Featured The KJV and The Holy Spirit

Your human assertion for the KJV is not true. That is as plain as the nose on your face.

God's promises concerning preservation would be true without the KJV ever having been made. God was just as faithful to keep His promises concerning preservation before 1611 as afterwards.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. Pre-1611 English Bibles were God's Holy Bible translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is God's Holy Bible translated into English. The KJV is one English Bible translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, and it is not exclusively God's Holy Bible He promised to preserve. God did not promise to preserve the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

When it is claimed that the KJV is God's Holy Bible that He promised to preserve, it in effect attempts to imply or suggest that every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures is actually preserved exactly and perfectly in the KJV.

D. A. Waite asserted: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 98). Waite claimed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (p. 117). D. A. Waite asked: “How can a person ‘live’ by ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ if he does not have ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”? (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 133). D. A. Waite declared: “The Lord Jesus Christ wants people to be able to live ‘by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 114). Waite asserted: “We cannot live by ‘every Word’ if we do not have ‘every word’” (Ibid.).

David Sorenson asserted: “If God, from the time of Moses onward, required His people to live by every word which He has uttered in His Word, it therefore follows that God has preserved each and every one of those words” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 85). David Sorenson asked: “How can a just God require us to live by every word He has spoken if every one of His words does not continue to exist and be available for us?” (Ibid.). After referring to “God’s EVERY WORD doctrine,” Al Lacy asked: “Does man have EVERY WORD to live by today, or does he not?” (Can I Trust, p. 17), and he asked: “Do you believe that TODAY we have EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God … even in a translation?” (p. 24).

Mickey Carter asserted: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). John C. Phillips claimed: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Jim Taylor wrote: “Things that are different are not the same and we would be academically dishonest to assert that the King James Version and the Textus Receptus were a perfect match when they really aren’t” (In Defense, p. 72). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 16).

 

Dr. E.W. Bullinger's Figures of Speech, pg. 534,
calls "that holy thing", there in Luke 1:35, a "Heterosis of Gender".

THIRD DIVISION.
FIGURES INVOLVING CHANGE*

I. AFFECTING THE MEANING and USAGE OF WORDS.
HETEROSIS: or Exchange of Accidence.

VII. Heterosis of Gender.
"4. The Neuter for the Masculine or Feminine."

So, we have a legit name for the neuter, "that",
to be used to refer to the baby Jesus.

It is an official, "Heterosis of Gender, Figure of Speech".

And, thus so, for many of the others, apparently.

*(see page 489 for a Summary Classification of these.)

This is helpful to us in our investigation regarding the O.P.
and especially concerning the KJV Translators' 'justifications', for their use
of The Neuter "that Holy thing", for the Male Person, Jesus.

It is a "Heterosis of Gender, Figure of Speech".
...

John 1:32.

"And John bare record, saying,
I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove,
and "it abode" upon Him."

Thus, we have another "Heterosis of Gender, Figure of Speech",
The Neuter "it abode" for the Masculine Holy Spirit.
...

Romans 8:16, 26

It is so Spiritually sweet, to see this particular instance of this
"Heterosis of Gender, Figure of Speech", where
The Neuter "itself" is used for the Masculine Person of The Holy Spirit.

From: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

Romans 8:16. "The Spirit itself", &c.]

(Note: Do you see where the use of "itself", instead of "Himself",
allows for the natural sense of "Adoption", to flow in there,
as, "The Spirit itself, The Spirit of Adoption"?

(Just a nice little devotion to change things up somewhat.)

"The “Spirit of Adoption” is here seen, as it were,
at His mysterious work, teaching us to “cry Abba, Father.”

"So, The Holy Spirit of Adoption, “witnesses”
with a Witness which concurs
with a Witness borne by our own “spirit,”—
our own consciousness of will and affection.

"On this “secret of the Lord”, in Psalm 25:14,
"The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him;
and He will shew them His Covenant."

And "some light is thrown by ch. Romans 5:5.

"There the Holy Spirit is said
to “shed abroad the love of God in our hearts;”
i.e., in ways of His Own,
to assure the believer of the Love of the Father for him.

"Meantime, the human heart thus visited
is humbly but clearly conscious that it loves the Father.

"Thus the family affection for Divine Grace is owned on both sides.

"The Divine Spirit evermore meets the Christian’s filial love
with fresh assurances of the Paternal Love
that is the origin of the whole blessed relationship.—

"The witness of “our spirit” is so met as to be verified
by the Witness of the Paraclete.


...

 

This is all there is to it.

I really don't remeber asking you anything about that.

Whatever.

Not even my "human" assersion??????

Say it's not so, Logos1560!!

NOW, LOOK AT WHAT I'VE GOT HERE AS MY RESPONSE TO YOU!!

ISN'T THAT SOMETHING?

SURREAL. JUST LIKE ALL MY OTHER INNERACTION WITH
WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE AND BELIEVE AND/ OR WORK FOR.

I happen to be a:

And it has gotten to the point of being quite odd, freakish and grotesque.

Well, deja vu,
YOU ARE MENTALLY CHALLENGED IN MY MIND,
TO ALWAYS PLACE ME into a "private pigeonhole of being KJV-only",
JUST LIKE THAT, EVERY DAY, JUST LIKE CLOCKWORK ORANGE,

since I hold those three concepts, above, and I am not KJV-only,
so, YOUR DEMANDS and DECREES of ALWAYS COMING OFF WITH:
"your exclusive only claims for the KJV", fanaticism
IS OF ONE "who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

"From the beginning men used God to justify the unjustifiable.

"People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil
as when they act out of religious conviction."

If you could check yourself, that would be just peachy,
or check yourself in, or have someone get you a regular Well Check,
that would be just great.

Now, I have to ask you, if I have said anything here today
that would make you want to hurt yourself, or someone else?
...

How bizarre.

And/or God's promises concerning preservation would be true
with regard to the KJV, if you'd never been born.

Good thinking. Check it out.

Way to share something for a change with some kind of content.

Wow, man. That's two in a row.

You get an "A" for the Day. Keep it up. Do something.

Check.

You are a true nutcase. Sorry.

Who comes up with these spores of fear?

That's the way things have gone sometimes, I guess.

You couldn't be more correctly jaded about all that.

If you deside to actually go completely crazy,
we'll let you know when you get here. That's all I can do.

I'm happy for you that you care one way or another
whether these people exist, or what they say, or write,
or assert, or sing to High Heaven.

They mean less to me than you do.

Why you quote them is a matter for the Bible critics to hash out.

Not me. Spare me. I DO NOT CARE.

 

I did not at all pigeonhole you as being KJV-only. I do not make anyone KJV-only.

You identify you yourself as being KJV-only by making exclusive only claims for the KJV. You try to deny what you yourself have asserted.

 

Here in your very own words, you make exclusive only claims for the KJV, demonstrating that you are KJV-only. You identified your own view as being KJV-only.

You do not prove your two KJV-only assertions to be true and scriptural.

You also use the fallacy of false dilemma as you incorrectly claim that there are only two choices.

 

As I qualified and stipulated in my post, for me personally,

I'll stand for quoting some fine material opposing The Occult, anytime,
compared to all those who complain about me being an Obsticle to their
One World Religion, One World Government, New World Translation.

I am Pro-KJV:

ONLY SUSPECT of VERSIONS WHOS ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS'
EGREGIOUS OMISSIONS INCLUDE A TESTIMONY of SALVATION.

P-KJV-OSVWOTEOITS.

My only exclusive only claim, as the only rational Christian position,
is to the exclusion of obvious overt S******m, on the march,
through the lost, for the lost,

(which should clearly be the intention of anyone set to oppose
the powers of darkness, without saying. It used to always be.)

You're exactly right. One Choice. A Bible, or No Bible.

You could be glad we have a Bible.

And I'm Pro-KJV:

= ONLY SUSPECT of VERSIONS WHOS ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS'
EGREGIOUS OMISSIONS INCLUDE A TESTIMONY of SALVATION.

P-KJV-OSVWOT-EOITS.

My only exclusive only claim, as the only rational Christian position,
is to the exclusion of obvious overt S******m, on the march,
through the lost, for the lost,

(which should clearly be the intention of anyone set to oppose
the powers of darkness, without saying. It used to always be.)

In contradistinction from "the Gnostic camp
where it is a matter of one opinion versus another opinion."

 

Relative to the foregoing, relatively speaking, within the context
of the articles I was quoting, there would be only one choice,
I'm Pro-KJV:

= ONLY SUSPECT of VERSIONS WHOS ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS'
EGREGIOUS OMISSIONS INCLUDE A TESTIMONY of SALVATION.

P-KJV-OSVWOT-EOITS.

My only exclusive only claim, as the only rational Christian position,
is to the exclusion of obvious overt S******m, on the march,
through the lost, for the lost,

(which should clearly be the intention of anyone set to oppose
the powers of darkness, without saying. It used to always be),

in contradistinction in context from:

"The Rules of Modern Textual Criticism",
"The modern critical texts, "shifting constantly, and every man
doing that which is right in his own eyes-
the deplorable state of modern man", "old first-century Gnosticism",


"the presuppositions of modern Gnosticism", "the Gnostic camp
where it is a matter of one opinion versus another opinion",
"there is a “snake in the woodpile",

"Since 1881, all the critical texts of the Greek New Testament
are a little shorter than the one published before it.
Westcott and Hort had a few hundred variant readings.

"Metzger’s edition has three to four thousand variant readings,
many of which he has deleted from the text
without so much as a footnote to tell you it has been deleted",

"If we go with the scholars,
there is no text that is accepted by all of them,

"Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts,"

"and leads to the destruction of the Faith that was once
and for all delivered to the saints AND NO BIBLE AT ALL.

I'm Pro-KJV:

= ONLY SUSPECT of VERSIONS WHOS ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS'
EGREGIOUS OMISSIONS INCLUDE A TESTIMONY of SALVATION.

P-KJV-OSVWOT-EOITS.

My only exclusive only claim, as the only rational Christian position,
is to the exclusion of obvious overt S******m, on the march,
through the lost, for the lost,

(which should clearly be the intention of anyone set to oppose
the powers of darkness, without saying. It used to always be.)

Get a tissue for all this and everything about me, please, big boy.

So, you can go fly a kite for all I care about whoever sent you,
since you have worthlessnessly nothing to say, yourself.

You are right, practically speaking there is only one choice.

Within the context of what I wrote and quoted, from among
the entire field of the old first-century Gnosticism Occult Manuals,
sourced from corrupt forgeries resurfaced from the Occult underground,
provided for a One World Government under the guise of Religion,

yeah, The General Argument would be that they provide nothing,
of course, from which a Christian would prefer to choose,

howbeit, The Specific Argument has always ferreted out
other translations (below), such as those I reference daily,

since my KJV-Onlyism is limited exclusively
to the pseudo-EXCITABLE realm of fantasy
by Sacriligious Blasphamous Fools, who breathe firebrands
in God's Face, over the prospect of His Involvement with the fact
that a translation of The Bible exists, called the King James Version.

I've listed these several times.

BTW, there is more than one in this list, if you will do the math,
but who's counting?

(Please, don't answer that.)

• 1526,1534 Tyndale New Testament
• 1535 Coverdale Bible
• 1537 Matthew Bible
• 1539 Great Bible
• 1560-1644 Geneva Bible
• 1568 Bishops' Bible
• 1611,1769 King James Bible
• 1764 Quaker Bible
• 1833 Webster Bible
• 1862 Young's Literal Translation
• 1876 Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
• 1985-1993 Jay P. Green's Literal Translation
• 2014 Modern English Version
• 2016 The October Testament (New Testament)
• 2016 King James 2016 (New Testament)

 

John 1:32. And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. (NRSV)

John 1:32. καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν

In this verse, the antecedent of the pronoun “it” (a supplied word to make the sentence read well) is πνεῦμα (Spirit), NOT περιστερὰν (dove). Because πνεῦμα is a neuter noun, the pronoun must also be neuter, that is, “it.” In the verses where the antecedent is Jesus, a masculine noun, the pronoun must also be masculine, that is, “He.”

 

No, he does not! Bullinger died on June 6, 1913. The word Heterosis first appears in print in 1914.

 

What about the tyranny of one exclusive group of Church of England experts in 1611 and the tyranny of a group of modern KJV-only advocates who seem to consider themselves perfect and infallible in their interpretations?

 

Do you demonstrate your own arrogance and pride as you proclaim your human view concerning the KJV to be "the only rational Christian position"?

 

We already have a full parking lot of posters, who, like the entire premise of the O.P., of this thread, (which is a prime example, after having labored through perfect renditions of the source language being called wrong errors of mistranslation, and such things as a singular/plural controversy, and the audacity of highly credentialed, actually qualified, saved, and experienced multilingual translators having failed to ask permission on whether or not they were allowed to use a comma, without being condemned to an Eternity in Hell), habitually post baseless, groundless, needless, superfluous, unfounded, unjustified, unprovoked, unwarranted, wanton, assumed, bottomless, causeless, indefensible, inessential, reasonless, supererogatory, uncalled-for, unessential, unmerited, unsupportable, and, of course, careless gratuitous assertions, all the time, every day, from which words, I sourced these synonyms, here. 41 Synonyms & Antonyms for GRATUITOUS | Thesaurus.com.

And, the reply you posted included my quote which contained the embedded link to Dr. Bullinger's publication in it, along with the referenced page number.

Although, I'm sure your reply was the result of a thorough investigation, the Title page to his book, "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible" has the date of it recorded.

I can't say that I look forward to another addition to the kind of Galactically bright ideas frequently seen here, spelled, I'm "smaurt", so if you would, try not to brag on your ignorance and we could get along just famously.

 

They translated a Magnificent Library Masterpiece the has stood the test of time and innumerable archenemies of The Holy Bible, like yourself, for over 400 years, and it is not going anywhere, for all Time and Eternity, but will always continue to hit anything it is pointed at.

Btw, may I advance the notion of mine that the opponents of any sort of offering to the public that begins with the letter "K that we're talking about, speedily earn such recognition from me as being "sacrilegious", "Anti-Christ", and "blasphemous".

And I believe that I'm not only perfectly correct about that, from the standpoint in The Realm of Spiritual Reality, but that the categorizations associated with the identifications of those same individuals, with respect to their sins while offending it's Author, could start to sound Christ-like, the way He handled such Affronts.

You don't want to go there and the BB rules won't allow for them, anyway.

So, you might have to wait to hear Jesus Christ, Himself, to tell you in Person, eyeballs to Eyeballs.

Why don't you go find some and ask them?

Doesn't that sound like a reasonable think to do?

And don't come back.

How do you like them apples?

 

The entirely deceptive and diabolical usurpation and abandonment of The Bible Doctrine of Preservation of the Scriptures was one of the most supernaturally evil and criminally insane crimes perpetrated in the history of the world, by Westcott and Hort to replace the underlying original Greek manuscripts, used by Christians for over 1,800 years, with the Greek manuscript that they wrote, based on some of the most unreliable and insufficient, highly suspect, manuscripts known to Mankind, under the "Brand Name", "Roman Catholic Church", while "The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text," upon which hundreds of "modern versions" of the "bible" are based, therefore,
to eschew them like the plague is "the only rational Christian position".

"...the principles on which the “New Greek Text” was constructed were “radically unsound;” and that “the Revision of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as-what it most certainly is- The most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the age.”

"The pertinent facts themselves are not difficult to understand; but they are inaccessible to most Bible readers."

"...it appeared desirable that our excellent and justly admired Authorized Version should have such a revision as that for which the Revision Committee was appointed in the year 1871. For it should be understood that what was contemplated by those who were responsible for the appointment of that Committee was simply a revision of the Version of 1611;"

"But instead of a Revised version of the long-accepted English Bible, the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The “Preface to the Edition of A.D. 1885” gives no indication of it; ...the important fact was discerned and brought to light that the Committee had produced, not a Revised Version (though that was the name given it) but a New Version, which was a translation of a “New Greek Text.”

"The Revision Committee not Instructed to
Fashion a New Greek Text."

"Moreover, it is to be noted in this connection that the instructions under which the Revisers acted did not contemplate the making of a New Greek Text; nor did they have the qualifications needed for such a complicated task...the Committee was instructed to undertake “A Revision of the Authorized Version,” with a view to “the removal of plain and clear errors,” and that the first rule was “To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized.”

"This prompts us to ask, if 36,000 alterations were the fewest possible for the Revisers to introduce, what would they have done had a perfectly free hand been given them?"

"Lachmann seems to have conceived a prejudicial dislike for the Received Text, and (as a good authority expresses it) to have “set to work to form a text independent of that, right or wrong. He started with the theory of ancient evidence only, thus sweeping away many copies and much evidence,..."

"This principle, first adopted by Lachmann, and followed with well-nigh calamitous results by his successors, including Drs. Westcott and Hort (who were responsible for the Text which underlies the R.V.) is based upon the tacit assumption that there existed in the fourth century a Greek Text which was generally accepted, and which was also virtually pure. But it is now recognized that the very worst corruptions of the original Writings are those which occurred prior to this time."

"Dean Burgon, declared-

“So manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by the two codices (Vatican and Sinaitic) that, instead of accepting them as two independent witnesses to the inspired original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and comparatively late copy.“

“The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but of fact …. In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses .no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus ‘abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.’ On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.”

"In enumerating and describing the five ancient Codices now in existence, Dean Burgon remarks that four of these, and especially the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. “have, within the last twenty years, established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics which can only be fitly spoken of as blind superstition.”

"Those ancient Codices have indeed been blindly followed, notwithstanding that they differ “not only from ninety-pine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant Mss. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. As said of the two false witnesses that came to testify against Christ, so it may be said of these witnesses who are brought forward at this late day to testify against the Received Text, “But neither so did their witness agree together.”

"It is easy to understand why the Codex Vaticanus Ms. is cherished at the Vatican; for its corruptions are what make it valuable to the leaders of the papal system. We can conceive therefore the satisfaction of those leaders that their highly prized Ms. has been allowed to play the leading part in the revision of the English Bible, than which there is nothing on earth they have more reason to fear."

"Briefly then, to sum up the matter thus far, we observe:

"1. That the most important and deplorable of the departures of the New Greek Text from the Received Text have been made with the support of less than one percent of all the available witnesses; or in other words, the readings discarded by the Revisers have the support of over 99 percent of the surviving Greek Texts (besides Versions and Fathers)

"2. That the two Mss. which had the controlling influence in most of these departures are so corrupt upon their face as to justify the conclusion that they owe their survival solely to their bad reputation."

"The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R. V.”

 

"The Procedure of the Revision Committee."

"Some of our readers will perhaps be asking how it was possible that the learned men who composed the Revision Committee could have allowed the great mass of testimony which sustains the authenticity of the Received Text to be set aside upon the sole authority of two Codices so dubious as the two we have been discussing. The explanation is that the Revisionists did not consider these matters at all. They were not supposed to undertake the refashioning of the Greek Text-for that lay entirely outside their instructions-and they had therefore no occasion to go into the many intricate matters involved in the weighing of the evidence for and against the Received Text.

"Neither was it their province to decide upon the soundness of the principle of following ancient Mss. only;"

"In view of all the facts it seems clear that, not until after the Committee had disbanded, and their work had come under the scrutiny of able scholars and faithful men, were they themselves aware that they had seemingly given their official sanction to the substitution of the “New Greek Text” of Westcott and Hort for the Textus Receptus. The Westcott and Hort Text had not yet been published, and hence had never been subjected to scrutiny and criticism; nor had the principles upon which it was constructed been investigated. Only after it was too late were the facts realized, even by the Revisers themselves.

"The mischief has thus been traced back to those two scholars, and to a Text that had not yet seen the light of day and been subjected to the scrutiny of other scholars. And we now know that not until after the R.V. of the New Testament had been published was it known that the Westcott and Hort Text had been quietly imposed upon the Revisers, and that it was conformed to the two old Codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

"Dean Burgon was one of the first to call attention to the fact that the most radical departures in the R.V. were not new translations of the Received Text, but were departures that arose from changes in the Greek Text itself.


"No announcement of this important fact had been made by the Committee; and indeed there was seemingly a disposition to throw a veil over this part of the proceedings in Committee. “But,” says Dean Burgon, “I traced the mischief home to its cue authors-Dr. Westcott and Hort-a copy of whose unpublished text, the most vicious in existence, had been confidentially and under pledges of the strictest secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising body.”

"Dean Burgon said that the effect of careful investigations would eventually convince all competent judges that the principles on which the “New Greek Text” was constructed were “radically unsound;” and that “the Revision of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as-what it most certainly is- The most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the age.”

from: Philip Mauro: Which Version? Authorized or Revised (1924) – Preterist Archives
...

"The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy."
By: Dr. Phil Stringer

The Westcott and Hort Theory.

"In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but 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 heart of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.

"The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests 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 clearly had 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. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

"Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact.

Westcott and Hort Only!

"It is clear that the modern movement to revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.

"K.W. Clark writes, "...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other...The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly."

"E.C. Colwell writes, "The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, ...But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. ...This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped - and still shapes - the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language."

"Zane Hodges, a long-time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes, "Modern textual criticism is psychologically addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate."

"Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in 1951, "The present generation of Bible students having been reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory without independent or critical examination. ...if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort."The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.

"What You Have to Believe to Accept the Westcott and Hort Theory.

• "You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
• "You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
• "You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
• "You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
• "You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
• "You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth-century rationalists did have the pure word of God."

 

No, thank you for asking.

Perrish the thought.

They are as equally delusional as those who would have you believe
that there are God-Honoring products that they have produced,
as a result of having Zero God-Honoring intentions or efforts invested in them,
from their initial inception to treat them "like any other book", in translation,
until they are returned by deceived and dissatisfied purchasers, or burned.

 

That site's PDF link is broken.