Why modern version of the Bible are currupt.

[BigChrisfilm]

As we all know, it was Wescott and Hort that influenced the greatest part of the Bibles that have come out in the last 100 years. So, should we trust that these men were able to translate the Bible, or were they unqualified?

What they said about...

The Scriptures:
I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

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. (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration. (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Timothy 3:16 as, Every scripture inspired of God instead of All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (KJV).

[BigChrisfilm]

The Deity of Christ:

He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him. (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ. (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created. (Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him. which said, The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator. (thus calling Christ a creature.)

[BigChrisfilm]

Salvation:

The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood. (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father. (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1 Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, (ASV).

[BigChrisfilm]

Hell:
(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning. (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matt. 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

[BigChrisfilm]

Creation:
"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." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"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." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

[BigChrisfilm]

Hort wrote, quote: 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, Qoute: 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?

[BigChrisfilm]

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 Adams 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

[BigChrisfilm]

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.

[BigChrisfilm]

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

[BigChrisfilm]

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

[BigChrisfilm]

Hort's Hell 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

[BigChrisfilm]

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 Gods 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 Christs atonement as heresy!

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

[Logos1560]

My view of Bible translation has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort.

Your personal attacks and character assassination directed at them do not prove your KJV-only view to be correct. Your reasoning in the posts of this thread seem to be based on a fallacy.

Westcott and Hort held some of the same doctrinal views as some of the Church of England translators of the KJV. Do you condemn the KJV because of any wrong doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). George Fisher wrote: “The ‘Anglo-Catholic theology’--the way of thinking represented by such men as Laud and Bishop Andrewes--with its doctrine of the necessity of episcopal ordination to the exercise of the ministry in any church, its feeling of the exalted importance of the sacraments among the means of grace, and with the ritualistic spirit with which it was imbued, had been growing up since the last days of Elizabeth’s reign” (History, p. 404). The reference work Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). Ashton referred to "the more liberal theology, associated in England with the name of Lancelot Andrewes and across the North Sea with that of Arminius" (James I, p. 173). McClintock wrote: "To express his theological tenets briefly he [Andrewes] was of the school which is generally called the school of Laud" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 223). Trevor-Roper identified Andrewes as the "founding father of Laudianism" (Catholics, Anglicans, p. 243).

Brightman observed that "in broad outline the theology which he [Andrewes] preached" is "the Creed, professed by a Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Ghost, through a ministry of apostolic succession and divine right, regenerates men in baptism, confirms them by the imposition of hands, absolves them by a second imposition of hands, in the exercise of the keys, 'the Church's act,' by which 'God ordinarily proceedeth'" (Private Devotions, p. xlvii). Trevor-Roper stated that "Andrewes pronounced the English Church to be apostolic, bishops to rule by divine right, and good works to be necessary to salvation" (Archbishop Laud, p. 31). McGrath claimed that Andrewes “declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history” (Christian Theology, p. 8). Dorman cited Andrewes as explaining the Christian faith as “one Canon given of God, two testaments, three symbols, the first four councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers therein” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 9). G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [Andrewes'] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, p. 216). Dorman suggested that in 1595 Andrewes “reinterpreted the Lambeth Articles in a more Catholic light” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 5). Andrewes' works have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.

[BigChrisfilm]

My view of Bible translation has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort.

Your personal attacks and character assassination directed at them do not prove your KJV-only view to be correct. Your reasoning in the posts of this thread seem to be based on a fallacy.

Westcott and Hort held some of the same doctrinal views as some of the Church of England translators of the KJV. Do you condemn the KJV because of any wrong doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). George Fisher wrote: “The ‘Anglo-Catholic theology’--the way of thinking represented by such men as Laud and Bishop Andrewes--with its doctrine of the necessity of episcopal ordination to the exercise of the ministry in any church, its feeling of the exalted importance of the sacraments among the means of grace, and with the ritualistic spirit with which it was imbued, had been growing up since the last days of Elizabeth’s reign” (History, p. 404). The reference work Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). Ashton referred to "the more liberal theology, associated in England with the name of Lancelot Andrewes and across the North Sea with that of Arminius" (James I, p. 173). McClintock wrote: "To express his theological tenets briefly he [Andrewes] was of the school which is generally called the school of Laud" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 223). Trevor-Roper identified Andrewes as the "founding father of Laudianism" (Catholics, Anglicans, p. 243).

Brightman observed that "in broad outline the theology which he [Andrewes] preached" is "the Creed, professed by a Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Ghost, through a ministry of apostolic succession and divine right, regenerates men in baptism, confirms them by the imposition of hands, absolves them by a second imposition of hands, in the exercise of the keys, 'the Church's act,' by which 'God ordinarily proceedeth'" (Private Devotions, p. xlvii). Trevor-Roper stated that "Andrewes pronounced the English Church to be apostolic, bishops to rule by divine right, and good works to be necessary to salvation" (Archbishop Laud, p. 31). McGrath claimed that Andrewes “declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history” (Christian Theology, p. 8). Dorman cited Andrewes as explaining the Christian faith as “one Canon given of God, two testaments, three symbols, the first four councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers therein” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 9). G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [Andrewes'] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, p. 216). Dorman suggested that in 1595 Andrewes “reinterpreted the Lambeth Articles in a more Catholic light” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 5). Andrewes' works have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.

I will have to seperate your post, as you do allot of posting in your post, if that makes any sense, lol.

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

Ok, so what you have done here is provide allot of people's opinions, without 1, explaining who these people are, what their motives where, and if they are people that can be trusted? Are these men that know anything they are talking about? Are they Christian, do they understand Christian doctrine? Are they a collection of nut jobs? In all seriousness, tell me why I should care what these people think, when it is clear that no Roman Catholic would have been apart of translating a Bible into English in the 1600's?

[BigChrisfilm]

My view of Bible translation has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort.

Your personal attacks and character assassination directed at them do not prove your KJV-only view to be correct. Your reasoning in the posts of this thread seem to be based on a fallacy.

Westcott and Hort held some of the same doctrinal views as some of the Church of England translators of the KJV. Do you condemn the KJV because of any wrong doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). George Fisher wrote: “The ‘Anglo-Catholic theology’--the way of thinking represented by such men as Laud and Bishop Andrewes--with its doctrine of the necessity of episcopal ordination to the exercise of the ministry in any church, its feeling of the exalted importance of the sacraments among the means of grace, and with the ritualistic spirit with which it was imbued, had been growing up since the last days of Elizabeth’s reign” (History, p. 404). The reference work Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). Ashton referred to "the more liberal theology, associated in England with the name of Lancelot Andrewes and across the North Sea with that of Arminius" (James I, p. 173). McClintock wrote: "To express his theological tenets briefly he [Andrewes] was of the school which is generally called the school of Laud" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 223). Trevor-Roper identified Andrewes as the "founding father of Laudianism" (Catholics, Anglicans, p. 243).

Brightman observed that "in broad outline the theology which he [Andrewes] preached" is "the Creed, professed by a Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Ghost, through a ministry of apostolic succession and divine right, regenerates men in baptism, confirms them by the imposition of hands, absolves them by a second imposition of hands, in the exercise of the keys, 'the Church's act,' by which 'God ordinarily proceedeth'" (Private Devotions, p. xlvii). Trevor-Roper stated that "Andrewes pronounced the English Church to be apostolic, bishops to rule by divine right, and good works to be necessary to salvation" (Archbishop Laud, p. 31). McGrath claimed that Andrewes “declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history” (Christian Theology, p. 8). Dorman cited Andrewes as explaining the Christian faith as “one Canon given of God, two testaments, three symbols, the first four councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers therein” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 9). G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [Andrewes'] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, p. 216). Dorman suggested that in 1595 Andrewes “reinterpreted the Lambeth Articles in a more Catholic light” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 5). Andrewes' works have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.

You view has to have something to do with Westcott and Hort, because they took part in translating the manuscripts that are used for all Bible translations since the 1900s. Any way, if one man's own words can be accomidated to charactor assassination on himself, then what does that say for that man?

[BigChrisfilm]

BTW, does this site look familiar?

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm

[Logos1560]

Ok, so what you have done here is provide allot of people's opinions,


The sources of the quotations was provided. The sources are standard reference works, histories of the Church of England, church histories, biographies of the life of KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes. I have read some of the writings of KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes. I have checked the evidence myself to see if the statements about him were accurate. Have you ever actually read any of the writings of the KJV translators themselves?

[Logos1560]

You view has to have something to do with Westcott and Hort, because they took part in translating the manuscripts that are used for all Bible translations since the 1900s.

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV. Your claim that my view has anything to do with Westcott and Hort is incorrect. I have not recommended their text or any translations that were actually translated from their text. The NKJV, Modern KJV, the KJ21 were translated from the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.

Your claim that Westcott and Hort's text was used for "all" Bible translations since the 1900's is false. You are only repeating what some man or KJV-only web site told you. You have not provided valid evidence that proves your claim. Your opinion is not valid evidence for your claim. Did you know that there is one English translation made from the old Syriac Peshitta Version that is on the KJV-only view's line of good Bible that was made after 1900?

[BigChrisfilm]

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV. Your claim that my view has anything to do with Westcott and Hort is incorrect. I have not recommended their text or any translations that were actually translated from their text. The NKJV, Modern KJV, the KJ21 were translated from the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.

Your claim that Westcott and Hort's text was used for "all" Bible translations since the 1900's is false. You are only repeating what some man or KJV-only web site told you. You have not provided valid evidence that proves your claim. Your opinion is not valid evidence for your claim. Did you know that there is one English translation made from the old Syriac Peshitta Version that is on the KJV-only view's line of good Bible that was made after 1900?
Are you familiar with this site?

http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm

And as I stated, I don't think I will trust a "source" that says one of the KJV translators was a Roman Catholic, because a Roman Catholic would NEVER have translated a English Bible in the 1600s.

[BigChrisfilm]

Look Logos, I know you are taking all this from http://www.dtl.org/index.html

I know, it has been shown so that everyone can see. You accuse me of having a man made theory, and repeating only what I have been taught by some KJVolist, but yet all you have done is proved info from this website, and you have given none of your OWN feelings toward the issue. You sir are the one that is repeating what some man has taught you. Now, I checked out the site, and it seems fundimentally sound, maybe someone else would like to check that out for me and make sure, but it is clearly a site dedicated to showing why the KJV only view is wrong, which this man was CLEARLY taught at Bible college. SO, if you want to debate with me, than you are going to have to START with your OWN opinions, and stop quoting someone's web site.

[Logos1560]

because a Roman Catholic would NEVER have translated a English Bible in the 1600s.

What you think is wrong. You don't know your English history very well nor your English Bible history. The Roman Catholic Rheims English translation was printed in 1582 while the Roman Catholic English O. T. translation was printed in 1609-1610 although it had been translated earlier. One of the translators of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible was a brother of one of the translators of the KJV. William Reynolds [or Rainolds] (1544?-1594), a translator of the Roman Catholic Bible, was a brother to KJV translator John Reynolds [or Rainolds]. It was John Reynolds that suggested the idea of making a new translation to King James I.

If you read English history, you would know that the Puritans were the ones in the Church of England who wanted to purify the Church of England of those Roman Catholic practices that still remained in it. Some of the Puritans were the ones who have said that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes still held on to such practices. Andrewes was officially a member of the Church of England, but his doctrinal views are considered the same as those identified as Anglo-Catholic.

Here are some quotations from Lancelot Andrewes' own writings or sermons.

In a sermon on John 20:23, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147). In one sermon, Andrewes referred to "the blessed virgin" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 10). Andrewes also referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Private Devotions, p. 59). Dorman quoted where he referred to “the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin” (Andrewes, p. 69). Trevor Owen cited one passage in Andrewes's Devotions where he wrote about Mary the following: "the all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and ever virgin Mary" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 58). Andrewes accepted the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

[BigChrisfilm]

What you think is wrong. You don't know your English history very well nor your English Bible history. The Roman Catholic Rheims English translation was printed in 1582 while the Roman Catholic English O. T. translation was printed in 1609-1610 although it had been translated earlier. One of the translators of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible was a brother of one of the translators of the KJV. William Reynolds [or Rainolds] (1544?-1594), a translator of the Roman Catholic Bible, was a brother to KJV translator John Reynolds [or Rainolds]. It was John Reynolds that suggested the idea of making a new translation to King James I.

If you read English history, you would know that the Puritans were the ones in the Church of England who wanted to purify the Church of England of those Roman Catholic practices that still remained in it. Some of the Puritans were the ones who have said that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes still held on to such practices. Andrewes was officially a member of the Church of England, but his doctrinal views are considered the same as those identified as Anglo-Catholic.

Here are some quotations from Lancelot Andrewes' own writings or sermons.

In a sermon on John 20:23, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147). In one sermon, Andrewes referred to "the blessed virgin" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 10). Andrewes also referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Private Devotions, p. 59). Dorman quoted where he referred to “the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin” (Andrewes, p. 69). Trevor Owen cited one passage in Andrewes's Devotions where he wrote about Mary the following: "the all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and ever virgin Mary" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 58). Andrewes accepted the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

It was a heresy for someone to own a Bible written in English for a long time. I don't think YOU know your history very well friend. And stop quoting that web site. Ignoring the fact that I, and everyone else knows where you are getting this stuff from is not going to magically make it go away.

[Logos1560]

Look Logos, I know you are taking all this from http://www.dtl.org/index.html

yet all you have done is proved info from this website.

Actually, you have it backwards. You seem to have jumped to a wrong and hasty conclusion. I did not copy the information from the web site you found in the posts in this thread. Instead, the information in that article was taken from my research. I have several hundred pages of my own research and information on the Bible translation on my computer. When I need documented evidence on this topic, I just copy it from my own research stored on my computer. I am the author of a book and two booklets on the Bible translation issue. I have studied the claims of the KJV-only view carefully, having read over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors. I have heard or read all your KJV-only claims before. At times I have permitted others to make use of some of my research. Some have posted some of my research at various web sites such as the one you found; sometimes with my permission and sometimes without.

[Logos1560]

Some example English translations and dates when printed:

Tyndale's New Testament 1526
Tyndale's New Testament 1534
Tyndale's Old Testament 1534 [partial]
Coverdale's Bible 1535 [the first complete printed English Bible]
Matthew's Bible 1537
Great Bible 1539
Taverner's Bible 1539
Whittingham's New Testament 1557
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishops' Bible 1568
Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. 1582
Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible 1609-1610
KJV 1611

[BigChrisfilm]

Actually, you have it backwards. You seem to have jumped to a wrong and hasty conclusion. I did not copy the information from the web site you found in the posts in this thread. Instead, the information in that article was taken from my research. I have several hundred pages of my own research and information on the Bible translation on my computer. When I need documented evidence on this topic, I just copy it from my own research stored on my computer. I am the author of a book and two booklets on the Bible translation issue. I have studied the claims of the KJV-only view carefully, having read over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors. I have heard or read all your KJV-only claims before. At times I have permitted others to make use of some of my research. Some have posted some of my research at various web sites such as the one you found; sometimes with my permission and sometimes without.
Really, that sounds facinating?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Higham+observed+that+the+faith+of+men+such+as+KJV+translator+Lancelot+Andrewes+and+Archbishop+Bancroft+was+%22Catholic+in+its+respect+for+ancient+custom%2C+ordered+worship%2C+and+episcopal+rule%22+%28Lancelot+Andrewes%2C+p.+34%29&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ugt&q=Ian+Green+also+referred+to+the+%22High+Church+or+Anglo-Catholic+persuasion%22+of+men+like+Andrewes+and+Laud+%28History+of+Religion+in+Britain%2C+p.+174%29&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Yit&q=In+a+sermon+on+John+20%3A23%2C+KJV+translator+Lancelot+Andrewes+taught+the+doctrine+of+absolution+and+confession+%28Ninety-Six+Sermons%2C+pp.+82-103%29&btnG=Search

This guy has stollen like 3 of the 4 things you have posted in this thread alone.

Can I be frank with you? If you did write this stuff, it looks to me like you are purposely talking over everyone's head. You are providing WAY too many references, names, places, ect.. for others to be able to actually check on anything you say. I would have to take all day long to be able to completely go through just one of your many statements. I think you are doing this on purpose, and it seems kind of iffy to me why you are doing it this way. BUT, I will try and atleast go through one of your post, and I hope you will stick to answering the questions I ask, instead of posting more and more of this stuff, because I don't have the abillity to go through all of it at the speed of light, like one must be able to do, in order to come to his own conclusion on the things that you post.

[BigChrisfilm]

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

This is the one we are going to look at first.

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34)

First, you did not name Higham's first name? What is his name, so I can research who he is?

[Logos1560]

You are providing WAY too many references, names, places, ect.. for others to be able to actually check on anything you say. I would have to take all day long to be able to completely go through just one of your many statements.

Many other KJV-only advocates are like you. There are unwilling to accept the valid evidence found in one standard reference work or in one history regardless of how accurate it may. Thus, I provide a variety of sources to show that the same basic information is found in more than one source. The names and places would be known by any one that has actually studied about this issue and about English Bible history. Since you will not likely believe what any one says about Lancelot Andrewes even though they studied his life enough to write a biography about him, perhaps you should start with the writings and sermons of Andrewes himself. The person you should research is KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes.

Andrewes, Lancelot. Ninety-Six Sermons. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Vol. V. Oxford: John Henry, 1843.
Andrewes, Lancelot. A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Vol. VI. Oxford: John Henry, 1846.
Andrewes, Lancelot. Sermons. Introduction by G. M. Story. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1967.
Andrewes, Lancelot. The Works of Lancelot Andrewes. Vol. XI. New York: AMS Press, 1967.
Brightman, F. E. (ed.). The Private Devotions of Lancelot Andrewes. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1983.
Hewison, P. E. (ed.). Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Writings. Manchester: Fyfield Books, 1995.

[BigChrisfilm]

Many other KJV-only advocates are like you. There are unwilling to accept the valid evidence found in one standard reference work or in one history regardless of how accurate it may. Thus, I provide a variety of sources to show that the same basic information is found in more than one source. The names and places would be known by any one that has actually studied about this issue and about English Bible history. Since you will not likely believe what any one says about Lancelot Andrewes even though they studied his life enough to write a biography about him, perhaps you should start with the writings and sermons of Andrewes himself. The person you should research is KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes.

Andrewes, Lancelot. Ninety-Six Sermons. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Vol. V. Oxford: John Henry, 1843.
Andrewes, Lancelot. A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Vol. VI. Oxford: John Henry, 1846.
Andrewes, Lancelot. Sermons. Introduction by G. M. Story. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1967.
Andrewes, Lancelot. The Works of Lancelot Andrewes. Vol. XI. New York: AMS Press, 1967.
Brightman, F. E. (ed.). The Private Devotions of Lancelot Andrewes. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1983.
Hewison, P. E. (ed.). Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Writings. Manchester: Fyfield Books, 1995.

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who's Who in History, p. 31). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that Andrewes was "one of the principal influences in the formation of a distinctive Anglican theology" which was "Catholic in tone" (p. 61). Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). The Dictionary of Literary Biography affirmed that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

This is the one we are going to look at first.

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34)

First, you did not name Higham's first name? What is his name, so I can research who he is?

[Logos1560]

so I can research

If you have done any research, you could have found the book with the last name of the author and the title of the book. Florence Higham was the author of the biography entitled LANCELOT ANDREWES. Maurice Ashley was the author of the book entitled ENGLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. C. P. Hill was the author of the book WHO'S WHO IN HISTORY.

The standard reference multi-volume work entitled The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Andrewes "had his private chapels adorned with what Prynne calls 'popish furniture'" (Vol. I, p. 403). John McClintock and James Strong observed that the Puritans charged Andrewes "with popery and superstition because of the ornaments of his chapel and the ceremonies there" (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, pp. 223-224). In case you didn't realize it, James Strong is the same person who was responsible for STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. Kenneth L. Bradstreet, a fundamentalist, claimed: “It should be clear that Lancelot Andrewes was not just Romish in the outward, symbolic sense, he was thoroughly Roman Catholic in his doctrine as well” (KJV in History, p. 116).

[BigChrisfilm]

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34)

Ok, so explain to me WHY Florence Higham is a source that can be trusted on this issue? Did he know Lancelot Andrewes? Where is he getting his information from? Why should I care what Florence Higham has to say about anything?

[BigChrisfilm]

Your telling me that a guy who would do this...

With King James, Dr. Andrews stood in still higher favor than he had done with Elizabeth. The "royal pedant" had published a "Defence of the Rights of Kings," in opposition to the arrogant claims of the Popes. He was answered most bitterly by the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine. The King set Dr. Andrews to refute the Cardinal; which he did in a learned and spirited quarto, highly commended by Casaubon. To that quarto, the Cardinal made no reply. For this service, the King rewarded his champion, by making him Bishop of Chichester; to which office Dr. Andrews was consecrated, November 3rd, 1605. This was soon after his appointment to be one of the Translators of the Bible.

Was a good Catholic? I don't think so.

[Logos1560]

Higham observed that the faith of men such as KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34)

Where is he getting his information from?

You seem to forget that "Catholic" does not always mean "Roman Catholic." It can also mean "Anglo-Catholic." It can also refer to claimed "Catholic views" of the first three to five centuries of church history before the Roman Catholic Church developed some of its later traditions. There was a "Anglo-Catholic" party in the Church of England that was close to Roman Catholics in some doctrinal views, but who did not accept the "pope" as head of the Church. As I told you earlier, the evaluation of Andrewes' doctrinal views comes from Andrewes' own sermons and writings. It was also the "Puritan" party [those who wanted to purify the Church of England from some Roman Catholic traditions and practices] of that day that claimed that Andrewes' views were too close to some Roman Catholic practices.

Did you read the quotes from Andrewes' own sermons and writings in an earlier post? Did you know that in his sermons Lancelot Andrewes took the text of his sermons from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome along with from an English translation? Do you agree with Andrewes' support for the making of the sign of the cross in baptism? F. E. Brightman pointed out that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes at the Hampton Court Conference "was especially prominent in the defence of the sign of the cross in baptism" (Private Devotions, p. xxxvii). Ross Williamson wrote: "When the Puritans objected to the making of the sign of the cross in baptism as 'the superstitious and wicked institution of a new sacrament,' the king appealed to Andrewes, who answered, 'It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen that it was used in immortali lavacro,' and so determined the matter" (Four Stuart Portraits, p. 79).

Brightman observed that "in broad outline the theology which he [Andrewes] preached" is "the Creed, professed by a Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Ghost, through a ministry of apostolic succession and divine right, regenerates men in baptism, confirms them by the imposition of hands, absolves them by a second imposition of hands, in the exercise of the keys, 'the Church's act,' by which 'God ordinarily proceedeth'" (Private Devotions, p. xlvii). Trevor-Roper stated that "Andrewes pronounced the English Church to be apostolic, bishops to rule by divine right, and good works to be necessary to salvation" (Archbishop Laud, p. 31). McGrath claimed that Andrewes “declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history” (Christian Theology, p. 8). Dorman cited Andrewes as explaining the Christian faith as “one Canon given of God, two testaments, three symbols, the first four councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers therein” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 9). G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii). Maurice Reedy claimed that "it was the essence of Anglicanism in his [Andrewes'] day that it chose to retain enough of full Roman Catholic doctrine to resemble the old Church" (Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, p. 216).

[Logos1560]

Your telling me that a guy who would do this...

Was a good Catholic? I don't think so.


Andrewes was considered a good Anglo-Catholic, even a leader of the Anglo-Catholic or High Church party of the Church of England. Andrewes accepted King James I as the head of the Church of England instead of the "pope." A man can write a book against some Roman Catholic traditions or practices, but that does not prove that he was against all its views. You have not studied or read Andrewes' own sermons and writings to know what his views were.

Lancelot Andrewes wrote an essay entitled "A Summary View of the Government both of the Old and New Testament Whereby the Episcopal Government of Christ's Church Is Vindicated" (Library of Anglo-Catholic, VI, pp. 339-362). Andrewes presented a chart defending Episcopal church government that presumed a correspondence between the following: Aaron--Christ, Eleazar--archbishop, princes of priests--bishop, priests--presbyters, princes of Levites--archdeacons, Levites--deacons, and nethinims--clerks and sexton (Ibid., p. 350).

In a sermon on John 20:23, Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95).

[mwduke]

I'm sorry, but I didnt have the perseverence to read all of your many many posts... what "modern versions" do you refer to SPECIFICALLY? please state whether you believe NIV or NRSV are included in you soliloquy,,,

[VCViking]

Also, how much has Wescott and Hort influenced the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament-Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) that the NASB is based on? And which Greek New Testament is better, the Textus Receptus or the Nestle-Aland?

Both sides of the coin are appreciated along w/ any sources of info such as websites, books, etc. I'm trying to research this myself.:help:

[cubanito]

If we want to delve into the pedigrees of the translators, the RV, as well as the KJV have some seriously questionable characters. Both versions are OK by me.

But still I clutch my NASB. Find dirt on those, if you can.

JR

[cubanito]

their website http://www.lockman.org/tlf/tlfabout.php

[JimfromOhio]

Its not the scriptures that are corrupted. Its a man's heart that is corrupted. Intelligence, reason, and choice. As a Christian, we don't need intelligence to decide because we have the Holy Spirit that convicts us to listen rather than focusing on our own pride of reasonings. God gave me the brain but in my body, who am I using my brian for? My flesh or In Spirit? if a Christian is not careful and forget. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. In order to "revere" the Word of God (Bible), you submit to the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible. Jesus said in John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. All translations (i.e. KJV, RSV, NIV and etc) themselves are not inspired. Only the originals are inspired. We are to trust the Holy Spirit more than we trust the translations simply because the Holy Spirit have been with the translators while they were translating.

[VCViking]

Actually, you have it backwards. You seem to have jumped to a wrong and hasty conclusion. I did not copy the information from the web site you found in the posts in this thread. Instead, the information in that article was taken from my research. I have several hundred pages of my own research and information on the Bible translation on my computer. When I need documented evidence on this topic, I just copy it from my own research stored on my computer. I am the author of a book and two booklets on the Bible translation issue. I have studied the claims of the KJV-only view carefully, having read over 100 books and pamphlets by KJV-only authors. I have heard or read all your KJV-only claims before. At times I have permitted others to make use of some of my research. Some have posted some of my research at various web sites such as the one you found; sometimes with my permission and sometimes without.


Is it possible to get then name of your book and booklets? If need be just PM it to me. Thanks.

[Logos1560]

Is it possible to get then name of your book and booklets?

I sent you a PM with the information you requested.

[VCViking]

Got it. Thanks!