New Bible for Gay Community

[Christy74]

Sister pixie, I've come across some homosexuals who are unfortunately just arrogant and stubborn. Anyone can be this way, homosexual or not but from my personal experience some just try their very best to defend their gay lifestyle and sway around the truth.

I have known many of the homosexual community, and here's the problem as I see it. Homosexuals
tend to define themselves by their sexuality. A gay man is not just a man, but a gay man. We
who are straight don't define ourselves by our sexuality. That presents a serious challenge to
reaching out to these for Christ. In order for them to give up their homosexuality, they would have
to give up what they see as an integral part of themselves, rather than a habit that must be broken
or a sin to be repented of.

We have to be firm in love that all sin (even sin we think we can't live without) must be repented of,
and God will change the repentent sinner to be able to live without the sin.

 

[Jonah2005bt]

I have known many of the homosexual community, and here's the problem as I see it. Homosexuals
tend to define themselves by their sexuality. A gay man is not just a man, but a gay man. We
who are straight don't define ourselves by our sexuality. That presents a serious challenge to
reaching out to these for Christ. In order for them to give up their homosexuality, they would have
to give up what they see as an integral part of themselves, rather than a habit that must be broken
or a sin to be repented of.

We have to be firm in love that all sin (even sin we think we can't live without) must be repented of,
and God will change the repentent sinner to be able to live without the sin.

I personally believe it's all in their heads. They choose to be homosexual rather than serve GOD.

They seem to be self-centered, perhaps.

For if they truly have a love for The Almighty GOD or for Christ Jesus then they would be anxious to serve GOD & live according to HIS Rules & Regulations.

 

[ImmanuelWithUs]

Those who have read and studied the King James,the Authorised Versin, of the Bible,
(Basic Instructioins Before Leaving Earth) B.I.B.L.E.
then seeing and reading 'modern versions, feared that such a so called bible would appear. It will be followed by the publishing of 'bibles' especiallywritten for other sections of society today.

My thoughts entirely......
....................................................................

Author Tim Fleming Offers a Free Download of a New Version of the Bible
for the Gay Community [Excerpts]

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) February 14, 2007 -- This is a new version of the
Holy Bible that includes the New Testament, along with a new book
entitled God's New Law, which was introduced in the year 2000. This
book contains testimony of prophecy fulfilled, prophecy to be, and the
decommissioning of traditional religion so that God may dwell with all
those who believe. God's New Law is meant to be the last book of the
Bible and to herald the birth of God's religion without doctrine.

Starting with the witnessing of Christ, the author, Tim Fleming, claims
that, in the year 2000, God tested one of his begotten and realized the
value of forgiving those who are willing to forgive, and He has
therefore offered salvation to the homosexual community for the
sacrifices they have made through mental anguish.

The first book of God's New Law, "The Journal," is a description of the
re-creation of man beyond Revelations that attempts to illustrate what
the enlightened students of God's kingdoms prescribe. The second book,
"The Victory," describes how an act of vengeance by the Father's left
hand delivers poetic justice to those who did not heed his warning to
forgive thy neighbor. The third book, "Peace through Suffering," is a
testament purportedly written by the Father in Heaven and one of his
adopted. Leaving the last book entitled the "The Journey" offering to
lead mankind away from serving doctrine into living in the spirit with
God and his kingdom.

Blasphemy! This is so absurd, it's frightening. This person has re-written the Bible and made it what he wants it to be. This author is as out of touch as L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[kiwimac]

All Bibles are useful. No one translation is the best because all translations are mediated through human understandings.

 

[spitnot]

All Bibles are useful. No one translation is the best because all translations are mediated through human understandings.

ahh ahh. not all. be careful bro. if you've checked, there was that NKJV by Westcott and Hort. and not just the NKJV but also other modern day translations.

here are some reasons why other translations specially the NKJV is questionable.

1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

3. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

4. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

5. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

6. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.

7. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

8. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretic" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

9. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

10. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

11. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

12. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

13. As a final note, the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":

be careful with people who put down the original King James Version, and their reason is that "it's too hard to read, it's too hard to understand..." ect. well, understanding God's Word is not your job. you just have to read it and by Christ's apportioned grace to you, He will give you the Spirit that teaches all truth. it is the Spirit that gives you understanding. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."

i personally have an NIV and i found no error with it yet. but in times i get confuse, i refer to King James, then to the original Hebrew and Greek for support and clarifications of the original word and its meaning. I'm blessed to have a software.

Jesus bless you. take care.

 

[kiwimac]

My replies to your comments.

1. ** The text of the KJV is copyright, in the original it is copyright to the UK Crown.**

2. ** What is your problem with Westcott and Hort? **

3.** Examples Please **

4.** .A number of these will be because the KJV added these to the text and so they are unsupported by the Greek / Hebrew text.**

5.** In John 1:3 the Greek preposition "Dia" is used, this word means "through or by means of." As far as the Acts verses are concerned: ". . . There is no "attack" on Jesus’ Deity here. The Greek word here is pais

AV - servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1; 24

1) a child, boy or girl
1a) infants, children
2) servant, slave
2a) an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister

So in the KJV it is rendered "servant" as often as "son" or "child." Moreover, notice in Acts 4:25 the same word is used in reference to David, and both the KJV and NKJV render it as "servant." This use is especially significant as "son" would not fit the context. Also, it occurs right in between the four times the word is being applied to Jesus.

. . . Jesus is distinct in Person and position from the Father, yet equal in essence. The Father is the first Person of the Trinity; Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. Jesus can be the "Servant" of the Father by obeying His Father’s will (John 5:11,30; 6:38).

Secondly, in Romans 15:9 Paul writes, "Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (NKJV). In KJV, LITV, and MKJV "servant" is rendered "minister."

The Greek word is diakonos. It can mean:
AV - minister 20, servant 8, deacon 3; 31

1) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
1a) the servant of a king
1b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
1c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink (from the Online Bible).

So whatever the translation, the word refers to one person doing something for another. Putting Acts 3:13 and Romans 15:9 together, Jesus can be called "Servant" because He did the will of the Father by dying for the sins of His people (Matt 26:39). . ."

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

** Jesus is there in my NJKV in Mark, in the other verses the name is more properly Joshua because it is referring to Joshua, son of Nun. It is important to note that in the Greek the names are the same. **

6.** In regards to Hebrews let me quote " . . .The Greek word is hagiazomenous. It is a present, passive, participle. . . . To add the definition for the second term here, "The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, 'The boy was hit by the ball,' the boy receives the action."

The NKJV's "are being" brings out each of these grammatical points much better than the KJV. The LITV has "the ones being sanctified." This rendering is even better in showing the "verbal noun" nature of the participle . . . "

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

** WRT Matthew 7:14: " . . . New Testament Greek Definition:
2346 thlibo AV ["Authorized Version" i.e. the KJV] - trouble 4, afflict 3, narrow 1, throng 1, suffer tribulation 1; 10

1) to press (as grapes), press hard upon
2) a compressed way
2a) narrow straitened, contracted
3) metaph. to trouble, afflict, distress

Vine, Strong and Young's Literal Translation all favor narrow. In fact the margin notes in the NKJV also favor narrow over difficult.

Strong defines the Greek as: "a compressed way, narrow straitened, contracted, compressed." The reason for the NKJV rendering is probably to prevent repeating "narrow" which it has already used at the beginning of the verse, translating a different Greek word. To use narrow again would not show that two different words are actually being used.

But, the footnote in the NKJV is "confined." And this word could have been used. "Constricted" is used in the LITV and MKJV. Which would work as well. In any case, the implications of Jesus’ statement is the same."

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

7.**The Greek word here is Logismos: 3053 logismovß Logismos which means:

a reckoning, computation
a reasoning: such as is hostile to the Christian faith
a judgment, decision: such as conscience passes

So it most closely means 'arguments.' **

Quote " . . .The only other place in Scripture where this word is used is in Rom 2:15 where it is translated "thoughts" in every version. The lexicons are not much help. So, again, it could probably go either way. The LITV and MKJV both have "imaginations. . ."

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

8.** " . . . The Greek word is hairetikon so "heretic" is basically a translaiteration. The definition both my Online Bible and PC Study Bible give for it is "schismatic." Louw and Nida define it as: "pertaining to causing divisions - 'divisive, one who causes divisions."

<snip>Moreover, the word is an adjective, not a noun. Also, the KJV rendering requires adding the words "that is." So by grammar the NKJV would be preferred. **

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

9." . . .First, it would help to define the words used in the two translations. "Corrupt" means:
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.

The definition of "peddle" is:
1. a. To travel about selling (wares): peddling goods from door to door.
b. To engage in the illicit sale of (narcotics).
2. Informal. To seek to disseminate; give out: peddling lies.

verb, intransitive
1. To travel about selling wares.
2. To occupy oneself with trifles (American Heritage Dictionary).

"Corrupt" in this context probably refers to definition number three. So Paul would be talking about people who add "errors" or make "alterations" to the Word of God. "Peddle" on the other hand, refers to people who travel about selling something, plus there there is a possible "negative" connotation to the word.

But which translation is closer to the meaning of the Greek word? Rienecker states about this word, "kapeleuo to peddle, to pawn off a product for gain. The word is used in the LXX [Septuagint] in Isa 1:22 for those who mix wine with water in order to cheat the buyers (Plummer)…. The word refers to those who peddle or merchandise the Word of God for profit" (p.458).

So Rienecker uses the word "peddle" twice in his definition. And the idea of "selling" is definitely involved, but so is the idea of "altering" what is sold.

Bauer defines kapeleuo as, "trade in, peddle, huckster.... Because of the tricks of small tradesman ... the word comes to mean almost adulterate" (p. 403). So "peddle" appears to be primary meaning of the word. But an extended meaning could be "adulterate."

Interestingly, the NKJV footnote gives an alternate translation of, "adulterating for gain." <snip>This dishonest action is exactly what Rienecker was describing in regards to Isa 1:22.

So by combining the text reading and the footnote, the NKJV expresses the meaning of the Greek word rather well<snip>.

Or to put it another way, "I can corrupt the word and not sell (peddle) it." So the NKJV is more accurate, especially when the footnote reading is included. . ."

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

10.** The word in Greek is : Metallasso
to exchange, change **

11.**That's because the word "study" in English has changed in meaning. When the KJV was written, it meant to "Be diligent" or "to concern yourself with" as in "Study these things out" which means 'Be diligent about these things. **

12." . . .The lexicons I checked give both possible meanings. The MKJV has "creature" but the LITV has creation." So it could go either way. But to me, "creation" sounds better. Also, the KJV even translates the word as "creation" in some contexts (e.g. Rom 1:20). . ."

** Note I will provide sources for these quotes on request.

 

[DeaconBob3]

What's wrong with Wescott and Hort?

There are monumental problems with each man's character and the content of their "supposed" Christian character. But I will not use my own words to enumerate and define these critical issues, but rather Samuel Gipp, Th. D's book; "An Understandabe History of the Bible."

Let us begin with Dr. Hort and we will end with Dr. Wescott from Dr. Gipp's book

Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D

From his book
“An Understandable History of the Bible'

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history.

On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text.

On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.

I have no desire to "sling mud" nor a desire to hide facts.

I believe it is essential at this time that we examine what we know about these men and their theories concerning the text of the Bible.

I long sought for copies of the books about their lives. These are The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son, Arthur, and The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, written by his son.

After literally months of trying, I was able to acquire copies of them both for study. Most of the material in this section will be directly from these sources so as to prevent it from being secondhand.

We cannot blindly accept the finding of any scholar without investigating what his beliefs are concerning the Bible and its doctrines. Scholarship alone makes for an inadequate and dangerous authority, therefore we are forced to scrutinize these men's lives.

A Monumental Switch

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."85

Vicious Prejudice

In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus ... Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."86

Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!

Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession, "Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the concordia discourse." Commenting on the four places in Mark's gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the ****'s crowing is mentioned said, "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places."87

A Shocking Revelation

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."88

He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." (Emphasis mine.)89

We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

Blatant Disbelief

Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90

Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."91

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."

And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."92

Strange Bedfellows

Though unimpressed with the evangelicals of his day, Hort had great admiration for Charles Darwin! To his colleague, B.F. Westcott, he wrote excitedly: "...Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."

And to John Ellerton he writes: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."93

Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."94

Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. "The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."95

One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."96

This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge.

Forsaking Colossians 2:8

Hort was also a lover of Greek philosophy. In writing to Mr. A. MacMillian, he stated: "You seem to make (Greek) philosophy worthless for those who have received the Christian revelation. To me, though in a hazy way, it seems full of precious truth of which I find nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything in revelation."97 (continued)

 

[DeaconBob3]

Lost in the Forest

In some cases Hort seemed to wander in the woods. In others he can only be described as utterly "lost in the forest." Take, for example, his views on fundamental Bible truths.

Hort's "Devil"

Concerning existence of a personal devil he wrote:

"The discussion which immediately precedes these four lines naturally leads to another enigma most intimately connected with that of everlasting penalties, namely that of the personality of the devil." It was Coleridge who some three years ago first raised any doubts in my mind on the subject - doubts which have never yet been at all set at rest, one way or the other. You yourself are very cautious in your language.

"Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?"98

Hort's "Hell"

Rev. Hort also shrunk from the belief in a literal, eternal "hell."

"I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word 'eternal' has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible."99

"Certainly in my case it proceeds from no personal dread; when I have been living most godlessly, I have never been able to frighten myself with visions of a distant future, even while I 'held' the doctrine."100

Hort's "Purgatory'

Although the idea of a literal devil and a literal hell found no place in Hort's educated mind, he was a very real believer in the fictious Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named."101

Also while advising a young student he wrote:

"The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said resecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.

"I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth."102

Thus we see that Dr. Hort's opinions were certainly not inhibited by orthodoxy. Yet his wayward ways do not end here. For, as his own writings display, Dr. Hort fell short in several other fundamental areas.

Hort's "Atonement"

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.

"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."103

In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy!

"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."104

The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than God.

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."105

Hort's "Baptism"

Dr. Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was more correct than the "evangelical" teaching.
"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical."106

He also states that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."107

In fact, Hort's heretical view of baptism probably cost his own son his eternal soul, as we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:

"You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles' time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven."108

Hort's Twisted Belief

Along with Hort's unregenerated misconceptions of basic Bible truths, there were his quirkish and sometimes quackish personal beliefs.

One such example is his hatred for democracy, as he asserts in a letter to Rev. Westcott dated April 28, 1865:

"...I dare not prophesy about America, but I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms."109

In fact, Hort's hope, during the years of the American Civil War, was that the South would win. This desire was fostered by the hope that such a victory would destroy both countries to eliminate America's threat to England's domination of the world. His own words betray this in a letter which he wrote to Rev. John Ellerton in September of 1862:

"I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much more than for all the ******* in the world! And I contend that the highest morality requires me to do so. Some thirty years ago Niebuhr wrote to this effect: 'Whatever people may say to the contrary, the American empire is standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe and sooner or later one or the other must perish.' Every year has, I think, brought fresh proof of the entire truth of these words. American doctrine (only too well echoed from Europe itself, though felt to be at variance with the institutions of Europe) destroys the root of everything vitally precious which man has by painful growth been learning from the earliest times till now, and tends only to reduce us to the gorilla state. The American empire seems to me mainly an embodiment of American doctrine, its leading principle being lawless force. Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed it cannot be wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that the American Union may be shivered to pieces.

"I do not for a moment forget what slavery is, or the frightful effects which Olmsted has shown it to be producing on white society in the South; but I hate it much more for its influence on the whites than on the ******* themselves. The refusal of education to them is abominable; how far they are capable of being ennobled by it is not clear. As yet everywhere (not in slavery only) they have surely shown themselves only as an immeasurably inferior race, just human and no more, their religion frothy and sensuous, their highest virtues, those of a good Newfoundland dog."110


Now, Lets look at what Dr. Gipp has to say about Dr. Wescott's character as taken from the same sources, the books written by the sons of these men as previously referenced.

Problems with Westcott

Unfortunately for the "new Bible" supporters, Dr. Westcott's credentials are even more anti-biblical. Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)" 120

He also said "David" is not a chronological but a spiritual person. 121

That the first three chapter of Genesis are all allegory has been believed by liberals and modernists for years. Do today's fundamentalists realize that those modernists' beliefs were nurtures in the heart of this Bible critic?

(continued)

 

[DeaconBob3]

Westcott was also a doubter of the biblical account of miracles: "I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover somewhat of evidence in the account of it." 122 If a great fundamental preacher of our day were to make this statement, he would be called apostate, but what then of
Westcott?

Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual coming: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord's words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming' to us now." 123


Westcott's "Heaven"

Wait! This fundamental doctrine is not the last one to be denied by Bishop Westcott, for he believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place. Note the following quotations from Bishop Westcott: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'" 124

"Yet the unseen is the largest part of life. Heaven lies about us now in infancy alone; and by swift, silent pauses for thought, for recollection, for aspiration, we cannot only keep fresh the influence of that diviner atmosphere, but breathe it more habitually." 125

"We may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life." 126

Westcott's "Newmanism"

Dr. Westcott was also deeply devoted to John Newman, the Roman Catholic defector who took 150 Church of England clergymen with him when he made the change. Those of his disciples who did not make the physical change to Rome, made the spiritual change to Romanism, though many, like Westcott, never admitted it.

In writing to his futue wife in 1852, Westcott wrote: "Today I have again taken up 'Tracts for the Times' and Dr. Newman. Don't tell me that he will do me harm. At least today 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." 127
This was written after Newman had defected to Rome!
Wilkenson adds, "By voice and pen, the teaching of Newman changed in the minds of many their attitude toward the Bible. Stanley shows us that the allegorizing of German theology, under whose influence Newman and the leaders of the movement were, was Origen's method of allegorizing. Newman contended that God never intended the Bible to teach doctrines."

Westcott also resented criticism of the Essays and Reviews. Upon hearing the Bishop of Manchester deride the apostate authors of these heretical essays, Westcott wrote, "But his language about the Essays and Reviews roused my indignation beyond expression." 128

These are the convictions of a man greatly responsible for the destruction of Christian faith in the Greek Text of the Authorized Version. Place Mr. Westcott next to any present fundamental preacher or educator, and he would be judged a modernist, liberal and heretic. In spite of his outstanding ability in Greek, a man of his convictions would not be welcome on the campus of any truly Christian college in America. This is not an overstatement, nor is it malicious. The Christian colleges of today hold very high standards and simply would not settle for a man of such apostate conviction, no matter how great his ability to teach a given subject.


You are obviously an earnest student of biblical scholarship diligently seeking the truth of God's word. But I share this with you and the rest of the readers of this board, because I have many questions about the wisdom of relying on any translation that uses Wescott & Hort's Greek text or their collective interpretation or guidance in translation issues. For me the evidence of apostate influences are quite compelling and cause me to doubt the underlying or fundamental truth of their biblical scholarship. You and others may disagree, but for me there is compellingly clear reason for this doubt.

Respectfully submitted
R. Lehmann

 

[stephen]

Getting back to the OP.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first.....etc" 2 Thess 2 v 3

The "falling away" mentioned in that passage of scripture, is the word 'apostasia' and means a defection from the truth. That is truth of original scripture. The truth revealed in Jesus and His teaching.


People today prefer their own idea, thought, manifestation. etc. "There grew up another generation which knew not the Lord" (bible)

The bible is clear that "Salvation is of the Lord" this is absolute, and not open to debate. There is no other way to Eternal Salvation, except through Jesus. Jesus said "I am the door, by me if any man enter in he will be saved" "By me" Salvation is a reality, and a possibility for all mankind....through Jesus.

Other bibles, ideas thoughts of men etc. are terrestrial, earthbound and perishable. Salvation is of the Lord and is Eternal

 

[By His Grace]

I agree on the above, Stephen's post.....above all lets Pray against this and for the salvation of the author for that's what we've been called for.

 

[DeaconBob3]

I agree Stephan.

 

[Laudite]

These are not my words but Gods! I would be careful if I were that author. God made a judgment on a city once for this reason- and it was gone in the blink of an eye.

Hey question- wasn't sodom's crime rape, equally to men and women?

 

[Laudite]

Nothing like some tasty textual criticism! I'm not going to address the several posts of extended ad hominem fallacy, except to say that this 'scholarship alone is dangerous' is bunkum. The bible is the word of God, and therefore the only concern is with what the best, closest translation is. Making claims about people is essentially saying 'don't look at God's word, instead examine...' which i suggest by its very nature is wrong. Now lets start some criticism!

What's wrong with Wescott and Hort?
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) have been highly controversial figures in biblical history.


We cannot blindly accept the finding of any scholar without investigating what his beliefs are concerning the Bible and its doctrines. Scholarship alone makes for an inadequate and dangerous authority, therefore we are forced to scrutinize these men's lives.

A Monumental Switch

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century."85

This lacks an argument, except to say that the codex vaticanus and codex a are 'catholic' which is ridiculous when you consider that they are merely very old pieces of paper that some scholar copied from an even older piece of paper. Nowhere in textual criticism do you find 'ideology' as a consideration, except for those who are arguing ideology and not textual criticism. It's interesting that he does not even name the argument for antiquity, much less attempt to refute it.

Vicious Prejudice

In spite of the fact that the readings of the Universal Text were found to be as old, or older, Westcott and Hort still sought to dislodge it from its place of high standing in biblical history. Hort occasionally let his emotions show, "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of text, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus ... Think of the vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS; it is a blessing there are such early ones."86

Westcott and Hort built their own Greek text based primarily on a few uncial MSS of the Local Text. It has been stated earlier that these perverted MSS do not even agree among themselves. The ironic thing is that Westcott and Hort knew this when they formed their text!

Burgon exposed Dr. Hort's confession, "Even Hort had occasion to notice an instance of the concordia discourse." Commenting on the four places in Mark's gospel (14:30, 68, 72, a, b) where the ****'s crowing is mentioned said, "The confusion of attestation introduced by these several cross currents of change is so great that of the seven principal MSS, Aleph, A, B, C, D, L, no two have the same text in all four places."87

This appears to show a fundamental misunderstanding of textual criticism. That MSS do not agree shows that they come from different families of text. It is not at all an uncommon problem, and the point of textual criticism is to discern which is the best reading where manuscripts disagree. That later manuscripts agree does not make them superior, but rather shows that they were correctly transcribed from a single source. That makes no claim, however, on the antiquity or reliability of that source.

A Shocking Revelation

That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."88

He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." (Emphasis mine.)89

We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

My nose smells character assassination and straw men arguments! Note that the quotations have nothing to do with the content or importance of message- only with how to treat MSS and text tradition. Its interesting to note that the statements seem pretty defensible to me. Does the author claim, I wonder, that there is a magic set of copying mistakes that scholars and monks only make when copying the bible? If not, then why would he support making judgements about where those mistakes exist that could not be made about other documents? It seems to me that doing so would be to place your own beliefs and prejudices above the word of God and hiding behind the transcription errors of some unknown monk to do so.

Blatant Disbelief

Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90

Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."91

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."

And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."92

These seem to me to be not inexcusable notions and understandable human doubt. I agree with his assessment of contemporary evangelicals, and share his doubts about the possibility of fallibility in the New Testament. I have only doubts, no answers, but I am willing to impute infallibility only to God, and am suspicious of the claim that a sinner has ever done anything untainted by his or her sin. In any event, what on earth does this have to do with their ability to weigh MSS?

Strange Bedfellows
blah blah Darwin...

Oh noes! not the Darwin! If you don't think that Darwin's theory is interesting and has a profound effect on the study of biology, I don't think you grasp its meaning. Again, no idea what this has to do with competence to criticise texts.

Dr. Hort was also an adherent to the teaching of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. His son writes: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge."94

Coleridge was the college drop-out whose drug addiction is an historical fact. "The opium habit, begun earlier to deaden the pain of rheumatism, grew stronger. After vainly trying in Malta and Italy to break away from opium, Coleridge came back to England in 1806."95

One of Coleridge's famous works is Aids to Reflection. "Its chief aim is to harmonize formal Christianity with Coleridge's variety of transcendental philosophy. He also did much to introduce Immanual Kant and other German philosophers to English readers."96

This man, Coleridge, had a great influence on the two scholars from Cambridge.

I am not down with hating on the Coleridge. Interesting that the author makes no comment on Coleridge's argument or its validity (much less the profound beauty of his prose.) He just sort of assumes Coleridge is evil, which marks this not as a considered argument but a piece of character assassination.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

New Bible for the Gay Community

What kind of non sense is this? Is the original Word not good enough for them? So what does this author do? The author comes up with his own version of the Word to comfort himself and those who follow him.

"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." (Ro 16:17-18)

People like Tim Fleming, who have unGodly agendas, know that there are many marginal Christians; people who profess to be believers but who make little or no effort to draw close to the Lord and/or study His Word and so, leave themselves wide open to deceit. They are looking for the easier, softer way of getting into Heaven. So, when his "all sin is excused" gospel comes along, they fall for it.

We need to pray for guidance in identiying and reaching out to those who profess to believe but are actually teetering on the brink.

SLE
"

 

[emily445455]

What do they do with the verses that say homosexuality is a sin...? Take them out?

 

[kiwimac]

The quotes attributed to Westcott and Hort in DeaconBob's diatribe need to be sourced otherwise how can we know if they have been quoted correctly. I will await the Sourcing of them before much comment on my part. As for the Bible and homosexuality, do we really want to derail this thread any further?

 

[michael74]

basically if you are a man and you cant love a woman then how can you love a man. you must hate all things to have cut off half of humanity, really you are just going for the biggest orgasm inducing thoughts. i love hundreds of men but i dont want to have sex with them. i dont condem homosexuals because i know that they dont know what they are talking about, and i dont condone the campaigns agaist them either, because both these things come from a bad place, i cant blame all these things happening, because when you take away the truth anything can happen, and that is what is happening in society, truth has been replaced by millions of lies. if you really let jesus into your heart you see that sex is just a hinderance for you reaching the person you could be.

luke 20 v34-36
jesus ansawed them, "the men and women of this age marry, but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. they will be like the angels and cannot die"

mark 12 v24-25
jesus ansawed them "how wrong you are, and do you know why, it is because you dont know the scriptures or gods power. for when the dead rise to life, they will be like the angels in heaven and will not marry."
matthew says the same thing. i know what this means, it means that we arent going to be reproducing because we have already been made and the crop collected, once that crop is collected no more can be coming to add to it. so to us living now it means that sex is just for reproduction and thats it. everything else is just a perversion of the natural act, and pointless, unless you believe that the point is to take you further from the truth. which would make you still wrong.

 

[Laudite]

basically if you are a man and you cant love a woman then how can you love a man. you must hate all things to have cut off half of humanity, really you are just going for the biggest orgasm inducing thoughts. i love hundreds of men but i dont want to have sex with them. i dont condem homosexuals because i know that they dont know what they are talking about, and i dont condone the campaigns agaist them either, because both these things come from a bad place, i cant blame all these things happening, because when you take away the truth anything can happen, and that is what is happening in society, truth has been replaced by millions of lies. if you really let jesus into your heart you see that sex is just a hinderance for you reaching the person you could be.

Didn't you just answer your own question? If you can love hundreds of men but not want to have sex with them, why is it inconceivable to love hundreds of the opposite sex but not want to have sex with them? And sex is a hinderance to the person I could be? It seems to me that that whole Catholic Priest thing kinda proves that forswearing sex doesn't turn out so well.

luke 20 v34-36
jesus ansawed them, "the men and women of this age marry, but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. they will be like the angels and cannot die"

mark 12 v24-25
jesus ansawed them "how wrong you are, and do you know why, it is because you dont know the scriptures or gods power. for when the dead rise to life, they will be like the angels in heaven and will not marry."
matthew says the same thing. i know what this means, it means that we arent going to be reproducing because we have already been made and the crop collected, once that crop is collected no more can be coming to add to it. so to us living now it means that sex is just for reproduction and thats it. everything else is just a perversion of the natural act, and pointless, unless you believe that the point is to take you further from the truth. which would make you still wrong.

Would it be valid, then since when the dead rise to life they shall neither hunger nor thirst, to say that enjoying a meal or drink is also a perversion of the natural act?

 

[michael74]

.Didn't you just answer your own question?

i didnt ask any questions i just told the truth. (ok i did ask a question) so what is the point of your question apart from trying to tear the truth to pieces?

this is not about condemnation or the matter and manner of sin. its about the truth, we worship jesus because he came to save us from our sins and as the son of god i bow down to him and pray for his mercy. i worship god because... he is GOD and i want to do as much of the things i can that will make him happy, obviously im a sinner in a million ways and do the most stupid things that i regret afterwards, like we all do. gods not into homosexuality but it happens like every other sin, it can be forgiven. but this isnt about being in sin this is about teaching homosexuality as if it was the will of god, if you still dont get it the buzz word is TEACHING. i could pull a million things out the bible to make gods point but this one will do for me.
matthew 15 v 8-9
these people, says god, honour me
with their words,
but their hearts are really far away
from me.
it is no use them to worship me
because they teach human rules as
though they were my laws.