SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Corrupted King James?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Stever...!
Quote:
I will ask again---what BIBLE VERSION (OTHER THAN THE KING JAMES) do you use that relies SOLELY on the RECEIVED TEXT?

I have just a quick question: What is your source material or rationale (including sources) for a preference or belief in the superiority of the [i]Received Text[/i]?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response:
This post was in response to a previous quote from graftedbranch, from several posts that amounted to conversations that he and I were involved in and that response was directed specifically to him.

Since it was directed specifically to him, I will await his answer.

God bless,

Stever

 2006/1/4 18:42









 Re: Fenton John Anthony Hort

Stever posts:

There sure are lots of "experts" that want to build up Mr. Hort. I think that we should take the time to look at his own words, his own thoughts, his own beliefs and non beliefs, and then make our own opinion. The experts (?) be damned:

Some of his own words: "ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN THE NOTION OF A RANSOM PAID TO THE FATHER." 67. "
"he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement..." 78
I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results""""""""

The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort

Author: Hort, Fenton John Anthony

Publisher: London, Macmillan, 1896

Cambridge: Graduate Life -- 1851

"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called ‘psychical phenomena’ . . . the 'Bogie Club' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon." 58.
July 6, 1848 -- to Mr. John Ellerton -- On Roman Catholicism
" . . . almost all Anglican statements are a mixture in various proportions of the true and the Romish view . . . the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." 59.

November 16, 1849 -- to the Rev. F. D. Maurice -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"Thus there is the question of Substituted Punishment, which, as it seems to me, is quite distinct from the Atonement and reconciliation of the person of sinning man and God. I can at most times thankfully contemplate the fact of God's forgiveness (in the strict sense of the word; that is, removal of estrangement from the offender, irrespective of the non-enforcement of penalties) and His delight in humanity as restored through its Head; but surely this has little to do with the principle that every offence must receive its just recompense. The Father may forgive the child, and yet cannot justly exempt him from the punishment of disobedience;
"'Amen!' says the evangelical, 'the penalty must be paid somehow by somebody. The penalty is tortures to all eternity for each man. Christ, in virtue of the infinity which He derived from His Godhead, was able on earth to suffer tortures to be suffered by all mankind; God must have the tortures to satisfy His justice, but was not particular as to who was to suffer them, -- was quite unwilling to accept Christ's sufferings in lieu of mankind's suffering.'"
"O that Coleridge, while showing how the notion of a fictitious substituted righteousness, of a transferable stock of good actions, obscured the truth of man's restoration in the Man who perfectly acted out the idea of man, had expounded the truth (for such, I am sure, there must be) that underlies the corresponding heresy (as it appears to me) of a fictitious substituted penalty!...Nor, as far as I can recollect, have you anywhere written explicitly upon this point; even on the corresponding subject of vicarious righteousness, I know only of two pages...and they have not been able to make me feel assured that the language of imputation is strictly true, however sanctioned by St. Paul's example. The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 60
.
October 15, 1850 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Evolution
" . . . I do not see why the inconceivableness of a beginning is any argument against any theory of development. The contrary theory is simply a harsh and contradictory attempt to conceive a beginning. That we are in doubt about the early history of organic life arises not from an impotence of conception, but from the mere fact that we were not there to see what, if it were taking place now, we certainly could see. The beginning of an individual is precisely as inconceivable as the beginning of a species...It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such as view as DARWIN'S...BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE MOST PROBABLE MANNER OF DEVELOPMEnt, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed." 61.

April 19, 1853 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Bible Revision
"One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. OUR OBJECT IS TO SUPPLY CLERGYMEN GENERALLY, SCHOOLS, ETC., WITH A PORTABLE GREEK TEXT WHICH SHALL NOT BE DISFIGURED WITH BYZANTINE CORRUPTIONS." 62.
October 21, 1858 -- to Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams -- On the Authority of Scripture
"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . THE POSITIVE DOCTRINES EVEN OF THE EVANGELICALS SEEM TO ME PERVERTED RATHER THAN UNTRUE. THERE ARE, I FEAR STILL MORE SERIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US ON THE SUBJECT OF AUTHORITY AND ESPECIALLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest TRADITIONALISM." 63.

April 3, 1860 -- to Rev. John Ellerton -- On Evolution
"BUT THE BOOK WHICH HAS MOST ENGAGED ME IS DARWIN. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period in -- I know not what not." 64.
May 2, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Inerrancy of Scripture
"BUT I AM NOT ABLE TO GO AS FAR AS YOU IN ASSERTING THE INFALLIBILITY OF A CANONICAL WRITING. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism." 65.
August 14, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On the Divinity of Man
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that HUMAN FORMS ARE DIVINE FORMS." 66.

August 16, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering. I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN THE NOTION OF A RANSOM PAID TO THE FATHER." 67.

October 15, 1860 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. CERTAINLY NOTHING CAN BE MORE UNSCRIPTURAL THAN THE MODERN LIMITING OF CHRIST'S BEARING OUR SINS AND SUFFERINGS TO HIS DEATH; BUT INDEED THAT IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF AN ALMOST UNIVERSAL HERESY." 68.

April 12, 1861 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Heresy
"ALSO -- BUT THIS MAY BE COWARDICE -- I HAVE SORT OF A CRAVING OUR TEXT SHOULD BE CAST UPON THE WORLD BEFORE WE DEAL WITH MATTERS LIKELY TO BRAND US WITH SUSPICION. I MEAN A TEXT ISSUED BY MEN ALREADY KNOWN FOR WHAT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE TREATED AS DANGEROUS HERESY, WILL HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTIES IN FINDING ITS WAY TO REGIONS WHICH IT MIGHT OTHERWISE REACH, AND WHENCE IT WOULD NOT BE EASILY BANISHED BY SUBSEQUENT ALARMS." 69.

December 4, 1861-- to B.F. Westcott -- On Greek Philosophy
"My chief impression is a strong feeling of incapacity to criticize, partly from want of knowledge, and still more from not having fully thought out cardinal questions, such as the relation of ‘philosophy’ and ‘faith’; e.g., you seem to me to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. TO ME, THOUGH IN A HAZY WAY, IT SEEMS FULL OF PRECIOUS TRUTH OF WHICH I FIND NOTHING, AND SHOULD BE VERY MUCH ASTONISHED AND PERPLEXED TO FIND ANYTHING, IN REVELATION…Without condemning anything you have said on the Stoics, I yet feel you have not done them justice. The spiritual need which supported, if it did not originate, their doctrine is, I think, profoundly interesting, above all in the present day." 70.

September 23, 1864 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Protestantism
"… and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite [Catholic Apostolic] creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical." 71.

NOTE: David J. Engelsma writes in "Try the Spirits -- A Reformed Look at Pentecostalism" (1988)
"It is noteworthy that the Irvingite movement, a precursor of Pentecostalism in England in the 1800s, named after its leader, Edward Irving, did appoint twelve apostles. In doing so, the movement was consistent. It is also worthy of note that, although it hesitates to call them apostles, Pentecostalism today is ascribing to its leaders powers that only apostles possess: a personal, absolute authority over the church, or fellowship; new revelations of His will for the church from God; extra-Biblical teachings which are binding upon the saints."
This was written in 1988; today the Latter Rain Movement claims it will soon have 35 Apostles. Westcott and Hort also belonged to the mysterious "Company of Apostles." Vera Alder's New Age handbook, When Humanity Comes of Age, foretells a Council of Twelve which would reign with Antichrist in the New World Order: "[T]he World Government and its Spiritual Cabinet of 12, headed by 'the Christ' will study all archaeological archives… From it, the Research Panel would develop the 'New' Bible of a World Religion which would be the basis of future education." 72.

April 28, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On Democracy
"I dare not prophesy about America, but cannot see that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms." 73.

October 11 and 12, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott -- On The Cross
"I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolotry. But is not much accounted for, on the evil side, by the natural reverence of the religious instinct to idolatry and creature worship and aversion to the Most High; and on the good side, by a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God in invested in all modern orthodoxies -- Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion 'Christ the believer's God' is the result." 74.

October 17, 1865 – to B.F. Westcott -- On Roman Catholicism
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." 75.

May 14, 1870 -- to Rev. J.Ll. Davies -- On The Trinity
"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years." 76.

July 7, 1870 -- to a Friend -- On Bible Revision
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first . . . The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences . . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked . . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." 77.

November 12, 1871 -- to the Bishop of Ely -- On Substitutionary Atonement
"But it does not seem to me any disparagement to the sufferings and death of the Cross to believe that they were the acting out and the manifestation of an eternal sacrifice, even as we believe that the sonship proceeding from the miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary was the acting out and manifestation of the eternal sonship. -- So also the uniqueness of the great Sacrifice seems to me not to consist in its being a substitute which makes all other sacrifices useless and unmeaning, but in its giving them the power and meaning which of themselves they could not have... He (Mr. Maurice) may have dwelt too exclusively on that idea of sacrifice which is suggested by Hebrews x. 5 - 10, and he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement..." 78.

58. Hort, Vol. I, pp. 170-172.
59. Hort, Vol. I, p. 76.
60. Hort, Vol. I, pp. 119, 120.
61. Hort, Vol. I, pp. 430, 431.
62. Hort, Vol. I, p. 250.
63. Hort, Vol. I, p. 400.
64. Hort, Vol. I, p. 416.
65. Hort, Vol. I, p. 422.
66. Hort, Vol. I, p. 427.
67. Hort, Vol. I, p. 428.
68. Hort, Vol. I, p. 430.
69. Hort, Vol. I, p. 445.
70. Hort, Vol. I, p. 449.
71. Hort, Vol. II, p. 31.
72. Vera Alder, When Humanity Comes of Age, New York: Samuel Weiser, 1974, p. 39.
73. Hort, Vol. II, p. 34.
74. Hort, Vol. II, pp. 49, 50.
75. Hort, Vol. II, pp. 50, 51.
76. Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.
77. Hort, Vol. II, pp. 138, 139.
78. Hort, Vol. II, p. 158.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever

In Hort's own words:
[b]"ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN THE NOTION OF A RANSOM PAID TO THE FATHER." 67. "[/b]
[i][b]"he may have failed to make clear that Sacrifice is not the only way of conceiving Atonement..." 78[/b][/i]
[b]I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results[/b]

 2006/1/5 2:11









 Re: Brooke Foss Westcott

Stever posts:

In our search for truth, and the elimination of "experts (???), lets look at the words of Mr. Brooke Foss Westcott, of the infamous REVISION COMMITTEE of 1888 that started all of the newer versions, and see what his own words reveal to those that have eyes to see and ears to hear:

Some quotes before we begin:
"I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly." 82.
heaven is a state and not a place." 83."




The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott

Author: Westcott, Arthur (Son of Brooke)
Publisher: london, macmillan & co. 1903

January, 1852 -- On Spiritualism
"His devotion with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him. 'The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned.' . . . My father ceased to interest himself in these matters not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways, and also are unable otherwise to explain in many facts the evidence for which cannot be impeached." 79.

Second Sunday after Epiphany, 1847 -- To His Fiancée -- On Mariolotry
"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill…Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life [i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ]…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.’" 80.

November 17, 1865 -- To Rev. Benson -- On Mariolotry
"B.F. Westcott promoted visions of ‘the Virgin’ in LaSalette, France… ‘As far as I could judge, the idea of LaSalette was that of God revealing himself now, and not in one form but in many.’" 81.

May 5, 1860 -- To F.J.A. Hort --
On Infallibility of Scripture
"For I too 'must disclaim settling for infallibility.' In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly." 82.

June 14, 1886 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Heaven
"No doubt the language of the rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place: heaven is a state and not a place." 83.
March 4, 1890 -- To the Archbishop of Canterbury -- On Creation
"No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history -- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did -- yet they disclose to us a gospel." 84.

November, 1895 -- Address at Manchester to the Christian Social Union -- On Socialism
"The Christian Law, then is the embodiment of the truth for action, in forms answering to the conditions of society from age to age. The embodiment takes place slowly and can never be complete. It is impossible for us to rest indolently in conclusions of the past. In each generation the obligation is laid on Christians to bring new problems of conduct into the divine light and to find their solution under the teaching of the Spirit." 85.

______________________________________
79. Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, New York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 118, 119.
80. Westcott, Vol I, p. 81.
81. Westcott, Vol I, p. 251; New Age Bible Versions, p. 123.
82. Westcott, Vol. I, p. 207.
83. Westcott, Vol. II, p. 49.
84. Westcott, Vol II, p. 69.
85. Westcott, Vol II, p. 197.

God bless,

Stever


[b]I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly." 82.[/b]
[u][i][b]heaven is a state and not a place." 83.[/b][/i][/u]

 2006/1/5 2:18
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hello Stever...

Since both Wescott and Hort were [u]dead[/u] by the time most attempts at 20th century translations were made (particularly the NIV) -- what does this have to do with the question at hand? Indeed, they may indeed have been bad men, but how do we know that the translators of other versions (like the KJV 1611) were not just as corrupt as King James himself?

I do not know much about Wescott and Hort. I know that they are greatly despised by most [i]KJV-only[/i] adherents. I did perform a Google search for the book that you mentioned ([i]The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort[/i]), but the only websites that I found information about this book were obviously biased or non-academic [i]KJV-only[/i] websites. It is interesting to note that outside of the [i]KJV-only[/i] websites, the academic information available online seems quite favorable concerning these two men.

Do you have a Library of Congress number or ISBN number that I can use to search for this book? That might help alot -- and I could read it and try to determine what (if any) relevance they may have played in the NIV or NASB. Are you typing this information from the actual book, or are you "cut and pasting" all of this information from an online version of the book -- or are you just "cut and pasting" this information from websites that are supposedly quoting the book (a secondhand source)?

I have noticed in the past that it is possible for many well-meaning and supposedly credible works to quote books, interviews or other "source material" that never even existed in the first place. Why does this happen? While it is definitely dishonest, I suppose that some individuals are so devoutly convinced about an issue that they "make up the facts." I'm not saying that this is what has happened here with such references from these sources (such as [i]New Age Bible Versions[/i] or [i]Chick Publications[/i]) -- but it is not out of the realm of possibility. I have even heard a missionary who confessed to having made up stories of miracles from his missionary trips -- because he wanted people to know that God was moving on his behalf. He repented after the Lord revealed that he was "bearing false witness."

The University that I attend has a huge library, as well as an Inter-Library loan program (in conjunction with most Universities in Texas). If you provide an ISBN or Library of Congress number, I will look it up tomorrow. Hopefully, I will be able to find the books that you mention. I really like to read such information from first-hand material. Please provide a first-hand bibliography, rather than a bibliography of [i]KJV-only[/i] materials.

Anyway, thanks again for the help! I hope to work on this over the course of this semester and perhaps have a "working conclusion" drawn as the Lord reveals the truth through this research!

:-)

P.S. - If someone else has a list of credible source material, please let me know! I would greatly appreciate any help. I am looking for scholarly or academic information, rather than skewed books (such as [i]New Age Bible Versions[/i] or [i]Why the KJV is the Preserved Word of God[/i]). Thanks!


_________________
Christopher

 2006/1/5 3:04Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Stever's response:

Try this verse, that specifically refers to Christ's Word:

"HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. (Matthew 24:35)"


Are these the ipsissima verba or are they the words by which Matthew, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, interpreted the 'Christ's words' into Biblical Greek? Or are they the words of the 1611 translators seeking to interpret the words of Matthew's interpretation of 'Christ's words'.

Are you aware of Tyndale's translation of this verse? Heven and erth shall perisshe: but my wordes shall abyde This is an interesting example of the way in which Tyndale's translation was often more 'dynamic equivalence' that the KJV. The KJV, of course, was created as a 'work in progress' and the preface makes clear. I love and revere it, but I do not believe it represents the perfect 'words of Christ', although it is certainly a lot closer than many modern versions.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/5 4:34Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Stever's

Quote:
Let me ask: Is "not having the original manuscripts" equivalent to "not having the perfect text"? And does having contradictory manuscripts mean we do not have the perfect text and/or that we do not know the text as it was originally given?


Are you suggesting that the translation will be better than the text from which it was translated? Are you raising a case for the 'verbal inspiration of the KJV'?

Is it possible to 'create' from several manuscripts a 'text' which is inherently more reliable than any one of those manuscripts? Well, Erasmus thought so, as did Tyndale and later the 1611 translation committee for the KJV. How to 'create' a more reliable starting point is the whole business of the 'Textual Critic'. This is a very complex subject. I reject the 'textual criticism' theory of Westcott and Hort on the basis that it does not stand up to examination, not because I believe in a verbally inspired KJV. I do not seek character assassination, I prefer to examine their ideas.

The Byzantine textform is, in my opinion, the most reliable starting point. This is not the same as trying to claim that the KJV is without error. Some 2 years or so ago I was rebuked by one of our posters for 'correcting the KJV from the Greek'; his position was that the KJV was more reliable than the Greek from which it was translated. It seems you are saying much the same thing.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/1/5 4:43Profile









 Re:

ccchhhrrriiisss said:

"I do not know much about Wescott and Hort. I know that they are greatly despised by most KJV-only adherents. I did perform a Google search for the book that you mentioned (The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort), but the only websites that I found information about this book were obviously biased or non-academic KJV-only websites. It is interesting to note that outside of the KJV-only websites, the academic information available online seems quite favorable concerning these two men."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response:

Both books can be found at:

University of California (USC) Library

Fuller Theological Seminary

Do you consider USC biased against Westcott & Hort? I hardly think so.

What about Fuller Theological Seminary- do you marginalize that institution as well by being "biased"?

I really have to conclude that the "research" that you stated that you were going to undertake was only a sham.

You make statements that can only be interpreted as biased. Your statements about Riplinger and Jones are great examples. In your second "report" to us on this thread, you completely tar and feather, marginalize, and dismiss everything they have to say, but at the same time show such respect to all of the LIBERAL sources that you are seeking information from. You also offer no proof of your own that what supports the tar & feather, marginalizing and dismissal of anything they (Riplinger & Jones) have written about.

This whole thing that has transpired here actually reminds me of the story of the Dean of a Major University who was getting lots of heat from several of his alumni (who provided lots of financial support for his College) to present creation as a theory. He promised them that he would investigate the issue. He then went to the head of the Mathmatics Dept., the Biology Dept., etc. and asked them to study the issue and respond to him in writing. Once that happened he sent the reports to the alumni and reported to them that since there was no support for creation that he could not support it in good faith either. After reading the reports, one of the alumni called him up and asked him why he did not have a report from the head of the Astronomy Department. His (the Deans) response was: "Oh, everyone knows that he is nothing but a Christian ideologue and nothing he says or believes can be trusted."

So the alumni responds: I see then what this is all about. Your "research" consisted of nothing more than to means to substantiating your position, your own beliefs. You actually approached all of the Professors who BELIEVE in EVOLUTION, and have EXCLUDED input from a Christian professor, who is head of the Astronomy Department, who BELIEVES IN CREATION.

The Alumni immeditely withdrew his support from the University, and now uses that money to support his Church and other Christian causes that the Holy Spirit puts on his heart.

When this whole charade of yours started about your "search" I immediately was skeptical (based upon my past experience with you on other issues on sermonindex), but then after a nights sleep I became hopeful, and responded positively to your post, as well as sending you a personal email, with two books in zip format- "Ripped from the Bible" & "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones.

In conclusion, we are right back to where we started. When will you start the show "THE SPIN STARTS HERE"?

God bless,

Stever

 2006/1/5 11:26
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Some quotes before we begin:"I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly." 82.



Brother Stever, Could you quote the entire quotation above filling in the ...

I would like to read this statement in its context in it's entirity.

Thanks
Graftedbranch

 2006/1/5 12:49Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hello Stever...

Quote:
I really have to conclude that the "research" that you stated that you were going to undertake was only a sham.

and
Quote:
When this whole charade of yours started about your "search" I immediately was skeptical (based upon my past experience with you on other issues on sermonindex), but then after a nights sleep I became hopeful, and responded positively to your post, as well as sending you a personal email, with two books in zip format- "Ripped from the Bible" & "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones.

In conclusion, we are right back to where we started. When will you start the show "THE SPIN STARTS HERE"?

Brother, I asked you before to refrain from using [i]character assassination[/i] in an attempt to [i]prove your point[/i] or if you read something that you do not agree with. However, I forgive you for [i]bearing false witness[/i] against me. I understand that you have particularly strong feelings about this subject. But you do not know me, nor my heart, nor my intentions in [u]anything[/u]. I understand that you are older and much more experienced than I. However, you should definitely pray before you post -- or perhaps mingle your posts with humility and patience before you publicly attempt to [i]humble[/i] someone else.

I have noticed that this seems common with some believers. When they cannot defend their beliefs adequately, or if they do not like the beliefs of others, they turn to personal attacks. I have noticed this greatly in the [i]KJV-only[/i] issue. Many non-scholars that do not like modern versions turn their attacks to Wescott and Hort or even the translators themselves, in an attempt to paint them as Godless men. I wonder if anyone ever used the same argument to attack the writings or beliefs of Moses (the murderer), David (the adulter/liar/murderer) or Solomon (the fornicating idol-worshipper)? An [u]attack[/u] on Wescott and Hort (or the translators of non-KJV versions) -- even if what you read is true -- is not a [u]defense[/u] of the KJV.

Yes, I do have some preconceived feelings in this matter since I have studied it (albeit not as diligently) in the past. But I am open to the suggestion that I may be wrong in this. I think that I made that clear from the beginning. However, you do not seem to be open at all to the possibility of being wrong in this.

Over the course of my walk with God, I have changed certain aspects of my beliefs as the Lord has dealt with me through various means. Whether it was through a passage that "came alive" to my understanding, or by opening my eyes to real Biblical research -- it is the Lord that helps me draw conclusions. At one point, I actually believed some things that I now consider well-meaning religious propaganda (such as [u]some[/u] of the information from [i]Chick Publications[/i]). However, I have always kept a willingness to learn. This has usually prevented me from attacking someone that doesn't agree with me or my particular beliefs.
Quote:
When this whole charade of yours started about your "search" I immediately was skeptical (based upon my past experience with you on other issues on sermonindex), but then after a nights sleep I became hopeful, and responded positively to your post, as well as sending you a personal email, with two books in zip format- "Ripped from the Bible" & "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones.

Stever, I did not "pick and choose" to write letters and emails to only one side of the issue. I attempted to find the men, women and organizations that are the most knowledgable in this matter and mailed/emailed them -- not even knowing what most of them believe. I did not write organizations that are obviously and incredibly biased -- such as many of the almost religiously militant [i]KJV-only[/i] organizations. Those organizations usually do not have men or women that are completely knowledgable in such areas as textual criticism. Such organizations seem to rely on the same information (often word-for-word criticism from the books of Mrs. Riplinger and Floyd Nolen Jones) that is shared with one another. Instead, I contacted Bible professors, translators, and Bible societies. Such an approach is not "SPIN." I actually believe that this is real research. Did you happen to do the same? Did you contact such individuals or organizations after reading such criticism from Mrs. Riplinger or Jones? Did you search to determine whether or not the books or websites that you were reading were using authentic and academically honest information?

I appreciate the fact that you sent me an email containing those two books. However, after reading just a few pages, I determined that they are obviously skewed. But that is not [u]necessarily[/u] a bad thing. I also found a library containing the other books that you mentioned -- and I will go through the process of ordering them soon. But I still believe that it is important to search for the validity of the things written in those books. Paul encouraged us to "[i]prove everything[/i]" (or as the NIV states -- "[i]test everything[/i]") in I Thessalonians 5:21. I do not want to get sidetracked by [u]misinformation[/u], or by [u]attacks[/u] or [u]gossip[/u] about men like Wescott and Hort -- especially if it matters little in a defense of the [i]KJV-only[/i] position.

Often, I have noticed that the [i]KJV-only[/i] argument often evolves as such:
Quote:
Why do you believe in [i]KJV-only[/i]?

- Because it relies on the [i]Received Text[/i] as its source, and it is [u]superior[/u] to all other versions that rely on the [i]Alexandrian Texts[/i].

Why do you discard other versions?

- Because they are use the [i]Alexandrian Texts[/i] as its sources, and they are [u]inferior[/u] to the KJV and the superior [i]Received Text[/i].

Such circular reasoning seems common in this argument, with very little real evidence or first-hand sources utilized in the discussion. I have attempted to turn to first-hand source material to determine the reliability of the second-hand sources oft quoted.

But I will ask you again, brother -- please refrain from using [i]personal attacks[/i] or [i]character assassination[/i] when trying to prove your point. Such statements are not helpful in this discussion, and they can be hurtful and harmful to others. Thank you!

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/1/5 13:09Profile
brentw
Member



Joined: 2005/12/14
Posts: 440
Ohio

 Re: Corrupted King James?

Let me just put a twist in this post.

Now think about this question: What is the Word of God??
Is it KJV or NIV or NASB or NKJV or etc...????

What IS the Word of God?


_________________
Brent

 2006/1/5 13:45Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy