Is It Just to Slander Westcott & Hort?

[@moonglow7710]

These videos about Wescott and Hort are fascinating! Thank you.

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@sbs8331]

The highlight of this session, as good as all of it was, was the opening prayer by Westcott. I had to copy it from the transcript to share at my church. I, like others, don't agree with all his conclusions, but this wonderful prayer shows his love for his Lord and his desire to see his family follow Him. Thanks for sharing.

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@katielouise3924]

Love these educational videos about this disagreement on (and slander against) Westcott & Hort. Thank you for all your scholarly and Christian teachings. As I’m watching this on YT, right below your vid is a 2 yr. old video rendered by a church in OK entitled, “The Occultic Background of Wescott & Hort”. 😟 Anyway, may God bless you all in all you do and say.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, that's why we're here. And just wait till the next two videos come. That's where the real substance will be.

[@nickcraft5924]

You all ought to creat a TCC KZbin channel. It would give a nice Hub for all the TCC videos, and the KZbin algorithm would be able to push these long form podcasts type videos to the proper audiences

[@BibleVersionConspiracy]

Thank you all for getting together again! Just a question: Earlier in the conversation it was said that Gail Riplinger "publicly said she doesn't care" if her statements are true. 🤔 I would be VERY interested to see that. God bless!

[@markwardonwords]

Good question! I’ll see if I can get Peter to respond.

[@BibleVersionConspiracy]

@markwardonwords Thank you! 😊 If she did, wow! If Peter can show where she stated her disinterest in truthfulness, that will be explosive! 🤯 If she didn't, the irony of Peter's statement goes without being said. I appreciate you looking into this! 💖

[@bobbymichaels2]

She didn't say that. If she did, it was taken out of context.

[@markwardonwords]

The TCC is working on gathering info on this. We recognize that having to retract that statement would be indeed ironic.

[@fraukeschmidt8364]

Thank you. I am also interested to know about the source of this. I have a feeling it may just be confined to her assertion that B F Westcott the pastor was secretly the same as Wynne (?) Westcott the occultist. @@markwardonwords

[@joshuabissey]

This series will be a very important resource. I find it surprising that, when I've looked online, I find so little material about W&H that doesn't come from a KJVO perspective. W&H are important to the history of Bible translation, and are so widely maligned, it's puzzling that defenders of newer translations and post-1611 scholarship have done so little to offer a more balanced perspective on those 2 men. Thank you, TCC.

[@anthonykeve8894]

Post 1611 scholarship from the KJVO perspective boarders on a conflict in terms

[@pastorandrewbrady]

Much knowledge, with much humility and a desire to honor God at all times. This is an accurate description of TCC.

[@Bigdave203]

I appreciate these studies. Personally, I come from a background that is decidedly not KJV and was blissfully unaware of the issue until Seminary. These studies help me understand where the Textus Recepticus crowd are getting their taking points and i can address those in my congregation from this background.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, that's the goal!

[@rrsafety]

As always, a great video. Just want to put a vote in for the panel set up in the earlier videos. I like the feeling of “a round table discussion in a study” rather than this panel discussion format on a stage. Content is great nonetheless.

[@Matthew-307]

Your other video about Wescott & Hort truly opened my eyes to just hope much I’d been lied to about these two men. Thank you, brother.

[@markwardonwords]

It really is horrendous how they've been treated. =(

[@Matthew-307]

@@markwardonwords It’s two totally different pictures of these men, depending on who’s telling you about them. Wild. But the more I’ve learned about textual criticism, history of translation, etc, the more I pick up on falsehoods from KJVO videos.

[@markwardonwords]

@@Matthew-307 Right. If you feel you need to know what they were really like, then there's only one real answer: read them on your own! I say go for it!

[@Matthew-307]

@@markwardonwords Brother I get so burdened for these people. I just had a comment interaction with someone and it just hurts my heart to see the close-mindedness, the pride, and bitterness, and the ignorance and blindness of people trapped in the KJVO deception. It hurts me because I was one of them, and I just want to see them get knowledge and be set free. I quickly discerned what kind of mindset the gentleman was in, so I stopped replying, and then prayed for him, but it just hurts me to know that they’re robbing themselves of understanding, and also unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ. Just say a quick prayer for me if you read this, thanks brother. Be blessed of YHWH.

[@markwardonwords]

@Matthew-307 Done! We both need prayer!

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Appreciate the video. All I have heard is slander against Wescott and Hort. I am interested in hearing what they actually said.

[@markwardonwords]

You'll hear it! Keep watching the series!

[@annakimborahpa]

The last five and a half minutes of this video are an overview of where W&H fit in the Anglicanism of the 19th century (starting around 34:30).

[@robertcrowell9439]

Hey mark, I watched an interview with you on remnant radio, liked your position on kjv onlyism and subcribed to your channel. Great stuff! I'm new to text crit and saw on rem radio again a interview with s. Douglas woodward about the messiah being taken out of the maseretic text by i think first or second century rabinical scribes. Does this mean that the kjv old test text is corrupted? 😮

[@markwardonwords]

I'm skeptical of this viewpoint. But I'd point you to John Meade at the Text & Canon Institute (and their work more generally) for answers on this specific topic.

[@robertcrowell9439]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate the reference for information.

[@Outrider74]

An excellent video again, and one that lays thing out quite clearly about W&H. A couple of observations for you from your "Lutheran at the back of the class." 1.) @23-24min. The account detailed about the congregation "not really being saved" because of the pastor's defrocking sounds a lot like the Donatist controversy that St. Augustine had to deal with, which involved a similar sort of dilemma. 2.) The Oxford Movement was a fascinating subject to read. It really seems to boil down to an overcorrection from one extreme to the other. The Anglo-Catholics were correct in some of their assertions about the liberalization of the Church of England, so it is not hard to see why people were drawn into their movement. Their solution, however, to return to Rome (as several of the Anglo-Catholic proponents ended up doing outright) was an error in an ironic direction in that Rome, like liberalism, puts human tradition over and above biblical doctrine. 3.) I appreciated your reference to Erasmus and his dedication of the TR to Pope Leo X. I don't think a lot of KJVO advocates realize how instrumental Erasmus was in the influence of the 1611 translation.

[@Outrider74]

Addendum: I just read the sermon “National Apostasy” which was refernced in the video. I recommend it be read, especially in this day and age, as it had some very good points.

[@fraukeschmidt8364]

Thank you for this. I have been waiting for 2 decades (!) for something in defence of Westcott and Hort, something exposing as slander and untruth the accusations made against them by the likes of G A Riplinger. I had a painful journey of doubt about the Bible translations I grew up with. It was the early days of the internet and I spent many 100s of hours of reading material on the internet. After years, I landed on a view that leads to to prefer the Byzantine priority, "majority" text. In a way, Riplinger helped me come out the other end with my faith still in one piece, because her book - New Age Bible Versions - (which I have NOT read, only in excerpts) is so full of errors, omissions and misrepresentations and distortions of quotations.

[@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929]

24:00 The position that "bad seed can't produce good fruit" applied to mean that people cannot be converted or saved by "unclean" people is called Donatism, and it was condemned as heresy by the Church.

[@KildaltonBTS]

Deliberate misrepresentation (lying, slander, etc.) of a person's position is not only a sin, it demonstrates the weakness of their own position. Truth doesn't need a lie to defend it. Soli Deo Gloria ✝

[@markwardonwords]

I agree.

[@KildaltonBTS]

@@markwardonwords I just bought your books from Amazon and plan to use them in my current series on Bibliology. Most of the references in my notes (which I wrote in the 1990's) are from older works so it will be good to share a more current book.

[@CaptainMayo]

C.S. Lewis was a laymen. I believe you said he was a bishop? N.T. Wiight is a bishop. As an Anglican Priest I got a kick out of your explanation of Anglicanism which is the largest Protestant denomination with about 90,000,000 members. An enjoyable presentation by all. Thank you...

[@michealferrell1677]

Good to see Peter M again

[@AlienDad]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you,TCC. Great job.🌹⭐🌹

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@BibleVersionConspiracy]

I'm sad you guys really only got to the subject toward the end. 😭 Looking forward to the next one.

[@kevinshort2230]

I like this piece overall. I remember reading Hort's The Christian Ekklesia, and I always found his work interesting in light of his accusations.

[@TheOjnop]

Not my favourite of the Textual Confidence Collective presentations. Maybe this one is incorrectly titled, since it really doesn’t address what Westcott and Hort were saying (or are accused of saying).

[@markwardonwords]

Yeah, it will make more sense when heard with the next one.

[@annakimborahpa]

The last five and a half minutes of this video are an overview of where W&H fit in the Anglicanism of the 19th century (starting around 34:30).

[@a_hanna]

in the video around the 22:15 mark, a statement was made by Peter M. that Erasmus stayed in the Roman Catholic Church and never separated from them: "because he did not want to be cut off from his sources of funding, he was very obvi---, this wasn't ambiguous why he was doing this" and you and Tim agreed with him on this statement. As I have been doing some reading on Erasmus, I had not read this particular impetus for Erasmus remaining in this religious organization that he did not agree with for financial reasons, I was under the impression he remained faithful to the RCC because he wanted to reform it from within - so this struck me as extremely odd, - is there reference material you have for this?

[@larrytruelove8659]

Hanna Leaving the RCC was not really an option for Erasmus. We look at it from hindsight. The RCC was all there was for any serious scholar. And there was the risk to his life.

[@a_hanna]

@@larrytruelove8659 you missed the point, they (the TCC) slandered him by saying he stayed in for the money, and they have no source material for such a statement.

[@larrytruelove8659]

@@a_hanna I’m not sure I saw the whole thing. But, I mostly agree that money was not his main motive, although there is some possibility. There was nothing to be gained by leaving the Catholic Church, and everything to lose. If nothing else, access to learning, status and position would be at stake.

[@a_hanna]

@@larrytruelove8659 again, you keep missing the point, the TCC place themselves on such high ground, and demonize everyone else that does not hold to their way of thought, in doing so, they want to preach about "slandering people" without having proper source material; they did it to Gail Riplinger in the video and also here with Erasmus.

[@billcovington5836]

I’ve been on the edge of my seat, waiting to hear the actual correspondence quotes from W & H refuted. Maybe in the next video?

[@tony.biondi]

Thank you - excellent!

[@markwardonwords]

You are welcome!

[@kevinshort2230]

Maybe I missed it, but Caiaphas prophecy (John 11), and Balaam are perhaps the strongest examples that a prophecy is perverted by an unbelievers touch.

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

Deut 6.4-6, Mark 12.28-32, Jojn 17.3, John 20.17, Rom 15.6, Rom 16.27, I Cor 8.6, II Cor 11.31, I Tim 2.5, Rev 1.5-6, Rev 3.12.

[@davidchilds9590]

"All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 (KJV) "Who then can be saved?... with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:25-26 (KJV). Sola gratia; sola scriptura.

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

Thank you for the reminder to be careful with accusations. I was KJV only for a long time. Towards the end of my being KJV only, someone I was listening to, was asked to demonstrate an error in the KJV. They did, but it wasn't one I would consider major. It was pretty small as far as errors go. And I had never heard of this particular place being in error. The bottom line is that as I pulled up my Greek New testament, and looked at what it said, I realized that even though it was a tiny error, I had to admit that if I were reading a Greek New Testament, I would never have read that verse the way the KJV has it..... The thing is, I didnt admit it was an error for a while. I got really really angry! I hated the man who pointed this situation out, and wondered why God would even let people say the things this man said.... I thought I was zealous and defending God at the time. It was only later that I realized it was fleshly anger, and was completely evil and wrong. Later I asked God to forgive my anger, and foolish thoughts regarding this situation. It took acknowledging that I was wrong, before I realized the extent to which fleshly anger, hate, and pride was controlling aspects of my faith. I had to accept that zeal without knowledge is a bad thing. Having some time to really think things through after removing myself from KJV only ism, I realized that the very strong emotions that would pour out of me over this issue, were because of 2 things. First, I learned to have outbursts over this from others who would have strong emotional reactions. I grew up seeing a lot of emotion over this. So partlt is was learned behavior. But secondly, I was taught that if a Bible had an error, yes that is singular, then I could not trust what that Bible said. And if we could not trust the Bible.....then how do we trust God? So my teaching, which I embraced, led me to a place, where a man, being asked a question, and him answering that question with a simple answer, was pulling the entire rug out from under me, and undermining my entire faith....all of it. And that is the main reason I believe I got so angry, and had such emotional outbursts over this topic. I later realized that my faith was Jesus and faith in him, but that there was a catch....it was only faith in him if the KJV was flawless. My faith was structured in a way to completely and totally crater if a single word in the KJV was wrong. I never stopped to ask myself what people in 1610 did. How could they have true faith without the KJV. In time I realized that each major English Bible prior to the KJV had Psalm 12:7 translated as you will find in modern English Bibles. I was taught those were all wrong in that verse.....so that would make all the English Bibles prior to the KJV wrong. Which would mean that all of those Bibles were corrupted and could not be trusted....so how did any of those people have faith and trust God, using those Bibles? I decided to read the KJV translators, and William Tyndale. I was shocked and encouraged. I ended up choosing to adopt the view that those men had regarding the scripture and preservation. And it was not KJV only. It was the belief that Christians held before there was a KJV. Now my faith is in Jesus. If a particular translation has an error, that has nothing to do with the real and true God who exists. He does not fail if a man or a printing machine fails. He does not succeed or fail depending on my copy of the Bible having an oopsie in one spot, or not. He is the one who knows all, not me. We know in part and prophesy in part. He knows all, and thats enough for me to trust him.

[@MAMoreno]

*Now my faith is in Jesus. If a particular translation has an error, that has nothing to do with the real and true God who exists. He does not fail if a man or a printing machine fails. He does not succeed or fail depending on my copy of the Bible having an oopsie in one spot, or not. He is the one who knows all, not me. We know in part and prophesy in part. He knows all, and thats enough for me to trust him.* Bingo. That's the key difference between a healthy faith in Christ and an excessive faith in a certain Bible translation.

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

@@MAMoreno I think in some ways, I was sort of like Thomas. My position was demanding that I could only truly believe if I could hold perfection in my hands, feel it, see it, read it, know it..... I think about Job. What if someone told him, you can only have real faith, if you can hold a flawless copy of the 66 books that haven't been written yet? Then what? How did he have faith?

[@gregb6469]

Granted that Wescott and Hort were not the wicked apostates the KJV-onlyists accuse them of being, that doesn't mean they weren't way off on how they did textual criticism.

[@markwardonwords]

True. But even if they were off on their NT textual criticism, slandering them is actually *hurting* the KJV-Onlyists' ability to reveal their errors.

[@annakimborahpa]

As in using Alexandrian Text Type sources?

[@davidfehr235]

@@markwardonwords I agree! Slander is evil! Westcott and Hort as well as Bryan Ross do not benefit from being slandered!

[@KildaltonBTS]

23:45 That sounds like a repeat of the Donatist error of the 4th century, that the validity of a Baptism depends the state of the baptizer.

[@nicobrits5111]

I would have loved to see the following time travel incident. Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp and Gail Riplinger attending the inauguration service of the KJV by the Lord Bishop of Winchester Lancelot Andrewes chair of the translation project. I would send an Ambulance along because a stroke and heart attack might occur at the same time in our travellers.

[@rrsafety]

CS Lewis had a nuanced view of biblical inerrancy. He believed the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that some sections were purposely historical. Other sections were purposely poetical, and others were purposely sacred fictional stories. CS Lewis would maintain that the concept of inerrancy in regards to a fictional sacred story is a nonsensical proposition. It is fair to say that the parables of Jesus are not historical in that the stories in the parables did not actually happen; they were stories told by Jesus. The desire to assert that a fictional parable is inerrant or historical are meaningless concepts.

[@MAMoreno]

I've made a similar point in the past: what is an inerrant poem? Just saying those words together makes me think that it would have something to do with perfect meter or some other technical detail that has little to do with how utterly trustworthy the promises of God are when the psalmist expresses them. The term "inerrancy" just feels wrong when applied to literature, even if I understand the intent of those who use the word.

[@sbs8331]

Inerrancy differs from literalism. Those who hold to the former understand poetic and symbolic / apocryphal portions are not to be interpreted literally. However, I don't see how one can reject the literal accuracy of historical narratives, e.g. Adam & Eve, Jonah, et al., and still be an inerrantist, though I don't know where Lewis stood on these.

[@MAMoreno]

@@sbs8331 If someone rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis 2-4 and the book of Jonah, it would be because that person thought that neither one belonged to the genre of "historical narrative," but rather to "creation myth" and "folktale," respectively. So if lyrical poetry and apocalyptic literature can be "inerrant" but not literal, so can the examples you mentioned.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Dialog among the different camps would be nice, but throwing verbal stones is better than hitting a pillow with a plastic bat. So sad.

[@danbrown586]

I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that your title question answers itself--slander, by definition, is unjust. But you don't need 40 minutes to say that, so off to watch the video.

[@markwardonwords]

Got a better title suggestion? Seriously-I struggled with this one!

[@adammcgeorge3538]

@@markwardonwords”interesting ramblings on slander, Wescott and Hort, and the History of Anglicanism” :)

[@markwardonwords]

@@adammcgeorge3538 Ha! You're not wrong!

[@adammcgeorge3538]

@@markwardonwords some sermons are hard to title also ;)

[@annakimborahpa]

Starting at about 34:30, there's an overview of where W&H are positioned in 19th century Anglicanism.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Brothers, as an editor I would recommend not using the AI enhancer in these videos. For longform content it’s really hard to listen to because it sounds unnatural. God bless

[@markwardonwords]

You’re right. It was the only thing I knew to do for some really bad audio. :(

[@andrettisampson9835]

I would say that this idea of corruptible seed came from or at least really flourished from the Jack Hyles cult. This is a quote from his book “Enemies of Soul Winning” and is the conclusion of the ideology, this is in reference to salvation “Can a person then be born again from it? You answer that question. According to I Peter 1:23 we read, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed..." Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible. Does that mean that if someone goes soul winning and takes a false Bible that the person who receives Christ is not saved? I believe with all of my soul that the incorruptible seed must have been used somewhere in that person's life. If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used, and I Peter 1:23 is very plain to tell us that a person cannot be born again of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed, and it explains that that incorruptible seed is the Word of God, and it explains that it liveth and abideth forever.”

[@hayfieldhermit9657]

If it were true that the KJV is the only uncorrupted seed, and if it were true that salvation can only be received from Jesus, if we hear of him through the KJV.....then how did anyone receive salvation in 1610? Lastly, if I were to have only a handful a verses from the book of John, that would be more than enough to understand what Jesus is offering to us, that is his salvation of us. Therefore, even If a Bible contains some errors, but the greater part is true, then there is the truth to be able to understand the truth of the gospel.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

11:00 reputational dammers. I like it.

[@annakimborahpa]

Elijah Hixson at 22:30-54: "We have colophons that tell us about who wrote some of these manuscripts. Not always. Sometimes they didn't write one. Sometimes they don't survive, but when you look at a manuscript and I see a scribe thanking Mary for giving them the grace to finish this book of the Gospels, I think that's probably not somebody who would be invited to preach." Response: Imagine that. Does it appear like these scribes personally took to heart Jesus' words from the cross in John 19:26-27 (KJV)? "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." And did these scribes desire to be included in this multitude? "...for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48, KJV).

[@MAMoreno]

The point remains: so much of the King James Only movement is found within the most extremely low-church edges of Protestantism, which usually can barely even muster a kind word about the Virgin Mary, lest they be accused of idolatry. So the fact that they're relying on the work of scribes who would've accused them of Nestorianism is ironic in light of their distrust of more recent scholars who align more closely with their beliefs.

[@annakimborahpa]

1. As this series of videos indicates, there appears to be no consistent rationale in the defense of KJV Onlyism except to attack anyone in any manner who disagrees with that position. 2. I can't presume to say who the ancient scribes would accuse of whatever, but I think Nestorius himself got a bad rap from Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. 3. After being deposed as Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius returned to his monastery in Antioch but Cyril wouldn't leave well enough alone. Cyril banished Nestorius to Upper Egypt in the farthest southern reaches of the then Roman Empire to a monastery repeatedly under attack by marauders, where he died nearby after being wounded. 4. Although Nestorius claimed that his views had been misrepresented, a view that recent scholarship says is possible, he humbly submitted in obedience to Cyril, an obedience that I consider heroic. 5. Therefore, although history paints Nestorius in a negative light except in the Assyrian Church of the East where he is venerated as a saint, we may be surprised by heaven's verdict of him. Was Cyril jockeying for the power of Alexandria over that of Constantinople in his treatment of Nestorius? His insults of Nestorius were definitely uncharitable. 6. On Friday, 11 November 1994, the Vatican issued the COMMON CHRISTOLOGICAL DECLARATION OF POPE JOHN PAUL II AND HIS HOLINESS MAR DINKHA IV, CATHOLICOS-PATRIARCH OF THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST establishing cordial relations, if not communion, between the two churches. 7. Likewise, I think Pelagius, while Rome did condemn a few of his propositions, got a bad rap from Augustine of Hippo who used him as a rhetorical punching bag. Heaven's verdict of Pelagius may be quite different from what has been handed down in history, he being tarnished as someone who completely denied the necessity of God's grace, perhaps unjustly. 8. Another is Origen of Alexandria who gets a bad rap in both the East and West, although some in the East esteem his writings. Due to his excessively hyperactive method of theological speculation, he espoused subordination positions on the Trinity, as well as a belief in the preexistence of souls, branding him for doctrine that would not be condemned until after his death at the Council of Nicea. Origen's father is venerated as a martyr and the manner of Origen's slow death as a result of persecution injuries looks like Christian martyrdom to me.

[@Yallquietendown]

Lord a’mercy you are obsessed with this subject 😂

[@robertgomez7409]

That’s what the channel is about lol it’s like Leighton Flowers with Soteriology. It’s the same subject just different cuts of the same rock.

[@igregmart]

1. I'm surprised that a guest is using the KJV. Considering that advocates of the modern versions are always poo-pooing what they call "archaic words" they say are all over the KJV. Guess what, I was able to understand all the words in the verses quoted. 2. Ah, the experts, the qualified ones, we must "trust" them. Ok. Which experts shall we trust. The dozens of men who were the KJV translators back in 1611, who spent most of their lives studying multiple languages and used manuscripts and sources that have been used since the beginning of the Christian era (The Byzantine line, Majority Text, etc). Or, should we trust men of the 1800's to the present who inject manuscripts not used much by Christendom (or in some cases not even found) until the 1800's or even more recently? If we were to use the latter, that would mean God did not perfectly preserve his word for all generations for around the first 1600 years. 3. I don't think Mr. Ward likes the following question? For English speaking people, where do I find Gods perfectly preserved word? Well, I have it. It is the King James version. If the KJV is NOT the perfectly preserved word of God in English tell me which version is it? "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3.7) 4. The issue is not that translators have to be perfect men. None are. The primary questions are which manuscripts are they using, are they honest translators or are they injecting their own beliefs into the translation. 5. For myself, I do trust the 1611 translators infinitely more than the translators from 1800 to the present.

[@MAMoreno]

Neither Mark Ward nor anyone else involved in this video series has a problem with using the KJV. They have a problem with *exclusively* using the KJV and treating it as infallible in a way that no other English Bible can be. Some of the most brilliant scientists in human history lived during the Enlightenment. But thankfully, our understanding of the natural world did not end with the great minds of the Enlightenment. Later scientists both built upon their foundation and revised their hypotheses based on new evidence. It's not an insult to Isaac Newton to say that our understanding has advanced since his time. The very insistence upon a "perfect English Bible" rings of Anglocentrism. But if there were to be a perfect English Bible in 2024, it would need to be in a form that's reflective of standard English in 2024. Basic common sense rules out any translation from the 1500s-1600s. (Sorry, Douay-Rheims Onlyists! You'll have to take your sedevacantism elsewhere!) All translators, no matter how honest, inject their own beliefs into the translation. The KJV has an Anglican bias, though not such an extreme one that it proved useless to everyone else. Their translation choices are still heavily influenced by the Vulgate and by medieval Catholic interpretations of certain verses, while modern versions (even Catholic ones!) tend to be less bound by those interpretations.

[@igregmart]

@@MAMoreno "The very insistence upon a "perfect English Bible" rings of Anglocentrism." The English language is the defacto language of the world. No language has done more to spread the Gospel than the English language. Even in many large foreign nations the English language is spoken, if not as a first language, then as a second language. Does anyone actually believe that God would not see to it that there was a perfectly preserved word in such a language? "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24.35) "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 48.8)

[@MAMoreno]

@@igregmart " No language has done more to spread the Gospel than the English language." No, Greek has done more to spread the Gospel than any other language. That's the language God used to spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, which is what ensured that the faith would endure throughout the centuries. Second after that would be Latin, which became the official tongue of Western Christianity throughout the Middle Ages. Furthermore, while 21st century English is the "defacto language of the world," as you put it, Jacobean English is not. The KJV is disqualified from being the perfect English Bible by the fact that it's too archaic to be suitable for the job. If you were arguing for, say, the 2011 edition of the NIV, I'd still be disagreeing with you on principle, but at least you'd be able to appeal to the argument that it uses strictly modern international (i.e. not distinctly British or American) English.

[@igregmart]

@@MAMoreno I said "spread" the gospel. Meaning to the most number people and nations through out the entire world. Also English language history is divided into three periods. Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Guess which period the KJV is part of. Yep, Modern English. The KJV is also very precise. Using thees and thous etc. helps to clarify plural from singular words. I used two verses from the KJV in my previous post. They are understandable to me, and hopefully yourself.

[@MAMoreno]

@@igregmart While you might be able to get what Isaiah 40.8 says in the KJV, it's much clearer in the NET Bible: "The grass dries up, the flowers wither, but the decree of our God is forever reliable." So too, Matthew 24.35 is clearer in the NCV: "Earth and sky will be destroyed, but the words I have said will never be destroyed." In both cases, the modern versions clarify that these verses are *not* about the preservation of the KJV throughout the centuries, but rather about the trustworthiness of divine declarations.

[@bradphi2359]

Maybe we should read The life and letters of Fenton Anthony John Hort before making pronouncements

[@davidbraun6209]

You need to broaden your horizons a tad. Not every viewer is from a church that (1) embraces the Reformation or (2) has a tradition of using the Authorized Version. While I might agree that, as Popes had gone, Leo X was somewhat problematic, I still put it he was the canonical occupant of the Chair of Peter. And Erasmus, for all his thoughts that would draw criticism from the Council of Trent, was in the last analysis still Catholic because he really did believe in the ancient Faith as opposed to the new-fangled thinking from Wittenberg, Zürich or Génève. It was not just a matter of following the funding; the local magnates had co-opted Luther into getting farther away from Rome than he had originally planned to go, and they could arrange to fund and protect Erasmus had he chosen to throw in with the Reformation. No, rather like Reuchlin (the reviver of Hebrew studies) and even Staupitz (Luther's confessor), Erasmus was rather skeptical of the young men's rebellion.

[@bobbymichaels2]

Slander is the wrong word. I prefer expose.

[@sbs8331]

You may prefer it, but slander is more accurate given how rampant are personal insults coming from the KJVO / TRO gang.

[@bobbymichaels2]

Why so much effort to defend Westcott and Hort? They erred.

[@farainyika2365]

I deny the deity of Jesus. He was a human being, the son of David and the son of God, literally. If that makes me a heretic then great. There is only one God, the Father. And Jesus is the Messiah and our Lord and saviour.

[@scottwtrentjr4012]

Well finally some one(s) in the Textual Criticism Only field is seeking or has now tried to prove that those two men were NOT believers in the Bible that forms the base of all Christian belief since 1611 and it's final edition in 1769...... and even since Erasmus did the world's first Greek N. T. that WAS based on the BEST and MAJORITY of texts that were used by the CHURCH since the days of the Apostles.... W & H's work (their Greek N.T.) was and still is a false translation since it was and is based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of which are NOT OLD scriptures! ONE created in 1837 to 1839 (let's give the creator a little more breathing room for his work) and the OTHER is a Medieval or Middle Ages creation.... for in no way does either one of them support the DATE that these "textual criticism ONLY" folks project as truth....AND than the fact that the Greek N.T. that is used today the (Nestle-Aland) version was built on faulty scriptures only make IT worse...!! To some folks this "defense" of those two men does NOT meet the "smell test".... FOR did not GOD say to and HE did bring HIS people "out of Egype" and so why should we now accept any scripture writings that come "out of Egypt"...?? We should not, for GOD's word started in the land of HIS people, and IT spread NORTHWARDS, not Eastwards or Southwards and those 1st. thru the coming yrs. scripture truths are the ones to be followed... So once again the OLDEST is BEST theory is NOT truth and IT should not be the BASE of any translation of GOD's HOLY WORDS....!!! Period, end of discussion, except that perhaps some day these "textual criticsim ONLY" folks will see the LIGHT......!!!

[@annakimborahpa]

You wrote: "Well finally some one(s) in the Textual Criticism Only field is seeking or has now tried to prove that those two men were NOT believers in the Bible that forms the base of all Christian belief since 1611 and it's final edition in 1769." Response: Is this Bible you are referring to "the base of all Christian belief" for all language groups throughout the world?

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Fallacious and peurile arguments if ever there were any. You really should read what experts in fields like paleopgraphy have to say about the dating of manuscripts. On your logic, too, we should throw out Trinitarian theology because its greatest defender against Arianism in 4th century was Athanasius of Alexandria. Gee, he might even have used Codex Sinaiticus as his reference text...

[@scottwtrentjr4012]

Yes, in regards to what most folks call the "modern Bibles" that are based on W&H's 1881 Greek New Testament....

[@scottwtrentjr4012]

Not really for the EARLY Church Fathers believed in it and I see no need to change that view ... @@Berean_with_a_BTh

[@scottwtrentjr4012]

Well that is part of the "confusion" perhaps, for over the yrs. I've seen videos of "scholars" saying that they are MOSTLY based on the Vaticanus and I've seen others who say the Siniatinus... so which is it? And even others have said both, and along with various "other" papyri ... LOL....