"Textus Receptus"
- Thread starter Deadtosin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N
You can quote a scripture that doesn't really matter in this case since they are going by old manuscripts that didn't have those verses in them, they didn't just decide to drop them out because they didn't like them...
They were not found in the manuscripts they were using for their translation work, so they did not take anything away.
Just because something is found in the KJV doesn't mean it's supposed to be there, or because something isn't found in the KJV doesn't mean it's not supposed to be there.
They were not found in the manuscripts they were using for their translation work, so they did not take anything away.
Just because something is found in the KJV doesn't mean it's supposed to be there, or because something isn't found in the KJV doesn't mean it's not supposed to be there.
Bible Version Verse Comparison Charts
What's in your Bible?
One of the fundamental deceptions being promoted by modern Bible publishers is that the
new Bibles are merely in different styles of writing; that they are simply easier to read
than the KJV; that nothing is being removed or changed in God's word.
There are many problems with these claims. Here we will focus on the claim that "all
versions really say the same thing."
Why is this important? It is simple: if two books say different things, or if two books say
inherently contradictory things, or if of two books one says more than the other, they
cannot both be God's word. This is simple, basic logic. To say otherwise is to accuse the
Holy Spirit of doublespeak.
There are many, many reasons for the differences we are about to examine. One of the
primary reasons for these differences is that the underlying original-language text of the
Bible that was used for 1800 years has been replaced by modern scholarship with a text
that was assembled in the nineteenth century. There are several articles on this website
describing this fact and these competing texts (their sources, history, and content), and
you are encouraged to read them.
But the purpose of these comparisons is mainly to show you that anyone telling you there
is no substantive difference between the KJV and modern Bibles is either ignorant or
intentionally deceiving you. You simply cannot see the differences and honestly say they
do not exist!
Do these verse charts in some way prove that the KJV is perfect? Of course not, and they
are not meant to. What these charts will do is stir you to study. When you see glaring
differences between Bible versions that create shrouds of doubt surrounding the veracity
of sola scriptura, you should want to know why these differences exist. I do believe that
the very nature of the differences can convince someone that the modern Bibles are
corrupt, but that is not the primary goal here. The goal is to prove to you that all Bibles do
not say the same thing. Link-->> Bible Version Comparison Charts
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? This
chart illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was
replaced with a text assembled by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and now
serves as the basis for nearly all modern New Testament translations.
Various contradictions and omissions
A table-style view of some differences between Bible versions including verses that are
indisputably contradictory.
Bible Versions and the Preeminence of Christ
A table-style view of how our Lord is addressed in different Bible versions.
What's in your Bible?
One of the fundamental deceptions being promoted by modern Bible publishers is that the
new Bibles are merely in different styles of writing; that they are simply easier to read
than the KJV; that nothing is being removed or changed in God's word.
There are many problems with these claims. Here we will focus on the claim that "all
versions really say the same thing."
Why is this important? It is simple: if two books say different things, or if two books say
inherently contradictory things, or if of two books one says more than the other, they
cannot both be God's word. This is simple, basic logic. To say otherwise is to accuse the
Holy Spirit of doublespeak.
There are many, many reasons for the differences we are about to examine. One of the
primary reasons for these differences is that the underlying original-language text of the
Bible that was used for 1800 years has been replaced by modern scholarship with a text
that was assembled in the nineteenth century. There are several articles on this website
describing this fact and these competing texts (their sources, history, and content), and
you are encouraged to read them.
But the purpose of these comparisons is mainly to show you that anyone telling you there
is no substantive difference between the KJV and modern Bibles is either ignorant or
intentionally deceiving you. You simply cannot see the differences and honestly say they
do not exist!
Do these verse charts in some way prove that the KJV is perfect? Of course not, and they
are not meant to. What these charts will do is stir you to study. When you see glaring
differences between Bible versions that create shrouds of doubt surrounding the veracity
of sola scriptura, you should want to know why these differences exist. I do believe that
the very nature of the differences can convince someone that the modern Bibles are
corrupt, but that is not the primary goal here. The goal is to prove to you that all Bibles do
not say the same thing. Link-->> Bible Version Comparison Charts
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? This
chart illustrates what was done when the text used by Christianity for 1800 years was
replaced with a text assembled by Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century and now
serves as the basis for nearly all modern New Testament translations.
(1/2) Link -->> Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
(2/2) Link -->> Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)
(2/2) Link -->> Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)
Various contradictions and omissions
A table-style view of some differences between Bible versions including verses that are
indisputably contradictory.
Bible Versions and the Preeminence of Christ
A table-style view of how our Lord is addressed in different Bible versions.
If no Godhead: what about these 3 verses:
Acts 17:29 KJV "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Hiim from creation of the world are clearly seen, clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Colossians 2:9 "For in dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
All my bibles at home are HCSB, NWT, NRSV, and KJV only the King James Version has this word God-head why is that? For I know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and these three are one.
also: Luke 17:21 HCSB "no one will say Look here! or There! For you see the kingdom of God is among you."
Luke 17:21 NWT "neither will people be saying, See here! or, There! For look! the kingdom of God is in YOUR midst."
Luke 17:21 NRSV "nor will they say, Look, here it is! or There it is! For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
Luke 17:21 KJV "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you."
Thx digital angel, why would anyone Change God's Word?
Acts 17:29 KJV "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Hiim from creation of the world are clearly seen, clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Colossians 2:9 "For in dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
All my bibles at home are HCSB, NWT, NRSV, and KJV only the King James Version has this word God-head why is that? For I know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and these three are one.
also: Luke 17:21 HCSB "no one will say Look here! or There! For you see the kingdom of God is among you."
Luke 17:21 NWT "neither will people be saying, See here! or, There! For look! the kingdom of God is in YOUR midst."
Luke 17:21 NRSV "nor will they say, Look, here it is! or There it is! For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
Luke 17:21 KJV "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you."
Thx digital angel, why would anyone Change God's Word?
its a war on semantics. Find out how many times Jesus's name was taken out of the new testament. Its in the hundreds. An interesting change in the satanic docterine happened shortly after these new versions also. They took out many of the individualized names and put Lord. If we reduce Lord Jesus and say Lord. If they remove their personal identity and say Lord. A group of people could stand in the same room and say Lord and nobody would know who everyone was actually worshiping. Call me paranoid, but its just one more step toward a one world religion. The idea that we aren't being decieved on a massive scale or that it "doesn't really matter' is just what the king of liars wants us to believe.
L
The corruption of the Bible continued and the KJV and modern versions do not have the same source. This link has more info
www.1611kingjamesbible.com
www.1611kingjamesbible.com
I agree! That's what the information in the previous posts indicate. But it is no 'mere
symantics' the words changed or removed or added make doctrinal issues in these
cases. I can accept, partly the difference between 'Ghost' and 'Spirit' as in the Holy
Ghost/Holy Spirit. But the changes outlined in the linked posts above show much more
than that. It could be "Lord Vader", the 'House of Lords', 'Lord Rothschild' and any of the
other named gods of the old testament who have been unseated by LORD JESUS.
I appreciate this thread - it is important. The approach to the changes in scripture
indicates a group or sect *(cult) with a mindset and intent. This is the danger, and it has
been linked to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and those with the very same difficulties in the
church at the time of Constantine. These heresies were going on and resulted in the
demand of a Greek Septuagint rather than a Hebrew Old Testament, they continued
during the time of Paul, and for another 300 years. I think the videos and earlier posts
now cover the topic adequately. If there are other issues or research, please bring them
up.
T
"I study three different translations of the Holy Bible: The King James Study Bible, The New Interpreter's Study Bible (New Revised Standard Version, with the Apocrypha) , and the Holman Christain Standard Bible (Scofield Study Bible III) If I had to pick one for authoritive power, it would be the KJV. Because the Waldesians the earliest christians I can trace and learn about through world history after the Apostles were greatly involved in the writing and teaching of that bible. But me myself I choose the Scofield, is easiest for me to understand and I love the Scofield Study System."
On Waldenses and the Bible they say "the Italic Church in northern Italy - later the Waldenses - is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name "Itala" is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says:
"Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 542.)
The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick." (Allix, Churches of Piedmont, 1690, p. 37.)
The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A. D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A. D. (Scrivener's Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 43.) We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A. D. From the illustrious group of scholars which gathered around Beza, 1590 A. D., we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches. As the sixteenth century is closing, we see in the beautiful Swiss city of Geneva, Beza, an outstanding champion of Protestantism, the scholar Cyril Lucar, later to become the head of the Greek Catholic Church, and Diodati, also a foremost scholar. As Beza astonishes and confounds the world by restoring manuscripts of that Greek New Testament from which the King James is translated, Diodati takes the same and translates into Italian a new and famous edition, adopted and circulated by the Waldenses. (McClintock & Strong Encycl., Art. "Waldenses.") Leger, the Waldensian historian of his people, studied under Diodati at Geneva. He returned as pastor to the Waldenses and led them in their flight from the terrible massacre of 1655. (Gilly, Researches, pp. 79, 80.) "
This site says "Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text." The Received Text is the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, which he created from several Byzanine manuscripts in 1516. According to Scrivener above, the Italic, the New Testament of the Waldenses or Vaudois, was translated into Latin from a Greek text not later than 157 A.D. So the Italic is not the Received Text. Apparently, the old Italic has many verse wordings more similar to the Textus Receptus and the King James than to the Alexandarian Greek manuscripts of Westcott-Hort and its English translation offspring. But I know of no Online Latin or English translation of the old Italic. I have read that the Italic has a wording of I John 5: 7-8 closer to the Textus Receptus and King James longer and more elaborated version than the highly abbreviated version found in the Westcott-Hort and the English translations of that text. But as far as I know only some scholars have access to copies of the old Italic.
The C.I Scofield Bible with its interpretative notes on the pages with scripture represents a system of Bible interpretation which changes important New Testament doctrines and is based upon fundamental starting postulates of John Darby and C.I. Scofield which claim that God has two separate peoples, the Jews and the church, and implies strongly that "All Israel" and not the remnant alone that accepted Christ remain the chosen people. This is another Gospel and another Jesus (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6-9). One of the advantages, and a very important one, of the King James Version is its method of translation, more word for word, while the modern English versions tend to follow more of an overall interpretation of the Greek, called the "dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation." Placing interpretative notes right on the pages with the verses of the Bible leads Baby Christians who do not know the scriptures well into following Scofield's theology. Its worse that the dynamic equivalency method of translation of the NIV for promoting false doctrines.
On Waldenses and the Bible they say "the Italic Church in northern Italy - later the Waldenses - is seen standing in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name "Itala" is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois. Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 A.D.) says:
"Now among translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 542.)
The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick." (Allix, Churches of Piedmont, 1690, p. 37.)
The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A. D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A. D. (Scrivener's Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 43.) We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A. D. From the illustrious group of scholars which gathered around Beza, 1590 A. D., we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches. As the sixteenth century is closing, we see in the beautiful Swiss city of Geneva, Beza, an outstanding champion of Protestantism, the scholar Cyril Lucar, later to become the head of the Greek Catholic Church, and Diodati, also a foremost scholar. As Beza astonishes and confounds the world by restoring manuscripts of that Greek New Testament from which the King James is translated, Diodati takes the same and translates into Italian a new and famous edition, adopted and circulated by the Waldenses. (McClintock & Strong Encycl., Art. "Waldenses.") Leger, the Waldensian historian of his people, studied under Diodati at Geneva. He returned as pastor to the Waldenses and led them in their flight from the terrible massacre of 1655. (Gilly, Researches, pp. 79, 80.) "
This site says "Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text." The Received Text is the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, which he created from several Byzanine manuscripts in 1516. According to Scrivener above, the Italic, the New Testament of the Waldenses or Vaudois, was translated into Latin from a Greek text not later than 157 A.D. So the Italic is not the Received Text. Apparently, the old Italic has many verse wordings more similar to the Textus Receptus and the King James than to the Alexandarian Greek manuscripts of Westcott-Hort and its English translation offspring. But I know of no Online Latin or English translation of the old Italic. I have read that the Italic has a wording of I John 5: 7-8 closer to the Textus Receptus and King James longer and more elaborated version than the highly abbreviated version found in the Westcott-Hort and the English translations of that text. But as far as I know only some scholars have access to copies of the old Italic.
The C.I Scofield Bible with its interpretative notes on the pages with scripture represents a system of Bible interpretation which changes important New Testament doctrines and is based upon fundamental starting postulates of John Darby and C.I. Scofield which claim that God has two separate peoples, the Jews and the church, and implies strongly that "All Israel" and not the remnant alone that accepted Christ remain the chosen people. This is another Gospel and another Jesus (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6-9). One of the advantages, and a very important one, of the King James Version is its method of translation, more word for word, while the modern English versions tend to follow more of an overall interpretation of the Greek, called the "dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation." Placing interpretative notes right on the pages with the verses of the Bible leads Baby Christians who do not know the scriptures well into following Scofield's theology. Its worse that the dynamic equivalency method of translation of the NIV for promoting false doctrines.
T
Someone on this thread had said "...if I had to pick one for authoritive power, it would be the KJV. Because the Waldesians the earliest christians I can trace and learn about through world history after the Apostles were greatly involved in the writing and teaching of that bible."
To be more specific, the Bible of the Waldesians, the Italic, was a Latin translation of a Greek text Bible scholar Frederick Henry A. Scrivener says, as quoted in my post, is dated about 157 A.D. The Italic is said by scholars to have verse wordings closer to the Textus Receptus than to the Alexandarian Greek texts and the Westcott-Hort. The Textus Receptus was created by Erasmus in about 1516 from several Greek Byzantine texts. So the Italic is not the Received Text, or Textus Receptus. What Bible scholarship is pointing to is that the Italic Latin New Testament belonged to a Greek text type more similar to the Byzantine and the Textus Receptus than to the Alexanarian and Westcott-Hort Greek text types. I am not sure if Erasmus possessed or used the Italic, though I remember reading that supposedly one of the reasons he put the present wording of I John 5: 7-8 in the Textus Receptus is because a Latin text in existence at the time had that wording. I don't know which Latin text is referred to. If it was the Italic, thats interesting.
To be more specific, the Bible of the Waldesians, the Italic, was a Latin translation of a Greek text Bible scholar Frederick Henry A. Scrivener says, as quoted in my post, is dated about 157 A.D. The Italic is said by scholars to have verse wordings closer to the Textus Receptus than to the Alexandarian Greek texts and the Westcott-Hort. The Textus Receptus was created by Erasmus in about 1516 from several Greek Byzantine texts. So the Italic is not the Received Text, or Textus Receptus. What Bible scholarship is pointing to is that the Italic Latin New Testament belonged to a Greek text type more similar to the Byzantine and the Textus Receptus than to the Alexanarian and Westcott-Hort Greek text types. I am not sure if Erasmus possessed or used the Italic, though I remember reading that supposedly one of the reasons he put the present wording of I John 5: 7-8 in the Textus Receptus is because a Latin text in existence at the time had that wording. I don't know which Latin text is referred to. If it was the Italic, thats interesting.
the "received texts" are not any one manuscript. They represent the all inclusive thousands that have been found all over stretching over centuries, which differ very slightly, mostly in things like punctuation and spellings of tiny inconsequential words.. Like "the" for example.( pretty sure we've already covered this) I would therefore conclude that the Waldeans texts (if matches extremely closely to the textus receptus would qualify them also as textus receptus.
-God bless.
T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
"Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was back-translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type....." This is not specific enough on what Erasmus used from the Vulgate, and it emphasizes that Erasmus was a Catholic and a humanist and points out that the Greek texts he used were late, that is, not as old and supposedly not as authentic as the Alexandarian texts used by Westcott-Hort.
"Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was back-translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type....." This is not specific enough on what Erasmus used from the Vulgate, and it emphasizes that Erasmus was a Catholic and a humanist and points out that the Greek texts he used were late, that is, not as old and supposedly not as authentic as the Alexandarian texts used by Westcott-Hort.
Last edited:
sir, you must finish your investigation. Old as in written on deer skin and still sitting in the Vatican that Omitted books like Genesis and many others? not only this but the information you are going on is old info. Since the king james was written on younger texts they have discovered older texts much older.. like 80 AD and they match almost identically to the ones used to translate the KJV. Wescott and Hort? *shiver.. do research anybody but don't stop in one place.. dig deeper this world is owned by Satan himself.
Wescott and Hort were anything but Christian- look into it. Look into the board who helped them put it together.. investigate those people.
Wescott and Hort were anything but Christian- look into it. Look into the board who helped them put it together.. investigate those people.
Last edited:
WESTCOTT AND HORT
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something of the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism.
In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.
Here's what Westcott and Hort said about...
The Scriptures:
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something of the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism.
In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.
Here's what Westcott and Hort said about...
The Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
taken from
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
taken from
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-heretics.htm