SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The King James or a Newer Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:
These two Anglicans formulated the theory that the Received text (which the N.T. of KING JAMES VERSION is translated from) is full of errors and that the Egyptian Minority Texts (that they based their Greek New Testament on) were pure texts and completely error-free (an absolutely preposterous claim). Their theory is known as The Hort Westcott Theory and the Greek text they created (or one virtually identical to it) is used to train ministers in almost every English speaking Bible college in the world today.



Let me get this straight, you say the TR is error-free, right? Then why is it "perposterous" that Wescott and Hort claimed the other text is error-free?



Quote:
Facts pertaining to both Hort and/or Westcott:
• Involvement in the occult (séances etc.)

• Professed disbelief in either the divine inspiration of scripture or the diety and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

• Hated the idea of the blood atonement, hence preference for manuscripts which deleted references to both the blood and deity of Christ (see insidious footnotes, omissions and changes to Colossians 1:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 in most Bibles).
Hort and Westcott were unsaved men. No one can be saved who denies either the Diety or the resurrection of Jesus Christ (see John 8:24, Romans 10:9-10,13).



Would you please back up these claims with proof? It is one thing to spout off a lot of "facts" about different people, but it is a totally different thing to be able to show these things to be true.

Please do a search on Wescott and Hort [url=http://www.kjvonly.org/]here[/url] and read how these claims about these men are refuted. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the articles.


_________________
Jordan

 2009/2/23 14:36Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

Brothers and sisters, this in unfruitful...


_________________
Christiaan

 2009/2/23 15:13Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
The Wycliff Bible relies on the same text as the King James, the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, and is not corrupt.



Are you sure about this?

[b]The Wyclif translation came out in 1395, and the TR wasn't around until the early 1500's.[/b]

William Tyndale also had his NT published in 1526, and the Geneva Bible was first published in 1575.

It is interesting to note that Erasmus was a devout Roman Catholic(something overlooked by most KJ only types). Not that this has much to do with his translating skills, but I know people like to freak out about RC conspiracies when they talk about Bible translations.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/2/23 15:35Profile









 Re:

To HomeFree89:

It is obvious that you have not read this entire thread. Please, take a deep breath, and go back to the beginning of this thread. Read all of them- from the 1st post to the last post, prior to your post below, and then please feel free to post again.

Thank you,

Walter

Quote:

HomeFree89 wrote:
Quote:

DELETED
Let me get this straight, you say the TR is error-free, right? Then why is it "perposterous" that Wescott and Hort claimed the other text is error-free?





Would you please back up these claims with proof? It is one thing to spout off a lot of "facts" about different people, but it is a totally different thing to be able to show these things to be true.

DELETED

Quote:

 2009/2/23 15:37









 Re:



To Roaringlamb:

It would be nice if you went back and looked at the prior posts, in regards to the questions that you ask.

This was posted previously:

The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:

I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)
A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

(1453) Moslems take Constantinople. Great exodus of Greek scholars from there to Western Europe, bringing with them Greek manuscripts of the Bible.

V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

B. Note, THIS WAS THE GREEK TEXT OF THE REFORMATION. THIS LINE ALWAYS GOES AWAY FROM ROME, AWAY FROM ERROR.

VI. Luther (16th. century)

A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

VII. The King James Bible (1611)

A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators REJECTED Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
The Wycliff Bible relies on the same text as the King James, the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, and is not corrupt.



Are you sure about this?

[b]The Wyclif translation came out in 1395, and the TR wasn't around until the early 1500's.[/b]

DELETED
Quote:

 2009/2/23 16:00
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Walter,

I honestly see no need to go back and read through the thread again. I have been reading it as it has progressed.

You made some negative assertions about the character of Wescott and Hort and all I'd like is some proof for those claims.

God bless!


_________________
Jordan

 2009/2/23 16:37Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
It would be nice if you went back and looked at the prior posts, in regards to the questions that you ask.



You still didn't answer how the TR could be the basis for the Wyclif Bible even though it was translated 300 years before the TR was around.

I really hope you aren't getting this stuff from Gail Riplinger and Jack Chick as both of them have been show to be a bit on the side of exaggeration and also leave out key quotes about men like Wescott and Hort.

It's funny how we can debate Bible translations and have threads stay active, but those on Scripture and Calvinism get locked.

How does a Bible translation argument further revival or our understanding of the God we serve?


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/2/23 17:06Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
THIS LINE ALWAYS GOES AWAY FROM ROME, AWAY FROM ERROR.



Sorry but this is not true. Erasmus was a devout Roman Catholic and hated the Reformation and its proponents and Erasmus' first printing of the New Testament was indeed dedicated to the Pope.

Erasmus did not make his translation to break away from Rome, it was done as a favor to Rome. That is also why when none could defend Rome against the doctrines of the Reformers, Rome enlisted Erasmus to try to refute Luther with a book entitled "A Discussion Concerning Free-Will".

This was written in the hope that Luther could be silenced and shown to be a heretic so that the Reformation could be stopped. However Luther responded with what is today entitled "The Bondage of the Will"(which I highly commend).

Please go through History and don't just believe what some few KJV only people have posted. Study to show yourself approved.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/2/23 17:19Profile









 Re: New York Times, 1881 Edition



[b][color=000000]To roaring lamb, HomeFree89, ccchhhrrriiisss & Miccah:[/color][/b]

Since the beginning of time, wolves have masqueraded as sheep in the Body of Christ. These wolves have no interest in God’s command for obedience to His Word, the Bible. Today, most Christian believers can find no difference between various Bible versions. In fact, the newer versions are seemingly preferred over the Protestant Standard, the [b]Protestant Bible,[/b] the King James Bible of 1611.

Instead of beating this subject to death, what does history have to say about the 1881 "Revised" Version of Westcott & Hort?

What was the response of the Protestant body of Christ to the work of Westcott and Hort and their revision committee in their "revised New Testament" in February, 1881? Was it accepted, or was it REJECTED AS FALSE?

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]The New York Times, February 8, 1881[/url]

[b]It was REJECTED AS PLAGARISM!!!!![/b]

What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" [color=CC3333][b](it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!)[/color][/b]. They rejected it as being a PLAGIARISM of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected immediately by Conservative Protestant Christians, but welcomed by Liberal Protestant Christians. In the early 1900's, as time had passed it started to receive support from not only the Liberal body of Christ, but slowly over time, newer Pastors came onto the scene, men not knowlegable of the travesty that had occurred in 1881, men not knowledgable with God's Word, and ended up in support of the newer versions. Today, many people seem to actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line in the 1881 New York Times reads as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808".

Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision by Westcott & Hort in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James, just like Conservative Protestant Christians do today when comparing the King James Bible to all of the newer versions. In this article, they actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical (plagiarism) on a verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

[url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html]Belsham's Unitarian New Testament 1808[/url]

The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “[b]included a valuable introduction on the progress and PRINCIPLES OF TEXTURAL CRITICISM, ANTICIPATING MANY JUDGMENTS LATER ADOPTED IN THE REVISED VERSION OF 1881”[/b]; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).

[b]What NONE of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their “discovery” (that the 1881 Revision by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament) was that Belsham[/b] (a Unitarian- look up the definition of Unitarian. I pass a Unitarian Church each day on my way to work that has signs attached to the building supporting gay marriage),[b][color=CC0000] as well as Westcott & Hort had switched the Authorized version of the New Testament with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts that WAS USED to create the Catholic Bible.[/color][/b] [b] Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Believing Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnosticism![/b]

What is the fruit of Caholocism? What is the fruit of all the over 90 newer Bible Versions created since 1881. Today, the Protestant is crying out for Revival, but it is nowhere to be found. The Protestant Church is crying out for Brokenness, but it cannot be found. It is crying out for a “real” prayer life and a “real” personal walk with Jesus Christ, but again, it cannot be found!

Do these facts have interest to you? They have great interest to me, and they should be of great interest to any Child of God who wants a closer walk with Jesus Christ in these last days!

[b][color=990000]When we open our Bibles today, we are opening up one of the two" types" of Bibles. Even though today we have many Bible versions (over 90 and counting) to choose from, we still only have two "types" of Bibles. One of the Bibles has been passed down from the believing Christian Church, from the very beginning, and is the Protestant Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the King James Bible.[/color][/b]

[b][color=000033]The other Bible that could be in our hands today has been passed down from Gnostic's who revised God's Word to conform to their own beliefs- it is the Catholic Bible, that used the minority text, created by the Gnostics, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. [/color][/b]

In 1881 the Westcott & Hort used the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce their new Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible during the Reformation. All of the newer Bible Versions since 1881 have relied on the Greek New Testament created by Westcott & Hort, relying on the faulty Vaticanius and Sinaiticus text.

[b]So, to clarify the issue, today, if you study the NIV, NASB, American Standard, or any of the other "newer" versions, you are actually studying Gnostic Doctrine, as found in the Catholic Bible and the Catholic Church.[/b]

[b][color=990000]"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." [/color][/b]Psalm 12:6,7

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
It would be nice if you went back and looked at the prior posts, in regards to the questions that you ask.



You still didn't answer how the TR could be the basis for the Wyclif Bible even though it was translated 300 years before the TR was around.

I really hope you aren't getting this stuff from Gail Riplinger and Jack Chick as both of them have been show to be a bit on the side of exaggeration and also leave out key quotes about men like Wescott and Hort.

It's funny how we can debate Bible translations and have threads stay active, but those on Scripture and Calvinism get locked.

How does a Bible translation argument further revival or our understanding of the God we serve?



 2009/2/23 18:45





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy