Westcott & Hort

[Johann]

Not out of place on this forum. But don't expect that you will find agreement or support for your point of view. And don't expect to get support by implying that those who disagree with you are delusional.

Really, if you expect to be given a fair hearing and consideration that you may be right, you likewise need to be open to being wrong yourself and give other points of view a fair hearing too with the real possibility that they may be right.

Yes, you are right.

[Green Cochoa]

Not out of place on this forum. But don't expect that you will find agreement or support for your point of view. And don't expect to get support by implying that those who disagree with you are delusional.

Really, if you expect to be given a fair hearing and consideration that you may be right, you likewise need to be open to being wrong yourself and give other points of view a fair hearing too with the real possibility that they may be right.

Thank you, Tom. It just seemed that some of the posters felt certain points relative to the modern versions were out of place here, and I'm a newcomer to this forum. I certainly feel no special burden to urge unwanted views upon anyone else. My only burden is to see that the truth is presented so that people have the option to then choose it. Many truths are being lost in this great war, and few continue to elevate them.

I am willing to hear truth, and am open to truth, even if it disagrees with my present views. I will hold to my present views as long as a more reliable understanding of truth is not presented to me. I have, however, studied this issue fairly thoroughly, and I am persuaded that the truth is largely disagreeable to many people because it would make them uncomfortable in their present theologies.

Though people may try to deny this, there are theologies creeping into the church today that have their beginnings in the modern translations--theologies which are part of Satan's last great deception.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Rachel,

Your statement seems to strike at one of our doctrines which may be one of the most important. We are told if we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven ourselves. The Lord's prayer teaches this principle. Furthermore, Jesus said that if we should speak against Him, it would be forgiven us, but if we speak against the Holy Spirit, it would not be forgiven. The modern movement against the Holy Spirit may be one of the devil's ways of keeping us from the truth--and of getting us into a state beyond which God can reach us. The modern versions of the Bible certainly do obscure the identity of the Holy Spirit.

Mrs. White makes clear use of Matthew 28:19, and multiple other texts present the three-person Godhead. Here are some examples of both:

We are to be consecrated channels, through which the heavenly life is to flow to others. The Holy Spirit is to animate and pervade the whole church, purifying and cementing hearts. Those who have been buried with Christ in baptism are to rise to newness of life, giving a living representation of the life of Christ. Upon us is laid a sacred charge. The commission has been given us: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world." Matthew 28:19, 20, margin. You are dedicated to the work of making known the gospel of salvation. Heaven's perfection is to be your power. {9T 20.2}

... Clothed with boundless authority, He gave His disciples their commission, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end." Matthew 28:19, 20. {AA 29.2}

We are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and these three great, infinite powers are unitedly pledged to work in our behalf if we will cooperate with them. We are buried with Christ in baptism as an emblem of His death. {LHU 109.2}

[Tom Wetmore]

Yet, before any modern translation ever existed, when the KJV was the source material, most heresies we have now were born. How do you explain that?

[Gail]

The RV retains Matt. 28:19...

[Green Cochoa]

Yet, before any modern translation ever existed, when the KJV was the source material, most heresies we have now were born. How do you explain that?

Heresies have existed since the beginning of sin. God's Word is not the source of them. But it is only more recently that God's Word has itself been made corrupt in almost every language of the world. All of the modern translations today, in any language, have the corrupt manuscripts handled by Westcott and Hort as their source.

The Burmese Bible, translated by Adoniram Judson more than 160 years ago, is a rare exception. But it is also outlawed throughout Burma (Myanmar) today. The devil has his ways of preventing people from getting the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Ted Oplinger]

Yet, before any modern translation ever existed, when the KJV was the source material, most heresies we have now were born. How do you explain that?

That the older English is not as well understood 200 years after the KJV was written, as the people thought they did, maybe? People were arguing about what the older English may have said.

[Tom Wetmore]

And that is the point I was trying to make. It is a matter if interpretion and misunderstanding of the words or Scripture, not so much because of errors in translation and transcription, but because of errors in the minds of those reading into Scripture what they want it to say, rather than letting it speak for itself. And that includes many claims here in this topic about supposed errors, as has already been pointed out.

You claim to have spent a great deal of time studying this issue. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, much of your source material critical of modern translations and in defense of the KJV only have as many or more errors in their critique as what they clam to criticize. Very few, if any, reputable and qualified scholars agree or support them.

Really, on a broader level, there is nothing on earth touched by mankind that is perfect and uncorrupted. But equally true, there isn't anything that remains here that does not have some value or redeeming qualities. If one is looking for flaws one is sure to find what they are looking for. And if one seeks after what is good and of value they will find it. But if your focus is primarily and narrowly on one over the other, you will loose sight of the other.

[Naomi]

[CoAspen]

I know it has been asked before, but.....the question still remains, do we worship the words of the Bible or the God of the Bible? If errors are or have been introduced down through the centuries and people are led astray by them, what does that say about the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit? If God can not correct any 'errors' in peoples lives, then of what value would be the 'words', in the first place?

[Gail]

What bothers me, and it may just be the nature of the topic in this particular thread, is that we are seeing lots of negative regarding God's word, more than the positive, life-giving power of it.

For sure, we need Scripture that is in a language that today's people can understand. What I tell people is, learn as much as you can. Study and plead for the Spirit's guidance. He that desires to do His will shall know of the doctrine- John 7:17(?)

I believe we need to focus on helping people connect with God. It might mean being aware of what versions the people around us are reading in order to offer light to add to their knowledge.

I am afraid that once people get into the condemnation spirit that will be hard to kick.

[8thdaypriest]

We are entering upon "the time of the end." And I believe the LORD will bring His people to a "pure" faith. The 144,000 are called "virgins" BECAUSE they espouse a "pure" faith. Why are we surprised that God will strip away errors for those of us to be "cleaned up" for these "last days" ?

Why should we be surprised that the Evil One has tried to corrupt even the written Word?

"Test all things. Keep that which is good."

And yes - there is a LOT of GOOD.

[8thdaypriest]

I don't think that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ would be a sin against the holy Spirit. His own disciples were doing it.

I know that you put the EGW quotes there for the other folks.

I understand.

Shalom,

Rachel

[Johann]

Is it possible to make some words in a particular translation of the Bible our idol that will keep us from worshiping our Creator and the WORD?

[Gail]

Or keep us from living according to the word...

It's one thing to be informed. It's another to dwell on the error, like another diversion.

[Green Cochoa]

IT DOESN'T MATTER

"It's not important," I hear them say,

If the Bible reads another way,

"It's not important," they like to think,

If the Word is pure, or has some stink,

"It's not important," some folk declare,

If some of the Bible's words aren't there,

"It's not important," they even claim,

If words get added in Jesus' name!

"It doesn't matter," they might protest,

"No translation could be all the best.

"It doesn't matter, whether God's law,

"Is changed a bit, or held in such awe--

"It's not important!"

"It's not important," they say anew,

When the modern Bibles line every pew,

"It doesn't matter," their message goes,

"If God's law's abolished by our foes."

They do not see how "small things" matter,

Not discerning how such can shatter

The grandest truths of Sacred Scripture--

It only takes a little mixture.

Satan loves to blend in his errors

With noble truths to hide their terrors.

Yet many people, unprotestant,

Repeat again "it's not important--

"IT DOESN'T MATTER."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

To whom are you directing this poem, Green?

[Johann]

So much powder wasted in support of a Bible endorsed by the Anglo-Catholic Church of England

Quote:

The high church party places importance on the Church of England's continuity with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, adherence to ancient liturgical usages and the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood. As their name suggests, Anglo-Catholics maintain many traditional Catholic practices and liturgical forms.

Wikipedia.org/Church_of_England

This is what the translators of the KJV had to have in mind. They were not permitted to let the Puritans (Waldensians) have any say over the Bible translation.

[Tom Wetmore]

Excellent point! It should also be noted that the so called "Recieved Text" was the work of the Catholic Church.

It tends to confirm that some of our most conservative members have a greater affinity for the traditions of Catholicism than for the heirs of the Reformation.

[Gerr]

It seems to me that the best thing to do is check the translations for oneself. The archaic language of the KJV is what drove me away from it. Is not the purpose of translations to make the message of the Bible more understandable to contemporary peoples? So far I have not found any doctrine-changing difference between the Received Text and the W & H-based UBS. To me the doctrine of the sanctuary comes out more clearly in the ESV than the KJV!

[Johann]

Should we consider these statements?

Quote:

In their preface to the King James Version, the Translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." Thus, Archbishop Bancroft was known for his determination to make everyone conform to the views of the State Church, the Church of England. He harassed and persecuted the Puritans and other Non-conformists, including Baptists.

Quote:

In spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (MEN BEHIND THE KJV, p. 128).

Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). "Prelacy" refers to a system of church government by Prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops set over more than one local church.

Were these fourteen changes directly inspired or approved by God? Are they the "verbally inspired Word of God, preserved through all ages since the Apostles?" One reason to question these fourteen changes is that the changes were certainly made to support episcoplian church government views of the Church of England. The changes were also in violation of some of the translation rules for the KJV. In addition, expressed opposition by some of the KJV translators to these changes indicate that these changes were viewed wrong by these translators.

http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/bancroft.html

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The nineteenth century New Testament textual scholars---such as Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort—worked on the basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. We should continue this line of recovery using the testimony of the earlier witnesses. But textual scholars since the time of Westcott and Hort have been less inclined to produce editions based on the theory that the earliest reading is the best. Most present-day textual critics are more inclined to endorse the maxim: the reading that is most likely original is the one that best explains the variants.

‘* * * * * *

This can lead to subjective eclecticism.

Modern textual scholars have attempted to temper the subjectivism by employing a method called “reasoned eclecticism.” Reasoned eclecticism applies a combination of internal and external considerations, evaluating the character of the variants in light of the manuscript’s evidence and vice versa in order to obtain a balanced view of the matter and as a check upon purely subjective tendencies. Philip W. Comfort, “Texts & Manuscripts of the New Testament” in Philip W. Comfort, Editor, THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE, Tyndale House,1992, pages 204 & 205.

Looking carefully at the above one gets a broader picture on the MSS used to translate the Bible than has been represented by some.

The above cited book is a 308 page book that contains articles by a number of people such as F. F. Bruce, Carl F. H. Henry and other well-known conservative theologians. I recommend it.