What you are saying about Westcort and Hort is a good warning. The only New Testament I have seen which is based on their text is the one published by the Watch Tower. Perhaps there are others?

Rick, what do you say - should a translator be "ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony"?



If I copy my post 5,000 times and you only copy yours once, does that mean I'm right?
More is not necessarily better.

http://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-kjv-rv-elegance-accuracy

Kland - do not neglect to consider, that bible.org is pushing the NET. "we are bible.org", obviously, the NET is superior to the KJV, right?

Oh - and you copy and paste analogy, does not match the issue of extant copies of the Bible. Copies that come from various places, not a single place as you analogy is trying to claim.

And note - "older" does not necessarily mean better.

APL, could you show where it says that the NET is superior to the KJV?

Your next statement indicates to me you did not read bible.org article nor the quotes I listed.

So do you say more means better? Or should we say all versions, including the KJV are "better"?

They early on picked up the versions that take out Jesus divinity and you can see the results. Thus the danger inherent in these corrupted text.

Rick and APL and others,

Do you intend, or otherwise if it were possible, to restrict or otherwise limit the access of other versions from those of us who see the arguments against as being manipulative and wish to have access to them? If not, you are free to have your own opinion as long as you do not in any way use force of church or state or combine such forces as they did for 270 some years in the past by "authorizing" only the KJV and prohibiting other versions.

Excellent point Brother Kland

The so-called Majority Text has has not always been in the majority.

The argument about The New World Translation utilizing Westcott and Hort's Greek text is not all that useful given the fact that it (The NWT) grossly twists both the Hebrew and Greek underlying it. Regarding the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the KJV translators were unaware of what is today called the Granville Sharp's rule and thus came up with an inadequate translation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

It's been my observation that those who oppose the use of modern translations do so because they have the KJV figured out well enough to use it to impose their prescriptions and proscriptions on others, thus bolstering their own sanctimonious theological influence on their fellow believers. Many KJV-only advocates have invested so much pride into taking hardline stances on certain theological nuances in our denomination that it is nearly impossible for them to backtrack to a more balanced position. The KJV mistranslation of Hebrews 2:16 and its christological implications is a good example.

At any rate, while people become absorbed in polemics, they more often than not lose site of real life and the world around them. Self has a way of convincing us that so long as we pursue the minutia of theology that we are somehow doing God's work on earth. It's a delusion that causes people to become fanatics, convinced that everything in the church with which they disagree is somehow part of a vast Jesuit conspiracy or some other form of apostasy with clandestine origins.

Interesting that near the end of the quote, Hort is refuting the dualistic philosophy of Gnositicism, the KJV-only advocates criticize him for utilizing a Gnostic Greek text.

More quotes from Westcott and Hort pertaining to creation can be found here. For information pertaining to other quotes go http://www.westcotthort.com/faqs.html

Here is an interesting article regarding the meaning of Mark 7:19.

Interesting to note, the passage begins with the disciples eating BREAD and not one of the forbidden flesh meats. Hence, the statement as reads in the modern versions does not contextually allow the understanding that the word bromata (foods) to refer to forbidden flesh foods. The English word meats in KJV English meant food in general and not necessarily flesh like it does in contemporary English. If the modern versions were trying to imply that pork is the new chicken, they would not have changed the English word meats to foods to comply with modern usage.

Additionally, one of the main issues drawn out is the conflict between obedience to the scripturally revealed will of God (His law) vs. regulations fabricated by man. Since the flesh food laws were given by inspiration, to contrast them with the commandment to honor one's parents would be to put God's law against itself. Rather, it is God's law (inclusive of the flesh food laws) vs. human tradition. Interestingly, when people argue that the flesh food laws no longer apply, they do so under the assumption that it is because they have been nailed to the cross. Yet Jesus declaration that all foods are clean takes place before the cross. Therefore, His declaration, at that time, can only mean that foods cannot be considered to be unclean by virtue of the fact that they are consumed with disregard to human mandated ritual purification. Simply put, the intent of Jesus teaching was to nullify human requirements while leaving the divine requirements fully intact. The modern rendering is a much more forceful indictment against human tradition than the KJV one. With the KJV, the foods may be unclean going in, but as Green Cochoa seem to suggest, purged out by the g.i. tract. The modern versions make it clear that the foods, having been consumed without rabbinic protocol, were yet clean before consumption.