Which translation is correct?

[rejoice44]

Norm,I have addressed these issues in probably hundreds of posts. You just don't agree with what I write. I have given you quotations from commentaries that I own and have in my possession from Westcott where he teaches the fundamentals of the faith that you claim these men don't believe. Of course, you know this because I've given you quotes from them before.

Wescott's beliefs were not identical to Hort. Hort was the driving force behind the new translation. It was his dream for thirty years to alter the Bible.

Hort believed that no rational person could believe the Bible's account of creation literally. Hort believed that Darwin had it right. Hort believed that a ransom might have to be payed to Satan, but it wasn't possible that a ransom had to be payed to God for our souls. Hort believed we had to do our own suffering for our sins, he did not believe in substitutionary atonement. He conspired for nearly thirty years to rid the bible of those heresy's about Jesus. He stated that Tischendorf would find him rich material to alter the bible. Hort supported the Vatican during its Papal aggression while attending Cambridge. It goes on and on.

Joe if you would read the letters of Hort you could never deny any of this.

[TrustGzus]

Hort believed that no rational person could believe the Bible's account of creation. Hort believed that Darwin had it right.

Even if that were true. The W&H Greek text doesn't teach Darwinism or contradict the Bible's account of creation.

Hort believed that a ransom might have to be payed to Satan, but it wasn't possible that a ransom had to be payed to God for our souls.

Westcott & Hort's Greek text doesn't teach ransom theory of atonement anymore than any version of the TR does.

Hort believed we had to do our own suffering for our sins, he did not believe in substitutionary atonement. He conspired for nearly thirty years to rid the bible of those heresy's about Jesus.

W&H's Greek text doesn't teach anything other than substitionary atonement. Nor does it get rid of those "heresies" about Jesus.

He stated that Tischendorf would find him rich material to alter the bible.

Hmmm . . . doesn't differ too much from the versions of the TR I own. The majority of the differences are where the TR states things multiples times, W&H won't say it in every single account.

Hort supported the Vatican during its Papal aggression while attending Cambridge. It goes on and on.

W&H's Greek text doesn't teach anything about supporting the Vatican or any Roman Catholic distinctive.

Joe if you would read the letters of Hort you could never deny any of this.

Two things:

1. Have you read that book cover to cover or have you read the snippets that KJVO books and websites like to show from it? I ask because many that have held your view and read the whole book changed their tune.

2. Do you know for sure that you interpret Hort correctly all the time? It wasn't current English. A lot of people who read the KJV misinterpret parts of the KJV because words we still use today have a different meaning today than they did in King James' day. Same thing can be said of Hort. I don't expect you to say you might be misinterpreting him.

3. Even if everything you said about Hort was spot on, that doesn't make the new versions unreliable or worse than the KJV. As was said to you by another poster in this thread, and as I've said many times, W&H's Greek text isn't used in current translations. And even if it was, it doesn't teach false doctrines or eliminate any true doctrines. I know because I own W&H's Greek text and refer to it regularly.

4. Are we going to go on for the next couple decades re-posting the same ideas back and forth to each other or is there a time you'll give up trying to undermine all your fellow brothers trust in their Bibles?

[rejoice44]

Even if that were true. The W&H Greek text doesn't teach Darwinism or contradict the Bible's account of creation.

Westcott & Hort's Greek text doesn't teach ransom theory of atonement anymore than any version of the TR does.

W&H's Greek text doesn't teach anything other than substitionary atonement. Nor does it get rid of those "heresies" about Jesus.

W&H's Greek text doesn't teach anything about supporting the Vatican or any Roman Catholic distinctive.

If you had read all of his letters as I have, you would know that he knew his limitations of what he would be able to change. He couldn't add anything that couldn't be observed earlier in scripture, but he could take away, and claim someone else had added it earlier.

As Philpot had said, the accomplices would be Roman Catholics and those that didn't believe in the Deity of Christ(Unitarians). The Roman Catholics had cited the Protestant Bible as vile and so did Hort. Hort supported the Roman Catholics as was seen at Cambridge. He also supported Unitarians as seen by his putting Dr. Vance Smith on the editorial committee.

Hort's goal was twofold. (1.) To remove that vile Protestant Bible, and (2.) to remove scripture that points to the Deity of Christ, for Hort didn't believe in substitutionary atonement.

[nzyr]

Hi rejoice44,

What in your opinion are the most accurate scriptures available today? And what are your favorite translations of the scriptures? I admit I haven't read the entire thread.

[rejoice44]

Hi rejoice44,

What in your opinion are the most accurate scriptures available today? And what are your favorite translations of the scriptures? I admit I haven't read the entire thread.

My forte is not in languages, it lies more in the line of investigation

[TrustGzus]

If you had read all of his letters as I have, you would know that he knew his limitations of what he would be able to change. He couldn't add anything that couldn't be observed earlier in scripture, but he could take away, and claim someone else had added it earlier.

As Philpot had said, the accomplices would be Roman Catholics and those that didn't believe in the Deity of Christ(Unitarians). The Roman Catholics had cited the Protestant Bible as vile and so did Hort. Hort supported the Roman Catholics as was seen at Cambridge. He also supported Unitarians as seen by his putting Dr. Vance Smith on the editorial committee.

Hort's goal was twofold. (1.) To remove that vile Protestant Bible, and (2.) to remove scripture that points to the Deity of Christ, for Hort didn't believe in substitutionary atonement.

You've said this stuff dozens of times. I have it in multiple KJVO books that I own.

Even if everything you and they claim is true, the net result is that no doctrines were removed and no false doctrines were added.

All we have is conspiracy theory (which not only do the scholars not buy, but neither does a cold case homicide detective I'm acquainted with buy either --- so he's into investigation and makes his living off of it) and a lot of genetic fallacy in your argumentation.

Also, if those were Hort's two supposed goals, he failed in both and modern versions affirm the deity of Jesus more clearly than the KJV. This is why the JW's don't mind using a KJV but don't want anything to do with other modern versions. If modern versions removed the deity, the JW's would favor the modern versions. However, the reverse is true.

So . . . are you going to keep re-posting this stuff for years and having me counter it over and over and over again, or are you going to stop trying to undermine everyone's trust in their Bibles?

[Jemand]

Hort's goal was twofold. (1.) To remove that vile Protestant Bible, and (2.) to remove scripture that points to the Deity of Christ, for Hort didn't believe in substitutionary atonement.

Your statements are absolutely false! Moreover, even if they were true, they are irrelevant because we have today many translations of the Bible in English that are substantially more accurate than the King James Version both in their understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts and in the their representations of these texts in current English. Furthermore, the Greek text of the New Testament upon which today’s best translations are based are substantially more accurate than the corrupt Greek texts from which the King James Version was translated.

Harry Sturz, for many years Professor of Greek and Chairman of the Theology Department at Biola University in La Mirada, California, wrote an excellent book* in which he presents an excellent and objective defense of the Byzantine text-type as being “an independent witness to an early form of the New Testament text.” Indeed, this book presents the strongest defense in one volume of the Byzantine text-type that I know of. Nonetheless, Sturz in not so blind that he does not see that the Byzantine texts are seriously corrupted. I suggest that you purchase a copy of it and carefully and prayerfully read it.

*Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

[Jemand]

My forte is not in languages, it lies more in the line of investigation

One of the most important qualifications for an investigator is an objective, analytical mind. Reading maliciously false propaganda written by men and women whose goal is not to promote the objective, analytical reading of the Bible but to deceive their readers into believing what is known to be false does not constitute investigating the truth—it constitutes giving into the powers of darkness and believing maliciously false lies.

Studying the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to determine the most likely original text begins with learning how to read Greek. The next step is to learn the basics of textual criticism—not just of the Biblical texts, but also of old literature in general, such as the writings of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra where the original text is in doubt. The third step is to learn the basics of textual criticism as it applies specifically to the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The fourth step is to commit many years of one’s life to, as fairly and objectively as possible, the study of the ancient Greek manuscripts while continuing to learn the methodology of New Testament textual criticism.

[rejoice44]

Even if everything you and they claim is true, the net result is that no doctrines were removed and no false doctrines were added.

True, in that no doctrines were removed, but they did take a couple good bites at them. True, that no false doctrines were added. But what did they accomplish?

Consider some of the points of Philpot. He said, Anglo Catholics and the Socinianising Neologians would be the revisers. That is exactly what happened.

Philpot said, "It would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which is the Word of God." That happened. So you see Joe you can't blame me for what Hort did, I just happen to be on the side of Philpot, while you are on the side of Hort.

Philpot said, "There would be two bibles, and where would it end." It ended with not two bibles, but with many many bibles.

Philpot said, "There would be plenty workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces." That happened, for there are workmen without end ripping the pages to pieces.

So . . . are you going to keep re-posting this stuff for years and having me counter it over and over and over again, or are you going to stop trying to undermine everyone's trust in their Bibles?

Joe, that is a fallacy that I am trying to undermine everyone's trust in the Bible. What I would like to see change is the production of all these new translations, that come out one upon another, that undermine everyone's trust in the Bible. Isn't the new NIV gender deficient?

How can anyone trust something that changes from day to day, and those that are trying to mend the cover are just waiting to find that new manuscript so they can change it again.

No Joe, it is not me trying to unsettle the minds of believers, I believe that when something isn't broke you don't fix it.

Have you examined the Codex Sinaiticus, and if so, what do you think?

[Yahweh1]

Do you hold to a KJVO position, or that its the best of the English versions for today?

Do you hold God preserved the TR Greek text, and that it is Inerrant/infalliblle inpired by God?

Do you that ONLY The KJV is word of God to us today? ALL other version corrupt/satanic based?

that IF one does NOT use KJV, not using word of God?

[Jemand]

True, in that no doctrines were removed, but they did take a couple good bites at them. True, that no false doctrines were added. But what did they accomplish?

The reformers of the KJV proved that the King James Version could greatly be improved upon and that the English-speaking people were very hungry for a more accurate translation of the Bible rendered in more current English.

[Yahweh1]

even the translators themselves said that their version was neither perfect, nor the last one to come, as theirs would be updated just they updated prior versions!

see Revised version 1881/asv 1901, as 2 that even KJV supporters saw as legimate updates to KJV!

[rejoice44]

Do you hold to a KJVO position, or that its the best of the English versions for today?

Do you hold God preserved the TR Greek text, and that it is Inerrant/infalliblle inpired by God?

Do you that ONLY The KJV is word of God to us today? ALL other version corrupt/satanic based?

that IF one does NOT use KJV, not using word of God?

If you have nothing to add that is relevant to our discussion I would appreciate if you refrain from such statements. There were other bibles just as good as the KJB.

[rejoice44]

One of the most important qualifications for an investigator is an objective, analytical mind. Reading maliciously false propaganda written by men and women whose goal is not to promote the objective, analytical reading of the Bible but to deceive their readers into believing what is known to be false does not constitute investigating the truth—it constitutes giving into the powers of darkness and believing maliciously false lies.

Are the words of Hort propaganda? Are the words of Tischendorf propaganda? Are the words in the archives of "The Guardian Newspaper propaganda"? How about the memoirs of Henry Bradshaw? How about the examination of the Alexandrian manuscripts? Are these all propaganda? I hardly think so. My friend, you are making false statements.

Studying the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to determine the most likely original text begins with learning how to read Greek. The next step is to learn the basics of textual criticism—not just of the Biblical texts, but also of old literature in general, such as the writings of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra where the original text is in doubt. The third step is to learn the basics of textual criticism as it applies specifically to the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The fourth step is to commit many years of one’s life to, as fairly and objectively as possible, the study of the ancient Greek manuscripts while continuing to learn the methodology of New Testament textual criticism.

If we had to do that to catch criminals, they would never be caught. When you see a fox raiding the hen house, how does reading William Shakespeare help save the chickens?

[Yahweh1]

I hold that modern English versions are actually superior!

Just trying to sort out IF some posting here were advocating KJVO position, as sounds like when they seem to imply that modern greek texts wereinferior and corrupted, thus making inferior english versions?