Westcott & Hort

[Gerr]

I have been using the ESV which is a literal translation from the Masoretic Hebrew and the United Bible Societies' Greek NT Novum Testamentum Graece and Nestle Aland primarily but also use other translations. I have been very pleased with it. However, I was rather surprised to find some websites vilifying the ESV and any other translations not based on the Textus Receptus. I have not compared every text between the KJV and the ESV, but those I have checked have not been that significantly different. So why the vehemence? Have any of you found any damnable heresy from translations other than from the Received Text?

[Gibs]

Check to see if it is copyrighted.

The Word of God unchanged cannot be copyrighted.

[Gail]

Gibs, it would be the translation copyrighted, not the original.

I wonder if those who are anti would admit to the parts where the other translations are actually better than the KJV.

[Gibs]

The KJV is not copyrighted, it is still the very best from the best manuscripts.

People will vehemently defend the corrupt versions but have at it.

[Tom Wetmore]

Gail, very good point. From Gibb's post I think you have your answer - not even a willingness to acknowledge the real fact as Gerry noted that there really are not major differences. Any differences are typically rather minor and have no significant effect on our doctrinal interpretations.

Now of course, if one is stuck in an extremely narrow view of some point that relies on basically a single proof text or a single phrase or even a single word, there is great potential for having to rely on whatever version supports that narrow point of view. But we know that is not the best way to approach and understand Scripture, because when that happens people end up withdrawing from fellowship with fellow believers, and setting themselves up as having a superior understanding of Scripture that looks down on others, and showing a love for quarrels and disputes on that point largely to the exclusion of any other important point of Scripture. And then they start they own church/movement/denomination or become rather lonely. A very common phenomena as evidenced by the thousands of distinct denominations/independent churches, most of which are distinguished from the group they came out of by no more than a few obscure points of Scriptural interpretation.

[Gail]

The KJV is not copyrighted, it is still the very best from the best manuscripts.

People will vehemently defend the corrupt versions but have at it.

You are forgetting that EGW used a Hort/Westcott bible.

[Gail]

Gail, very good point. From Gibb's post I think you have your answer - not even a willingness to acknowledge the real fact as Gerry noted that there really are not major differences. Any differences are typically rather minor and have no significant effect on our doctrinal interpretations.

Now of course, if one is stuck in an extremely narrow view of some point that relies on basically a single proof text or a single phrase or even a single word, there is great potential for having to rely on whatever version supports that narrow point of view. But we know that is not the best way to approach and understand Scripture, because when that happens people end up withdrawing from fellowship with fellow believers, and setting themselves up as having a superior understanding of Scripture that looks down on others, and showing a love for quarrels and disputes on that point largely to the exclusion of any other important point of Scripture. And then they start they own church/movement/denomination or become rather lonely. A very common phenomena as evidenced by the thousands of distinct denominations/independent churches, most of which are distinguished from the group they came out of by no more than a few obscure points of Scriptural interpretation.

If I may, I think it's called spiritual pride- being "puffed up" by knowledge (1 Cor.8:1). I'm not sure that we are supposed to have disdain or contempt for others due to differences in belief. Differences, yes, but not a superior attitude toward them. We are all learning.

All of the versions were to some degree liable to biases from the translators, the KJV included (see "hell" translated from "Sheol"). One needs to be aware of these nuances.

The Hort/Westcott version that EGW used, the RV or the English Revised Version, is no longer available, so have fun trying to find one. I accidentally found one on our shelf that we got through a liquidation- and it cost me just over $3!! I recognized it and snagged it... but it's a version that she used extensively in her work.

[Gail]

One pastor pointed out to me that the word Easter is in the KJV (Acts 12:4). There was no Easter at that time... It should have read Passover, perhaps.

[Gail]

I should clarify- there was Easter in the time of the KJV translators, but not in the era of Jesus.

[Gail]

BTW- My principle Bible is a KJV. I just love it. But it isn't my only source of Scripture due to its outdated language. Much of the time I prefer it. But in my recent study of 1 Cor 13 I saw that I am going to need some additional help in really grasping the English. So I will look through various sources, praying for the Spirit to help me into a deep understanding of this passage. It is a most important chapter.

I will include the RV.

[Tom Wetmore]

One pastor pointed out to me that the word Easter is in the KJV (Acts 12:4). There was no Easter at that time... It should have read Passover, perhaps.

You are quite right. The original Greek appears to be a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Passover. I had never focused on that before.

That certainly does create a bit of a dilemma for anyone among us in the KJV only camp, since I assume they would also not be ones to celebrate Easter because of its Catholic or pagan roots, etc. Yet it is clearly in the version they adherer to and not in any other modern translation. Hmmm....

[joeb]

BTW- My principle Bible is a KJV. I just love it. But it isn't my only source of Scripture due to its outdated language. Much of the time I prefer it. But in my recent study of 1 Cor 13 I saw that I am going to need some additional help in really grasping the English. So I will look through various sources, praying for the Spirit to help me into a deep understanding of this passage. It is a most important chapter.

I will include the RV.

I'm in agreement with you about this. I too use the KJV primarily, but I also like the Amplified, NASV, NET, Young's Literal, MKJV, AKJV, and a few others.

I have a really nice Bible called a Comprehensive Study Bible. It has the KJV, Amplified, NASV, and NIV in parallel. I've used it since the early 90's and found it to be really good, and my digital Bible with some 47 translations for 5 years or so that I use probably 80-85& of the time anymore. My digital Bible is also one of the main reasons I use the KJV a lot. It gives me access through it to Strong's Concordance so I can look at the Hebrew and Greek. None of the other translations give me the ability to see what English word is translated from the original language, and as I look at the original meanings of the words a lot, I tend to use the KJV a lot. That's over and above how much I like the old fashioned English used in it.

[Gail]

My boss has an electronic KJV with references to Strongs as well. He really likes it

[Gail]

Joeb, try the Blue Letter Bible (or just have a look at the website- Google it). I was recommended it by the people at ssnet.org

It has LOTS of links to a Hebrew/Greek lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries- all kinds of study helps

[joeb]

Joeb, try the Blue Letter Bible (or just have a look at the website- Google it). I was recommended it by the people at ssnet.org

It has LOTS of links to a Hebrew/Greek lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries- all kinds of study helps

I've used it, but I've found my digital Bible, Xiphos, has 99% of what the Blue Letter Bible has, and I don't have to maintain an internet connection to use it.

Xiphos has 22 Bible Commentaries as well as a few, like Heretics, out of copyright spiritual books and essays.

[Gibs]

EGW is your best by far Bible commentary and for the best Bible complete software, I recommend, SwordSearcher , for my money it is by far the best out there.

The Hebrew, Greek run along with the KJV and you can have all the Bibles you want and commentaries and it is extremely quick and easy to search

On sale now here,

http://www.baptistink.com/SwordSearcher-p/ssch-001.htm

I've had several that all cost hundreds of dollars and this one beats them all to pieces.

[Gail]

I will definitely take a look. Thanks for the tip, Gibs!

I've been recommended also LOGOS, but it is costly. Although, I guess if you consider all that you get, and all in one place, it would be worth it.

[Gail]

This is perhaps getting off topic, but just to comment on the Swordsearcher program:

Gibs, it looks good! I like its list of Bibles, and I have many of them already in bound form. I found a free version but it may be just a trial one.

Currently I am looking for some of the old classics... I have Bounds' book on prayer, a collection of Andrew Murray, Martin Luther and John Bunyan. I may also have John Wesley, some Sturgeon.

But of course, EGW is my favourite. They were written long ago but are SO current!

If you have any more suggestions, feel free to PM me.

[Gail]

Back to Westcott/Hort...

[Green Cochoa]

Westcott and Hort were in league with Roman Catholic scholars in making changes (edits) to the original manuscripts of the Bible, i.e. pre-translation "adjustments." The Catholic church, never one to be embarrassed about changing the Word of God, has all the documentation available online for anyone desiring to see it.

Here are links to some of the materials to be found.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Codex_Vaticanus

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1871

You will see Westcott and Hort featured prominently as having done more work with the manuscripts than even Tischendorff and others.

There is another page, whose link I didn't relocate just now, that speaks of the actual manuscripts that were being edited, mostly in the late 1800s/early 1900s. I will try to remember to post it later, should I come across it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Planey]

Green Cochoa,

I went to both of the links you posted, and after careful perusing I could find nothing to substantiate 'making changes (edits) to the original manuscripts of the Bible.'

Could you please quote the relative section(s) from your sources where your charge can be verified?

Thanks, Graeme

[John317]

Westcott and Hort were in league with Roman Catholic scholars in making changes (edits) to the original manuscripts of the Bible, i.e. pre-translation "adjustments." ....Here are links to some of the materials to be found.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Codex_Vaticanus

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=1871

You will see Westcott and Hort featured prominently as having done more work with the manuscripts than even Tischendorff and others.

There is another page, whose link I didn't relocate just now, that speaks of the actual manuscripts that were being edited, mostly in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Are you talking about ancient Greek manuscripts that Westcott and Hort are supposed to have altered or corrupted? Where do you find this information? Could you please quote the statements and give the references for them? What exactly did they change?

Personally I love the KJV and grew up reading it from the second grade on. It's still the primary Bible I choose to study and read. But I use dozens of other translations, as well as about 15 different printed Greek New Testaments, including the texts of Tischendorff and Wescott & Hort.

It's true, of course, that some translations are more accurate than others, but when you look at their textual basis, you find very few significant differences. You can trust the Bible. If there are differences among the translations that might lead a reader into false beliefs, you'll need to lay the blame elsewhere than on the underlying Greek text.

[Green Cochoa]

Green Cochoa,

I went to both of the links you posted, and after careful perusing I could find nothing to substantiate 'making changes (edits) to the original manuscripts of the Bible.'

Could you please quote the relative section(s) from your sources where your charge can be verified?

Thanks, Graeme

[Gregory Matthews]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

The above link may be of value in this discussion.

[Gregory Matthews]

It may be of interest to point out that Westcott was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. He was a Bishop in the Church of England.

Hort was also not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Rather he was also a member of the Church of England. At one time he was a Vicar of St. Ippolyts, church in Herts.