Common Lies about Westcott and Hort
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Did Westcott and Hort disbelieve the Trinity? the deity of Christ? the inspiration of Scripture? Did they follow the occult? Listen to them in their own words.
NOTE: I'm releasing this video a full week early, because so many people have been confused by how long it's taken the TCC to get to the substance of the charges against Westcott & Hort. That means that there will be no video next Thursday.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series on RUclips:
bit.ly/50FalseFriends
👏 Many thanks to Jonathan Burris of @pastorburris for editing this video as a volunteer support to my little ministry!
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Joe Siler, Mark Sarhan, Melissa F, Rachel Schoenberger.
Dr. Ward, I just want to say that I appreciate the kindness and fairness you express as you strongly disagree with someone. It sets a good example!
Also, thank you for the strong, clear guidance you provide so that our faith in the text of Scripture can be strengthened. It's very much appreciated!!
Wow, thank you!
From what I understand, Riplinger intentionally conflated Brooke Foss Westcott with William Wynn Westcott (this is mentioned in passing) specifically so she could slander him further. She apparently wrote a footnote admitting as much, but refused to take back her assertions.
Let's not forget that by denying she was trying to conceal her gender by using her initials, and then saying "G.A. Riplinger" stood for "God and Riplinger", she was effectively claiming to have written the 67th book of the Bible.
As @MarkWardOnWords often reminds us, we all choose to trust our Bibles, not because we ourselves are scholars, but because someone we've heard (and presumably trust) has assured us. This is tremendously helpful material. This isn't the academic equivalent of "my translator can beat up your translator" stuff, but rather "let's all learn together." I can't imagine where I would get this info otherwise.
✔
For many years I was associated with a church that has a different understanding of some topics than I do. My attitude, which I hope showed, was that I didn't promise to agree with them on everything, but differences shouldn't stop us blessing each other.
This was the information about W&H that I was looking for . Thank you both for making this so obvious for us .
Glad it was helpful!
How great you guys are making these comprehensive and informative videos on this topic. Thank you.
Informative and enlightening. The reputation of W&H can hopefully be restored. I look forward to the continuation. Thank you both!
Glad you enjoyed it!
DA Waite: "Saying that Jesus is "IN ABSOLUTE UNION WITH
GOD" is heresy against the doctrine of the Trinity!"
The Athanasian Creed, one of the most succinct and ancient statements on the doctrine of the Trinity: "...We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in UNITY, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence..."
That has to be the dumbest accusation of Trinitarian heresy I've ever seen, and Waite has no excuse.
I find that when KJV Onlyists try to accuse others of disbelief in the Trinity, what they do instead is present something approaching Modalism as if it were true Trinitarianism (though I don't think they're intending to do so...usually).
This was so good. Listened to the whole thing. Beautifully done.
I will be using this information in the future.
So great. Can't express it enough.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you, brothers. This finally undoes the damage caused in my life by a VHS of Riplinger I saw back in the nineties.
This video is what I was waiting for. Thank you for providing balance.
Wow! Very eye opening. This is the content we come for. Thanks
Our pleasure!
As usual, thank you!
This misrepresentation of W/H has been on my radar for some time now, but haven't looked into it deeply. I'm looking forward to sharing this! Thank you both for bringing it to the forefront! ❤
Hope you enjoy it!
@markwardonwords Absolutely!
@@markwardonwords
Mark, I have a question for you.
I have been reading through acts in the NIV, and I have come to acts 26v28 and I have noticed the NIV is really different to the KJV at this point.
The reason I point it out is I have literally listened to dozens of evangelistic sermons on this text from the KJV.. about being almost persuaded.
So my question is, is the NIV being more accurate at this point or is it watering it down?
(Sorry the question isn’t related to w&h)
@@jordyE.. There's another option: both are accurate, because the Greek is difficult and/or ambiguous. That's the case here!
I took Gail Riplingers quotes of W&H in her book on New Age Bible Versions, and got down my Westcott commentaries off my shelf and actually read the quotes she was referring to and I found that she was "cutting and pasting" to make it appear that they were saying what they were not.....OF course, they were Anglican and I had some doctrinal differences with them but..........................
Thanks for sharing this information it is much appreciated
Glad it was helpful!
Once again a great video thank you Mark and it says a lot about how a lot of those on the other side don't bear Christian fruit when dealing with this topic
Thank you, Brothers 🌹⭐🌹⭐
Our pleasure!
This video is GOLD, you guys! Really well done. Ah, if only your hard work on this subject could put some of the debates to rest once and for all...
I pray so!
Amen! May God bless this information .
I'm a KJV reader but I'm glad you're doing this series; the truth matters.
✔ Amen! Thank you for this.
Excellent discussion gentlemen.
Thank you!
This is so good, thank you.
Our pleasure!
Many moons ago, I also heard negative things about W&H. If what you’re saying is true, then it is our duty to rectify the situation. We must be honest, even if it goes against what we have been led to believe. The ends never justify the means.
Mark, thank you and Tim for your excellent work and gracious spirit in dismantling these arguments. Would it be possible to have the quotes from W and H in a document form along with footnotes to their source posted on your website?
We're working on it! We couldn't quite get it done in time for the release!
Great video by both of you. I was wondering if you could share what the titles were of the two books by Hort and Westcott with those two great quotes about the resurrection? Are the books in Logos? Might need to add them to my collection. Have a blessed evening.
This is fun and rare hearing Baptists talk about the Nicene Creed, not slamdering, and Anglicans. It is heartwarming to a Confessional Presbyterian.
Alright Letis!
I think a number of Baptist thinkers I have met have a high regard for the Nicene and Apostle's Creed.
@@kevinshort2230 Praise the Lord for that! In my experience it is quite rare, other than Reformed Baptists, of a Confessional variety.
@@brettmahlen722 it depends on how much you read, though I should admit, while not reformed, I am a Calvinist of the general sort.
I had never heard of W&H before this series, but this video is relatable. I appreciate you turning to the original sources. Mark, I admire your careful, dispassionate, and merciful treatment of those who propagate misinformation. I hope to better follow your approach.
Thank you, Justin. That is very kind!
Hi Mark, I really appreciate your ministry. Timothy mentioned a PDF response to the 14 supporting arguments from D.A. Waite. Is there any chance I could get that?
Working on this. We just couldn’t quite get it done in time for the video release.
That would be useful.
It comes to me as a surprise to hear most of the things I have from these sessions. I always had a very distorted view (it would now appear) of W/H and it seems I have been misled. The slanders against them is shockingly peddled about as truth, truth I have swallowed to my shame. Kindly share your sources about W/H as I'd want to read these for myself.
Thank you.
Very good! I am just amazed that people who call themselves "Christians" will allow themselves to be hood winked as they seem to believe things that align with their bias' without ever checking them out for themselves to see if they are, in fact, accurate.
Looking for a link to the pdf Tim mentioned maybe, please. :)
If Wescott and Hort denied the trinity would that necessarily nullify their Bible scholarship? Would proving that they held traditional evangelical doctrine, even old school Baptist like myself, validate or invalidate anything? It might orove some prejudice in determining the best text but not necessarily undermine the scholarship or underlying premise. Orthodoxy is incredibly important to me, but there have been some excellent scholars who have made some positive contributions who held some rather unorthodox ideas. I remember a discussion with a KJV Only attendee. I was informed that some of the translators of the NIV did not agree with the Southern Baptist doctrines. I informed him that the translators of the KJV were all Anglicans who he might also classify as unorthodox at least as he defined it.
My Greek teacher was a modalist as regards the trinity but knew the languages better than anyone
Agreed.
The New World Translation is a translation by scholars that didn't believe in the trinity but yet the NWT stands as strong or even stronger than many translations by trinitarians.
Your response is telling, if Bible translation were merely intellectual the comment would be appropriate but the Bible itself makes it clear it isn't a matter of intellect. Just looked at 13 different translations and they all have the same message, ynsaved individuals cannot receive the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spirituality discerned.
Mark could you please put the links to the other videos in this series in your notes? I am trying to go back to the first episode and having a hard time finding it
Hopefully this will help!
ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPC8DHPKsXWl8zl3iAG64qyV
I’ll pray for you both.
I love this duo
The realization that you have been lied to your whole life about the KJVO issue is a hard thing to accept. I'm so thankful my eyes were opened to the truth. Thank you Mark for all of your efforts, your channel has helped me to love Gods word even more.
Agreed. You are so welcome, brother. Good to see you in person that one time! And thank you for your help that day!
Thank you so much for your ministry Pastor Mark! It is truly a blessing. I deconstructed KJV onlyism because of James white but your angle is much needed and I’m grateful for the work you do.
I’m also desperate to find an answer on a question that I don’t have an answer to because I don’t know the original languages: the Greek words “Aion” and “Aionios” are disputed in their meaning and translation. This has huge implications for Jesus prophecies in the Olivet discourse and eternal punishment views of hell. A resource to learn more would be much appreciated. Love you and grateful for your channel!
For citations of the "eternal" or "everlasting" senses of these words, both inside and outside the Biblical canon, see Thayer's lexicon.
aion: www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g165/kjv/tr/0-1/
aionios: www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g166/kjv/tr/0-1/
If you have access to the current Bauer-Danker lexicon from 2001 (often called BDAG), you can find extensive citations on pp. 28-29.
Amen to M.A.!
Hi Mark, will your membership videos always be available only through the membership or will they be released later down the road sometime?
All videos will always be release to all! The only exceptions are brief videos with housekeeping details for supporters.
Wonderful rebuke of the false witness against Westcott and Hort. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 Paul asks “is Christ divided.” Of course we know the answer is NO! There is plenty of real evil to be called out. No need for KJV only advocates to fabricate and promote blatant lies.
Will this be posted for those who missed?
It's out now!
Never ever forget the KJV translators said that all the english translations prior to the KJV are the word of God. That in and of itself debunks that the KJV is the only bible in english.
They translated from the TR. Which is the Word of God
@@SAlaaitie The TR was a manuscript that was compiled by Erasmus which was based on half a dozen late Greek manuscripts.
Furthermore the Codex Vaticanus which contains much of the old testament and the new testament as well as the Codex Sinaiticus which contains the new testament are the two oldest manuscripts and they do not have Mark 16:9-20 as well as Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7.
Looking at Mark 16:9-20 these verses were clearly added to the gospel of Mark by someone who didn't like the ending of Mark 16:8.
Furthermore the Eunuch in Acts chapter eight says look here is water what prevents me from being baptized not saved. Philip clearly told the Eunuch that those who put their faith in Christ get baptized. The Eunuch clearly came to a saving faith hence what prevents me from being baptized tells Philip a man full of the Holy Spirit would know that the Eunuch came to a saving faith in Christ..
And then in 1 John 5:7 there are three that bear witness in heaven interrupts what is zeroing in on the water and the spirit and the blood.
If you say that the KJV provides for a richer reading if you love the thee and the thou and the thine and the thee and ye and believeth and gavest that is perfectly fine. But the Geneva bible and the ASV are written in the same style and again the KJV translators declared that they did not make a new translation. Furthermore they declared all the translations prior to the KJV the KJV translators gave the thumbs up.
There is a story that Hoskier included a reading in Revelation that he got from a séance. I heard this while I was at Tyndale House and I asked whether this just meant 'at a conference (i.e. an academic meeting)'. Perhaps that was before Hoskier followed in Burgon's footsteps.
This was discussed on the ETC Blog and commented upon by TCC's own Peter Montoro. evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/09/spirit-testimony.html?m=1
@MarkWardOnWords Thank you for this i am going to much digging on this subject. I am KJV only but i am also open to truth. And pray God gives me direction on this. Any recommendations would be much appreciated.
Pray, read your Bible, take your time, listen to the best of both sides. And *separate the issues of text and translation completely.*
Here’s a post offering the best of all sides: byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/
@@markwardonwordsthank you
3rd session of 5? Did I miss the second one?
They were released to supporters at about the same time last night.
@markwardonwords ooooh i did miss the second one... I went and checked earlier and must have missed it... going to go listen to that one now.
I have to wonder whether or not your representation of Bryan Ross's video series on "exact" and "perfect" in the preface meets your own standard of slander? 9:13
I believe we did not engage in any slander [edited: I accidentally said "I believe so" the first time, because I misread your comment!]. I love Bryan as a brother in Christ and still correspond with him. Tim does, too. I wish to say nothing further.
I just sort of assumed that these accusations against Westcott and Hort were one of the few areas of the argument that the TR-Only community had gotten right. Never bothered to look it up, never questioned it. I should have known better. Wow, what an enlightening episode. Sadly time and time again this crowd shows that they will stop at nothing to gaslight anything other than the Greek underlying the KJV. Thank you for this!
I am praying that someone in that world will, upon hearing Tim's clear evidence, either a) publicly acknowledge that he has done wrong or b) publicly acknowledge that their KJV-Only side has done wrong.
I have managed to listen to these past three videos about Westcott and Hort even with my simple mind. I have to say that the topic has been very interesting. Have I heard the names "Westcott" and "Hort" ? Yes. But, I never knew anything about them. To discover that these men have been subject to slander over the years is news to me. Subscribing to your channel only recently, I wonder if this isn't in some form God's providence? Perhaps the subject may come up in the near or far future, I do not know. Being able to recommend these videos would be great! I think the main question that is weighing on my mind is why would people want to make these men look so badly? When my husband and I were saved, our pastor used NIV. He never preached against KJV or NKJV. He always made sure that it was understood to be a translation. He often thought it was good for a new believer to begin reading a Bible they could understand. Now, I still read NIV, but our current pastor uses NKJV. The commentary we use at home is NKJV. I have found that several years ago, our son was gifted a "young adult" NIV Bible when he was baptized. It does have some different words here and there from my older NIV. Mainly, I suppose to make sure young girls don't feel left out... anyway, I just don't understand the motive of slandering these two men. What is the goal? I have often found anyone that says "KJV only" is very arrogant and somewhat elevates him or herself to where I don't know because they continue to look me in the eye regardless if they are looking down at me for reading the NIV. It seems that it takes away from the beauty of the scriptures. Perhaps it robs the person they are belittling from enjoying the words of God written to us. What purpose does that serve? To belittle a brother or sister in Christ because of the translation they choose to read has baffled me for quite a few years now. All I know is that I am thankful to be born in a country where the Bible is legal. I can read it in peace. I have several on a shelf. It is God's Word spoken to me; guiding me through the remainder of my life on this planet. I am grateful to the men who gave their lives while translating the Bible. How do you ever pay that back? I'm thankful for a translation in my language. Thank you again for the videos. I find them to to me very interesting.
Grateful for this. I'm with you!
“David was not a chronological person, but a spiritual person”
Does anyone know who this quote is attributed to?
Who?
I didn't notice he second one either...
Reading the life and letters on Fenton Anthony John Hort quite the eye opener
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
I watched a video on RUclips called "The Great Bible Hoax Of 1881: Is The Text Mistranslated?" and in that video they raised many questions for me even though I have been studying the topic of textual criticism on and off for twenty something years. Can Mark Ward watch that video and make a video to address it?!
Thank you brothers for researching and presenting the evidence in relation to those accusations. I've been aware of them because its not difficult to come across them when Googling anything about the TR debate but I've never come across anything looking into the background and basis (or lack therof) for them.
It's interesting that the Hort "turn the tables" quote has been brought up here. It's not one of the more popular ones in the debate (from what I've seen), but I recently interacted with a current KJV-Only channel UG Church (Underground Church), where, in comments responding to my complaints about Westcott and Hort being misrepresented, in regard to the "turn the tables" quote, said, "The argument that the KJV crowd reads all of Westcott & Hort's quotes out of context is now a completely outdated overgeneralization. For example, all sides now agree that when Hort wrote to his wife in 1864, "We tried to turn tables, but the creatures wouldn't stir," he was absolutely referring to contacting spirits. This is unanimous. Hort was opening himself up to demons as one would engaging with a Ouija board. The "all or nothing" days of claiming W&H's quotes are all either innocent or evil are past. We should recognize the obvious: even if a few of their quotes have been taken out of context by some in the past, it doesn't change the fact that other of their writings still indisputably show them guilty of the KJV crowd's claims."
I asked for evidence as to how it was that the view of Hort referring to contacting spirts was "unanimous", and he could not provide any, saying it would take him a long time to do so, and then he accused me of not searching well enough, but I have done searches on it and simply cannot find any evidence that everyone agrees that Hort was referring to some kind of seance. I also can't find where that quote came from and what the context is. Does anyone know? It remains strange and ambiguous to me.
I didn't know Westcott's book on the resurrection was in print! Actually Westcott's book is an important work in the evidentialist tradition.
Habermas isn't just an apologist who focuses on the resurrection, he is one of the most important writers on that subject today. His influence on that field is incalculable.
Thanks very much for this, Mark and Timothy. Setting the record straight is so important. I think there is a circularity here on the part of the KJVO folks. Why do WH supposedly deny the deity of Christ? Because they remove references in the NT manuscripts to the deity of Christ. "Therefore," they deny the deity of Christ, and therefore they cannot be trusted. Never mind the assumption that a given reading in the NT automatically aligns with the TR. There is the fallacy of the beard going on here. How many hairs constitute a beard? If someone says "3,000 hairs," then someone could ask, "Well, if you have 2,999 hairs, do you still have a beard?" Then, when you walk it down, hair by hair, the actual number is different. How many times does the CT affirm the deity of Christ? It seems to me that this is the key issue with WH.
I like this beard illustration. It suits us both, Lane.
I may use this, because this is my big concern with the TR folks, too. The most educated ones acknowledge differences among TR editions. They know there is no one "TR"-even though they frequently talk like there is. So the beard question arises: how come dozens of differences in multiple categories (spelling, word order, clauses, etc.) are okay among TR editions but not between the TRs and the CT?
There seem to be several different issues to consider: Westcott and Hort’s beliefs; their sincerity, honesty and integrity; their study method and sources; their results and conclusions.
Haven't finished the video yet, but I recall reading in a KJVO book (I believe it was Nolan Jones' work) that either Westcott or Hort would carry around an idol box and pull out little idols to worship. I looked at the footnote, and the author cited another KJVO author (Ruckman, maybe? I should have taken notes when I saw this) who claimed he'd found that tidbit in their journals. To this author's credit, he looked through all of the journals, his footnote claimed. However, he was unable to find the story. Jones then said that he knew the other author to be honest and true, so he left the anecdote in. I couldn't believe my eyes.
Wow. =(
@@markwardonwords Yep, just found it again. Chapter 3, page 57, footnote 1. Jones cites Ruckman and says it was Hort's idol box.
@@calebschaaf1555 I believe it is morally wrong to trust Peter Ruckman.
@@markwardonwords for anyone other than the most naive layperson I’d fully agree
Hyles still has his defenders, as well. The problem in the IFB all to often is, they say you can't associate with those associated with John MacArthur, a good but imperfect man, but you can associate with those who have defended absolute scoundrels like Hyles or Ruckman.
Lying about fellow Christians with whom we have theological disagreements, particularly theologians and pastors, seems to be a common problem across denominations. I have seen it so often in Presbyterian and Reformed circles that I have come to the conclusion "Presbytery is when Elders gather to break the 9th commandment." Misquotes, misrepresentations, taking comments out of context, caricatures, and out right slander are common. No matter how much the accused seeks to clarify what they said, mean and believe the accuser continues to assert, "We know what you REALLY believe!" Then the accuser(s) creates a "We vs. Him" campaign and an "ism" is attached to their name ("Wescott and HortonISM" ) and anyone who defends W&H (who anyone else) becomes a Wescott and HortonIST.
Did Wescott and/or Hort believe the TR was vile?
We discuss this in the next video. Wait just a bit!
Perhaps W and H have received so much flack because they wrote in English, Tischendorf in Latin.
Actually, that is one of the reasons the King James Version is targeted by some, because it was produced in English.
So Westcott truthfully did attend at least one seance as is documented… How can you reconcile that?
With what, my friend? Reconcile it with what?
@@markwardonwordsI’m saying how can you justify that… I’m not KJV only or a TR advocate, and I’m not a critical text guy either. However, I’m open to either side. But it seems to me that if either one or both of the men attended a seance as is documented… that’s a very serious matter.
@@maxwellhufford7115 I agree. But I’m not sure I understand what your conclusion is!
How can anyone be sure he never 'repented' or asked for forgiveness for what he did? Just for an example; look at the things the Apostle Peter did. He was forgiven. None of us are blameless. We must be careful not to judge others as 'unforgiven.'
We're they attending as practitioners or debunkers? There was a movement that sought to empirically debunk spiritualism in the day and some did attend seances. Did that make the debunkers occultism? No. It might not have been wise, but empirical investigation of claims when these things were newish (and they were at the time) fit the Oxford ethos at the time.
I'm curious Mark what your response is, when people like Phil Stringer mention about the fact that Westcott's son Arthur recorded a time when Westcott went into an empty cathedral and his daughter asked him if he had company and he said that he was not alone because of "communion of the saints." He takes it to mean that he felt the presence of spirits in his midst. What's your response to that?
I have never heard this; I would prefer to interpret it in light of the many clear evidences Tim put forward in this and other videos.
@@markwardonwords Here's the quote and it's from page 312-313 from Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, by his son, Arthur Westcott:
"His Church Congress papers include those delivered at Nottingham in 1871, at Leeds in 1872, at Brighton in 1874, and at Leicester in 1882. The last of these, on The Communion of Saints, seems peculiarly associated with Peterborough, and is published in a volume of Peterborough Sermons. The subject, too, is one so very dear to himself. He had an extraordinary power of realising this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. I have been with him there on a moonlight evening when the vast building was haunted with strange lights and shades, and the ticking of the great clock sounded like some giant's footsteps in the deep silence. Then he had always abundant company. Once a daughter in later years met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland Castle, and she said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone ?" " Oh no," he said, " it is full " ; and as he spoke his face shone with one of his beautiful smiles."
@@eclipsesonic I still lack sufficient context and knowledge, and I'm still happy to interpret the unclear (this anecdote) in light of the clear (the clear statements Tim brought out in this videos). Does that help?
@@markwardonwords Yes, it does. Perhaps you could send Tim Berg this quote and see what he thinks? 👍
Another excellent video. I appreciate your repeating more slowly some of Tim's expressions. He does talk very fast. I speak most respectfully; it would be helpful for comprehension for him to slow down.
Gail Riplinger is more of a modern Bible version attacker, rather than a KJB defender.
I think you are correct, does that mean that Mark Ward and Tim Berg are slandering her when they call her a defender?
Have you ever looked into Carlo Martini and George Vance Smith being on Westcott and Hort's Revision Committe?
I think your primary issue with this is that people do not take the time to research and see if they're being told the truth. The Bereans were commended because they checked the source texts used, but so many Christians today simply take the word of authorities because that's what they were taught to do. It's obedience and submission taken to an unhealthy level, and it's culturally ingrained; I say this with confidence because that's how I grew up in a southern small town. I inherited my grandfather's bible from when he preached, and there's a tract in there titled "Though they dig into hell"; it's about the Kola Superdeep Borehole, although the tract never says the name for it. It mentions there were noises that were attributed to people screaming, and the tract is arguing they bored a hole into hell; it even referred to the event being covered on secular news, but, of course, it didn't provide a source. I can guarantee you my grandfather would've believed that to be true, because it came from a trusted source, and why would he verify a trusted source? Plus, he kept it in his bible.
I appreciate your humility in dealing with people, and your extreme reluctance with labeling people liars because of how you've been historically treated; you have a kind heart and it shows through your actions. Christians, however, sin every day, whether by commission or omission, and there's no reason that deliberate lies or distortion would be out of the picture. It's a terrible truth, but it's real, and so long as you continue to have a compassionate response, I don't think that working through this experience will leave you worse
I am by no means Evangelical (I left it twelve years ago and eventually turned to Orthodoxy), but I still have a deep appreciation for your ministry and work. It is good, and, sadly, necessary. I hope my input helps in some way, and, if not, at least someone listened to my rambling. Please, try to not be discouraged at what you're encountering.
I appreciate your encouragement, I really do.
I hope that Dr Riddle who is in my own camp will listen to this .
I am not personally aware that Dr. Riddle has made these kinds of slanders. And we quote Letis, whom Riddle respects, as defending W&H. So perhaps Dr. Riddle hasn't used this kind of argumentation?
Were w and h not Unitarians? Who do not believe in the diety of Christ?
Please watch the video if you wish to have an answer to your questions.
27:08 Sorenson for sure didnt care if what he was saying was true or not as long as it served the kjv idol
I never want to say that if I can possibly avoid it. God knows his heart. I don’t.
They commuted with spirits an started an organization that studied paranormal activity
Please watch the video.
I understand that we need to be charitable to the kjv only folks. But I have found encounters with them have proved that they are prideful Jerusalem. Just saying. And I think they need to get harsh pushback.😊
This is probably the harshest video I've ever made. Tim and I work hard to be gracious (God help us!), as you know, and this the only time I can remember saying that our opponents have "lied."
@@markwardonwords That is OK brother, because they have lied or repeated lies without care.
Robert
I have had encounters with them on the internet. They were prone to attack people rather than the doctrine. I asked them not to do that but they doubled down and pushed harder. Repeated requests to be civil and polite were met with scoffs.
I started researching as a result of an encounter with a kjv only guy. I wanted to have a response and know what i was talking about because in my spirit i knew this was not who Almighty God is. He is way bigger than to be limited by absolutism.
At this point though, i am fascinated with this field (textual criticism)and can't get enough.
The content on this channel is gold!! Presented with integrity and great care for truth with grace.
a lot of these ''kjvo'' authors who are openly lying about these christian gentleman need to be saved themselves
”And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.“
Mark 2:15 KJV
Genuinely difficult to understand here.
Jesus sat at meat?
Even the Geneva Bible is easier to understand here:
”And it came to passe, as Iesus sate at table in his house, many Publicanes and sinners sate at table also with Iesus, and his disciples: for there were many that followed him.“
Mark 2:15 GNV
You figure KJVO folks would not allow a woman (Riplinger) to teach or have authority over men... 🤔
Within Anglicanism, I have never heard that Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot were anything other than fully orthodox. I do not know of any Anglicans who believe lies like that. BTW I have been a priest of the Episcopal Church for 43 years. I also taught at Codrington College in Barbados, in the Church in the Province of the West Indies.
A worthy testimony.
Not related, but I think a good idea would be render the plural you in Greek in modern English as a ‘you’ with an asterisk. (*you) so that the reader is aware of whenever the plural is used.
Example:
KJV reading:
”Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.“
John 3:7
NKJV with added *
”Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘*You must be born again.’“
John 3:7
This is thoughtful-but I can't say I agree. I think the value of a clean text on the page without intrusions needs to be weighed against the value of clarity on this minor point. Context already tells me, in almost every case, when "you" is singular and when it is plural. I say: find the cases where context doesn't tell me well enough, and where that information is important for interpretation, and put footnotes there.
The only absolute perfection is God. Everything else is subject to the limits of finitude, even Scripture, since it is revealed to, transmitted through, copied, handled, and interpreted by flawed human beings. The wish to have a flawless text, church, community, or faith is a denial of God's design for creation.
1. As an outsider without any personal stake in this controversy, isn't this character assassination just a smokescreen to cover over the discrepancy between the KJV's reliance on Byzantine Text Type and Westcott & Hort's reliance on Alexandria Text Type?
2. The former remains fixed and static, but the latter was a breakthrough resulting in a flexible approach to Bible translation that has produced a variety of versions over the past 140 years with later ones relying on all available resources.
3. Other then that, I find the cover art of Peter Ruckman's books The Mythological Septuagint (1996) and the Alexandria Cult Series (2000) to be absolutely hilarious, as well as ignoble successors to Chick tracts illustration.
On poibnt 3, yes, Ruckman said he "mastered acrylic painting" (I believe that's a direct quote), but I always found his paintings amateurish at best. =( I like Jack Chick's art much better.
1. Ruckman acrylics ... icons Cyrillic?
2. Yes, Jack Chick could have illustrated Book IV of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, particularly Chapter 18, No. 1, even though Chick was a Dispensationalist.
9:45 "you tell us tim is this true?"
"yeah" - Tim confirms W and H are heretics
Is it a sign of cowardice to slander dead people who can't defend themselves? The KJV only people are actually just angry that more and more people choose any version but KJV..
Yes. Agreed.
Their (angry KJVO) sin for which they WILL hafta answer
You mean people like King James and all those who worked on the KJB?
@@bobbymichaels2
King James did not actually work on the KJ Bible. He did, however, set conditions on what could be included and excluded. But certainly he consulted with churchmen before issuing the orders.
I would refer to Mark Ward and his expertise on cowardism, seeing as how he and TB essentially slandered Bryan Ross as a coward and Bryan is still alive.
It blows my mind how KJVO defenders twist historical sources, facts, and even older lies, to make their cases, and do so aligns them with Satan and the gods of the nations, who Paul clearly lays out that Jesus defeated through the cross, resurrection, and ascension...and is therefore the pattern of behavior that we are to have as our standard. Useful idiots for the dark side? That appears to be so, and yet, Jesus calls all men everywhere to repent.
Have you approached D. A. Waite?
No. Check out Carson’s editorial in this issue of Themelios for why we did not contact Waite. s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf
I downloaded and read. Thanks.
Much simpler to just call him a blatant liar, why should they contact him?
"Westcott and Hort were self-confessed unbelievers,infidels,unregenerate, strangers to the grace of God. However cleverly and deceptivelty they might have worded it, they denied virtually every doctrine of the faith" is a quote in the back of my 'Defined King James Bible'
I bought the bible years ago but this was before I paid attention to the history surrounding this whole issue...now that I know better everytime I look at the article thats written in the back of that Bible I get very upset at all the foolishness in it thats said with such conviction...
Agreed. :(
Yeah, I get irritated when I realize how often in my KJO days I was reading authors that were lying to me.
I for one would be particularly interested in your explanations of plain statements they made in their collected letters concerning their convictions.
Any specifics?
Their detractors quote extensively from their collected letters
. .
Why is our father which art in heaven missing from luke chapter 11 verse 2
Missing from what?
I mean: how do you know it wasn’t added at some point?
I find it more likely that somebody along the line was attempting to harmonize the passage with the same prayer in Matthew 6. It makes less sense to me that somebody would remove them from one passage but not the other if they were really trying to remove doctrine. Harmonization makes more sense.
@@curtthegamer934 our father now lives at the vatican 🇻🇦
Nothing you say will affect most KJV only people because Christianity teaches that God's spirit is in them, therefore, whatever they think or feel they believe is God speaking to them. If they feel something is true, they will think it is God's spirit telling them that. You can't argue with that. It is silly, but if a religion says everyone in it is a kind of prophet, then they will believe they are prophets and that their Bible was also written by prophets with God's spirit in them.
I certainly haven't set my sights as I high as reaching "most KJV-Only people." And what you say is true of many. But the Holy Spirit does reside in the vast, vast majority of them. So the truth has a strong beachhead.
@@markwardonwordsI am not a Christian. I am just fascinated by how new religions and religious beliefs start. The KJV only belief is a new religious belief. The idea that a later English translation is better than the ancient Greek version seems kind of strange to me. It shows how people will believe anything. Even that Cepher Bible is an example of how new religious beliefs can start and become very popular eventually.
@@kennethgreifer5123 It's unutterably sad to me that a non-Christian would be able to see such a clear truth when so many believers don't see it. And you have some justification for viewing KJV-Onlyism the way a scientist would, as yet another religious movement on an evolutionary tree that is full of them.
Of course, I don't see it that way. It's a distortion of the truth, the capital-T Truth.
I am a little confused by your position about the scriptures, are you saying that we are to trust the scriptures, just not trust them fully? What are the parts that we shouldn't trust, and who determines that?
Do one of these videos about any false teachings and beliefs W&H held and their views about the KJB and the TR.
I'll stick with my KJV, but this does (a bit) ease my mind about (occasionally) referring to other versions, for reference and comparison. While I was raised with the KJV, some passages, particularly conversations between people in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, I find the best enlightenment for those passages are in thought to thought translations rather than word for word versions.
Which cult is this.
A central issue is the methodology employed, which showed a preference for older manuscripts under the assumption that they were more likely to be closer to the original texts. The predominance of the majority text, in my view, is indisputably more authoritative than the minority text, based on probability alone. This seems self-evident, and the fact that most modern versions rely on the majority text is troubling, to say the least.
Instead, individuals could benefit from directly engaging with the text, studying ancient languages, and learning for themselves. My research leads me to conclude that the King James Version (KJV) stands out as the superior translation, particularly when one undertakes the rigorous research that many seem to avoid.
If the critics of the KJV devoted time to studying it and comparing the ancient languages to the English words, understanding grammatical terms like "past participle," they might appreciate its value.
After thorough research, I am increasingly convinced of the KJV's unparalleled excellence.
If numerous very intelligent Christians who can read Greek do not see a truth that seems to you to be self-evident, then perhaps it is not true. Or perhaps more research is warranted. You write with clarity, which (in my mind) usually accompanies clear thinking. I believe you can see this.
And two small rocks I'd like to place in your shoe, my friend: a) the KJV does not always follow the Majority Text (see Rev 16:5 and Rev 22:19, for example), so the KJV translators did not see the truth that you say is self-evident. Also, b) hundreds of times, there is no clear majority, and the correct reading must be determined on other grounds.
Even the devil believes Jesus is God 😅
I have no problem with you defending W/H. I am sure they were perfectly good fellows. I admit though, their personal character has never really had anything to do with why I (or most I know) prefer the KJV. So this video kind of comes across as a bit frustrating to watch on my part. You do kind of carelessly include all "KJV defenders" into a pretty loose group here and then point to some pretty unsavory people as the defining examples of that group.
I do not argue against you that there are no bad actors in the KJVO group, but I think a little more care could be spent creating a distinction. The only distinction you specifically pointed to was between those who intentionally lie and those who are simply uneducated, uninformed or ignorant. Not the best framing...
I watch a lot of your videos and know you try to be careful and kind and try to be as charitable as possible. For me personally, this one was a bit of a miss. I understand your goal but the overall framing of KJV defenders is not great.
I get it, Chancy. I wouldn't expect you to feel any differently-because you are NOT representative of the KJV-Only movement(s). I'm not sure I can prove empirically that you are an outlier, but my experience and that of Tim is that the great, great majority of KJV defenders either believe or promote slanders of Westcott and Hort, and that they take those slanderous accusations to be sufficient reason by itself to discount all modern English Bible translations. This kind of thing is incredibly widespread, in our experience-though if you look at this comment thread, I told one adherent to Confessional Bibliology that I have *not* heard Jeff Riddle talk this way. I'm willing to make that distinction!
@@markwardonwords To me this is like when I say "well I go to a Baptist Church" and the nonbeliever hearing goes "oh, so.. you're.. like Westboro Baptist?"
The loudest, most visible, and most talked about section of a group is not always the best representation of the whole, especially online.
I agree there is a very vocal and often aggressive KJVO presences online and while I have never been, I don't doubt in some areas of theological education, but I simply do not buy that they represent MOST people in the pews. I know you think I am an outlier, but I just do not see in my everyday life any of the vitriol or irrationality that is thriving online.
@@ChancyC Honestly: I believe you. And I am glad this is your experience. I don't deny your experience; I have to ask you to trust mine. Without some kind of empirical study, I don't know that either of us can be proved wrong. And there just isn't time or money to answer all big questions about the opinions and character of groups this way! We're stuck with our limited perspectives!
My two cents, I've met a few KJO guys who I think are good men. I have met aome good men who prefer the TR, they don't make arguments against the NKJV, either, however. They are, in my experience, an extreme exception to the rule, and most of those have been people utterly ignorant of the issue and largely had the humility to note their limitations.
I would say their is a distinction here between those who sit in the pew and are KJO or prefer the King James version, and those who actuvely pursue the matter. At a minimum even those types tend to believe the stories, this again assumes a distinction between the KJO and the TR only guy who doesn't make arguments against the NKJV etc.
@@ChancyC to piggy back on Mark's experience abit, I grew up in the IFB and this W&H slander was widely taught in those circles, especially from those with ties to IFB Bible colleges who graduate and spread the slander to their congregations
But I do admit outside those particular circles the slander isnt near what it used to be.
5:51 - When I hear the words "blatantly lying," it occurs to me that I would feel much better about candidly calling John MacArthur and James R. White and Bruce Manning Metzger and Bart Denton Ehrman and N.T. Wright and Norman Geisler and Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland a bunch of liars for spreading untrue claims about Mark 16:9-20.
ACADEMIANS: "You should be more civil; it hurts your argument when you descend to ad hominems."
ALSO ACADEMIANS: "It's okay when we di it!"
You can affirm weekly with your mouth anything. But actions speak louder than words. It seems to me that Critics dont take any word at face value, but have to even decifer the plain letters of westcott and hort like their reading the Bible.
The devil is a deceiver and yet you guys cant seem to see that. The creed they had to lay down as deacons or bishops means nothing as a defence if they were insider Jesuits. Because the Jesuit creeds says that you will do anything to destroy protestantism, even if you have to join the otherside and infiltrate the enemy
"we have been born and bred in the faith that Christ resurrection in Jerusalem is IN SOME WAY an assurance of our rising"
That does NOT sound like someone who FIRMLY believes in resurrection because Christ also rose from the grave. How can it, if it is only IN SOME WAY an assurance? IT IS AN ASSURANCE!!!
Easter day, so important, meanwhile it stems from Ishtar a pagan day of worship... Maybe why the emphasis was placed on the specific day?
"We have been born and bred" this is not someone specifically saying that they believe due to personal study of the scriptures. But just, this is what we've been taught. Could be true or maybe not?
"Im not entirely certain what Westcott said, but he did not say the evangelicals doctrines are perverted" what type of an argument is that?
Westcott and Hort believed in the inspiration of scripture, when it came to the 2 corrupt manuscripts.
And you placing "saw or found" DOES make a massive difference. If the Word does not stand fast, then we can place whatever we like in there, or whatever we think should be in there. God says EVERY word counts. So your statement is going against the very Word of God.
"Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
Proverbs 30:5
So, westcott attended a single seance, but that's it... 😂 And in his own letters said he has a full church at night when the church is empty. I have read this myself," in context" and the "context" is plain and simple. But. Oh no, no ocultism here. Lets move on. Lets denounce this by quoting someone who says its not true😂
These versions are not for one world religion- when in fact, they are bringing people from different churches, catholics and protestants together to translate bibles together. But, according to you this is just a conspiracy and not apart of the ecumenical movement at all...
Spiritual ministries? Saul was speaking to a demon. Not to Samuel.
this is the most biast video I've seen, by people who are supposed to be critical about things...
this guy is a wolf in sheep clothing here, this guy is not a honest person, your lying
Sorcerers go in the pit and welcome to go where westcott and hort are right now if you support them.
Great job rebuking Steven Anderson and proving King James Only. Now you just need to believe it.
🤡 Show ? Why should anyone believe your take ?
I would say, they clearly have done the work and the research. If you disagree, it would seem to me you need to present an argument, this isn't really something that anyone can respond to. Have you read any of Westcott and Hort's books for yourself?