Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

[SaulToPaul 2]

the pope is infallible

he isn't when he speaks ex cathedra?

 

[Mocking You]

Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Even if this stuff is true, and I know some of it isn't, it doesn't mean they were lousy translators and didn't know their Greek.

If you want to play this game, look into Gail Riplinger's background, the champion of KJVO, and chief attack dog on Westcott and Hort.

 

[everready]

i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred. Their influence can be seen directly in the revision of 1881 and indirectly in every modern version since that time.

The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.) Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. These two manuscripts have greatly influenced every modern version on the market today and form the basis for 99% of them.

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html


everready

 

[kiwimacahau]

I'll leave you with this, its about a couple of wolves in sheep's clothing that were allowed to doctor the scriptures.

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.

Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for many of today's modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)

Again, Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament is the "source text" for today's modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Like i said wolves in sheep's clothing

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

Did not believe in the miracles of the Bible - Westcott in 1847: "1 never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures. - Westcott to Hort in 1860: "1 reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming." Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

Did not believe in the supernatural creation - Hort to Westcott in 1860: "... 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. " Hort to Ellerton in 1860 "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."

Did not believe in the efficacy (power) of the atonement - Hort: "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfies without every man 's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

Westcott and Hort were clearly Anti-protestant (pro-Catholic sympathizers) Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he know nothing except Protestant theology."

Believed in the necessity of purgatory - Hort to Ellerton: "But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements..."

Believed in the communist system - Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature." Hort: "I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred for democracy in all its forms." Hort: "I cannot at present see any objection to a limit being placed by the State upon the amount of property which any one person may possess ... I would say that the co-operative principle is a better and a mightier than the competitive principle."

Believed in prayers for the dead - Westcott: "We agreed unanimously that we are, as things are now, forbidden to pray for the dead apart from the whole church in our public services. No restriction is placed upon private devotions (to pray for the dead)."
The Roman Catholic system has greatly profited from the money paid for saying Mass for loved ones that have died.
Believed in the worship of Mary - Hort: "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry. ...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Westcott compelled his wife Sarah Louisa to take the name Mary in addition to her given name.)

Believed in the sacraments (sacrifices) Hort: "Still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us."

Believed in baptismal regeneration - Westcott: "By birth he may, if he will, truly live here; by baptism he may if he will, truly live forever. ... I do think we have no right to exclaim against the idea of the commencement of a spiritual life, conditionally from Baptism, any more than we have to deny the commencement of a moral life from birth." Hort: "We maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration ' as the most important of doctrines ...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

Acknowledged their heretical positions - Hort to Ellerton: "Possibly you have not heard that I have become Harold Browne's Examining Chaplain. I have only seen him two or three times in my life, not at all intimately, and was amazed when he made the proposal, in the kindest terms. I wrote to warn him that I was not safe or traditional in my theology, and that I could not give up association with heretics and such like. Westcott to Lightfoot: "It is strange, but all the questionable doctrines which I have ever maintained are in it (a particular book lacking the fundamentals)."

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html

everready

Every single one of these is taken out of context and deliberately, in some cases, manipulated to make Westcott & Hort seem to say something that they were not.

 

[kiwimacahau]

i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred. Their influence can be seen directly in the revision of 1881 and indirectly in every modern version since that time.

The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.) Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. These two manuscripts have greatly influenced every modern version on the market today and form the basis for 99% of them.

http://scatteredchristians.org/WescottHort.html


everready

Heiferdust!

 

[everready]

Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

Ordained by whom?

everready

 

[kiwimacahau]

The Anglican Church.

 

[Mocking You]

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters. However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that. He aligns himself with two men who despised the very things that mos Christians hold sacred.

What do you do about King James' homosexuality? Look the other way? The man that commissioned the King James Bible was gay.

 

[Mocking You]

Every single one of these is taken out of context and deliberately, in some cases, manipulated to make Westcott & Hort seem to say something that they were not.

I recognize a lot of them are taken out of context. Just waiting for the "Westcott and Hort were spiritualists that held seances" charge to come up.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Right, I'm off. My local community show day, but I will be back, God Willing.

 

[kiwimacahau]

I recognize a lot of them are taken out of context. Just waiting for the "Westcott and Hort were spiritualists that held seances" charge to come up.

It is, unfortunately, inevitable.

 

[everready]

Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

 

[Mocking You]

Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

I'm not. I went to an IFB KJVO Baptist church in my youth. Believe me, I've heard all the arguments about the King James Bible being the only accurate and true Bible translated into English, how the Critical Text is "corrupt", how Westcott and Hort were heretics, etc. etc. I would use these arguments until I did the research and found them mistaken and unreliable, sometimes downright lies.

I now prefer the NIV (the Not Inspired Version, as they used to call it at my old church.)

So, what do you do about King James' homosexuality?

What about the obfuscation of homosexuality in the KJV at 1 Cor. 6:9?

 

[chrysostom]

he isn't when he speaks ex cathedra?

not necessarily

 

[john w]

Ah, KJV-onlyism; a heresy which equates what bible you use with whether or not you are an heir to salvation. You attack translators, you attack those who use other bibles. You ignore what I have said and prefer your own interpretation of my words. You are a dog in the manger, you will not yourself eat and you prevent others from eating as well.




For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

Your "Errors Only-ism," "Any Version/Translation will do Only-ism," "All Versions Only-ism" is heresy.

So there.

 

[john w]

What do you do about King James' homosexuality? Look the other way? The man that commissioned the King James Bible was gay.

And Moses struck the rock twice. You have a point? How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

 

[Nazaroo]

Humbug! Westcott and Hort were ordained ministers of God. David Stewart is simply regurgitating the same old lies that all KJV-Onlyists spout and the Westcott-Hort Text is NOT the source for all modern versions; we have moved on, unlike some, since the 1850s.

Who 'ordained' them? Other homosexual faggots from Oxford and Cambridge.

The Anglican Church was completely taken over by Jesuits and homos almost 50 years before Hort and Westcott.

The last honest (non homosexual) Anglican ministers were probably Scrivener and Dean Burgon,
and they were hounded out and/or politely ignored throughout their distinguished scholarly careers.

The first thing the new breed did once the last real Christians in the CofE died,
was to legalize sodomy.

Hort? Romanist infiltrator.

Westcott? Foolish homosexual.

Ordained ministers? Yes: by Satan.

For the THIRD TIME, every English translation by reputable scholars is the Word of God. How much clearer do I need to be?

Do you mean scholars like the closet Lesbian who wrote the introduction to the NIV?


In their own words:

"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] 'I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. ' http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm

The "as far as I know" escape-clause is laughable.

Everybody knows she and her friends were chosen because they were homosexuals.

 

[everready]

I'm not. I went to an IFB KJVO Baptist church in my youth. Believe me, I've heard all the arguments about the King James Bible being the only accurate and true Bible translated into English, how the Critical Text is "corrupt", how Westcott and Hort were heretics, etc. etc. I would use these arguments until I did the research and found them mistaken and unreliable, sometimes downright lies.

I now prefer the NIV (the Not Inspired Version, as they used to call it at my old church.)

So, what do you do about King James' homosexuality?

What about the obfuscation of homosexuality in the KJV at 1 Cor. 6:9?

Same thing i do with Paul the Apostle, he was a murder, there are others but you already knew that so why the accusation of King James?

everready

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In any event, I have enjoyed reading your post in this thread.

Kind words, thank you.

I can only point you to the Larger Catechism, answer 157, "The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God." If one cannot approach their translation with this conviction, then their view of the English translation is obviously at odds with the confessional view.

The problem with the modern conception is that the translation is not truly recognized as the Word of God. Traditional Presbyterians used to distinguish between the words and the sense of Scripture: the words in the original alone are inspired, but the inspiration is carried over into the sense as it is accurately conveyed in the translation. If this were truly believed, there would not be such haste to alter the Word of God.

Those who have not studied the history of translations probably are not aware of this, but the Reformers and Puritans had good cause to reject certain works which called themselves the Word of God. In the reformed period, Castellio; and in the Puritan period, the Rheims. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that these rejected translations have borne an influence on modern versions which "reformed" people so readily accept. One example which readily comes to mind is to be found in John Knox's work on Predestination, where he rejects the Anabaptist's Pelagian rendering of Gen. 4:7; that rendering is now to be found in EVERY modern version.

I believe there should be one official Bible in the reformed church. The fact is, that the AV held that place among English speaking people for centuries, while no modern version has reached the same status. Without an official Bible, the church effectively says, we do not know where the Word of God is to be found in the English language.

I concede that there are renderings in the AV which can be improved, and I can envisage a day when the English speaking churches will recover their visible unity and the task of faithful "revision" can commence again. Until that time, we should bear with the occasional "archaism" in the AV. If the NT could borrow words from the dated vocabulary of the Greek version of the OT, then I see nothing wrong with bearing with a few antiquated expressions for the sake of adhering to the most faithful rendering of the inspired Scriptures.

When the dogmaticians refer to the "original texts" they nearly always have as their referent the extant apographa or "original language texts, as opposed to original autographic texts." The confusion was never in their minds, only in a modern reading them through the lens of twentieth century categories and debates.

Robinson does eventually get it right by acknowledging:

“Reformed theologians were not arguing for the obvious authenticity of the no longer extant autographs. Instead they were claiming authenticity for the received texts which they viewed as equivalent to the original manuscripts, and which they referred to as the "authentic sources," the "first editions," the "Greek and Hebrew originals," the "original texts," etc. The authenticity of Greek and Hebrew "sources" was held to be absolute both in form and content.... In summary, the Reformed theologians held that only the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament were authentic, authoritative editions of the Scripture.”

The modern fundamentalist adjustment now claims that only the original autographs are authoritative, once they have been reconstructed. Muller has commented on this:

"It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages; the 'original and authentic text' of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (i.e., non-scribal) errors rests on an examination of apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility" (Muller 1993: 433, as quoted in Letis' dissertation).

Spoiler

Modern Denial of Preservation
By: Lawrence E. Bray

The doctrine of preservation is a foundational teaching of the Protestant Church. Most conservative Christians are in agreement that the original manuscripts of Scripture are inspired. But as we do not possess these originals the doctrine of the preservation of those originals is of utmost importance. What this doctrine states is that while the Bible was immediately inspired in the originals, it was also kept pure throughout the ages. The purity of preservation is no less than the purity of inspiration as it is the work of God Himself. Yet sadly today the conservative Christian Church is teaching something quite different. They no longer believe in the doctrine of preservation, though some do claim a belief in it. There are pockets of Christianity that still hold to this doctrine, being unshaken by the postmodernism that has infected the Church at large. Some of the organizations that represent this remnant of historic Christian belief in preservation are the Trinitarian Bible Society, the James Begg Society, and the Dean Burgon Society.

To better see the distinction between historic Christianity and postmodern Christianity we will look at two confessions that deal with the preservation of Scripture – The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1, section 8) says this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

We can see that the accepted doctrine of the Protestant Church was that God kept His Scripture pure in all ages. That is how preservation was defined. Now before we go much further, let’s look at what the word “pure” means. To be pure is to be complete, without fault, free of foreign elements.1 This gives us an excellent idea of what the Westminster Divines were telling us in this passage of the Confession.

They believed that the Scriptures in their original languages were pure and perfect in the apographs (copies), not solely in the autographs.

Now let’s see what a modern confession has to say about the purity and preservation of Scripture. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (article X) says this:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

This clearly shows us that modern Christian teaching promulgates the idea that we can have Scripture with “great accuracy,” but not pure. How great is the accuracy? I’ve heard scholars suggest numbers from 98% to over 99% (Bruce Metzger et al), but never 100%. The statement of faith also shows that they look on the apographs as being the Word of God only to the extent that they represent the original. This is an interesting statement, as the originals do not exist.

Logically speaking, since we do not have the originals this statement of faith confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for them to see how closely they represent the original.

There is another interesting statement in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that seems to contradict modern textual criticism. Article XIV says:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible.

While they say that they believe in the internal consistency of Scripture, let’s see what their modern textual criticism teaches us…

The basic criteria for internally assessing variant readings is as follows 2:
1. The more difficult the reading the better.
2. The shorter the reading the better.
3. The reading that is in verbal dissidence with other readings is better.
4. The less refined and more rough reading is to be preferred.
The modern textual critic believes that the reading in dissidence with other readings is better! That’s hardly a case for internal consistency.
We also see the doctrine of preservation vanishing among Bible translators and Greek Text editors. I will look at two popular conservative translations as well as the critical Greek Text put out by the United Bible Society.

2 Chr 31:16 (NASB)
without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from thirty years old and upward--everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations--for their work in their duties according to their divisions;

All ancient manuscripts contain "3 years old" and not the 30 that we see in the NASB. This shows that the translators feel a need to correct the Scriptures. This need to correct clearly goes against any honest teaching on preservation.

1 Sam 13:1 (ESV)
Saul was... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned... and two years over Israel.

Here the ESV translators show that there is missing text in the Scriptures. Clearly you cannot show that there is missing text and still believe the text has been preserved. Remember that the definition of pure includes completeness. Besides, this would sound very strange if read in public.

The editors of the UBS critical Greek text also have a different idea of preservation. The UBS critical Greek text at Acts 16:12 uses "prwthS" - which is found in no manuscript. The reading should be "prwth" without the "S." The "S" makes the noun genitive, which changes the meaning. Instead of reading that Philippi is a foremost city of Macedonia, it reads that Philippi is a city of the first district of Macedonia. They do this because they do not think the text has been preserved, but rather it needs correcting.

I strongly urge Christians to consider where a denial of the preservation of Scripture will lead the Church. Without preservation there is no purity. Without purity the text can be questioned. When the text can be questioned we have no final authority. The early Protestant Church understood the importance of this doctrine. We should seek to embrace it again as something that is dearly beloved to us.


[1] – “The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language”, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
[2] – Bruce M. Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament – It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992, p 209.

AMR