One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
To be fair, that wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying that he has been convinced of the use of the older English second person pronouns when addressing God. While Hebrew and Greek does distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, there is nothing in the Hebrew and Greek that directs us to use archaic English second person pronouns when addressing God, as if it were somehow more reverent.
No, that was exactly the point I was making. If there were a more common English way to distinguish between the second person singular and plural I would happily use it.
 

Polanus1561

Puritan Board Sophomore
As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,".
When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,".
When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.

Many of our youth in the congregation have the Westminster Reference Bible which helps with some of these unfamiliar words, or "false friends", as some have put them. Also, Matthew Poole's division of the chapters at the beginning of each chapter, and John Brown's cross references make it a very helpful "study bible" which allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No, that was exactly the point I was making. If there were a more common English way to distinguish between the second person singular and plural I would happily use it.
I can appreciate that your conscience is convinced on this matter, but there is nothing in Scripture that requires prayers to use formally distinct pronouns to distinguish between second person singular and plural.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Many of our youth in the congregation have the Westminster Reference Bible which helps with some of these unfamiliar words, or "false friends", as some have put them. Also, Matthew Poole's division of the chapters at the beginning of each chapter, and John Brown's cross references make it a very helpful "study bible" which allows Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Also, forgot to mention this, it is our pew Bible as well - so those who are unfamiliar can also look up the words easily.
 

Physeter

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello again, Graham,

What with all the talk of KJVO, TR, etc, I want again (as I have done in the past) to clarify my nuanced view of the Bible and its versions. I call what I hold to as KJV priority – or preferred – as being the best English translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It – the KJV – is not the clearest or easiest to read, but it is the most accurate in my view.
I will have to say I agree with this perspective. It is my personal favorite. I don't recommend it for people that struggle with language skills or reading. I have a younger sister that deals with disabilities. One of the simpler to read translations would be better for her.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
As a KJV user myself, may I ask the KJV users here, would you give anything to assist a youth (or anyone new to the KJV really) in reading the KJV? To assist reading words like "not in chambering and wantonness" or "and, as he was wont,".
When I begun reading the KJV, I did so with Logos software infront of me with other translations to guide me. I know that is not the best or accessible way to do it. One way is the TBS Westminster reference bible which shows helps.

Reformation Heritage Books keeps JP Green's children's James Bible in print. I will have my children cross reference that if they are stuck, or transition from it to the KJV. They can also be given word lists (many Bible contain such lists, as in the margin of the Westminster reference Bible mentioned above). They can be taught how to look things up in a dictionary also. But nothing will beat their father explaining these dead words, archaic words, and false friend words as they appear in daily family worship, and their minister in his pulpit ministry.

When I was teaching my former congregation how to read the KJV I pointed them to these resources, as well as told them to look at the passage in the NKJV if they were stuck. This is one of the many benefits of the KJV, it helps us to slow down sometimes and meditate on the word. Often, regardless of the translation, we often read large passages thinking we understood something when we actually didn't, we only understood what we thought the passage was saying, but may have misunderstood entirely. Learning to read the KJV or GNV helps break this habit.
 
Last edited:

Northern Crofter

Puritan Board Freshman
Chad Van Dixhoorn told our class that James I was actually fairly solidly Reformed, and only after the KJV became an openly wicked individual.
There is quite a bit of revisionist history these days (especially in England - not so much in Scotland) re James VI/I - nevertheless, his "Black Acts," his unBiblical reasoning for the divine right of kings, his forcing Protestantism into the Scottish highlands and islands were less about reformation and more about ethnic cleansing, his subduing of Romanism in England also had little to do with reformation and more to do with anger after the failed Gunpowder Plot, and of course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia, were long before the AV. Yes, he got worse after the AV was published, but the seeds were simply sprouting - as you stated, he became "an openly wicked" person after the AV. He was still a wicked ruler prior to the AV.
 

Jeri Tanner

Administrator
Staff member
Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.

It wasn't too unexpected. King James wanted a bible that didn't have the anti-episcopalian comments in it.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
Does the wickedness of a ruler negate the good God providentially guides under him? I can’t remember the details but a new translation of the Scripture was very much wanted by the Puritans and other godly men at the time. It was an unexpected concession the king made to them, at a time when most of the desired reforms in the church were shot down.
Amen. But it is true that James saw it as politically advantageous to concede to the Anglicans who wanted a revision of the bishops Bible. There were a handful of puritans who also wanted to have a new translation as a way to further reform and purify the Church of England. James conceded to this and one of his stipulations was that this new translation contain no "Lutheran notes" (referring to the Geneva) and that certain words be translated in a way that would not go against his doctrine of the divine right of kings (I.e. "episkopos" must be translated as "bishop" etc). God used his wickedness to produce a world transforming translation, but his intention/motivation certainly was not in favor of the puritans. The puritans by and large hated and rejected the AV for many *a few* decades.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
The 1611 KJV certainly doesn't feel like a Puritan work. It has strange illustrations (I'm not sure if any are 2nd commandment violations, but I'd prefer to not have to guess), church calendars with holy days (a full calendar with holy days menitoned, a table for finding Easter, the psalms and lessons instructions include special for holy days, a lessons for holy days section, and a general list of holy days "these to be observed for Holy"), and the Apocrypha (not only having it there, but with cross references to it throughout the Old and New Testaments such as Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26). Thankfully most of this was removed in the 1769, but the textual sticking points (bishops, etc.) remain.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
There is quite a bit of revisionist history these days (especially in England - not so much in Scotland) re James VI/I - nevertheless, his "Black Acts," his unBiblical reasoning for the divine right of kings, his forcing Protestantism into the Scottish highlands and islands were less about reformation and more about ethnic cleansing, his subduing of Romanism in England also had little to do with reformation and more to do with anger after the failed Gunpowder Plot, and of course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia, were long before the AV. Yes, he got worse after the AV was published, but the seeds were simply sprouting - as you stated, he became "an openly wicked" person after the AV. He was still a wicked ruler prior to the AV.
Either way, I don’t really have a dog in this fight since saying that because James I was bad the therefore the KJV is bad is committing the genetic fallacy.

With regard to Van Dixhoorn, I would personally be very hesitant to accuse someone like him—who with regard to seventeenth century England has forgotten more than most of us will ever know (he taught our seminary-level course with not a single page of notes)—of engaging in revisionist history. He is an exceptionally careful historian whose clout is well deserved. Of course, that doesn’t mean he is always right, but I am personally hesitant to level such an accusation at someone like him without serious documentation to back it up.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
Hi Jake, here's a post (and a couple others of mine in the thread) re the use for "Easter" in the AV: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/easter-in-acts-12-4-av-is-it-justifiable.87452/#post-1083686

In my post I was referring to the prefatory material contained in the volume of the 1611, not the text itself.
The point was showing it doesn't look like a Puritan volume. That's certainly not a slight against the translation work of the text itself.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Senior
the Apocrypha (not only having it there, but with cross references to it throughout the Old and New Testaments such as Hebrews 1:3 to Wisdom 7:26

Interestingly, the 1560 Geneva, the original Puritan Bible, similarly cross-references Matthew 27:43 with Wisdom of Solomon 2:18 (although it has a typo indicating Wisdom 2:28, which does not exist). The 1599 Geneva omits all cross-references to the Apocrypha.

F713DD43-4FC9-4F90-AD7F-0F16C5E0E04F_4_5005_c.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Thanks, Jake! As it was brought up earlier as an error (by others), I figured I would lay to rest that mistaken allegation as to its linguistic status.
 

Eyedoc84

Puritan Board Sophomore
f course his long history of adultery, sodomy, and pedophilia
Of course, this may also be guilty of historical revision. I’ve read reputable historians who dispute this, claiming most of it is slander from critics. Although given his effeminacy and upbringing, I wouldn’t doubt if it was true.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
James VI/I was actually highly respected by many Reformed divines as a defender of orthodoxy against the Remonstrants. For those interested, here are a handful of sources to read:




 

Physeter

Puritan Board Freshman
I am just as dubious about the attacks on the character of James I as I am on the character of Westcott and Hort.
 

Imputatio

Puritan Board Freshman
Why was the collation of texts only acceptable up until Erasmus’ day?

What Scriptural warrant is there for freezing the process ever since?

Why is text critical work allowed within the Byzantine text-type, but no other?

Why can there not be a broader basis for God’s preserved word than the Byzantine text-type?

Why does the TR position on God's providence not allow for any good manuscripts to be hidden? Why do they have to be used in the church?
 

gcdugas

Puritan Board Freshman
Why was the collation of texts only acceptable up until Erasmus’ day?

What Scriptural warrant is there for freezing the process ever since?

Why is text critical work allowed within the Byzantine text-type, but no other?

Why can there not be a broader basis for God’s preserved word than the Byzantine text-type?

Why does the TR position on God's providence not allow for any good manuscripts to be hidden? Why do they have to be used in the church?

The following is a skeleton form of answers to your very honest questions. Each could be expanded into a book length and has been but I'm skimming at 30,000ft.

1. The collating was largely done before Erasmus. Erasmus was the first one who put the entire Greek NT canon to print. So the answer really is that until then they were still hand copying manuscripts. Therefore it is the invention of the printing press when manually transmitting the text ceased.

2a. It could and has been argued that the process [of collation] was frozen prior to 1516 and Erasmus mostly "assembled" things rather than deciding on anything.

2b. We could also ask this question as to the books in the Canon. Why was the process "frozen" in the 4th Century A.D.?

3. Because of the great uniformity of the manuscripts and their wide use in the churches for more than 1,300 years.
See E. F. Hills https://www.amazon.com/Text-Time-Reformed-Testament-Criticism-ebook/dp/B07DB7ZBLC
See John "Dean" Burgon https://www.amazon.com/Revision-Revised-Dean-William-Burgon/dp/1888328010 especially pgs 312-316

4. Doctrinal error and tampering. The Alexandrian text family evidences Gnostic tampering. The Patristics don't cite them not do other churchmen since. The Arian controversy also plays into this as they used Alexandrian texts to support their heretical doctrines.

5. Use in the Churches is the PRIMARY evidence of Providence. God has always preserved His Word for His people. The WCF and LBC 1689 both cite Matt 5:18 (not one jot or tittle shall perish) as a proof text for the assertion of preservation in 1:8.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
4. Doctrinal error and tampering. The Alexandrian text family evidences Gnostic tampering. The Patristics don't cite them not do other churchmen since. The Arian controversy also plays into this as they used Alexandrian texts to support their heretical doctrines.

I am not sure what the Credo website reference does. It doesn't mention anything about text tradition. We've already established, maybe in this thread or in another, that Alexandria gave rise to both a pro-Athanasian group and a pro-Arian group.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
Hello Rut @Grumman Tomcat ,

Concerning your doubt re the characters of Westcott and Hort, please consider this (excerpted from a paper of mine) :

On Westcott and Hort

Westcott and Hort (henceforth W&H), are either revered as fathers of modern textual criticism, or reviled as men unworthy to lay hands on the Book of God, and enemies of the Faith; are there verifiable facts to clarify the record?

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), both began their academic careers as students of Trinity College at Cambridge University. Westcott was Hort’s senior by three years at the college, and was his tutor in Classics after Hort began his graduate studies there in 1849-50, beginning what was to be a lifelong friendship and collaboration in various endeavors, most notable of which was their Revised Greek Text of the New Testament, published in 1881. Westcott was also tutor, in 1848, to two other Cambridge men (among others) who would likewise remain his friends for life, J.B. Lightfoot and E.W. Benson.

The academic and spiritual atmosphere of Cambridge in those days was unusual; there was a great conflict between “liberal” theology (pretty much the same then as now), conservative Anglicans (of the Church of England), and conservative Roman Catholicism, the latter having many allies in certain sectors of the Anglican Church (which were known by terms such as the Oxford Movement, and Sacerdotalists), which sought to elevate the Church, her traditions, and her sacraments above the Scriptures as the final authority over the people of God, after the model of Rome. Many liberals who had been ousted from other universities for theological heresy found a haven at Cambridge; to name a few: Frederick Maurice (denied eternal Hell), John Henry Newman (pro-Vatican teaching), John William Colenso (openly questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch), and William Roberson Smith (he likewise opposed the Mosaic authorship, and also the doctrine of inspiration)1. The work of Charles Darwin was in the air, and in 1877 Cambridge conferred an honorary degree upon Darwin.2 Some of the men mentioned, and the two we are focusing our attention on in particular, held a mixture of views, that is, both “liberal” and Catholic. Cambridge had fallen greatly since the days two centuries earlier when William Tyndale and other reformers pursued studies there! Evangelicals, who were also active in these times, were looked down upon as primitive and crude “fundamentalists” (as they would be called by the liberals in the 1920s), just for holding firmly to the fundamental historic doctrines of the believing church up through the ages. Such men, along with their Bibles, were often despised by the “learned” elite.

The focus of Westcott’s and Hort’s studies was the classics, notably the Greek. Hort wrote that Dr. Maurice “urged me to give the greatest attention to the Plato and Aristotle, and to make them the central points of my reading, and the other books subsidiary.”3 Westcott also was first and foremost a classicist. In a letter to Lightfoot he exclaims, “I can never look back on my Cambridge life with sufficient thankfulness. Above all, those hours which were spent over Plato and Aristotle have wrought that in me which I pray may never be done away.”4

But there was more in the air of the times then than liberalism, Catholicism, and love of the classics. Although W&H were nominal members of the Church of England (COE), they evidently had no fear of God in the Biblical sense. In 1845, as an undergraduate, Westcott and some of his friends founded a club at Cambridge which eventually took the name Hermes Society5. That of itself might not be so bad, even though Hermes is widely known, not only as a god in Greek mythology, but a major figure in the occult, from notorious occultist H.P. Blavatsky’s equating of Hermes with Satan6 (this latter entity not being evil in her eyes) to Carl Jung, as editor, including in a book of his, “Hermes is Trickster in a different role as a messenger, a god of the crossroads, and finally the leader of souls to and from the underworld.…Hermes recovered attributes of the bird life [wings] to add to his chthonic [underworld] nature as serpent.”7 Occultism and spiritualism were exploding into manifestation in 19th century England, and Hermes was esteemed in these groups. What leads us to think Westcott’s Hermes club was not innocent of occult involvement are the name and the activities of his next club, founded in 1851: the Ghostly Guild.

James Webb, a secular historian of the occult, notes in his book, The Occult Underground, in the section, “The Necromancers,”

In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualist and other psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederick Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson wrote in his biography of his father, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost club became Bishops, and one a Professor of Divinity.​
…The S.P.R. was a peculiar hybrid of Spiritualistic cult and dedicated rationalism; the S.P.R. fulfilled the function of Spiritualist Church for the intellectuals.8​

We learn from Hort himself who some of the members were:

Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions.9​

The Society For Psychical Research, in its history written by one of its presidents, acknowledges its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” and says, under the section of that title,

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.10​

The believing church, however, does not consider this “ecclesiastical eminence”! If this were all we found objectionable in W&H, it would be sufficient to disqualify them from membership in an evangelical church, much less to teach or preach in one. But I am afraid it is not all. There is much more that can be said about their continued occult involvement, including other secret societies they founded or were part of, having others be the officers in (and “founders” of) these clubs while they remained generally unnamed and (to public scrutiny) in the background, but there is not room here for a thorough exposé.11 That they were practicing spiritualists – “necromancer” is the Biblical word – is beyond dispute. It is enough to note the Lord’s judgment on this matter:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e., to be burned as a child sacrifice], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD… (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)​
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)​
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred…murders, drunkenness…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)​
Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers… (Revelation 22:14, 15)​

Another secular historian looking at this time in English history says,

In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith…spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.12​

It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate. You might picture in your minds college youths of today who, growing up in an unbelieving culture, have prejudiced attitudes toward the evangelical Christian faith, and toward the Bible.

Westcott, for example, at 21 years of age says,

…in the principles of the Evangelical school [there is that] which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.13​

In the following year he says,

I never read an account of a miracle [in the Bible] but I seemed instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.14​

[due to length I'll continue this below]
 
Last edited:

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Professor
[cont.]

In the same letter (above) where Hort was announcing to a friend the formation of the Ghost Society, he showed a belligerent prejudice to the Universal Text – the King James Bible – of the English-speaking world, and its underlying Greek basis, the Textus Receptus, presumably because it was the Bible of the Evangelicals, and its authority supported the authority with which they preached (in those days Charles Spurgeon was preaching in London, and D.L. Moody was evangelizing all over England). In similar fashion, young and educated unbelievers of today off-handedly disdain Bible preaching and Bibles. A 23-year-old Hort wrote,

I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus…Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones…15​

In 1858 Hort wrote,

The positive doctrines…of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on authority, and especially the authority of the Bible…16​

In 1865, when trying to “understand…the ever-renewed vitality of Mariolatry,” Hort surmised it was,

…a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God is invested in all modern orthodoxies—Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion ‘Christ the believer’s God’ is the result….I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and effects.17​

In these same letters (see footnote 21) Hort opines that mediation is the proper role for each – Mary and Jesus – and not worship.

We will look at some further beliefs and statements of W&H, to get an idea of the hearts and minds of these men. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially18 working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that 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 hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.19​

Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”20 (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in many areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.21​

He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! Remember, both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.

In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,

The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.22​

One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s Origin of Species. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,

…Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”23​

To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),

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…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable24. (emphasis his)​

We see Westcott was of the same mind:

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…25​

The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve26, and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the errancy of Scripture.

In the event someone says, but this is argumentum ad hominem (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

1 Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible, by Dr. William P. Grady (Grady Publications, Inc. 1993), page 210.
2 Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 186.
3 Ibid., page 202.
4 Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, pages 175, 176.
5 Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p 47.
6 The Secret Doctrine, by Helena P. Blavatsky (the Theosophical Publishing Society, 1893), Vol. II, page 30.
7 Man and His Symbols, Edited by Carl G. Jung (Dell Pub. Co., 1964); “Part 2: Ancient Myths and Modern Man,” by Joseph L. Henderson, page 155.
8 The Occult Underground, by James Webb (Open Court Pub. Co. 1974), page 36.
9 Life of Hort, Vol. I, page 211.
10 The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.
11 I first became aware of this hidden aspect of W&H’s lives through a tape made by Gail Riplinger. I found the allegations of their deep and continued involvement with spiritualism hard to believe. So I bought her book, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, by G.A. Riplinger (A.V. Publications 1993), and researched the citations of the 30th chapter, “The Necromancers.” I was amazed to find her scholarship essentially sound. To confirm the most important of her documentations, I bought the respective (unabridged) biographies of Westcott and Hort, each written in two volumes by their sons, and through the Queen’s (New York City) interlibrary loan system obtained Webb’s The Occult Underground, Salter’s The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, and Gauld’s The Founders of Psychical Research. Riplinger’s presentation of W&H as hardcore spiritualists, going to séances and other occult activities, and proselytizing others to join them, was true. Occasionally she would get a page number wrong (in footnote 12 above, quoting from Webb, she had page 8 instead of 36), and she misattributed quotes a couple of times from Gauld’s work, but they were relatively insignificant. The conclusions she draws – and documents – with regard to Westcott’s and Hort’s involvement in the occult in her chapter 30, apart from her theorizing re “W.W. Westcott” in her footnote 128, is sound. [I learned from James White this aforementioned “theorizing” is patently false.]

Although her work is edifying in some respects, I cannot endorse her book due to many far-fetched notions, and also errors. Sometimes her quotes are taken out of context in a way I would term “misrepresentation.” I would not call her representative of those who present the best defense of the King James Bible and the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. Still, some of her research is valuable. If you read her, do so warily.
12 The Fabians, by Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1977), page 18.
13 Life of Westcott, Vol. I, pages 44, 45.
14 Ibid., page 52.
15 Life of Hort, Vol. I, page 211.
16 Ibid., page 400.
17 Ibid., Vol. II, pages 49-51.
18 They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
19 Life of Hort, Vol. I, page 445.
20 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
21 Ibid., page 421.
23 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
24 Ibid., page 416.
25 Life of Westcott, Vol. II, page 69.
26 Matthew 19:4-6
____

I'll attach a pdf of this post for easier reading and copying:
 

Attachments

  • On Westcott and Hort.pdf
    152.2 KB · Views: 0

gcdugas

Puritan Board Freshman
Steve, I'm not quarreling but isn't there a courteous maximum length for a comment? And then you append it PDF. Why not just copy the first paragraph and then link to the full length version? That's how many news aggregators do it and I think there is a good reason.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I can appreciate that your conscience is convinced on this matter, but there is nothing in Scripture that requires prayers to use formally distinct pronouns to distinguish between second person singular and plural.
Not mention why is the one set enough? For example, Spanish, has two 2nd person plural forms (Spain - ustedes/vosotros) and some countries use three second person singular forms (Argentina and parts of Columbia and Chile - vos/tu/usted). Who's to choose?
 

Physeter

Puritan Board Freshman
My question: is the KJV the most current Textus Receptus translation? There is a position out there among some fundamentalists that it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top