lightfoot.[2] The four men became lifelong friends and fellow-workers.
Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death.
Westcot was more interested in all the other writings from the Jews than actually doing the Bible itself. He was a scholar in all the Sifre, Talmud, Midrash and etc of the Ancient Near East.
Hort was more of the financier of publishing and producing his works and encouraged Westcott to do all the things that were done.
Westcott's commemtary on the book of Hebrews and Jude is beyond compare as he is knowledgeable on the many other writings that were referenced in the two letters and gives us the unique and fuller insights as to what was written and why.
Neither of these men including Lightfoot or Eadie are anything but good men intending the best for the knowledge of the scriptures.
They were slandered by many who did not like the theological positions the men held because they offered proofs that shattered many of these twisted theological positions.
They had no axe to grind as they were affiliated with the Anglican Church but mostly just in name only...they really didn't like the guerilla warfare existing between the various denominations. They were avowed almost pacifists.
F. J. A. Hort, was an Irish-born theologian[
He was born on 23 April 1828 in Dublin, the great-grandson of Josiah Hort, Archbishop of Tuam in the eighteenth century. In 1846 he passed from Rugby School to Trinity College, Cambridge,[3] where he was the contemporary of E. W. Benson, B. F. Westcott and J. B. Lightfoot.[2] The four men became lifelong friends and fellow-workers.
Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death.
Westcot was more interested in all the other writings from the Jews than actually doing the Bible itself. He was a scholar in all the Sifre, Talmud, Midrash and etc of the Ancient Near East.
Hort was more of the financier of publishing and producing his works and encouraged Westcott to do all the things that were done.
Westcott's commemtary on the book of Hebrews and Jude is beyond compare as he is knowledgeable on the many other writings that were referenced in the two letters and gives us the unique and fuller insights as to what was written and why.
Neither of these men including Lightfoot or Eadie are anything but good men intending the best for the knowledge of the scriptures.
They were slandered by many who did not like the theological positions the men held because they offered proofs that shattered many of these twisted theological positions.
They had no axe to grind as they were affiliated with the Anglican Church but mostly just in name only...they really didn't like the guerilla warfare existing between the various denominations. They were avowed almost pacifists.
Davy
Well-Known Member
Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. There is more reason to believe that they were influenced by the occult than there is to believe that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the "King James Only Controversy" is misnamed. It is really a "Westcott and Hort Only" controversy.
The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy
Perhaps the "King James Only Controversy" is misnamed. It is really a "Westcott and Hort Only" controversy.
The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy
No.
They were biased and determined to attempt to debunk the ancient KJV. A major modern proofreader for the NIV was a lesbian for example.
From Wikipedia:
Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible—both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[110]
Responding to these concerns, the Convocation of Canterbury resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as the Revised Version in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.[111]
By the early 20th century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings. The distinct Cambridge text was printed in the millions, and after the Second World War
Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible—both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[110]
Responding to these concerns, the Convocation of Canterbury resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as the Revised Version in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.[111]
By the early 20th century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings. The distinct Cambridge text was printed in the millions, and after the Second World War
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
I read the book or Mormon. The gospel is not found there. Only a perverted gospel
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Why should I trust them more? They made a word for word bible the best they could. I do not fault them
unfortunately the word can not fully be translated that way. But anyone who tries to change it gets attacked like people are doing here
I give them credit. But I will not trust them completely I trust no man completely
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Good god I hope not! We call it Christianize when we here pastors in the radio talk KJV English lol. We get a laugh and ask if they teach you totally hate at in school
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
You do remember some of the KJV was translated from a Latin based Greek text so you not?
Well, trust the KJV.... or what are you doing saying you have the word of God and no perfect Bible?
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Davy wrote:
It should be noted that W&H used ancient manuscripts to establish their text. Since their time there have been other respected texts such as the Nestle texts, the United Bible Societies' texts, etc. All of which are superior to the flawed Received Text used by the KJV.
One important thing found in the KJV is the use of God's name. The KJV translators removed that name and replaced it with the mistranslated "LORD" in nearly all of the many thousands of places it was found in the text they used, but miraculously used it at Ps. 83:18.
Psalm 83:16-18, KJV: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [sic]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the most high over all the earth."
So why has the KJV actually removed that very name from its translation in the thousands of places it appears in the manuscripts and texts?
And why do KJV-only advocates not seek that name and use it as Ps. 83:16-18 demands? Do we ever find them consistently using "Jehovah" as their KJV insists in that scripture.
It should be noted that W&H used ancient manuscripts to establish their text. Since their time there have been other respected texts such as the Nestle texts, the United Bible Societies' texts, etc. All of which are superior to the flawed Received Text used by the KJV.
One important thing found in the KJV is the use of God's name. The KJV translators removed that name and replaced it with the mistranslated "LORD" in nearly all of the many thousands of places it was found in the text they used, but miraculously used it at Ps. 83:18.
Psalm 83:16-18, KJV: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [sic]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the most high over all the earth."
So why has the KJV actually removed that very name from its translation in the thousands of places it appears in the manuscripts and texts?
And why do KJV-only advocates not seek that name and use it as Ps. 83:16-18 demands? Do we ever find them consistently using "Jehovah" as their KJV insists in that scripture.
Actually...
The Institute for Scripture Research '98 translation has God's name (as well as Jesus') spelled out in Hebrew every time in their translation. It's a translation made by Messianic Jews. (They believe in Jesus and are from outside of European influence)
I've found it to be another highly accurate translation at times shedding light uniquely into some passages that otherwise would go unnoticed.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
If you think so. You really worry me. There is no gospel in the book if Mormon. It is a perverted made up book using king janes language where they are not even doing what God commanded
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
The perfect bible was given
since then all we have are what the scribes have rewritten and interpretations of men
it is perfect in that it can lead me to Christ and help make me
Mature
but the English bible is Missing some deep stuff.
Similar threads
