Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions.

Original Happy Camper said:

Jesus Christ is the Word and the Word is Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

But Jesus Christ is not Bible and Bible is not Jesus Christ.

Also, I do not think that "Word" is a good translation of Logos in this context.

Original Happy Camper said:

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.
   Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort

Click to expand...

None of you seen to get and are going about arguing nonsense. Gods word supersedes any singular translations and specefic terminology. All the arguments over this text and that text is nonsense and is a tool of the Devil to divide the Body of Christ. The fact that there are 3 Synoptic Gospels written that prove this. All Three say the same exact thing using different words. Stop with this nonsense and start looking toFollowing in the footsteps ofJesus Messiah.

FireDragon76 said:

Wescott and Hort were biblical scholars. Their beliefs were within the norm for Anglicans at the time. Calling them infidel blasphemers is uncalled for and it lacks justification, frankly.

This is nothing but clumsily attempting to poison the well in debates about biblical scholarship.

Click to expand...

They were involved in the occult.

(Would you care for me to PM you more information on what i posted above?)

This comes to mind:

brinny said:

They were involved in the occult.

(Would you care for me to PM you more information on what i posted above?)

Click to expand...

They were interested in early paraspsychology, the scientific investigation of the paranormal. That isn't the same as being occultists. William James also had similar interests.

At any rate, none of that really pertains to the notion that somehow Wescott and Hort's work permanently tainted biblical scholarship, as Hedrick noted. Acamedic scholarship simply does not work that way.

FireDragon76 said:

They were interested in early paraspsychology, the scientific investigation of the paranormal. That isn't the same as being occultists. William James also had similar interests.

BTW, this has precedence in the Cambridge Platonists in Anglicanism.

Click to expand...

Do you know who Helena Petrovna Blavatsky aka Madame Blavatsky was?

(I will PM you if you prefer).

Original Happy Camper said:

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.
   Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort

Click to expand...

All you are doing here is opening a can of worms. I tried to have an honest discussion about something along these lines but the replies were more along the lines of "You are wrong and you will always be wrong." Bail out while you can.

brinny said:

Do you know who Helena Petrovna Blavatsky aka Madame Blavatsky was?

Click to expand...

Yes I do.

I don't think mere contact with someone makes them an occultist. That seems like conspiracy theory stuff.

FireDragon76 said:

Yes I do.

I don't think mere contact with someone makes them an occultist. That seems like conspiracy theory stuff.

Click to expand...

That's not why i mentioned her name. Westcott and Hort founded several occult associations. These are connected to the Lucferian association that Madame Blavatsky founded and the occult movement in the latter half of the 1800's and the connection that Wescott and Hort had to it.

And you are correct. "Practicing" occultism is what defines an occultist.

To be fair to our SDA OP-er, words are important because they communicate the mind, will and emotions of the person speaking. In his words and deeds the Son is the exact representation of the Father's mind, will and emotions toward his rebellious human image-bearers. ( Hebrews 1:1-3, John 14:9, Romans 5:8) It would not be possible to believe the Son without hearing who he is and what he's done (1 John 1:5).

However, part of that word of truth Christ spoke was that a) the Father draws people to the Son (John 6) and that the Holy Spirit draws people to the Son (John 16). It's an interpersonal connection we make directly to the Father, through the Son by the Holy Spirit. He's the Good Shepherd and he gives his sheep the food they need, be that scholars who can give us better translations, archaeologist who can find more manuscripts, or other Christians who teach and equip to enjoy Him more.

The O.P.s argument is a tired, a historical, uncharitable, and self-serving jumble often employed by proponents of the King-James-Only crowd. If any are interested, I recommend slogging through the Introduction to the 1611 KJV to understand how the KJV translators viewed their work and purpose. They would not today be KJV-only and would rejoice at the "embarrassment of riches" we have today in the manuscript evidence.

Other fantastic resources include the scholarship of Daniel Wallace and Mike Licona.

Excellent work refuting the OP's recycled material can read works on the topic by James White and D.A. Carson among many, many others. One notable reality, since the time of Westcott and Hort, many more manuscripts (not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls) have been found. Biblical scholarship is not static, as if post-W&H nothing new has been uncovered or added to our body of knowledge.

brinny said:

Westcott and Hort founded several occult associations. These are connected to the Lucferian association that Madame Blavatsky founded and the occult movement in the latter half of the 1800's and the connection that Wescott and Hort had to it.

Click to expand...

Could you share the publicly accessible prime source documentation for your claim that are ?

Ing Bee said:

Could you share the publicly accessible prime source documentation for your claim that are ?

Click to expand...

PM me (start a "conversation with me) and i will post some (or all the resources - there's LOTS).

What's ironic is the Eramus was the kind of liberal that evangelicals today wouldn't accept, whereas recent work on the current critical text has involved genuine evangelicals.

But I don't think this issue is actually about the merits of the translation. The very fact that there are multiple translations, saying slightly different things, creates issues for certain models of Biblical authority.

Original Happy Camper said:

IMHO I think these verses are applicable

Matthew 7:25-27 King James Version (KJV)
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by that.

brinny said:

PM me (start a "conversation with me) and i will post some (or all the resources - there's LOTS).

Click to expand...

It's probably more helpful in the Forum so other eyes can see it, right? And these are primary source right? I'm not interested in secondary or tertiary sources. Links are great, but unnecessary. Just give me the Source Titles, date of publication, author and relevant page numbers. Thanks

Ing Bee said:

It's probably more helpful in the Forum so other eyes can see it, right? And these are primary source right? I'm not interested in secondary or tertiary sources. Links are great, but unnecessary. Just give me the Source Titles, date of publication, author and relevant page numbers. Thanks

Click to expand...

I would prefer not derailing the thread.

As i posted above, if you are interested in the sources that i offered you are free to send me a PM and i will respond, Ing Bee.

In addition you are free to research it yourself (which i highly recommend).

Thank you kindly.

Ing Bee said:

Could you share the publicly accessible prime source documentation for your claim that are ?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it comes from Gail Riplinger.