Does it matter which version of the Bible you read?

[reddogs]

This is just SDA (or KJV-Only, frequently the same thing) fantasy.

Learn something about real textual criticism, Nestle Aland and critica major of Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung:

Editio Critica Maior - Wikipedia

There are 5 main problems and heresies SDA came with and spread them to other US churches, after they split from Jehovists:
1) Jesus is not so much God.
2) Literal creationism
3) Sabbath and Law
4) Extrabiblical prophets (E.G.White)
5) KJV Only

Take a look at the changes and you see how they take out as much as they can the divinity of Christ, and bring in changes that weaken or take away doctrines which they disagreed with and lean toward the Gnosticism from the Alexandrian Manuscripts.....The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy

Bible Version Comparison

 

[reddogs]

Here are a few tidbits of Westcott and Hort ideas...


1. Westcott's Views:

He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:

"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."

2. Hort's View:

…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:


"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."


3. Hort's View:

He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.

"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
agrees."

4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”

"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could 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.”


5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:

“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”

Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.

6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.

"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)

7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.

"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”


8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.

"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)

9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)


10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.

A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”

B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as

expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”

C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly

Father.”

D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”


(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).

 

[solid_core]

Here are a few tidbits of Westcott and Hort ideas...


1. Westcott's Views:

He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following:

"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."

2. Hort's View:

…Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote:


"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."


3. Hort's View:

He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man.

"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
agrees."

4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.”

"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could 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.”


5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort
from his séance club he writes:

“As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now,
not in one form, but in many.”

Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions.

6. Hort believes in the Sacraments.

"I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of
F.J.A. Hort, p. 99)

7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts.

"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things.
That time has happily gone by.”


8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend.

"I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1,
P. 233)

9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary.

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in
common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50)


10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith.

A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.”

B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as

expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.”

C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly

Father.”

D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.”


(The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p.428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co.,Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976).

Instead of browsing websites, try to do textual criticism yourself. Take 3 original manuscripts (many manuscripts can be found online) and try to get some final text from them. At least for few pages.

How will you make your decisions, how will you work? Then you will understand that there is no "anti God conspiration" in critical editions.

Also, people today use Nestle Aland editions, not Westcot-Hort's.

 

[reddogs]

Instead of browsing websites, try to do textual criticism yourself. Take 3 original manuscripts (many manuscripts can be found online) and try to get some final text from them. At least for few pages.

How will you make your decisions, how will you work? Then you will understand that there is no "anti God conspiration" in critical editions.

Also, people today use Nestle Aland editions, not Westcot-Hort's.

They are all based on Westcott and Hort, dig a little below the surface and you will be amazed at what you find.

Now lets look at who Westcott and Hort were, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for new version.

Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support that the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."

 

[reddogs]

Here is a basic list which shows what version they were based on...



American Standard Version

Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


American King James Version

Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version


Amplified Bible

Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version


An American Translation

Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text


An American Translation

Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


Berkeley Version

Modern English 1958


Bible in English

Modern English 1949


The Bible in Living English

Modern English 1972


Bishops' Bible

Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Catholic Public Domain Version

Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate


Children's King James Version

Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.


Christian Community Bible, English version

Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek


Clear Word Bible

Modern English 1994


Complete Jewish Bible

Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).


Contemporary English Version

Modern English 1995


Concordant Literal Version

Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.


A Conservative Version

Modern English 2005


Coverdale Bible

Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)


Darby Bible

Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)


Douay-Rheims Bible

Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts


Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)

Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate


EasyEnglish Bible

Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)


Easy-to-Read Version

Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text


Emphasized Bible

Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)


English Jubilee 2000 Bible

Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)


English Standard Version

Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)


Ferrar Fenton Bible

Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text


Geneva Bible

Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


God's Word

Modern English 1995


Good News Bible

Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text


Great Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.


Holman Christian Standard Bible

Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.


The Inclusive Bible

Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek


International Standard Version

Modern English 2011


Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


Jesus' Disciples Bible

Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text


Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).

Modern English1963 Masoretic Text


Julia E. Smith Parker Translation

Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


King James 2000 Version

Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.


King James Easy Reading Version

Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.


King James Version

Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


King James II Version

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Knox's Translation of the Vulgate

Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.


Lamsa Bible

Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta


A Literal Translation of the Bible

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)


Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


The Living Bible

Modern English 1971


American Standard Version (paraphrase)


The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


Matthew's Bible

Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].


The Message

Modern English 2002


Modern King James Version

Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Modern Language Bible

Modern English 1969


Moffatt, New Translation

Modern English 1926


James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta

Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta


New American Bible

Modern English 1970


New American Standard Bible

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text


New Century Version

Modern English 1991


New English Bible

Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament


New English Translation (NET Bible)

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament


New International Reader's Version

Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)


New International Version Inclusive Language Edition

Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.


New International Version

Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text


New King James Version

Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)


New Life Version

Modern English 1986


New Living Translation

Modern English 1996


New Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts


The Orthodox Study Bible

Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.


Quaker Bible

Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Recovery Version of the Bible

Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.


Revised Version

Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


Revised English Bible

Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.


The Scriptures

Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research


Simplified English Bible

Modern English.


The Story Bible

Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck


Taverner's Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible


Thomson's Translation

Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament


Today's New International Version

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.


Third Millennium Bible

Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.


Tyndale Bible

Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).


Updated King James Version

Modern English 2004


A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures

Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Webster's Revision

Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.


Westminster Bible

Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew


The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]

Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)


Wycliffe's Bible (1380)

Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate


Wycliffe's Bible (1388)

Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate


Young's Literal Translation

Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

 

[reddogs]

Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see how it came to us as the 'Majority Text' as there are thousands of manuscripts.

These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
Home - EarthLink Mobile

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)

There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that had the ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures. Those of Alexandrian text (or minority Text) were a few whole manuscripts as they basically weren't used as Christians knew it was suspect and stayed away from it

This Received Text as the Majority Text/Textus Receptus was also known, was soon translated into a old Latin version before Jerome's Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible which kept on until the 1650s, by which time the Reformation had come full force on the scene. So the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise in Psalms...


Psalm 12:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[solid_core]

They are all based on Westcott and Hort, dig a little below the surface and you will be amazed at what you find.

Now lets look at who Westcott and Hort were, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for new version.

Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support that the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."

Todays translations use Nestle-Aland. Westcott-Hort is not used.

So whatever you have googled against personalities or personal faith of Westcorr and Hort, does not apply.

Its true that the Textus Receptus and the KJV based on it are not the best texts.

 

[reddogs]

Todays translations use Nestle-Aland. Westcott-Hort is not used.

So whatever you have googled against personalities or personal faith of Westcorr and Hort, does not apply.

Its true that the Textus Receptus and the KJV based on it are not the best texts.

Nestle-Aland is based on the Westcott-Hort text..."Nestle, according to Aland-Aland Text des Neuen Testaments, based the text of his first two editions on Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf's eighth edition (Weymouth being the decider in case of a difference), and from the third edition on Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and Bernhard Weiss (and this was done consistently only from the 13th edition of 1927). I have no reason to doubt the Alands' report on the history of the Nestle-Aland edition, and therefore it is just as wrong to say that the old Nestle-Aland text was that of Tischendorf, or Weiss, than to say it was that of Westcott-Hort."Evangelical Textual Criticism: Was the old Nestle-Aland text basically Westcott-Hort?

 

[reddogs]

Even their own site admits it...."The first edition of the GNT appeared in 1966. Its text was established along the lines of Westcott and Hort and differed considerably from Nestle’s 25th edition."Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

 

[Mantishand]

So you choose a Bible translation according to what fits your political views?

No not at all. I just found that and compared it to other versions which are different. Its true though. Baby killing and homosexuality are a sins in the bible and a certain group of people celebrate those things and call themselves "liberal". So it could very well be about that.

 

[reddogs]

Well, lets look at a few more basic comparisons and see what are some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'modern' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.

 

[solid_core]

Nestle-Aland is based on the Westcott-Hort text..."Nestle, according to Aland-Aland Text des Neuen Testaments, based the text of his first two editions on Westcott-Hort and Tischendorf's eighth edition (Weymouth being the decider in case of a difference), and from the third edition on Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and Bernhard Weiss (and this was done consistently only from the 13th edition of 1927). I have no reason to doubt the Alands' report on the history of the Nestle-Aland edition, and therefore it is just as wrong to say that the old Nestle-Aland text was that of Tischendorf, or Weiss, than to say it was that of Westcott-Hort."Evangelical Textual Criticism: Was the old Nestle-Aland text basically Westcott-Hort?

It can be based on texts from Mars, but whatever you have against godliness or personal faith of Westcot and Hort does not apply to Nestle-Aland comittee. These are different people.

 

[solid_core]

Well, lets look at a few more basic comparisons and see what are some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by these 'modern' versions. We see here where they even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely blurred by this supposed improved "Bible".

Now lets look at how just changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world,Taken up in glory.

Now look how by changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.

Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NASB) But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:12 (NASB) So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

Now what happened here...

John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

John 9:35 (NASB) Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

Its a shading of the truth of His divinity, what Jesus directly lays claim to.

Do you know what textual criticism is? Its not comparing two English Bibles, you must first compare Greek manuscripts, create editions from them and then you can finally translate these editions into English.

Its not "NIV vs KJV", its "edition made of older Greek manuscripts vs edition made of medieval Greek manuscripts".

 

[reddogs]

It can be based on texts from Mars, but whatever you have against godliness or personal faith of Westcot and Hort does not apply to Nestle-Aland comittee. These are different people.

Wow, scripture tells us to open our eyes and our ears, we must look below the surface and see what is there...

The New International Version (NIV) weakens doctrines directly related to Jesus. For example, in Luke 9:56 and Matt 18:11, the NIV leaves out the entire sentence which declares Christ's purpose in coming to earth.

Ephesians 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9 (NIV)
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Here we see Christ's role as Creator is diminished in where the NIV neglects to specify that God created all things "by Jesus Christ." It just goes on and on with the changes to cloud what ever relates to the divinity, His place as the Creator, even His virgin birth as we see.

Luke 2:33 (KJV)
33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NIV)
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

We have to open our eyes and ears and understand what is there..

Mark 8:18
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

 

[solid_core]

Wow, scripture tells us to open our eyes and our ears, we must look below the surface and see what is there...

The New International Version (NIV) weakens doctrines directly related to Jesus. For example, in Luke 9:56 and Matt 18:11, the NIV leaves out the entire sentence which declares Christ's purpose in coming to earth.

Ephesians 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9 (NIV)
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Here we see Christ's role as Creator is diminished in where the NIV neglects to specify that God created all things "by Jesus Christ." It just goes on and on with the changes to cloud what ever relates to the divinity, His place as the Creator, even His virgin birth as we see.

Luke 2:33 (KJV)
33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33 (NIV)
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

We have to open our eyes and ears and understand what is there..

Mark 8:18
Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

NIV is not weakening anything. Its just using older Greek texts.

NIV is made by godly evangelicals, they have no anti-trinity agenda. They actually "added" that Jesus is God to J 1:16, because its in older Greek manuscripts. KJV does not have that.

 

[solid_core]

Even their own site admits it...."The first edition of the GNT appeared in 1966. Its text was established along the lines of Westcott and Hort and differed considerably from Nestle’s 25th edition."Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

Your quote is very incomplete:

In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece.... Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis... Where their textual decisions differed from each other Nestle chose for his own text the variant which was preferred by two of the editions included, while the variant of the third was put into the apparatus.

The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries...

-----

We have Nestle Aland 28 and year 2019 now. Also, they are working on a huge new project - Editio Critica Major that will take into consideration all known manuscripts and papyri. That project is totally unique (for example textus receptus was based on only 8 manuscripts).

 

[reddogs]

Your quote is very incomplete:

In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece.... Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis... Where their textual decisions differed from each other Nestle chose for his own text the variant which was preferred by two of the editions included, while the variant of the third was put into the apparatus.

The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries...

-----

We have Nestle Aland 28 and year 2019 now. Also, they are working on a huge new project - Editio Critica Major that will take into consideration all known manuscripts and papyri. That project is totally unique (for example textus receptus was based on only 8 manuscripts).

The proof is in the pudding...take a look and you will find it is missing verses, look up this one...
Acts 8:37 King James Version (KJV)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This basically shows it is based on Hort and Westcott.

 

[reddogs]

Here's a site that shows all the many missing verses taken out in the version based on or using the Hort and Westcott text...

 

[solid_core]

The proof is in the pudding...take a look and you will find it is missing verses, look up this one...
Acts 8:37 King James Version (KJV)
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This basically shows it is based on Hort and Westcott.

The KJV is not a standard text. Its a medieval text. We have older Greek manuscripts and many more manuscripts than they had in their era on their isolated English island.

To base translations on better Greek manuscripts we have now is not "taking out verses", but "correcting medieval additions, removals and religious changes".

For your personal peace - that instead of 10 verses saying "son of God" you actually have 5 verses saying "son of God" neither mean that Jesus is not the Son of God nor that somebody attacks that. If somebody would want to erase that, he would erase that completely, not just 1 verse and left 5 others on the same place. Think about it.

 

[solid_core]

Here's a site that shows all the many missing verses taken out in the version based on or using the Hort and Westcott text...

Again, nobody today uses Westcott and Hort text. Nestlé Aland 28 is the current standard and the coming work in progress - Editio Critica Maior - will be the next standard in a decade or so.

While Erasmus (the author of Textus receptus on which the KJV is based upon) had max dozen of manuscripts, we have today 6,000 manuscripts and papyri and many more quotations in church fathers etc. Editio Critica Major will take all of them into consideration and reflect them either in the main text or in footnotes. Thats something Erasmus himself would be fascinated to work on.