Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Sinners Reject God's Word and Create their own Theology

Your "Chick and Riplinger" rant is a non sequitur in this thread (typical).


lol @ your damage control piece from the private company, one-man-band, Christian Publishing House:

"The final conclusion here is simple, Westcott and Hort had some missteps spiritually as young men, they were not perfect as to their beliefs as young men, and they are under attack because they were the producers of the text that undermined the Textus Receptus that had been worshipped for centuries..." - EDWARD D. ANDREWS, CEO and President of Christian Publishing House.

Or, if you want more of this guy Andrews, check out one of dozens of his other diatribes such as this head bender:

"FOR AS I THINK IN MY HEART SO AM I: Combining Biblical Counseling with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy"

New version 'editors' Westcott and Hort called themselves heretics, as documented in their biographies - which is easy to document, but would detract (as per your petty intent) from the OP's gist. Rather, as a followup to Dylan569's comments on the "Orthodox Church," I merely documented W&H's own words that confirm their attack on orthodoxy.
The articles in Wikipedia do give the sources, as intelligent people recognize. The following as they are given on the Bob Larson article, and you brought forth the name "Bob Larson":

References

Melton, J. Gordon (1999). Religious leaders of America: a biographical guide to founders and leaders of religious bodies, churches, and spiritual groups in North America. Gale Research. p. 321. ISBN 0-8103-8878-2.
"Personals". McCook Daily Gazette. 1998-01-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2010-09-20.
Jon Trott (1993). "Bob Larson's Ministry Under Scrutiny". Cornerstone. 21 (100): 18, 37, 41–42. ISSN 0275-2743. Archived from the original on 2006-06-10. Retrieved 2006-06-08.
Bialik, Kristen (26 May 2012). "The Church of Satan Interviewed by Televangelist Bob Larson: Not the Conversation You Think It Is". Huffington Post. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
Kelefa, Sanneh (18 Jan 2019). "Record Deal with the Devil". This American Life podcast. Retrieved 29 Jan 2019.
"Glen Benton answers crowd questions at Deicide show 11 February 2009 at Jaxx in Springfield, VA". YouTube. 12 February 2009.
Stollznow, Karen (2013). God Bless America. Pitchstone Publishing. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-939578-00-6.
Charlet Duboc. "Teenage Exorcists". Vice. Archived from the original on 3 August 2013. Retrieved 3 August 2013.
"Teenage Exorcists Respond to Vice Media Report". Retrieved 3 August 2013.
Gupta, Prachi (14 October 2014). ""The Daily Show's" Jessica Williams gets an exorcism via Skype". Salon. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
""The Daily Show's" Jessica Williams gets an exorcism via Skype". Comedy Central. Archived from the original on March 27, 2018. Retrieved 26 March 2018.

For those interested in a recognized authority on the cults, read "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin, as seen in Amazon -

The Kingdom of the Cults: The Definitive Work on the Subject


Dr. Walter Martin (PhD, California Coast University) held four earned degrees and was the author of a dozen books. He was internationally known as the host of The Bible Answer Man, a popular syndicated radio call-in program in the U.S. and Canada. He was also the founder and director of Christian Research Institute. Dr. Martin died in 1989.

The Web Site for the Christian Research Institute:
 
...Walter Martin...
Sure, Martin works just as well as most re: the definition of a cult. But hey, why don't you continue your misdirect by arguing with the chaplain here, as you might have better luck with a female.

RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS
  1. Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving
  2. Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders
  3. Dishonoring the family unit
  4. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  5. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  6. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  7. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies, and persecutions.
  8. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  9. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  10. The group/leader is always right.
  11. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
 
From: Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Internet Resources for Students of Scripture

The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, perhaps because it was issued the same year as the English Revised Version which followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text.

It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort was not the first printed Greek Testament that deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus. (11)

Likewise, it is important to recognize that the English Revised New Testament which came out in 1881 was not directly based on the text of Westcott and Hort, although in many particulars they are the same. The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns (12). It is true that the Westcott-Hort text and the English Revised New Testament of 1881 are rather similar to each other, but they are not identical.

Though the Westcott-Hort text was the "standard" critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by anyone, and has not been for many years. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. (13) The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required. (14)

None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

-----------------------------

These sober and sensible judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the writings of some detractors of critical texts who write as though those texts were a Pandora's box of heresy. In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion.

The preceding comes from the section on The Greek Text of the New Testament:
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
 
From: Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Internet Resources for Students of Scripture

The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, perhaps because it was issued the same year as the English Revised Version which followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text.

It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort was not the first printed Greek Testament that deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus. (11)

Likewise, it is important to recognize that the English Revised New Testament which came out in 1881 was not directly based on the text of Westcott and Hort, although in many particulars they are the same. The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns (12). It is true that the Westcott-Hort text and the English Revised New Testament of 1881 are rather similar to each other, but they are not identical.

Though the Westcott-Hort text was the "standard" critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by anyone, and has not been for many years. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. (13) The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required. (14)

None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

-----------------------------

These sober and sensible judgments stand in marked contrast to the almost manic hysteria found in the writings of some detractors of critical texts who write as though those texts were a Pandora's box of heresy. In truth, all text families are doctrinally orthodox. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion.

The preceding comes from the section on The Greek Text of the New Testament:
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?
More from the article on the Greek New Testament -

"This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.

To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,

We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus.

Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney. He wrote,

This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact would be thereby expunged....If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance."
 
When one values his own opinion above God’s truth, then he will naturally seek out others of like mind in an attempt to verify his own imaginations.
As do you....

kettle-black.jpg
 
As do you....

And yet, are you, yourself, not a one man-band?

Every Protestant attacks the Orthodox Church. How are you any different from W&H in that regard?

And yet you do the exact same here.

your excuse of "detracting" is laughable.
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Westcott and Hort were spiritualists and necromancers who called themselves heretics.

“How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p.223.)

In speaking of heretic Dr. Hampden, he says, “If he be condemned, what will become of me?”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 52.)

[T]his may be cowardice -- I have sort of a 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 who are already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy will have great difficulty in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.
(Hort’s letter to Westcott regarding their writing other things.)
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 445.)

The unsound doctrines in new versions cannot be examined without realizing that they are only symptoms of a disease that was contracted years ago.

New versions (and the ‘new’ church they are producing) owe their occult bend to their underlying Greek text, a novelty produced in the 1880’s by Brooke Foss Westcott, a London Spiritualist, and his cohort, Fenton John Anthony Hort. Secular historians and numerous occult books see Westcott as ‘the Father’ of the current channeling phenomenon, a major source of the ‘doctrines of devils’ driving the New Age movement.

The New Age movement’s expressed goal of infiltrating the evangelical church and gradually changing the bible to conform to its One World Religion is evident in the current new versions. Their words and doctrines prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, image, and religion -- Lucifer worship.

This has taken place because the editors of the new versions, as well as the authors of the Greek editions, manuscripts, lexicons and dictionaries used in their compilation, hold beliefs which an orthodox Christian would find shocking. Research opens the door exposing them in seance parlors, mental institutions, prison cells and courtrooms for heresy trials. A surprising number of new version editors have permanently lost their ability to speak (five and still counting).

“But no doubt there was an element of mystery about Westcott. He took his turn preaching in chapel, but he dreaded and disliked the duty and he was quite inaudible.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 198.)

“Dr. Butler calls him [Westcott]...mysterious...His voice reached but a few and was understood by still fewer.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 272.)

Westcott and Hort wrote the Greek text underlying the new versions. A look into their private thoughts, via their personal correspondence preserved in their biographies, reveals the thoughts and activities of these men.

Their activities described here were occurring while they were deciding what does and does not belong in the bible.

All references can be downloaded, and documentation verified, free-of-charge, here.

Let’s take a look, via a timeline, at some of their New Age heresies (all emphasis mine).

1840
“...he took a strange interest in Mormonism...procuring and studying the Book of Mormon.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, pp. 19-20.)

1842
“In the evening I go with Tom to the wizard; but he does not dare perform before us.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 9.)

1846
“...his diary tells of a walk to Girton with C. B. Scott in which metaphysics was discussed.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 42.)

[R]efers to evangelicals as “dangerous” and “unsound.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, pp. 44-45.)

“New doubts and old superstitions and rationalism, all trouble me...I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much in fact is necessarily required of a member of the church.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, pp. 46-47.)

1847
“So wild, so skeptical am I; I cannot yield.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 52.)

1848
Hort refers to the “...fanaticism of bibliolaters.” He remarks, “The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth than the evangelical.”
(Hort, Vol. I, pp. 76-77)

“Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary.”
(Hort, Vol. II, p. 31.)

1850
Hort speaks of “...confused evangelical notions...” He says, “I spoke of the gloomy prospect should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory.”
(Hort, Vol. I, pp. 148, 160.)

Westcott was, “troubled in thought about this passage” (blasphemy against the Spirit).
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 109.)

1851
Hort joins the ‘Philosophical Society’ and comments, “Maurice urged me to give the greatest attention to Plato and Aristotle and to make them the center point of my reading.”
(Hort, Vol. I, pp. 202, 93.)

Hort refers to, “the common orthodox heresy: inspiration.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 181.)

Westcott was ordained a ‘priest’ in the Anglican church.

1852
Westcott, in speaking of Revelation, admits, “On this, my views are perhaps extreme.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 225.)

Referring to the traditional Greek Text, then currently in use, Westcott says, “I am most anxious to provide something to replace them.” He admits the drastic changes he plans and calls it, “our proposed recension of the New Testament.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 229.)

1853
Hort “was diligently preparing for his ordination” into the Anglican priesthood. “It was during these weeks with Mr. Westcott, who had come to see him [Hort] at Umberslacle, that the plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament was first definitely agreed upon.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 240.)

“About this time Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggested to him [Hort] that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme’. Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott, the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a New Testament Grammar and Lexicon.” (Hort, Vol. I, p. 241.) “He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence if possible.” (Hort, Vol. I, p. 250.) “We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Greek Text and the details thereof. We still do not wish to be talked about but are going to work at once and hope we may have it out in a little more than a year. This of course gives good employment.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 264.)

1856
“Campbell’s book on the Atonement...unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 322.)

“I hope to go on with the New Testament Text more unremittingly.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 355.)

1857
“I am just now chiefly occupied about a proposed Cambridge translation of the whole of Plato...another scheme likely to be carried out if a publisher can be found.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 349.)

“The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it.” “Evangelicals seem to me perverted...There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” “At present many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if the process is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 400.)

1860
“If only we speak our minds, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offense to...the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.”
(Hort, Vol, I, p. 421.)

“I...looked at the Christian Observer[‘s]...condemnation of my heresy.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 241.)

“If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the New Testament a sine qua non for cooperation, I fear I could not join you.”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 420.)

“[M]y doubts about infallibility [remain]. Lightfoot wants you to take Hebrews, if it does not go to Benson [Ghostly Guild].”
(Hort, Vol. I, p. 422.)

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 207.)

“I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do...In our rapid correspondence about the New Testament, I have been forgetting Plato. (Hort’s letter to Lightfoot, Hort, Vol. I, p. 424.)

1861
“...imputations of heresy and the like against me.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 222.)

1865
“[T]he idea of La Salette [appearances of the Virgin] was that of God revealing Himself, now, not in one form, but in many.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 251.)

During his trip to visit the shrine of the Virgin he stopped in Milan to make “examination of the Muratorian Fragment of the Canon.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 254.)

1866
“All the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 290.)

1869
“We must somehow contrive...some way of adding to income.”
(Hort, Vol. II, p. 108.)

“Dr. Westcott and myself have for about seventeen years been preparing a Greek text...we hope to have it out early next year.”
(Hort, Vol. II, p. 137.)

“...strike blindly...much evil would result from the public discussion.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 229.)

1871
“I shall aim at what is transcendental in many people's eyes...I suppose I am a communist by nature.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 309.)

Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot were invited to join the Revision Committee of the New Testament. “Westcott believes we ought to seize the opportunity especially since we three are on the list.”
(Hort, Vol, II, p. 133.)

1873
“Truth is so wonderfully large.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p. 333.)

1881
“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.”
(Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament: A General Survey, p. vii.)

1882
“The truth seems to me to be so overwhelmingly vast and manifold that I shrink from drawing any outline except provisionally.”
(Westcott, Vol. II, p. 79)

1889
“Life and truth grow more and more mysterious.”
(Westcott, Vol. II, p. 61.)

1893
“He sometimes with much seriousness professed to be much drawn to beer...”
(Westcott, Vol. II, p. 178.)

“His zeal in the cause of pure beer involved him in a correspondence which was published in the newspapers in the later part of 1893 and his picture together with some of the following words spoken by him, was utilized for the adornment of the advertisement of a brewer of pure beer.” “My idea is that they might have a public house in which good beer alone would be sold...I consider pure beer...to be an innocent and wholesome beverage...substitutes for malt...is not what the purchaser demands nor expects.” [Westcott’s letter written to Brewer’s Society in complaint against inferior beer]
(Westcott, Vol. II, pp. 218-219, 177.)

1899
"But from my Cambridge days I have read the writings of many who are called mystics with much profit."
(Westcott, Vol. II, p. 309.)

Both Westcott and Hort assert that the devil is not a person but a general "power of evil."
(Westcott, Commentary on 1-3 John, p. 106.)

Hort’s hostility to the well-known Trinity verse, I John 5:7+8, haunts his writings. “i John v. 7 might be got rid of in a month...” he stabs. (Hort, Vol. II, p. 128.) Today one NIV editor admits, “It is the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity.” (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 56.) So out it goes from the NIV; its omission is masked to readers because the NIV steals some of verse 8 and calls it verse 7. The NASB’s sleight of hand instead slipped out some of verse 6 and calls it 7.

...Hank Hanegraaff...
...a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds. - H.H.
 
Last edited:
Though the Westcott-Hort text was the "standard" critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by anyone, and has not been for many years....None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base.
Rather, all modern translations use W-H as its basis. Two spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, changed the traditional Greek text in well over eight thousand places using the Vaticanus manuscript and other corrupt texts. In 1881, this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. All modern versions are their product.

It takes much time, research and effort to bring the truth to bear. But I will do it now for this error of yours. What you may then do with the truth of the matter will be up to you; but be aware, as you are now accountable.

The body of standard Christian reference works affirm Westcott and Hort’s pivotal and powerful role in this war of words. Scanning the major works will document the singularity and paramountcy of their role.

The following is but a small sampling of the total documentation available on the subject, lest I be here all night.

John Kohlenberger, spokesperson for Zondervan (publisher of the NASB, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, and RSV), is author of a Hebrew/NIV Interlinear, as well as, Words About the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible. He discloses:

Westcott and Hort...all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present...have adopted their basic approach...[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text.1

He goes on to salute Westcott’s, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, saying, “This century old classic remains a standard.2 Christians may not return the salute, but ask why the work of esoterics are “standards” and “classics” for the body of Christ.

Baker Book House, publisher of half-a-dozen modern translations, also prints a bible selection guide entitled, The King James Version Debate. Author D. A. Carson admits:

[T]he theories of Westcott and Hort...[are] almost universally accepted today...It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others. Subsequent textual critical work accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars...hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt.3

The error of their textual theories and their recent abandonment by many scholars, in spite of Carson’s last comment, can be discussed in another thread. In spite of this increasing elbowroom, their revised Greek text is still almost a mirror image of that used to translate the NIV, NASB, and all other new versions. Dr. E. F. Hills, Princeton and Harvard scholar, impresses, the “New International Version...follows the critical Westcott and Hort text.4

Philip W. Comfort’s recent Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament concedes:

But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory...this had troubled certain textual scholars.5

Even abbreviated histories of the canon, in reference works like Halley’s Bible Handbook and Young’s Concordance observe,

For the English speaking world the work of B. F. Westcott has proved of abiding worth.6

The New Testament Westcott and Hort Greek texts, which, in the main, are the exact original Bible words...7

The textual theories of W-H underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism.8

Scholarly books, articles and critical editions of the Greek New Testament are slowly abandoning the readings of Westcott and Hort in their ‘Newest’ Greek texts. Yet the pews are piled high with the W-H offerings like the NIV, NASB and Living Bible.

Wilbur N. Pickering, author of The Identity of the New Testament Text, reveals:

The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. (Colwell) The two most popular manual editions of the Greek text today, Nestle’s-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H text. Why is this? Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the death blow [to the KJV and the Greek text which was used for the previous 1880 years]. Subsequent scholarship has tended to recognize Hort’s mistake. The W-H critical theory is erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it [Nestle’s-Aland UBS, etc.], as well as those versions based on such texts [NIV, NASB, Good News for Modern Man, NEB, L.B. etc.].9

H. C. Hoskier’s A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelism 604 ((London: David Nutt, 1890), Introduction, pp. cxv-cxvi) and Codex B and Its Allies -- A Study and Indictment (2 vols. London: Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1914) notes:

The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as ‘the true text’, and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text...These foundations must be demolished.

Alfred Martin (former Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago) says:

[M]any people, even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is...accept the labors of those two scholars without question...an amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself: many of the textbooks, books of bible interpretation, innumerable secondary works go on repeating the Westcott and Hort dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken, even in the opinion of former Hortians.

The Westcott and Hort “new” Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and other modern versions was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.” (Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. II (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1903), p. 252.)

Westcott and Hort were New Age necromancers, spiritualists, and admitted heretics. Relevant documentation from their biographies and personal correspondence has been posted here previously. Again, you can verify those shocking facts for yourself here.

Footnotes:

1. John R. Kohlenberger, Words About the Word (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), p. 42.
2. Words About the Word, p. 34.
3. D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 41, 75.
4. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa: The Christian Research Press, 1979), p. 229.
5. Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishing, Inc., 1990), p. 21.
6. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 18.
7. Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 747.
8. J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishing Company, 1964), p. 78.
9. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), pp. 38., 42, 96, 90.

Why do so many insist on scraping dregs from the bottom of a bare-el?

So who is this "Marlowe" you now foist?

" I work as a free-lance writer and editor."
&
"I only require that [my material] not be...uploaded to another website without my permission."
-- Source

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
In the spring of 2012, appellant Michael Marlowe was charged with and entered a guilty plea to one count of voyeurism (Count One) and one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (Count Two), both felonies of the fifth degree. The record of the plea hearing indicates that on October 23, 2011, appellant concealed a pen camera in the bathroom of his residence to capture his minor sister-in-law in a state of nudity for purposes of sexual gratification, and that he possessed the recorded images "on his laptop computer or SD card." When appellant entered his guilty plea, he was advised by the trial court of the potential penalties and that he would be classified as a Tier I sex offender and be subject to sex offender registration duties for a period of 15 years. The trial court accepted appellant's plea and found him guilty as charged.
-- Source

There are more dregs at the bottom of that bare-el, but I trust the above will suffice re: your Marlowe.

By Douglas Kutilek
Kutilek is merely another pamphleteer. Don't get me started again.

When one values his own opinion above God’s truth, then he will naturally seek out others of like mind in an attempt to verify his own imaginations.
The frivolous claims of both of you are forfeit.
 
Last edited:
“How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic.”
(Westcott, Vol. I, p.223.)
I quote from your own link...

p. 223
iv HARROW​
enjoying the sunshine and the shining of "earth's stars," a little bird flew from the hedge just by me, and as I carefully looked I saw another sitting on her nest, faithful and yet fearing. How brightly her little black eyes glanced at me ; and how closely she brooded over her charge ! You may easily fancy that I took care not to frighten her, and I felt quite joyous to be near one so true and loving. Even now I can see the twinkling of her eyes as she followed mine. Very little things gladden us. Just before I had picked up a nest which had been robbed, and looked at it wistfully ; what a contrast it made with that still guarded by love ! . . .​
HARROW, iS/7; Sunday after Trinity, 1852.​
. . . To-day I have again taken up Tracts for the Times and Dr. Newman. Don't tell me that he will do me harm. At least to-day he will, has done me good, and had you been here I should have asked you to read his solemn words to me. My purchase has already amply repaid me. I think I shall choose a volume for one of my Christmas companions. My thoughts have chiefly run in the direction of a saying of Origen's, which I must quote for you. He is speaking of the Transfiguration, and he adds: "The Word has different forms, manifesting Himself to each as it is expedient for him, and to no one is He manifested in a higher degree than the subject of the revelation can comprehend." I wish I could give you any notion of the charms of the original ; yet you will find out its meaning, for the thought must be familiar. It seems from the Gospels as if our Blessed Lord even hid Himself from the unbelieving in mercy and love lest they should aggravate their guilt ; and so conversely to each one of us He unfolds Himself more and more clearly as we strive painfully and prayerfully to penetrate into that which He sets before us . . .​
To F. J. A. HORT, ESQ.HARROW, igth July [1852].​
My dear Hort To plunge at once in medias res, and to defend myself from your charge, do you think that μυστήριον
224​

As any reader can see, the word "heretic" is not present on page 223. So are you just an idiot? Or is it that you cannot read? Or perhaps ye be challenged in typing out correct numbers?

Please advise.

As to the rest of your post, I've no wish for any more of my time to be consumed by other maggots of your errors.

Rhema
 
Today one NIV editor admits, ...
The same NIV that added in words?

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger criticized the NIV 1984 edition for the addition of "just" into Jeremiah 7:22 in which the verse becomes "For when I brought your forefathers/ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices." Metzger also criticized the addition of "your" into Matthew 13:32, which becomes "Though it [the mustard seed] is the smallest of all your seeds." The word your was removed from that verse in the 2011 revision.​
Just one more maggot of error plucked from your posts.
 
Sure, Martin works just as well as most re: the definition of a cult. But hey, why don't you continue your misdirect by arguing with the chaplain here, as you might have better luck with a female.

RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS
  1. Isolating members and penalizing them for leaving
  2. Seeking inappropriate loyalty to their leaders
  3. Dishonoring the family unit
  4. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  5. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  6. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  7. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies, and persecutions.
  8. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  9. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  10. The group/leader is always right.
  11. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

I would offer

Faith = Power

According to the written law a cult is a group of men that venerate each others dying flesh and lord over the faith or understating of the non- venerable show watchers .

In that way there can be heresies (matters of onion) traditons of men as long as they do not do despite to the fulness of grace the full price of salvation and give that fullness over to a queen mother in heaven .

Like the Jews in Jerimiah that demanded his and hers gods. They refused to obey sola scriptura but did whatsoever their own mouth says calling them sacred traditions of dying mankind called fathers

1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies (traditons) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Must be his kingdom does not come by observing the temporal dying. Its Christ in us living temples yoked with his power or faith

2 Peter 2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction

The Jewish fathers a pattern that opened the purgatory gates, claiming the Queen mother alone receive the fullness of grace the rest of the world a unknown remnant just keep suffering and wondering

Believers musts be careful how we hear who we say we do.

Jerimiah 44:16-17As for the word (sola scriptura) that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, (sola scriptura) we will not hearken unto thee.But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Do you se any evil in rejecting the living word in exchange for a oral tradition of the fathers ? Or do you see it differently?
 
Like the Jews in Jeremiah that demanded his and hers gods. They refused to obey sola scriptura
Garee, they didn't have "sola scriptura" in the days of Jeremiah, or since then.

How can you say, "We are wise, and the law (Sola Scriptura) of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​
(Jer 8:8)

Only Jesus himself is the "Sola Scriptura."

(Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.)
Rhema
 
1 Corinthians 11:19For there must be also heresies (traditons) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Hi Garee,

I know you really like this verse. You quote it a LOT. But... you need to understand (you need to learn) that the word "heresies" is NOT an English word. It is a Greek word that was left untranslated, and merely copied from Greek to English letters. (And then took on a definition quite different from what the initial text meant.)

G139 - αἵρεσις - hairesis - heresies.

Your translation is lying to you. Even the Bishop's Bible from 1568 uses the word "sects."

This is the same thing with verse 18, where the English word "divisions" is used. The Greek word is G4978 - σχίσμα - schisma - schism. While "divisions" might be better than using "schisms," it still doesn't adequately translate the concept.

And NO, heresies doesn't mean "traditions." You are changing the words and presenting fiction in your posts - your own ideas.

So I provide two links for these words,

LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for "heresies"
B. choice
- which I believe is best represented in current English by the phrase "differences of opinion."

LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for "schism" or "divisions"
II. division of opinion​

I truly hope you are able to learn from my post, and that I hadn't wasted my time. Here is how your Bible should read:

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there IS CONFLICT among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also DIFFERENCES OF OPINION among you, that they which are approved (TRUSTWORTHY) may be made manifest among you.​
(1Co 11:18-19)

A TRADITION is where NO differences of opinion are allowed. And in most churches, not even discussions about a difference of opinion is allowed. Sometimes, that's even true here on this forum. So again, "heresies" does not mean "traditions," but merely "differences of opinion."

Blessings,
Rhema
 
As any reader can see, the word "heretic" is not present on page 223. So are you just an idiot? Or is it that you cannot read? Or perhaps ye be challenged in typing out correct numbers?
Check p. 233 here. As I posted previously, he states, “How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic.”

"As any reader can see," regardless of how you slime about, you've lost this debate twice over - and badly.

Just one more maggot of error plucked from your posts.
You're such a sore loser, but a loser nonetheless.

LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for "heresies"
- which I believe is best represented in current English by the phrase "differences of opinion."
ROFL! The corrupt Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon also hides behind today’s so-called ‘Bible’ lexicons. The author of Alice in Wonderland was a close friend of lexicographer, Henry Liddell, and his young daughter ‘Alice.’ Many have written about author Lewis Carroll’s alleged pedophilia. The story of Alice in Wonderland contains many not-so-subtle references to his non-Christian lifestyle and the ‘scheme’ of his friend, lexicon author, Henry (Humpty) Liddell.

Here is how your Bible should read... [more slime]
That is what Rhema will be forced to tell the King as to why he has spewed such "opinions" for the bulk of his liberal life.

you need to understand (you need to learn)...I truly hope you are able to learn from my post, and that I hadn't wasted my time...
 
Last edited:

OOPS! WE RAN INTO SOME PROBLEMS.​

The requested page could not be found.

Try again,
ROFL! That was a spoof just for you - looks like you are actually reading a sentence or two of the documented facts re: your beloved self-proclaimed heretics Westcott and Hort, as I copiously posted in this thread. But will you heed the truth and "adjust" your spew?

You're evidently too lazy to look up the ref yourself and prefer to play with links. Accordingly, you may now claim your "heretical" reward on page 233 by clicking here (or there --> "How certainly I should have been proclaimed heretic!")

Thanks for the bump(s).-- :laughing:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top