Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree on the aforementioned site being extreme in their dichotomy of articles.
I know nothing about Riplinger.
This is why I pulled down from Wikipedia a study,due to Wikipedia being a secular form of data I thought it would be unbiased.
Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).
You can judge what happened by the fruit of their labour. The fruit of Erasmus is that it began the proliforation of the understanding of God's Word and began a sort of a golden age of preaching that lasted over a few hundred yeas, until the introduction of the Westcott and Hort text. Ever since then we have seen a decline in Christianity due to their work.
There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).
Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY
By Dr. Phil Stringer
This message was given at the 33rd Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting, Saturday, October 27th, 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada.
Quote #3: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. II, pg. 69)
This quote comes from a letter Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, on March 4, 1890. The surrounding context from the letter is below (underlining added):
" The picture which you draw is sad, but I too, in my way, know that this is true. We want - and I know that I want, which is something - a living faith. When we are quite sure that God is speaking today - and He is speaking - we shall not grow wild in discussing how He once spoke.Westcott believed it was not literal prose, but poetical, and that "Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History" - Westcott believed that it was true, just in poetical form instead of simply literal historical prose. He affirmed that the O.T. is the Divine record, given by God. He affirmed that the first three chapters of Genesis, although he did not take them literally as a record of six 24-hour periods, disclose a Gospel (he even wrote an essay, "The Gospel of Creation"). He affirmed the reality of Adam, the Fall, etc. (see this link for some quotes). He affirmed that God speaks in the language and style of the people he is speaking to - and the ancient Hebrews had a strong fondess for different styles, including poetic, apocalyptic, etc. Although his view on the first three chapters of Genesis is not the same as many modern Evangelicals, it was typical of the church of his day, and many in the church both before and after him, including most other Anglicans (which would most probably include Burgon, the KJV translators, etc.). To hold this quote as heretical is to hold the vast majority of the historical church as likewise heretical.
I have purposely refrained from reading Lux Mundi, but I am quite sure that our Christian faith ought not to be perilled on any predetermined view of what the history and character of the documents contained in the O.T. must be. What we are bound to hold is that the O.T., substaintially as we receive it, is the Divine record of the discipline of Israel. This is remains, whatever criticism may determine or leave undetermined as to constituent parts. No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses, in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the "sun rising," it was no less necessary that He should use the names "Moses" and "David" as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History: this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"
Quote #1: "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book." (Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. I, pg. 414).
Quote #2: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. I, pg. 416).
These two quotes should be addressed together because they are generally the same idea, are only two pages apart. In those quotes, Hort expresses some positive comments about Darwin's book (which was published only one year earlier than this quote, and no formal Christian responses had yet been put forth), but you should take careful note that Hort does NOT assert acceptance of Darwin's theories, only that they were very interesting and an engaging read. The point is: one can admit a book is a very interesting and engaging read, even hard to answer, without agreeing with it or letting it affect one's doctrine. For example, I have read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. This book, although focused on science (time, space and quantum physics), does touch quite a bit on the subject of God, and questions the need of a creator, etc. Despite this, I found the book to be extremely interesting, and enjoyed reading it very much. However, I completely unable to put together a rebuttal to it, and it did not cause me to waver on my belief in the existence of God and his role in creating the universe.
The quotes above come from Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. I, page 414 and 416, but if you ever dig those quotes out for yourself, you'll see that nestled in between these quotes (on page 415, as well as on page 424) he writes to MacMillan (Westcott and Hort's publisher) that he desires to write and publish a formal critical response to Darwin's book, in both scientific and theological form (which he never did, due to other projects and time restraints). Hort saw some interesting possibilites in Darwin's theories, but that "it is a ticklish matter, and one wants months and months to think and read about it (pg. 415) and that "I do see immense difficulties in his theory" (pg. 431). Hort also said "I shall also be glad to hear what Sedgwick, and indeed Cambridge in general, says to Darwin." (pg. 416)
Sedgwick was a professor of geology at Cambridge, and although friends with Darwin, disagreed strongly with Darwin's theories.
Sorry if I don't find Gail Riplinger and Jesus is Savior reliable resources. Both are heavy KJVO's with no Textual Criticism education. In fact they're nothing but bandwagon jumpers who jump on the KJVO bandwagon without doing any research and exegesis on their part.
You want to learn about Westcott and Hort go here. More reliable info then those two are:
westcotthort.com
Actually a member here Kiwimac runs that site.
Shall we take a look at what Westcott and Hort did say about Genesis? About Darwin?
Darwin:
As for Christian Socialism, here we see the use of the word 'socialism' to frighten people raising up the spectre of 'godless communism.' Christian Socialism takes Matt 25 and Luke 4 seriously when they tell us that G-d judges us on how we deal with the poor, the imprisoned, the tortured, the physically and mentally challenged in our midst.
The Bible is not a science text. Attempting to use it as such devalues both the Bible and science. The Bible does not speak of 'how' but why.
The Bible is not a science text. Attempting to use it as such devalues both the Bible and science. The Bible does not speak of 'how' but why.
The Bible contains allegory, metaphor and simile as well as verses relating to a manner of topics. None of us believe G-d is a bird so when we see a verse saying that G-d will cover folk ' with the shadow of His wings' we understand a simile is being used. Assertions that all of the Bible is as authoritative as any other leave Christians wrestling with contradictory similes and metaphors.
I am forced to conceed this point.
The bible contains history as well, but it not a history book.
God Bless
Till all are one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?