The Amazing Westcott And Hort Magic Marker Binge!

[jasonc]

Actually Free, it is the Westcott-Hort textual theory that has done a horrendous disservice to Christianity by producing a text that removes important verses. Before you go too far with your anti KJV theory, I suggest that you study http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html. This is what TOB in his OP gave us.

I am not a King James only student of the Bible. I have the ESV, NKJV, and NIV. I use them in certain situations. If I want to be accurate, without any doubt to what a verse is saying, I refer to the KJV.

I have found that anti KJV folk simply have not studied thuroughly the


You are soooo right my friend! God has preserved His precious Word! And the KJV is that preserved Word for modern man. We do not need the other so called translations, there are way to many errors. I am very surprised that these people who added or subtracted from God's Word did not take seriously God's warning not to do that.

ok so when the English dies out and is like the old saxon language what then?

doth thou speaketh modern English or the Holy English of his majesty King James?

 

[teddy trueblood]

Chopper,

Why are you insisting that this was caused by one text (Westcott and Hort)? If you do not understand the following, please ask questions.

Ro. 13:9 - why is “false witness” left out of modern translations?

Because it is not found in 4 of the 5 earliest NT manuscripts (including the very earliest: p46 from the second century A.D.).

It’s not just the Westcott and Hort text which restores the probable original without “false witness” at 13:9.

These scholarly NT Greek texts, among others, do the same:

Byzantine text - http://www.scribd.com/doc/36925586/BIBLE-Greek-Byzantine-Text-the-NT-in-the-Original-Greek

NA28 (Nestle-Aland) - http://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/55/130001/139999/ch/6fc7149c7508c01cdaedac8311c1f273/

UBS (United Bible Societies) - https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/greek-new-testament-ubs-gnt/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/55/130001/139999/ch/6fc7149c7508c01cdaedac8311c1f273/

 

[Free]

Actually Free, it is the Westcott-Hort textual theory that has done a horrendous disservice to Christianity by producing a text that removes important verses. Before you go too far with your anti KJV theory, I suggest that you study http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html. This is what TOB in his OP gave us.

I am not a King James only student of the Bible. I have the ESV, NKJV, and NIV. I use them in certain situations. If I want to be accurate, without any doubt to what a verse is saying, I refer to the KJV.

I have found that anti KJV folk simply have not studied thuroughly the

But that is precisely my point: those charts prove nothing except that the KJVO position is almost entirely based on fallacies. They being by presuming that the KJV is the only version that is correct and then proceed to show where other versions have supposedly removed verses or changed wordings, which they then claim proves that the KJV is the only version to be trusted. This is known as circular reasoning. But there simply is no reason to believe that all the other versions have removed all those verses when, in fact, the KJV could have some or all of those verses erroneously added in.

Throw in the ad hominems KJVOists are fond of using, as well as other errors in reasoning, the obvious difficulties of translating from one language to another, and the KJVs inability to take into consideration all the texts and fragments found after it was written (in other words, it simply cannot take into account all the current manuscript evidence, and that means it is not the most accurate), and one can see that KJVOism is completely irrational.

And don't at all mistake what I have said as being "anti-KJV theory". The KJV has its issues just like every other translation but I have always maintained that it is a good translation (especially for those who believe in unicorns and that Jesus died on Easter ;) ). I have no problem if people prefer the KJV but KJVOism is, for lack of a better way of putting it, a doctrine of demons meant only to divide.

 

[teddy trueblood]

More important for KJV fanatics should be the inclusion of the information added in the KJV (and those following its tradition) at 1 John 5:7-8.

1　John 5:7 - NAS – For there are three that testify:
1　John 5:7 - UBS text – οτι τρεις εισιν (5719) οι μαρτυρουντες (5723)

1　John 5:8 - NAS – the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1　John 5:8 - UBS – το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (5719)


1　John 5:7 - KJV – For there are (5748) three that bear record (5723) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are (5748) one.


1　John 5:7 - TR – οτι τρεις εισιν (5719) οι μαρτυρουντες (5723) εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν (5719)


1　John 5:8 - KJV – And there are (5748) three that bear witness (5723) in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree (5748) in one.


1　John 5:8 - TR – και τρεις εισιν (5719) οι μαρτυρουντες (5723) εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (5719)

The Nestle text, the Westcott and Hort text, and the Byzantine text agree with the UBS text used above.

Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) manuscript transcription (fourth century):

7 οτι οι τρειϲ ειϲιν οι μαρτυρουτεϲ

8 το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρειϲ ειϲ το εν ειϲιν

The added passage (in bold in the KJV and TR above) is absent from every known Greek NT manuscript (from the fourth century on) except for four. These four Greek passages were written in and after the fourteenth century!

 

[teddy trueblood]

We should be able to see that Westcott and Hort are not the villains here. So let’s examine the important change the KJV translators made in the OT.

Carefully read the following:

Psalm 83:18 in the KJV tells us what the only personal name of God is:

"18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

If you look at the OT Hebrew text that the KJV used, you will find that 'JEHOVAH' is a transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH.

That same OT Hebrew text has the only personal name of God (YHWH) written about 6000 times, but the KJV has rendered nearly all of them as "LORD." YHWH does not mean "LORD."

How can the "inerrant" KJV misuse God's name (which it admits is ‘JEHOVAH’) nearly 6000 times!!!

 

[turnorburn]

Always stay focused We are in the last days Satan is throwing his nasty stuff and it will get nastier Always stay focused Satan hates God he hates you he hates me he hates himself he hates for the sake of hating because that's all he knows not one good thought goes through his evil mind.. We are about to see changes the likes this world has never seen men's hearts failing them for the things that are coming..

Stay Focused!

tob

 

[TOG]

ok so when the English dies out and is like the old saxon language what then?

doth thou speaketh modern English or the Holy English of his majesty King James?

Did'st thou not mean to say "Doest thou speak.."? Forsooth, 'tis a minor mistake thou hast made, yet 'tis a good example of my primary objection to the exclusive use of the version of Scripture authorized by His Majesty King James. There be few today who are properly able to speak Elizabethan English. 'Tis as if it were a language foreign to them, yet they are astonied when they encounter others who wish to use a translation they actually understand.

The TOG​

 

[jasonc]

Did'st thou not mean to say "Doest thou speak.."? Forsooth, 'tis a minor mistake thou hast made, yet 'tis a good example of my primary objection to the exclusive use of the version of Scripture authorized by His Majesty King James. There be few today who are properly able to speak Elizabethan English. 'Tis as if it were a language foreign to them, yet they are astonied when they encounter others who wish to use a translation they actually understand.

The TOG​

yes, and we have a poster here who is fluent in that as well besides you. cyberjosh. I from reading kjv, I must add, was able to read Thomas Paine's common sense in that type of English.

 

[TOG]

yes, and we have a poster here who is fluent in that as well besides you. cyberjosh. I from reading kjv, I must add, was able to read Thomas Paine's common sense in that type of English.

I'm not sure how fluent I am, but I can make it sound real if I want. I know the personal pronouns and how to conjugate verbs (most of the time). My vocabulary is more modern though.

The TOG​

 

[jasonc]

I'm not sure how fluent I am, but I can make it sound real if I want. I know the personal pronouns and how to conjugate verbs (most of the time). My vocabulary is more modern though.

The TOG​

the Holy Spirit showed me the way to understand the kjv, but its not like I still don't have issues with the words. sometimes reading the other translations help.

 

[Chopper]

ok so when the English dies out and is like the old saxon language what then?

doth thou speaketh modern English or the Holy English of his majesty King James?

When that happens Jason, Christ will come, and in the New Jerusalem, we will speak His language.

 

[Chopper]

But that is precisely my point: those charts prove nothing except that the KJVO position is almost entirely based on fallacies. They being by presuming that the KJV is the only version that is correct and then proceed to show where other versions have supposedly removed verses or changed wordings, which they then claim proves that the KJV is the only version to be trusted. This is known as circular reasoning. But there simply is no reason to believe that all the other versions have removed all those verses when, in fact, the KJV could have some or all of those verses erroneously added in.

Throw in the ad hominems KJVOists are fond of using, as well as other errors in reasoning, the obvious difficulties of translating from one language to another, and the KJVs inability to take into consideration all the texts and fragments found after it was written (in other words, it simply cannot take into account all the current manuscript evidence, and that means it is not the most accurate), and one can see that KJVOism is completely irrational.

And don't at all mistake what I have said as being "anti-KJV theory". The KJV has its issues just like every other translation but I have always maintained that it is a good translation (especially for those who believe in unicorns and that Jesus died on Easter ;) ). I have no problem if people prefer the KJV but KJVOism is, for lack of a better way of putting it, a doctrine of demons meant only to divide.

I'd be very careful using the term "doctrine of demons"! The only one's who's main objective to divide are all the modern, evangelical scholars who are bent on producing new translations so that they can line their pockets with gold. The KJV needs no help from man to do the work of the Holy Spirit.

So I don't buy into your anti-KJV exercise.

 

[jasonc]

When that happens Jason, Christ will come, and in the New Jerusalem, we will speak His language.

we don't know what language he uses. likely one that we will have but that is for another topic. it wont be Hebrew as that is an aramiac permutation

 

[Chopper]

Chopper,

Why are you insisting that this was caused by one text (Westcott and Hort)? If you do not understand the following, please ask questions.

Ro. 13:9 - why is “false witness” left out of modern translations?

Because it is not found in 4 of the 5 earliest NT manuscripts (including the very earliest: p46 from the second century A.D.).

It’s not just the Westcott and Hort text which restores the probable original without “false witness” at 13:9.

These scholarly NT Greek texts, among others, do the same:

Byzantine text - http://www.scribd.com/doc/36925586/BIBLE-Greek-Byzantine-Text-the-NT-in-the-Original-Greek

NA28 (Nestle-Aland) - http://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/55/130001/139999/ch/6fc7149c7508c01cdaedac8311c1f273/

UBS (United Bible Societies) - https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/greek-new-testament-ubs-gnt/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/55/130001/139999/ch/6fc7149c7508c01cdaedac8311c1f273/

Actually Teddy, I have done a lot of research on this subject. For a very clear understanding, I would suggest that you examine where Westcott & Hort got their manuscripts. They came from Egypt....Egypt was a hotbed of heresy and fanaticism. Prominent Gnostics were associated with Alexandria. Egypt was not the place where the Spirit of God chose to deliver the Scriptures. God told His people never to go down to Egypt for a good reason. Not one book of the New Testament is associated with Egypt. I could go on and on, but I simply feel, you are entitled to use any Bible you wish to use, I don't care.

 

[jasonc]

Actually Teddy, I have done a lot of research on this subject. For a very clear understanding, I would suggest that you examine where Westcott & Hort got their manuscripts. They came from Egypt....Egypt was a hotbed of heresy and fanaticism. Prominent Gnostics were associated with Alexandria. Egypt was not the place where the Spirit of God chose to deliver the Scriptures. God told His people never to go down to Egypt for a good reason. Not one book of the New Testament is associated with Egypt. I could go on and on, but I simply feel, you are entitled to use any Bible you wish to use, I don't care.

ok you just negated the book of luke and also lxx. as well the ptolemiacs were surely stoicist, and gnostic.

 

[Chopper]

ok you just negated the book of luke and also lxx. as well the ptolemiacs were surely stoicist, and gnostic.

Yea, OK

 

[brother Paul]

I like what Eusibius warned..."Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly between themselves..." (let it be noted that some translations of Eusibius leave off "between themselves" and others say "one to another") but the point is...these source texts used by Westcott and Hort first off disagree with scriptural translations/quotations given in the first two centuries (at a time when the autographs had been handed to their teachers by the Apostles), they are very obviously heavily edited texts, they are from a place that no autograph was ever entrusted (with the exception of the gospel according to Mark), and even then W/H mix and match as suits their opinion between these two texts that so violently disagree with one another...

It has been admitted by scholars of the Critical school that there are 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone...656 in Matthew, 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke, and 1022 in John...so which one is the truth? How can one tell? And then to take these two most questionable variations and then to make a best guess combination 1500 years removed? And we should rely on this? Really!

 

[Chopper]

I like what Eusibius warned..."Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly between themselves..." (let it be noted that some translations of Eusibius leave off "between themselves" and others say "one to another") but the point is...these source texts used by Westcott and Hort first off disagree with scriptural translations/quotations given in the first two centuries (at a time when the autographs had been handed to their teachers by the Apostles), they are very obviously heavily edited texts, they are from a place that no autograph was ever entrusted (with the exception of the gospel according to Mark), and even then W/H mix and match as suits their opinion between these two texts that so violently disagree with one another...

It has been admitted by scholars of the Critical school that there are 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone...656 in Matthew, 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke, and 1022 in John...so which one is the truth? How can one tell? And then to take these two most questionable variations and then to make a best guess combination 1500 years removed? And we should rely on this? Really!

Thank you Brother Paul. So many people forget that Antioch was the center of Gentile Christians, and Jerusalem was the center of Jewish Christians. This is where I look for true manuscripts, not Alexandria,Egypt. Since God refused Egypt as a place where Israel go for anything, why in the world would anyone think that God's Word would come from that wicked environment? The answer to my questionis, He would not!

 

[jasonc]

Thank you Brother Paul. So many people forget that Antioch was the center of Gentile Christians, and Jerusalem was the center of Jewish Christians. This is where I look for true manuscripts, not Alexandria,Egypt. Since God refused Egypt as a place where Israel go for anything, why in the world would anyone think that God's Word would come from that wicked environment? The answer to my questionis, He would not!

the lxx was written in alexendria Egypt. why does the rcc and also others accept it then? and also LUKE whom used it.

yet despite my issues with that version. god used that to spread the word.

 

[Chopper]

the lxx was written in alexendria Egypt. why does the rcc and also others accept it then? and also LUKE whom used it.

yet despite my issues with that version. god used that to spread the word.

IMO the RCC is no standard I would go by. I doubt very much that Luke had anything to do with anything coming out of wicked Egypt.