I can't trust any Bible that tells me that Jesus stated that all meat was clean. Try convincing someone who uses one of the "new" translations that unclean meat is still unclean.

Lets look at Westcott and Hort first..

"It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort .... deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence."

"Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

Both men were strongly influenced by Origen and others who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period. There are over 3,000 contradictions in the four gospels alone between these manuscripts. They deviated from the traditional Greek text in 8,413 places.

They conspired to influence the committee that produced The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881 revision), and, thus, their work has been a major influence in most modern translations, dethroning the Textus Receptus."

A few facts to ponder:
There are basically one of either two categories of New Testament manuscripts which all bibles are based upon.

The Majority Text is a manuscript tradition which is reflected in the vast majority of NT manuscripts since the early church.
The Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text, was compiled between 1514 and 1641. The Majority Text has, since then, been made up of thousands of other Greek manuscripts. These later manuscript discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text.

The Minority Text (Alexandrian Text) - is based mainly on just two main manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph") and a few others are brought up but these are the basis for many of the changes. These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, but they disagree with each other. The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors and would naturally last longer than the good manuscripts which were being used regularly.

So we can see that there are just a few Alexandrian Texts compared to the Majority Text (Textus Receptus).

The Alexandrian Texts don't match with each other as much as the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) do. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.


The Alexandrian Texts were altered in many places or the meaning tampered with. One quick example in the Alexandrian Texts is they don't have the long ending of Mark, it ends at 16:8. But the TR does have the long ending of Mark. Among the disputed passages are the final verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20). (Look in your own Bible: you are likely to find an annotation that these were "added later.")

The insistence that Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaves the women afraid and fails to record the resurrection, Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension. It is understandable why these verses are an embarrassment to the Gnostics, and why Westcott and Hort would advocate their exclusion, and insist that they were "added later."

However, it seems that Irenaeus in 150 A.D., and also Hypolytus in the 2nd century, each quote from these disputed verses, so the documentary evidence is that they were deleted later in the Alexandrian texts, not added subsequently.

"The evidence in favour of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication (58) "The Authenticity of The Last Twelve Verses of...Mark" is an excellent summary, drawing mainly from Burgon, (14) p 36-40, 422-4 and Burgon's work cited by Fuller (33) p 25-130. See also Burton (5) p 62-3, Fuller (4) p 168-9, Hills (3) p 161-2, (38) p 133-4, Ruckman (2) p 132.

The TBS publication-see above-states that only 2 Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of Mark, omit the verses. See Burgon, cited by Fuller (33) p 60-1. Moreover, Burgon, ibid p 67, states that a blank space has been left in B, where the verses should have been but where the scribe obviously omitted them.

As further evidence in favour of the verses, Burgon (14) p423, (3) p 169, cites: 2nd Century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian; 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic versions, Hippolytus, Vincentius, 'Acta Pilati'-by an unknown author, Apostolic Constitutions; 4th Century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothic versions, Syriac table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac "Acts of the Apostles," Epiphanius, Leontius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine; 5th Century: Armenian version (some copies), Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator; 6th and 7th Centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethiopic versions, Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, Archbishop John of Thessalonica, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem.

The TBS also cites the Philoxenian Syriac of the 5th century as containing the verses. Hills and Ruckman also cite Tatian (2nd century) as quoting the verses. Hills (3) p 162, (38) p 134, states that besides Aleph and B, the Sinaitic Syriac-from the same source as Aleph, 2 manuscripts of the Georgian version and 62 of the Armenian version omit the verses. The Old Latin manuscript k has the "short conclusion" instead of verses 9-20. See notes for NEB, NWT. Burgon (33) p 81-2, explains how this short ending has been obtained solely from Codex L, an 8th or 9th century manuscript "with an exceedingly vicious text" (ibid). Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from the above handful of documents as indicative of the work of heretics, especially docetists who sought to de-emphasise post resurrection appearances of the Lord from the Gospel record, ibid p 166-8, p 138-41.

Burgon (33) p 49-60 also demonstrated that the supposed adverse testimony of ancient writers is spurious, resting on a quotation from Eusebius which does NOT deny verses 9-20. Berry's Greek text supports this passage.

Let's take a look at the two "oldest and best" manuscripts that delete the last twelve verses of Mark 16. The Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph):

The Vatican copy stops short at the end of Mark 16, verse eight. But the copiest left a blank space sufficient to accommodate the twelve missing verses! This is the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript! It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. Dean John William Burgon draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus "was instructed to leave them out, and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!" (op. cit., p. 67, "Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark," 1871).

As for the Sinaiticus manuscript, it is written in the same-size letters throughout until you come to the place where the last twelve verses of Mark belong, then the letters become large and spread out, taking up enough extra space to allow the last twelve verses of Mark to appear in the smaller letters that had been used up until this time. The double page containing the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke was removed at an early date and replaced with the four sides rewritten to exclude Mark 16:9-21! By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke one. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus copy, alleged that these pages were written by the copyists of the Vaticanus manuscript.

So much for the so-called evidence from the two "oldest" manuscripts; if anything they testify to the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark."
http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

Therefore in this and many other texts the Alexandrian Texts shows many texts that been altered, and that part taken out. While the TR kept it, showing it stayed true and is more reliable.


In favor of the Majority or Byzantine text, it is pointed out that the overwhelming majority (perhaps 90%) of Greek manuscripts are of the Majority or Byzantine text.

If you want to go deeper in this subject I came across some sites you may want to check out.


http://kjvbibleforums.com/portal.php

http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

Mark 7:19. It looks as if the KJV is the only Bible leaving out that statement by Mark saying that Jesus made all meats clean. A statement that is so obviously out of context that to read it is to laugh at it. Only those who wish to have their pork chops won't laugh.

Dave,

Regarding Mrs. White's use of other versions, it should be noted that Mrs. White also used other authors and books outside of the Bible. Does that mean that all such authors and books are equally representative of truth and/or are equally inspired?

Entire books have been written on Mrs. White's supposed plagiarism, and I don't know of any of them which criticizes her "plagiarism" of Bible texts or versions. In other words, the same principle of her prophetic insight and discernment into what is truth when looking at secular authors must also apply to her discernment when looking at Bible passages and versions.

To get right to the point: Mrs. White's use of one passage or version does not indicate her support for other Bible versions, nor even for other verses within the version which she has quoted from.

To use an example from the KJV, Mrs. White never quoted 1 John 5:7. She never used it. But she used many other verses in the Bible from the KJV. Does this mean that since the Comma Johanneum is in the KJV, and since Mrs. White used the KJV, that the Comma must necessarily be inspired scripture that rightly belongs there?

If this principle were used, I should think that at least in this case, a long-standing argument could be laid to rest.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mark 7:19. It looks as if the KJV is the only Bible leaving out that statement by Mark saying that Jesus made all meats clean. A statement that is so obviously out of context that to read it is to laugh at it. Only those who wish to have their pork chops won't laugh.

Mr 7:19 (KJV) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mr 7:19 (NKJV) "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"
Mr 7:19 (ASV) because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.
Mr 7:19 (BBE) Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out with the waste? He said this, making all food clean.
Mr 7:19 (DBY) because it does not enter into his heart but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mr 7:19 (MKJV) because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purifying all food?
Mr 7:19 (MNT) because it does not go into his heart, but into his belly, and passes away, ejected from him?" By these words he pronounced all foods clean.
Mr 7:19 (RSV) since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mr 7:19 (TCNT) Because it does not pass into his heart, but into his stomach, and is afterwards got rid of?--in saying this Jesus pronounced all food 'clean.'
Mr 7:19 (WEB) because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"
Mr 7:19 (WNT) because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?" By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.
Mr 7:19 (YLT) because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

Mr 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

If you want real information on Westcott and Hort, I suggest you go HERE for a more accurate picture of what they said and didn't. It appears you have lifted a quote C Edwards' book review favorable to Gail...Versions." If you want to learn more about that discredited book, read James White's critique of it. Though Westcott and Hort were no SDA's, they were not the New-age-evolution-spiritualists KJV-onliers make them out to be.

Being a former KJV-preferring Adventist myself, I have already used many of the arguments you are using here. The Manuscript Evidence for Disputed Verses was one of my favorite resources. However, it does give the wrong picture of how much support the KJV really has. The conflation errors of the manuscripts behind the TR don't become right by virtue of their numbers. Textual criticism takes into account many more factors than this forum would allow space for. But I do direct you to The Adventist Biblical Research Institute's section of Canons and Versions and to This article on the Majority Text.

Speaking of The Majority Text, you incorrectly equated it with the Textus Receptus. Your quote: "The Majority Text (Textus Receptus) - originally known as the Received Text..." Though they are similar, there are a number of places where the TR has readings that cannot be found in any extant Greek manuscripts.

Additionally, not one modern Bible version (except the NWT) is based on Westcott and Hort's Greek text. They are based on a broader range of ancient textual sources to include early translations into other languages. Speaking of which, it would do Adventists well to learn more about the Waldenses' Bible, rather than just repeat what Dr. Wilkinson wrote. God would not have His message discredited because His people put up spurious arguments in favor of a stance that Sister White herself did not take regarding the use of the Revised Version.