B.F wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort

[preacherinblack]

are B.F wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort good scholars, are they occultist and bad? I want the truth about them and textual criticism.

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

No they are not occultists. You will hear this accusation over and over from KJV Only folks all the time. They were good scholars even though they held to theological convictions us Baptists would find odious.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Yes they were occultists. They were founding members of the Ghostly Guild, and complete heretics. I will get into this more when I have time. Wescott even communicated with sprits that Bible believers would recognize as demons. (Unless his kids lied)

In the meantime, Luke, USE THE GOOGLE.

 

[Keachian]

Yes they were occultists. They were founding members of the Ghostly Guild, and complete heretics. I will get into this more when I have time. They Wescott even communicated with sprits that Bible believers would recognize as demons. (Unless his kids lied)

Well Riplinger's quote mine of his kid's writing can't be trusted, I'll tell you that much. While they said that Westcott did not see fit to continue in the groups because he found their spirituality lacking in comparison with his Anglicanism, she twists it to say the opposite, her reliability to quote sources correctly is greatly wanting.

 

[Wearecommandedtojudge]

Well Riplinger's quote mine of his kid's writing can't be trusted, I'll tell you that much. While they said that Westcott did not see fit to continue in the groups because he found their spirituality lacking in comparison with his Anglicanism, she twists it to say the opposite, her reliability to quote sources correctly is greatly wanting.

You are falsely assuming all the information I have gotten about these OCCULTISTS were from Riplinger. They were most defiantly Occultists.

 

[classicalhero]

They certainly weren't good scholars of the Bible. They came in with preconceived ideas about the bible and fit the manuscripts that supported their views, even though they mostly used two old and rubbish manuscripts that were basically found in garbage piles.

 

[Keachian]

They certainly weren't good scholars of the Bible. They came in with preconceived ideas about the bible and fit the manuscripts that supported their views, even though they mostly used two old and rubbish manuscripts that were basically found in garbage piles.

It is an urban myth that Sinaiticus was found among the garbage

 

[Keachian]

You are falsely assuming all the information I have gotten about these OCCULTISTS were from Riplinger. They were most defiantly Occultists.

You're the one making the claim show me some evidence. They were churchman from my understanding and you haven't provided evidence to the contrary. But in the essence of putting my money where my mouth is
Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - FAQs

 

[Michael D]

View attachment 165786

 

[Michael D]

hello

My name is Michael and I have a request slightly off topic-

Is there anyone in the forum that has any knowledge pertaining to some of the original publications of the Gospel of St. John by B.F. Wescott?

 

[Biblicist]

It is an urban myth that Sinaiticus was found among the garbage

That's true indeed! I certainly would not be referring to Saint Catherine's Monastery as a "rubbish dump".

Of course we have to ask about the various Greek MSS that Erasmus used for his Greek Bible where he had to search high and low for numerous copies as he could not locate even a single extant copy of the Greek NT. As you are undoubtedly aware, unfortunately for Erasmus he apparently had to make up the last four verses of Revelations as he could not find a single Greek copy that contained these four verses; it makes you wonder as to the state of the other partial copies of the Greek text that he found within some of those dark, cold and dusty European castles.

 

[Goodbook]

Google is your friend.
I dont know if they were occultists or not, but I would stay away from any scholars who think its their job to 'criticise' the Bible and make their own versions.

 

[branchofthevine]

Google is your friend.
I dont know if they were occultists or not, but I would stay away from any scholars who think its their job to 'criticise' the Bible and make their own versions.

but to say they criticized the Bible and made their own version isn't really the whole story.

Firstly, textual criticism is not "criticism" in the sense of the criticize, but it means "critical analysis." I'm going to borrow from Victor Matthews' book "Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods" for a second,

"Scholars who carefully examine surviving manuscripts and fragments of text are known as text critics. Comparisions must be made between scrolls, codices, and fragments in all of the original biblical languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic— and translations in Sypriac, Ethiopic, and Latin. Through these comparisons the best possibly reconstructions of the original words of the text are made." (pg 105)

Just a page earlier he says "Because most modern readers are used to working from translations, they seldom think about the Bible being originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Unfortunately, we do not possess any of the autographs (original manuscripts) produced by the biblical writes. We are able to study only later copies of these ancient manuscripts." (pg 104)

During the 15th Century, Erasmus was basically the Westcoot & Hort of his day. He produced the most accurate Greek manuscript up until his time (he was a text critic, the Received Text is a result of textual criticism), but he only was able to work with what was available to him.

Fast-forward a few hundred years and when Westcott & Hort came on the scene, we had vastly expanded our archive of texts and fragments. They were some of the people who had to deal with these new discoveries like Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. These two texts in particular offered earlier versions of the Greek text than the majority of texts that were used by Erasmus, and there were some differences. What started with them was a process of reviewing the Scriptures in light of more recent discoveries to see what is different. The textual manuscripts produced by Westcott and Hort was one of the first in a line of texts that is trying to be faithful to the original autographs with respect to the texts and manuscripts that we currently have available, and to make sense of any difficulties that arise in that endeavor.

It just seems a bit too simplistic to say Westcott and Hort criticized the Bible and set out to make their own because I doubt they saw themselves in that way.

 

[Goodbook]

Oh I just like to keep it simple. Im sure they used other words to try and justify what they were doing.

No matter, if stick to the KJV I dont have this problem to worry about. It doesnt bother me.

 

[Job8]

are B.F wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort good scholars, are they occultist and bad? I want the truth about them and textual criticism.

If you want the truth about them then read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (1883) available from The Bible for Today (http://www.biblefortoday.org/). Burgon was an outstanding textual scholar in the 19th century in his own right, and he fully exposed the deceptive "scholarship" of Westcott and Hort. Scrivener, who was his contemporary and another outstanding textual scholar, concurred with him. There is evidence that W&H may have been Anglo-Catholics as well as occultists, but the real issue is their fabricated theory about the New Testament text, and their promotion of two ancient and extremely corrupt manuscripts -- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

Please note that Burgon wrote several other books and that Scrivener wrote the textbook on Textual Criticism. These men had personally collated the actual manuscripts and devoted their lives to the study of the Bible text.

 

[farout]

Well Riplinger's quote mine of his kid's writing can't be trusted, I'll tell you that much. While they said that Westcott did not see fit to continue in the groups because he found their spirituality lacking in comparison with his Anglicanism, she twists it to say the opposite, her reliability to quote sources correctly is greatly wanting.

Dr. James White had gone into this at length as many others,. Frankly I find that no matter how hard each side try's to prove to the other side that they are right......it goes no where!
Frankly I have tried to dialogue with this and it always goes back to the KJV being the only Bible that is God Ordained. This same situation is repeated over and over again with the same results. Usually it winds up with snarky remarks being said and then parting ways thinking by both sides, that the other side is so locked in their ways that they can't see the truth if it hit them in the head. Right?
So here is my observation, seldom does the love of Christ wind up being shown by either side. I see staunch KJV only people refusing to see that there are some translator errors in the KJV. And that no other translation is any good, no matter how dedicated the Christians were to translate the WORD as accurate as humanly possible. That they trust Mrs. Riplinger no matter what is brought to their attention about her. Only the KJV people are right.
That those who believe that new translations have been made by some who made very serious mistakes, (gender neutral Bibles) for example the TNIV, NLB, just to name a few. That some Liberal thinkers has slanted their version. That there are Bibles that use a persons name for the Bible. For example the Jeremiah Study Bible, slanted to his belief in pretrib. Is it really good to have so many personal study Bibles made by a person?
There is some validity on both sides. But WWJD?

 

[brinny]

*subscribing*

 

[farout]

*subscribing*

What does "subscribing" mean?

 

[brinny]

What does "subscribing" mean?

it means that i'm "tagging" it, so to speak, so that i can find it later and/or comment in the thread.

 

[farout]

it means that i'm "tagging" it, so to speak, so that i can find it later and/or comment in the thread.

Thanks I did not kwon I could do that.