The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- 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.
"The KJB of course does the right thing and there is no contradiction" is nonsensical! All translations say the same thing: the gospels give different renditions of the loaves-and-fishes miracle -- including the KJV.
Why do you worship a single translation instead of its contents? "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me" John 5:39 NIV
@fredoheaven
If you can mention to poster “jamesssb” the following verse (Seeing he has me on ignore):
The implication of the NET translation that poster James prefers is saying that Jesus had a beginning when this is clearly heresy.
Jesus is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead.
The NIV, and ESV also convey the same false idea. The NAS confirms Christ’s eternal nature in this verse, but in John 1:18, it attacks it in the 1995 NAS. The NASB says Jesus is the only Son (Which is not a true statement because there are other sons of God).
If you can mention to poster “jamesssb” the following verse (Seeing he has me on ignore):
Micah 5:2 NET
“As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah--from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past.”
Micah 5:2 KJV
”But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The implication of the NET translation that poster James prefers is saying that Jesus had a beginning when this is clearly heresy.
Jesus is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead.
The NIV, and ESV also convey the same false idea. The NAS confirms Christ’s eternal nature in this verse, but in John 1:18, it attacks it in the 1995 NAS. The NASB says Jesus is the only Son (Which is not a true statement because there are other sons of God).
Let the reader know that these kinds of statements are a false charge against KJB believers. Did Moses worship the stone tablets? Surely Moses believed that the writings on the stone tablets were the perfect words of God because they were written with the very finger of God. Does that mean Moses worshiped these tablets or words just because he believed they were perfect words? No. That would be silly to assume that. Also, the Scriptures say,
“Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” (Psalms 119:140).
But because we believe His word is very pure and we love it as Scripture says, we are somehow slanderously charged.
Jesus is not knocking in studying the Scriptures if that is what you are suggesting (See the story of the road to Emmaus). The problem that Jesus has with them is that they searched the Scriptures and yet they failed to recognize that He is their Messiah. Again, one church out there is kicking the Bible like a football. The reason for this is because of Textual Criticism. Modern Scholarship says God’s Word has errors in it. So naturally if one does not have any reverence for the Word of God because it is flawed and made by men, then one will kick it like a football like one church recently did.
Jesus also said His words are spirit, and they are life.
Peter said Jesus had the words of everlasting life.
Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away.
“Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” (Psalms 119:140).
But because we believe His word is very pure and we love it as Scripture says, we are somehow slanderously charged.
Jesus is not knocking in studying the Scriptures if that is what you are suggesting (See the story of the road to Emmaus). The problem that Jesus has with them is that they searched the Scriptures and yet they failed to recognize that He is their Messiah. Again, one church out there is kicking the Bible like a football. The reason for this is because of Textual Criticism. Modern Scholarship says God’s Word has errors in it. So naturally if one does not have any reverence for the Word of God because it is flawed and made by men, then one will kick it like a football like one church recently did.
Jesus also said His words are spirit, and they are life.
Peter said Jesus had the words of everlasting life.
Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away.
Dear James:
I am really glad you have me on ignore. I can refute your erroneous statements without you offering any kind of rebuttal in return. This makes my job easier in defending the truth in Scripture that God‘s word is pure and that it would be preserved forever as it states.
Then again, I have not received any good rebuttals over the years on some of my best points for the KJB. Most often these points are ignored and I just receive insults. So this is not a surprise that you have chosen to place some of us on ignore.
In any event, may the Lord bless you even if I disagree with your approach and or beliefs on this matter.
Peace be unto you, and please be well.
I am really glad you have me on ignore. I can refute your erroneous statements without you offering any kind of rebuttal in return. This makes my job easier in defending the truth in Scripture that God‘s word is pure and that it would be preserved forever as it states.
Then again, I have not received any good rebuttals over the years on some of my best points for the KJB. Most often these points are ignored and I just receive insults. So this is not a surprise that you have chosen to place some of us on ignore.
In any event, may the Lord bless you even if I disagree with your approach and or beliefs on this matter.
Peace be unto you, and please be well.
-
1
- Show all
In reality, you were unable to grasp the opinion of modern English Version Comparing the actual narrative of John to ther gospel. In most modern usage, John didn't saw or even help distributing the loaves and the fishes for it was Jesus is the one distributed to the crowd. The 3 witnesses on the otherhand, Jesus dustributed them to his disciples then the disciples distributed in turn. This example of small things really demonstrate your inability to grasp the narrative. If you are usin the KJB then it tell us the truth and not lie for John sees, he distrubted to his disciple and the disciples to the crowd. This the same thing with the 3 witnesses of Mark, Luke and Matthew.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I am not the one who is unable to understand what the Bible says.
What is "the opinion of modern English Version"???
BTW, the disciples are the ones who distributed the food to the people. So you contradicted yourself.
Your writing "This example of small things really demonstrate your inability to grasp the narrative" is a joke. I am not the one who can't understand the Bible, you are.
What is "the opinion of modern English Version"???
BTW, the disciples are the ones who distributed the food to the people. So you contradicted yourself.
Your writing "This example of small things really demonstrate your inability to grasp the narrative" is a joke. I am not the one who can't understand the Bible, you are.
Here's what Biblehiglter said:
@fredoheaven
If you can mention to poster “jamesssb” the following verse (Seeing he has me on ignore):
Micah 5:2 NET
“As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah--from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past.”
Micah 5:2 KJV
”But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The implication of the NET translation that poster James prefers is saying that Jesus had a beginning when this is clearly heresy.
Jesus is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead.
The NIV, and ESV also convey the same false idea. The NAS confirms Christ’s eternal nature in this verse, but in John 1:18, it attacks it in the 1995 NAS. The NASB says Jesus is the only Son (Which is not a true statement because there are other sons of God).
@fredoheaven
If you can mention to poster “jamesssb” the following verse (Seeing he has me on ignore):
Micah 5:2 NET
“As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah--from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past.”
Micah 5:2 KJV
”But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The implication of the NET translation that poster James prefers is saying that Jesus had a beginning when this is clearly heresy.
Jesus is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead.
The NIV, and ESV also convey the same false idea. The NAS confirms Christ’s eternal nature in this verse, but in John 1:18, it attacks it in the 1995 NAS. The NASB says Jesus is the only Son (Which is not a true statement because there are other sons of God).
@fredoheaven
Sorry fredoheaven. I was not expecting that to happen. I hope he doesn’t ignore you because you tried to relay a message of mine to him. It was on topic, and I thought he might have answered it.
Sorry fredoheaven. I was not expecting that to happen. I hope he doesn’t ignore you because you tried to relay a message of mine to him. It was on topic, and I thought he might have answered it.
I have changed my mind about ignoring Bible Highlighter's post -- one time.
I have decided to respond to this post because it illustrates a fundamental problem in the translation process: what does the source document (or documents) actually say versus what the translators want it to say. Let's look at this carefully.
According to “Highlighter”, modern translations have this verse as “in the distant past”, whereas the KJV has it as “from everlasting”. Which is correct? Well, let's start with the premise that the sources either say what they actually say or they say what we want them to say.
Highlighter has a clear agenda: to prove that the KJV correctly translates this phrase (and the entire Bible) and modern translations do not.
What is the basis for his decision? His foregone conclusion that the KJV is correct because of his personal theology. This. of course, leads to all kinds of errors because of its obvious bias. It is so absurd as to be laughable, but unfortunately it is NOT funny.
He approaches the situation by assuming that his personal theology should determine what the Hebrew should say, and that the modern committee of translators, composed of Christians who are experts in ancient Hebrew, made a decision to deny the eternal nature of Christ, distorting what it actually says.
He has approached the situation the way he has with a predetermined agenda: to verify his delusion that there is a conspiracy among modern academics to deny the eternal nature of Christ!
Of course, this is total nonsense. All anyone has to do is read the opening of John's gospel in any modern translation to know that what he claims to be true is simply not so. Here is John 1:1-2 from the NIV: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” That clearly shows the eternal nature of Jesus Christ, that He existed in times past, before the creation of the world! If what Highlighter implies is actually true, why didn't modern translators change this verse?
Of course, he doesn't want to discuss why the KJV added conditions to Romans 8:1. The NIV has this verse as "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" but the King James has it as "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit", adding a condition to escape condemnation.
Anyone can "play this game" to claim that their preferred translation is truly God's Word, while other translations are not.
Don't you see? Highlighter has a clear bias, an agenda he wants to push, so he takes one Hebrew phrase to prove that modern translators intentionally show that Christ is not eternal.
He would do well to pay attention to Matthew 7:1-5 (NIV): “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
He attacks modern translations and translators not from a scholarly view point but for personal reasons.
I have put him on “ignore” because he has a clear personal bias against modern scholarship, claiming that there is a movement afoot among modern translators to distort the “pure” Word of God. I encourage you to do also ignore his biased posts, or at least realize their true purpose.
I have decided to respond to this post because it illustrates a fundamental problem in the translation process: what does the source document (or documents) actually say versus what the translators want it to say. Let's look at this carefully.
According to “Highlighter”, modern translations have this verse as “in the distant past”, whereas the KJV has it as “from everlasting”. Which is correct? Well, let's start with the premise that the sources either say what they actually say or they say what we want them to say.
- What is the Hebrew word or phrase?
- How is it used in context?
- What is the English equivalent?
- Does it mean this consistently?
- If there is more than one source and do they agree?
Highlighter has a clear agenda: to prove that the KJV correctly translates this phrase (and the entire Bible) and modern translations do not.
What is the basis for his decision? His foregone conclusion that the KJV is correct because of his personal theology. This. of course, leads to all kinds of errors because of its obvious bias. It is so absurd as to be laughable, but unfortunately it is NOT funny.
He approaches the situation by assuming that his personal theology should determine what the Hebrew should say, and that the modern committee of translators, composed of Christians who are experts in ancient Hebrew, made a decision to deny the eternal nature of Christ, distorting what it actually says.
He has approached the situation the way he has with a predetermined agenda: to verify his delusion that there is a conspiracy among modern academics to deny the eternal nature of Christ!
Of course, this is total nonsense. All anyone has to do is read the opening of John's gospel in any modern translation to know that what he claims to be true is simply not so. Here is John 1:1-2 from the NIV: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” That clearly shows the eternal nature of Jesus Christ, that He existed in times past, before the creation of the world! If what Highlighter implies is actually true, why didn't modern translators change this verse?
Of course, he doesn't want to discuss why the KJV added conditions to Romans 8:1. The NIV has this verse as "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" but the King James has it as "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit", adding a condition to escape condemnation.
Anyone can "play this game" to claim that their preferred translation is truly God's Word, while other translations are not.
Don't you see? Highlighter has a clear bias, an agenda he wants to push, so he takes one Hebrew phrase to prove that modern translators intentionally show that Christ is not eternal.
He would do well to pay attention to Matthew 7:1-5 (NIV): “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
He attacks modern translations and translators not from a scholarly view point but for personal reasons.
I have put him on “ignore” because he has a clear personal bias against modern scholarship, claiming that there is a movement afoot among modern translators to distort the “pure” Word of God. I encourage you to do also ignore his biased posts, or at least realize their true purpose.
People who irrationally prefer the King James translation to all others must have a reason. Here is why I think they think that way...
They ignore the fact that when Jesus -- Himself God! -- was a man on earth, he grew up as a rural carpenter in Galilee. He spoke Aramaic -- a Hebrew dialect of the region -- although He could read Hebrew. He was "a man of the people", as opposed to the elites of Jewish society. There is no doubt that He did not speak in some lofty, pseudo-religious language, nor did any of the other leading figures of both testaments.
So why do people cling to a centuries-old translation? Because it makes them "religious" (not unlike the Pharisees of the New Testament era). Somehow, they think that God communicates in flowery, stilted language -- which has no Biblical basis at all! They think that if the language is filled with archaisms, that means it must be religious. Of course, as I pointed out above, Jesus did not communicate that way. It is phony hyper-religiosity!
People will give all kinds of excuses for the King James translation, as I have described above, but they are consistently illogical and irrational. The facts are: 1) The King James translation was not the first English translation, 2) its creation was ordered by a king who seized power as the head of the Church of England and ordered a Bible that glorified him as well as God, 3) he declared it to be THE BIBLE, causing many to flee with their preferred translations (think Geneva Bible) rather than face persecution. So, in the minds of some people, the King James translation is THE Bible, and they invent all kinds of reasons (excuses) why that must be so.
Regardless of the discovery of new source documents, the increased knowledge of the ancient languages, the advances in the field of textual criticism -- the study of manuscripts or printings to determine the original or most authoritative form of a text -- and the inclusion of people of all denominations, genders, and other qualifications in the translation work, they still insist that a translation that is 400+ years old, created at the specific direction of a single monarch (who just happened to be the head of the Church of England denomination), and written specifically for a society that no longer exists, is the only translation that we should be using today. To me that is mind-boggling!
I and many, many other people, the great majority of whom are devout Christians, prefer a translation that a) is written in a language that is clearly understood by today's society, b) that is the result of the work done by the most dedicated religious scholars, c) is based on the best sources and translation techniques, and d) is intentionally created to communicate the concepts and words of God clearly and accurately to today's readers/hearers.
As far as a specific translation, I recommend the NIV, the NRSVue, or the NET. They are, to me, the best translations available, but those are my personal preferences only. My advice is to read different translations on a web site such as Bible Gateway (www.bbiblegateway.com) and see which one communicates God's message to you personally, as clearly as only He can.
They ignore the fact that when Jesus -- Himself God! -- was a man on earth, he grew up as a rural carpenter in Galilee. He spoke Aramaic -- a Hebrew dialect of the region -- although He could read Hebrew. He was "a man of the people", as opposed to the elites of Jewish society. There is no doubt that He did not speak in some lofty, pseudo-religious language, nor did any of the other leading figures of both testaments.
So why do people cling to a centuries-old translation? Because it makes them "religious" (not unlike the Pharisees of the New Testament era). Somehow, they think that God communicates in flowery, stilted language -- which has no Biblical basis at all! They think that if the language is filled with archaisms, that means it must be religious. Of course, as I pointed out above, Jesus did not communicate that way. It is phony hyper-religiosity!
People will give all kinds of excuses for the King James translation, as I have described above, but they are consistently illogical and irrational. The facts are: 1) The King James translation was not the first English translation, 2) its creation was ordered by a king who seized power as the head of the Church of England and ordered a Bible that glorified him as well as God, 3) he declared it to be THE BIBLE, causing many to flee with their preferred translations (think Geneva Bible) rather than face persecution. So, in the minds of some people, the King James translation is THE Bible, and they invent all kinds of reasons (excuses) why that must be so.
Regardless of the discovery of new source documents, the increased knowledge of the ancient languages, the advances in the field of textual criticism -- the study of manuscripts or printings to determine the original or most authoritative form of a text -- and the inclusion of people of all denominations, genders, and other qualifications in the translation work, they still insist that a translation that is 400+ years old, created at the specific direction of a single monarch (who just happened to be the head of the Church of England denomination), and written specifically for a society that no longer exists, is the only translation that we should be using today. To me that is mind-boggling!
I and many, many other people, the great majority of whom are devout Christians, prefer a translation that a) is written in a language that is clearly understood by today's society, b) that is the result of the work done by the most dedicated religious scholars, c) is based on the best sources and translation techniques, and d) is intentionally created to communicate the concepts and words of God clearly and accurately to today's readers/hearers.
As far as a specific translation, I recommend the NIV, the NRSVue, or the NET. They are, to me, the best translations available, but those are my personal preferences only. My advice is to read different translations on a web site such as Bible Gateway (www.bbiblegateway.com) and see which one communicates God's message to you personally, as clearly as only He can.
If you're really serious about exploring God's Word in depth, I strongly recommend the NET Bible, Full Notes Edition. It is an excellent translation, created by the best scholars (with input from many others), and is accompanied by more than 60,000(!) explanatory notes about every aspect of the text. There are 2,434 pages(!), not counting the maps.
Amazon sells it (hardcover) for $41.65 (list $59.99)
Amazon sells it (hardcover) for $41.65 (list $59.99)
-
1
- Show all
Greetings again to you in the name of Jesus Christ.
May all manner of good things be unto you today in Jesus’ name.
Okay, to get down to business, Micah 5:2 is not the only verse that makes it appear like Jesus is a demi-god (i.e., the belief that Jesus is God or He has deity but yet, He was created by the Father). John 1:18 is another one. John 1:18 says in select Modern Bibles that Jesus is a begotten God or a God who was born or created.
Also, in John 3:13, we see another change that is a watering-down on Christ’s deity. Jesus tells Nicodemus that the Son of Man is in Heaven. The phrase "which is in heaven" referring to Christ is omitted in John 3:13 in Modern Translations. However, the King James Bible (KJB) or Textus Receptus (TR) properly includes these words and conveys the proper teaching that Christ is the Omnipresent God.
For our upcoming illustration, we will examine the latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:
Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:
Were you able to spot the difference?" The change may seem slight, but its implications are quite profound. As shown in the NASB 1995, NET, and NWT translations, the consistent message is that we will stand before the "judgment seat of God" and give an account to Him. Yet, the King James Version (KJV) presents a more precise rendition, expressing that we will appear before the "judgment seat of Christ" and subsequently give an account to "God." So the NASB 1995 and NET are in alignment with the New World Translation (NWT), modify "Christ" to "God" in Romans 14:10, effectively challenging Christ's divinity.
Keep in mind that I have a total of 17 of these alterations (Which is in my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible PDF) (Note: These three examples above in Scripture would be a part of the 17).
In addition, while Westcott and Hort did not deny the deity of Jesus Christ, we do see that they did not have a problem with Arianism. We also see an instance where Hort downplayed or water-downed our Lord’s deity.
For example, in Hort‘s comment on Revelation 3:14, “the beginning of the creation of God.” Hort says,
[COMMENT: Though Hort proceeds to say that the words can “equally well bear” another meaning, the fact remains that he has left his readers with the idea that the Arian heresy that Christ is not the eternal God but was a created being is a possibility.]
Westcott commenting on John 20:28 said,
[COMMENT: In fact, Jesus did refer to Himself as God and this is why the Jews wanted to kill Him (Jn. 8:58-59; 10:30-33).]
Westcott and Hort, together with their friend Stanley, were instrumental in getting the Unitarian Christ-rejecter George Vance Smith on the ERV translation committee, and when an outcry was made by Anglican ministers against the Unitarian’s presence on the committee, the three men threatened to resign unless he remained.
Source:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/George_Vance_Smith
May all manner of good things be unto you today in Jesus’ name.
Okay, to get down to business, Micah 5:2 is not the only verse that makes it appear like Jesus is a demi-god (i.e., the belief that Jesus is God or He has deity but yet, He was created by the Father). John 1:18 is another one. John 1:18 says in select Modern Bibles that Jesus is a begotten God or a God who was born or created.
John 1:18 NAS95
”No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
John 1:18 KJB
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
Also, in John 3:13, we see another change that is a watering-down on Christ’s deity. Jesus tells Nicodemus that the Son of Man is in Heaven. The phrase "which is in heaven" referring to Christ is omitted in John 3:13 in Modern Translations. However, the King James Bible (KJB) or Textus Receptus (TR) properly includes these words and conveys the proper teaching that Christ is the Omnipresent God.
John 3:13 KJB
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
John 3:13 ESV
“No one has ascended into heaven except the who descended from heaven, the Son of Man [missing words].”
For our upcoming illustration, we will examine the latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:
Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:
KJV-
10 “...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”
NASB 1995 -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.”
NET -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
NWT-
10 “...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”
Were you able to spot the difference?" The change may seem slight, but its implications are quite profound. As shown in the NASB 1995, NET, and NWT translations, the consistent message is that we will stand before the "judgment seat of God" and give an account to Him. Yet, the King James Version (KJV) presents a more precise rendition, expressing that we will appear before the "judgment seat of Christ" and subsequently give an account to "God." So the NASB 1995 and NET are in alignment with the New World Translation (NWT), modify "Christ" to "God" in Romans 14:10, effectively challenging Christ's divinity.
Keep in mind that I have a total of 17 of these alterations (Which is in my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible PDF) (Note: These three examples above in Scripture would be a part of the 17).
In addition, while Westcott and Hort did not deny the deity of Jesus Christ, we do see that they did not have a problem with Arianism. We also see an instance where Hort downplayed or water-downed our Lord’s deity.
For example, in Hort‘s comment on Revelation 3:14, “the beginning of the creation of God.” Hort says,
“The words might no doubt bear the Arian meaning ‘the first thing created’...”
(Hort , The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3, p. 36).
[COMMENT: Though Hort proceeds to say that the words can “equally well bear” another meaning, the fact remains that he has left his readers with the idea that the Arian heresy that Christ is not the eternal God but was a created being is a possibility.]
Westcott commenting on John 20:28 said,
“He never speaks of himself directly as God (compare v. 18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him”
(Westcott , The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
[COMMENT: In fact, Jesus did refer to Himself as God and this is why the Jews wanted to kill Him (Jn. 8:58-59; 10:30-33).]
Westcott and Hort, together with their friend Stanley, were instrumental in getting the Unitarian Christ-rejecter George Vance Smith on the ERV translation committee, and when an outcry was made by Anglican ministers against the Unitarian’s presence on the committee, the three men threatened to resign unless he remained.
Source:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/George_Vance_Smith
-
1
- Show all