Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Word

[tulsa 2011]

Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings

The links to the quotes below are left out for this forum.

The issue of whether the verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek texts left them out depends on some scholarship. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is based largely upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts which are associated with Alexandria, Egypt, and the Christian and gnostic theology going on there in the early Church period. .

But if you believe in a supernatural God who is there and active now in all things, then you can see that God honored the King James Version by allowing it to have the fruit that it has had in the centuries since it appeared. The new Bible versions - which have existed for a hundred years or more - have not had such fruit and have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the Christians in America and in other parts of the world.

Those who have the Holy Spirit can also have some discernment about whether the King James and Textus Receptus are more authentic than the new versions.

"The Byzantine text, otherwise also called the Syrian text (so Westcott
and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical text (so
Lake), and the Antiochian text (so Ropes) is, on the whole, the latest
of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament. It is
characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of
this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine
two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called
conflation) , and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. This
conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to
Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the
Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus
(in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later
uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. Thus,
except for an occasional manuscript that happen to preserve an earlier
form of the text, during the period from about the sixth to seventh
century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A.D.
1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the
authoritative form of text and was one of the most widely circulated
and accepted."

"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."

"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."

"Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri,
"They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of
the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e.
geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are
opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). "

What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.

"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."

"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."

The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."

"King James Version
The KJV is based on a Greek text (Robert Stephanus's third edition
published in 1550) known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]).
This text is a Byzantine type; that is, it represents a family of
manuscripts that are mostly associated with the Constantinople area of
modern Turkey. This text represents the majority of the existing Greek
manuscripts."


‎"The Greek manuscript basis for the Textus Receptus (i.e. TR} is
younger than the other text types. This does not necessarily mean the
text itself is younger. "


"Another reason the KJV is held in high honor is because it is based
...on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (a Latin term
translated Received Text). All major translations since 1881, except
the New King James Version, are based on the Alexandrian Greek text
first published in 1881-82."


"Westcott and Hort considered the Alexandrian text-type to be those
early Non-Western and Pre-Syrian uncial manuscripts that preserved the
text used by Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and a few other Alexandrian
Fathers, and the two Egyptian Versions used in Lower Egypt. They
considered its chief representative to be the Vaticanus manuscript."

"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after
Westcott and Hort's time."

This site quotes Sturz as saying "Papyrus-supported longer Byzantine
readings show their early age. The Byzantine text also has readings
shorter than the Alexandrian text. "Instead of finding (as was
anticipated) the greater number of papyrus-confirmed variants in K
where the Byzantine reading was the shortest, the greater proportion
was of longer papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. This underscores
the danger of making it a rule 'to prefer the shorter reading . . . .'
long readings are old and short readings are old. Both are attested by
manuscript evidence that places them deep in the second century. The
criteria for judging between them must be something other than their
respective lengths."

Westcott and Hort claimed that a criteria for selecting a Greek text
was its shortness, that is, shorter verse wordings, they claimed,
meant the text was older and therefore more 'authentic."

"The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in
1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in
1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300
a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New
Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several
thousand percent increase as far as their importance."

"The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth
century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus
Receptus, has very early support."

"Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine
readings in the second century."

That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.

"Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after
around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text
which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine
manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings
"are far older than the manuscripts which attest them."


The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."


"Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text
either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR.
(Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing
about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort
'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the
earliest fathers."[117]

 

[farout]

Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings

The links to the quotes below are left out for this forum.

The issue of whether the verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek texts left them out depends on some scholarship. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is based largely upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts which are associated with Alexandria, Egypt, and the Christian and gnostic theology going on there in the early Church period. .

But if you believe in a supernatural God who is there and active now in all things, then you can see that God honored the King James Version by allowing it to have the fruit that it has had in the centuries since it appeared. The new Bible versions - which have existed for a hundred years or more - have not had such fruit and have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the Christians in America and in other parts of the world.

Those who have the Holy Spirit can also have some discernment about whether the King James and Textus Receptus are more authentic than the new versions.

"The Byzantine text, otherwise also called the Syrian text (so Westcott
and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical text (so
Lake), and the Antiochian text (so Ropes) is, on the whole, the latest
of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament. It is
characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of
this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine
two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called
conflation) , and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. This
conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to
Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the
Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus
(in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later
uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. Thus,
except for an occasional manuscript that happen to preserve an earlier
form of the text, during the period from about the sixth to seventh
century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A.D.
1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the
authoritative form of text and was one of the most widely circulated
and accepted."

"Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his
book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism."

"The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri.
Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these
papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49,
59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)."

"Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri,
"They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of
the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e.
geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are
opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). "

What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with
the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text
more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text.

"Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the
papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings
were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence
before the end of the second century and that, because of this,
Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)."

"Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt
where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries."
Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate
in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any
papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)."

The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early
papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this
text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as
mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings."

"King James Version
The KJV is based on a Greek text (Robert Stephanus's third edition
published in 1550) known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]).
This text is a Byzantine type; that is, it represents a family of
manuscripts that are mostly associated with the Constantinople area of
modern Turkey. This text represents the majority of the existing Greek
manuscripts."


‎"The Greek manuscript basis for the Textus Receptus (i.e. TR} is
younger than the other text types. This does not necessarily mean the
text itself is younger. "


"Another reason the KJV is held in high honor is because it is based
...on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (a Latin term
translated Received Text). All major translations since 1881, except
the New King James Version, are based on the Alexandrian Greek text
first published in 1881-82."


"Westcott and Hort considered the Alexandrian text-type to be those
early Non-Western and Pre-Syrian uncial manuscripts that preserved the
text used by Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and a few other Alexandrian
Fathers, and the two Egyptian Versions used in Lower Egypt. They
considered its chief representative to be the Vaticanus manuscript."

"There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after
Westcott and Hort's time."

This site quotes Sturz as saying "Papyrus-supported longer Byzantine
readings show their early age. The Byzantine text also has readings
shorter than the Alexandrian text. "Instead of finding (as was
anticipated) the greater number of papyrus-confirmed variants in K
where the Byzantine reading was the shortest, the greater proportion
was of longer papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. This underscores
the danger of making it a rule 'to prefer the shorter reading . . . .'
long readings are old and short readings are old. Both are attested by
manuscript evidence that places them deep in the second century. The
criteria for judging between them must be something other than their
respective lengths."

Westcott and Hort claimed that a criteria for selecting a Greek text
was its shortness, that is, shorter verse wordings, they claimed,
meant the text was older and therefore more 'authentic."

"The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in
1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in
1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300
a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and
P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New
Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several
thousand percent increase as far as their importance."

"The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth
century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus
Receptus, has very early support."

"Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine
readings in the second century."

That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse
wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This
does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably
originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times.

"Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after
around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text
which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine
manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings
"are far older than the manuscripts which attest them."


The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that
there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they
all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine
text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position
is much more difficult than Hort thought."


"Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text
either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR.
(Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing
about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort
'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the
earliest fathers."[117]

Tulsa: Thereis no doubt about the fact that the King James Version has been and still is a wonderfully God blessed Bible. There are Scriptural finds and archeological discoveries that are constantly verifing Scripture to be totally accurate. The KJV has been used for more than 400 years, and is still a Bible that is used today by older adults and even the youngest who can read. The KJV has been watched over by God in it's revisions. It is very interesting to read a copy of the orignal KJV that Thomas Nelson reproduced, which we bought. Few know how different the spelling was back then. Even with the different ways the orignal KJV is we were still able to read it with some effort that you would expect of a 400 year old Bible.

There is number of new translations that have had an agenda like gender nutral versions like the New Revised Version, Todays NIV, just to point out two such Bibles. No matter what English Bible translated from the orignal laqnguages, there is no perfectly translated version. To be exact we need to know how to read and understand at least Hebrew and Greek. Often those experienced in knowing these languages must keep in practice by brading them almost daily. These are I have been told difficult languages to be an expert in translating. In nany ways those who translated the KJV had worked tirelessly, no computers no dictonary, but depending on the Holy spirit to guide them almost like the original writters of Scripture.

I am by no means an Phd like you, and yourknowledge is wonderful, and you are blessed to have such writting skills. I do appreciate you sharing such information with us about such finds.

I really enjoy the New King James Bible we bought this past January. This makes the verses I learned as a child from the KJV very special. I was raised with the KJV so that Bible has avery special spot in my heart.

For a fact the KJV has out sold all the Bibles ever published in it's history of 400 years. I have also come to Love and respect the Bible more each day. I personally have spent four years in Seminary, and twenty years of studying the Holy Scripture. Sometimes I am asked what conclusion I have come to about the Bible. I always say Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.

There is a danger is saying that no other English Bible is as accurate as the KJV, and or saying the KJV is old and no longer able to be understood by youngsters or adults, both are lies from the devil.

I am familiar with Westcott and Hort, and Textus Receptus argument. I have read and heard debates by some called "King James Only" and Dr. James White. After much thinking I can see and agree with both sides. I personally don't have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with either group. My Biblical interests are in Pastorial Care, Missionology and Biblical History. There are so many who become disgreeable when they disagree, and even part fellowship over such things. "The only things in life that are more important in life, are not things." from the christian movie "STAND STRONG". Blessings Tulsa .

 

[tulsa 2011]

farout said "I am by no means an Phd like you." What makes you think I have a Ph.D? Where in Missouri are you?

 

[farout]

farout said "I am by no means an Phd like you." What makes you think I have a Ph.D? Where in Missouri are you?

Tulsa: I read your profile and you said you had a PHD In Experamental Psychology. I am proud for you. There are lots of 'PH-" with no "D's" walking around. The Disertation is the hardest part to do, and many just can't do it. So congradulations!

 

[tulsa 2011]

My Profile does say I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology. Psychology deals only with two part man, body and mind, and knows nothing of the third part, spirit, which is created and maintained by the Holy Spirit. Fifteen or twenty years ago there were a few books critical of the influence of some parts of psychology on Christians. Paul Vitz, a psychologist, wrote an early book critical of parts of psychology in the churches, Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, 1977. Vitz is a Catholic.

 

[lawrenceb]

Motive$ are not difficult to ascertain. The new modern "versions" are copyrighted, i.e. legally claimed by men to be their own. Permission is required if one wants to quote more than 500 words from one of their copyrighted "bibles."

Conversely, The Word of God, i.e. the KJB, is not copyrighted.

 

[farout]

If there were not copyright laws, to protect the accuracy of what was printed. and limitations there are some who would have the Bible that millions of dollars were used to make a translation,and printed just to make money from a translation that they prirated. Right now China's Government is stealing our big companies secret information form computers that secret agents thought were protected.

the Gospel Music industry is constantly having music stoled by thieves that disregard copyright laws. The same is true for Christian movies and the like. Go to a Christian book store and see where most Bibles and Books are printed. China, and Korea print most of the Bibles and printed book's and materal's.

If anyone wants more than 500 verses you simply follow their instructions they put in the page that has all that information. I have never heard of anyone being turned down.

Have you had aproblem with a publisher telling you no, in your request for more than 500 verses? What do you see is wrong with protecting a translation so someone does not steal their work? Blessings.

 

[tulsa 2011]

If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern
translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other
modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or
elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are
shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new
versions generally has shorter wordings. But you have to have the
motivation and patience to look at many verses in the Textus Receptus
and the three great English translations from it, the Tyndale Bible
(1526), the Geneva Bible (1599) and the King James Version (1611).
Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter
wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather
than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the
Textus Receptus. The 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text is mostly from the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to
connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the
inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn
and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought
that is presented only in a very brief way.

The English words that the King James translators chose to use in
translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the
doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work
well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions.
The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe
for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully
believe in that word of God.

On the other hand, the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired
and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities,
the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of
the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we
should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we
understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James.
Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown
by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful,
defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the
associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and
defiled.

.Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a
poet and understood language. He said that elevated writing, like that
seen in the Bible, has a "...feeling for syllable and rhythm,
penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feelings,
invigorating every word" (Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, NYC:
HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223) .Eliot is not talking about the
writing style of the NIV, but about the King James.

H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the
King James: "It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the
Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in
all the literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men
have sought to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday.
But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is
palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better
than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its
English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a
mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and
the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii).

Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of those who
say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new
versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken. The advocates of the
Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine have been partly successful in
overthrowing the Textus Receptus and the Tyndale, Geneva and King
James.

If you compare many verses in the Geneva Bible with the King James,
you will find a great deal of similarity.

The Textus Receptus, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King
James were not copyrighted in the way modern English translations of
Westcott-Hort are copyrighted. Getting a Bible version copyrighted
requires that it be unique and different in some ways from previous
translations. So, this encouraged the huge number of changes in verse
wordings in the new English translations, something which is confusing
to many readers and which can create doubt about what is the authentic
and absolute word of God.

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) created what came to be
called the Textus Receptus from a few Byzantine Greek manuscripts.
Cereghin says the texts used by Erasmus for his first edition were:

1. 11th century text, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus
did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex Vaticanus. Sinaiticus had
not then been discovered in the Monastery of Mount Sinai in the 19th century.
2. 15th century text, contained the Gospels.
3. 12th-14th century texts, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus
depended upon these two texts because they were the best and most accurate
texts.
4. 15th century, containing Revelation.

John Cereghin also says that "Erasmus may have had as many as 10
manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from
England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin."

The Erasmus Greek text went through five editions, starting with the
first edition in 1516. The second to fifth editions were in 1519,
1522, 1527 and 1535.

 

[lawrenceb]

Westcott and Hort were two spiritists; they called themselves heretics. Their Greek text was taken from corrupted manuscripts, Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), and further corrupted by those two.

Copyright is about money. A testimony, a testament, the truth, cannot be copyrighted, but the words of men can be. This is why there is no copyright on the KJB, but every modern version has a copyright i.e. some man claims to own it. Derivative copyright law says minor changes to a derivative work won't qualify it for copyright purposes, so the changes are major, to say the least.

 

[farout]

If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern
translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other
modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or
elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are
shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new
versions generally has shorter wordings. But you have to have the
motivation and patience to look at many verses in the Textus Receptus
and the three great English translations from it, the Tyndale Bible
(1526), the Geneva Bible (1599) and the King James Version (1611).
Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter
wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather
than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the
Textus Receptus. The 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text is mostly from the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to
connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the
inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn
and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought
that is presented only in a very brief way.

The English words that the King James translators chose to use in
translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the
doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work
well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions.
The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe
for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully
believe in that word of God.

On the other hand, the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired
and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities,
the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of
the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we
should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we
understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James.
Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown
by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful,
defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the
associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and
defiled.

.Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a
poet and understood language. He said that elevated writing, like that
seen in the Bible, has a "...feeling for syllable and rhythm,
penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feelings,
invigorating every word" (Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, NYC:
HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223) .Eliot is not talking about the
writing style of the NIV, but about the King James.

H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the
King James: "It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the
Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in
all the literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men
have sought to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday.
But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is
palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better
than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its
English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a
mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and
the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii).

Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of those who
say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new
versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken. The advocates of the
Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine have been partly successful in
overthrowing the Textus Receptus and the Tyndale, Geneva and King
James.

If you compare many verses in the Geneva Bible with the King James,
you will find a great deal of similarity.

The Textus Receptus, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King
James were not copyrighted in the way modern English translations of
Westcott-Hort are copyrighted. Getting a Bible version copyrighted
requires that it be unique and different in some ways from previous
translations. So, this encouraged the huge number of changes in verse
wordings in the new English translations, something which is confusing
to many readers and which can create doubt about what is the authentic
and absolute word of God.

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) created what came to be
called the Textus Receptus from a few Byzantine Greek manuscripts.
Cereghin says the texts used by Erasmus for his first edition were:

1. 11th century text, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus
did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex Vaticanus. Sinaiticus had
not then been discovered in the Monastery of Mount Sinai in the 19th century.
2. 15th century text, contained the Gospels.
3. 12th-14th century texts, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus
depended upon these two texts because they were the best and most accurate
texts.
4. 15th century, containing Revelation.

John Cereghin also says that "Erasmus may have had as many as 10
manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from
England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin."

The Erasmus Greek text went through five editions, starting with the
first edition in 1516. The second to fifth editions were in 1519,
1522, 1527 and 1535.

Tulsa: Is all of this information from your personal study, or from some other source? This is some very indepth material, and goes into detail that is worthy of publication. Blessings.

 

[lawrenceb]

This is some very indepth material, and goes into detail that is worthy of publication.

Rather, there are several gross inaccuracies in it. For example:

KJV critics love to pretend that Erasmus hurriedly put his Greek New Testament together. False assertions, repeated over and over ad nauseum, state that Erasmus had only a few Greek manuscripts. The Cambridge History of the Bible affirms, regarding Erasmus' Greek NT: "It corresponds to the manuscript tradition which in fact prevailed in the Greek church; and not until the end of the nineteenth century were editions proposed that differed [Westcott & Hort] other than on points of detail" (vol. 2, p. 499).

Kenneth W. Clark, the scholar who has examined more Greek manuscripts than most, admits, "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a 'received text,' but only the transmission from a manuscript text, already commonly received, to a printed form, in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries" (The Gentile Buias and Other Essays, The Erasmian Notes on Codex 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, p. 168.)

Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV critics ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus' Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB. The agreement of this tiny minority is far from unanimous on many changes.

Were Erasmus alive today, he would finds that, in the main, he had managed to match almost all of the over 5200 Greek manuscripts, and wisely ignore the other 44 corrupt ones. (If these critics had taken a course in Statistics in graduate school, they would know that guesses like this are statistically impossible, given the fact that the Greek New Testament has about 140,521 words.) Without the preservation of the text by God, try guessing all of them for yourself.

Here are some of the deceivers who have probably shaped your falsehoods concerning Erasmus:

William Combs
James White
Doug Kutilek
Robert Morey
Dan Corner

Wolves such as these are paid to give unwary readers the false impression that:

1) The text that Erasmus used is not representative of the majority of Greek New Testament texts (over 5200) extant today, which it is.

2) The Greek text of Erasmus began in the 1400s, which it did not.

3) Erasmus was a Catholic in theology, which he was not.

These deceivers also try to give the readers the false impression that these men (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) 'created' this text, rather than merely PRINTING the Greek text that was received everywhere. Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was a mirror of the handwritten Greek texts which were used before the advent of the printing press. Erasmus was merely the first to PRINT IT, PUBLISH IT AND CIRCULATE IT, in the new printed format.

Critics often assert that 'Erasmus did not have the manuscripts we have today.' In fact, he had access to every reading currently extant, and rejected those matching the Catholic Vulgate (and the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB today).

The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses. A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, 'I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek' or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the 'Textus Receptus.' The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to 'the Greek' and downplaying the common man's Bible, exposes a naivety concerning textual history and those documents which today's pseudo-intellectuals call 'the critical text,' 'the original Greek,' the 'Majority Text,' or the 'Textus Receptus.' There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

 

[farout]

Westcott and Hort were two spiritualists; they called themselves heretics. Their Greek text was taken from corrupted manuscripts, Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), and further corrupted by those two.

Copyright is about money. A testimony, a testament, the truth, cannot be copyrighted, but the words of men can be. This is why there is no copyright on the KJB, but every modern version has a copyright i.e. some man claims to own it. Derivative copyright law says minor changes to a derivative work won't qualify it for copyright purposes, so the changes are major, to say the least.

Lawrenceb: I understand that you really like the King James Version of the Bible. I believe you are saying that any translation or version of the Bible should not be copyrighted, because it uses the testimony of men who put the Words of God in written form. And you do believe the orignal words or works of men can be copyrighted. I am I understanding you correctly?

I am having a hard time understanding how Westcortt and Hort fit into your thinking on copyrights. Would you please help me understand how the two fit together? Is it that Wescott and Hort Copyrighted something that effects us today? Blessings.

 

[farout]

Rather, there are several gross inaccuracies in it. For example:

KJV critics love to pretend that Erasmus hurriedly put his Greek New Testament together. False assertions, repeated over and over ad nauseum, state that Erasmus had only a few Greek manuscripts. The Cambridge History of the Bible affirms, regarding Erasmus' Greek NT: "It corresponds to the manuscript tradition which in fact prevailed in the Greek church; and not until the end of the nineteenth century were editions proposed that differed [Westcott & Hort] other than on points of detail" (vol. 2, p. 499).

Kenneth W. Clark, the scholar who has examined more Greek manuscripts than most, admits, "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a 'received text,' but only the transmission from a manuscript text, already commonly received, to a printed form, in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries" (The Gentile Buias and Other Essays, The Erasmian Notes on Codex 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, p. 168.)

Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV critics ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus' Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB. The agreement of this tiny minority is far from unanimous on many changes.

Were Erasmus alive today, he would finds that, in the main, he had managed to match almost all of the over 5200 Greek manuscripts, and wisely ignore the other 44 corrupt ones. (If these critics had taken a course in Statistics in graduate school, they would know that guesses like this are statistically impossible, given the fact that the Greek New Testament has about 140,521 words.) Without the preservation of the text by God, try guessing all of them for yourself.

Here are some of the deceivers who have probably shaped your falsehoods concerning Erasmus:

William Combs
James White
Doug Kutilek
Robert Morey
Dan Corner

Wolves such as these are paid to give unwary readers the false impression that:

1) The text that Erasmus used is not representative of the majority of Greek New Testament texts (over 5200) extant today, which it is.

2) The Greek text of Erasmus began in the 1400s, which it did not.

3) Erasmus was a Catholic in theology, which he was not.

These deceivers also try to give the readers the false impression that these men (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) 'created' this text, rather than merely PRINTING the Greek text that was received everywhere. Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was a mirror of the handwritten Greek texts which were used before the advent of the printing press. Erasmus was merely the first to PRINT IT, PUBLISH IT AND CIRCULATE IT, in the new printed format.

Critics often assert that 'Erasmus did not have the manuscripts we have today.' In fact, he had access to every reading currently extant, and rejected those matching the Catholic Vulgate (and the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB today).

The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses. A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, 'I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek' or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the 'Textus Receptus.' The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to 'the Greek' and downplaying the common man's Bible, exposes a naivety concerning textual history and those documents which today's pseudo-intellectuals call 'the critical text,' 'the original Greek,' the 'Majority Text,' or the 'Textus Receptus.' There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

Lawrenceb: This reads like something that was copied from someone other than you. Is this your own material? I believe if you quote or use someone's elses material it is customary to state where you got the material. I f you say you wrote it that's something beyond my ability for certian.

The issue if I am on target, is that the only Bible that is not corrupted is the King James Bible. Please do not misunderstand me, I really love the KJV. I am unwilling to dialologue the superiority of the King James Version of the Bible. In elevating the King Kames Version of the Bible by degrading for instance the New American Standard Bible, tares at the heart of the message of both.

I graduated from Grand Canyon University. Dr. James White and I were in many classes together. I know of his ministry and it grieves me to read someone call him and the other four christian brothers "deceivers". Can you please tell me have you ever heard or talked with Dr. white? I think if you would cantact him, would respectfully answer any concerns you have.

I personally know Dr. Henry Mohler one of those who helped with the Greek translation teams on the New American Standard Bible. He is a Greek scholar that is well known and he would never haved helped in a Bible translation that was less than as perfect as humanly possible. This elder brother in the LORD is a honorable man I am sure you would find able to explain any things or doubts you may have about the NASB.

The American Standard Version of 1901 has been highly estemed for its accuracy. The KJV was its self a revision of the Bishops Bible of 1568. The KJV has been revised at least five times. In 1959 The Lockman Foundation undertook to to use the oldest manuscripts and that included those used in translating the KJV as well. No translation is perfect. as long as humans haved anything to do with it.

There are versions of the Bible that do deserve to avoid, that's nothing to be debated about. The New American Standars Bible is compledtley trustworthy, reliable and accurate. If you or any follower of Jesus wants to be loyal to the KJV there is no issue with that whatsoever. However care needs to be taken when emphatically stating only the KJV is not corrupt. that is in my opinion a statement one will have to stand before the Lord and answer for. I openly state the KJV is a genuien Bible translation God has blessed for many years and will always be used for the Glory to God.

I will not be disagreeable because we don't agree, for after all is said and done we are Brothers in Christ Jesus. Blessings.

 

[Strypes]

John 11:35 ASV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 CSB
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 DBY
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 ESV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 GNT
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 GNTA
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 KJV
Jesus wept .

John 11:35 KJVA
Jesus wept .

John 11:35 LEB
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 MSG
Now Jesus wept.

John 11:35 NAS
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 NIV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 NKJV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 NLT
Then Jesus wept.

John 11:35 RHE
And Jesus wept.

John 11:35 RSV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 RSVA
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 TMB
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 TMBA
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 TNIV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WBT
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WEB
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WNT
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WYC
And Jesus wept.

I believe Jesus still weeps when people use the bible to attack other believers or belittle His word as "less than" when it is not their favorite version.

We should respect each other and never put down each other as heretics because we have a disagreement on the subject.

God's word is alive and sharper than any two edged sword and whether or not it is copyrighted or KJV or ESV or any other version, it will still pierce to the division of the soul and of the spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Tiz true

 

[farout]

Strypes:.

You spoke very sweet, kind much needed words at the right time!

I honestly Jesus still weeps today for His Children suffering iiiiin a world that Kills His beloved, in Irque, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Pakastine, India, Korea, China, Denmark, England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Canada, United States, Mexico, Bolivia, Panama, Chile, France, just to name a few places where His true Followere are suffering. Suffering in proverty, bankruptcy, poor health, near death, and perhaps the suffering of people who have rejected His Son Jesus Christ who are near to the end of their life. The last but those Jesus so dearly loves, little children being molested, abused, forced to do grown ups work as slaves of all kinds. esus weeps! Blessings


















































.

John 11:35 TMBA
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 TNIV
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WBT
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WEB
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WNT
Jesus wept.

John 11:35 WYC
And Jesus wept.

I believe Jesus still weeps when people use the bible to attack other believers or belittle His word as "less than" when it is not their favorite version.

We should respect each other and never put down each other as heretics because we have a disagreement on the subject.

God's word is alive and sharper than any two edged sword and whether or not it is copyrighted or KJV or ESV or any other version, it will still pierce to the division of the soul and of the spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Tiz true[/QUOTE]

 

[lawrenceb]

The OP is spot on. No one else has posted any primary source documentation for their claims. I have indeed studied the “bible version” issue for YEARS, in depth, and I see many falsehoods being thrown about as if they where the truth.

If there was a genuine interest by genuine truth lovers, then I would go ahead and spend the considerable time and energy to show you what the historical record has to reveal to the diligent via primary source documentation.

Otherwise, one's opinion is no better than another's, and this thread becomes a waste of time for everyone -- worse, it becomes a worldly conditioning tool in which the only "winner" is the enemy himself. The medium itself is part of the problem.</SPAN>

No one has to "degrade" the moden versions to prove they are counterfeit; any serious study will reveal that. Their very copyrighted existence is proof positive that they AND the KJB cannot BOTH be correct, as one is God's testament/testimony and the others are the legal property of men.

I will not be disagreeable because we don't agree, for after all is said and done we are Brothers in Christ Jesus. Blessings.

Ideally, yes. Still, those who eat junk food, remain weak...

 

[lawrenceb]

duplicate post deleted

 

[tulsa 2011]

There is a strong possibility that there were 3rd and 4th century
gnostic influences upon some verses in the Greek New Testament texts -
Sianaticus and Vaticanus - used by Westcott
and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. And - Westcott and Hort were interested
in occult phenomena according to their sons who both wrote biographies
of their fathers. Gnosticism was a source for the 19th century English
occult movement, which Westcott and Hort took part in. Now we are
seeing a revival of gnosticism and gnostic influences in the New Age
Occult movement, which has seeped over into the Christian Church.

Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) was an important figure in the 19th century occult
movement in England. Several Anglican Spiritualists were part of the
occult revival that included Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott.

That British occult revival and Helena Blavatsky were one of the forerunners of the
20th century New Age Occult, with its leaders such as Barbara Marx Hubbard, Benjamin Creme,
John Randolph Price and Marilynn Ferguson. There were a number of these people who channeled demon spirits for instruction in the occult. The New Age Occult was loosely an allied
movement of the hippie and drug movement counterculture of the sixties and seventies.

Westcott and Hort were active in the British nineteenth century Ghost
Society and in the Society for Psychical Research. They were
interested in paranormal phenomena. These two
Anglican theologians created a Greek text which disagrees in many verse
wordings with the Textus Receptus Greek text, used for the King James
Version of 1611. Almost all recent New Testament translations are from
the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text - and not from the Textus Receptus.

The loyal followers of Westcott and Hort - the Riders on their
Wrecking Machine - will deny that the two Anglican theologians had
anything to do with the 19th century English occult revival. This is
why we should be more careful than Christians usually are in
identifying our sources for
the claim that Westcott and Hort were important figures within the
British nineteenth century occult movement.

Alan Gauld in The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books,
1968, p. 66, says "Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony
Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott . and the future
Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge
Ghost Society in 1851."

Then Arthur Westcott tells us in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, New
York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 118, 119, that "His devotion
with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him.
'The interest and importance of a serious and
earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely
called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned." "His" refers to
Arthur Westcott's father, Brooke Foss Westcott.

On page 118 Arthur Westcott writes that his father Brooke F. Wesctott
said in the "Ghostly Circular" that "Many persons believe that all
such apparently mysterious occurrences are due either to purely
natural causes, or to delusions of the mind or senses, or to willful
deception. But there are many others who believe it possible that the
beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves in extraordinary
ways...If the belief of the latter class should be
ultimately confirmed, the limits which human knowledge respecting the
spirit world has hitherto reached might be ascertained with some
degree of accuracy."

Brooke F. Westcott wanted to investigate occult phenomena to see if it
could be shown to reliably exist.

Yet at least 17 verses in the Bible warn against dealing with familiar
spirits. Other texts say not to consult wizards, soothsayers,
astrologers, or diviners. Many followers of Westcott and Hort will
refuse to consider that these two
were violating Biblical law by dealing with the occult.
Ezekiel 13: 22 can be interpreted to teach that the promoters of
Westcott and Hort have "...strengthened the hands of the wicked, that
he should not return from his wicked way..." Some may be caught in the
Westcott-Hort trap,
and are boxed in so that they will not see the problems of these two
unbelieving Anglican churchmen.

W.H. Salter in his book,The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline
of It's History, London, 1948, p. 8, says "The original objective of
the Society for Psychical.Research (S.P.R,). was to conduct research
into "that large group of debatable phenomena designated by such terms
as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic." Committees were organized to
examine telepathy, hypnotism, mesmeric trance, clairvoyance, ESP,
apparitions, haunted houses, and to determine the laws of physical
spiritualistic phenomena. In recognition of the important work
accomplished by Benson, Westcott and Hort -- the leaders of its
precursor, the Cambridge Ghost Society -- the S.P.R. Historical
Outline posits, "It would hardly have been possible for the new
Society to undertake an enquiry of such a kind or on such as scale if
several of its
leading members had not already gained previous experience of the
difficulties attaching to that type of investigation."

The son of Fenton Hort, Arthur Hort, in Life and Letters of Fenton
John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, 1896, Vol 1, pp. 170-172 wrote that his
father was active in "Two other societies...in both of which Hort
seems to have been the moving spirit...the other called... the Ghostly
Guild. The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances
of what are now called psychical phenomena."

Hort and his associate Westcott were both heavily involved in the
Society for Psychical Research.

There is a reference which says that the Society for Psychical
Research held seances and interviewed Helena P. Blavatsky, who is a
forerunner of the present New Age Occult movment. "In its early
stages, the S.P.R. (Society For Psychical Research) held séances in
the townhouse of Arthur Balfour of which his sister Eleanor was the
principle organizer. Various mediums of reputation were investigated
with the purpose of ruling out charlatans and determining if entities
from the spirit realm or deceased persons did in fact communicate with
the living. In 1884, Madame H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the
Theosophical Society, was interviewed by a committee of the
S.P.R....the S.P.R. was at first -- "…considerably impressed by the
evidence of Mme Blavatsky and her friends..." From: W.H. Salter, The
Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it's History,
London,1948, pp 21-22.

In addition, the Society For Psychical Research sponsored a number of
seance settings from 1889 to 1890 by spirit medium Leonora Piper of
Boston, and by Rosalee Thompson, a British spirit medium in 1897 and
1898. There are a few links on Google to these seances held by the
Society For Psychical Research. Type in the names of the two spirit
mediums above and "Society For psychical Research."

In studying the occult, the Anglican theologians and other members of
the English elite class made the occult more acceptable. This same
process seems to have happened in the seventies and eighties when
American psychologists and communications professors studied hard core
pornography. They made pornography more acceptable, not only to the
college students they showed it to, but also to others.

Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz of the University of Wisconsin and Ed
Donnerstein - another Wisconsin professor - showed a porno movie of
two men tying up and raping a
woman. This was reported in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. See Donnerstein, E. & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim
reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 710-724.

 

[tulsa 2011]

There is a strong possibility that there were 3rd and 4th century
gnostic influences upon some verses in the Greek New Testament texts -
Sianaticus and Vaticanus - used by Westcott
and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. And - Westcott and Hort were interested
in occult phenomena according to their sons who both wrote biographies
of their fathers. Gnosticism was a source for the 19th century English
occult movement, which Westcott and Hort took part in. Now we are
seeing a revival of gnosticism and gnostic influences in the New Age
Occult movement, which has seeped over into the Christian Church.

Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) was an important figure in the 19th century occult
movement in England. Several Anglican Spiritualists were part of the
occult revival that included Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott.

That British occult revival and Helena Blavatsky were one of the forerunners of the
20th century New Age Occult, with its leaders such as Barbara Marx Hubbard, Benjamin Creme,
John Randolph Price and Marilynn Ferguson. There were a number of these people who channeled demon spirits for instruction in the occult. The New Age Occult was loosely an allied
movement of the hippie and drug movement counterculture of the sixties and seventies.

Westcott and Hort were active in the British nineteenth century Ghost
Society and in the Society for Psychical Research. They were
interested in paranormal phenomena. These two
Anglican theologians created a Greek text which disagrees in many verse
wordings with the Textus Receptus Greek text, used for the King James
Version of 1611. Almost all recent New Testament translations are from
the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text - and not from the Textus Receptus.

The loyal followers of Westcott and Hort - the Riders on their
Wrecking Machine - will deny that the two Anglican theologians had
anything to do with the 19th century English occult revival. This is
why we should be more careful than Christians usually are in
identifying our sources for
the claim that Westcott and Hort were important figures within the
British nineteenth century occult movement.

Alan Gauld in The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books,
1968, p. 66, says "Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony
Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott . and the future
Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge
Ghost Society in 1851."

Then Arthur Westcott tells us in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, New
York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 118, 119, that "His devotion
with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him.
'The interest and importance of a serious and
earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely
called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned." "His" refers to
Arthur Westcott's father, Brooke Foss Westcott.

On page 118 Arthur Westcott writes that his father Brooke F. Wesctott
said in the "Ghostly Circular" that "Many persons believe that all
such apparently mysterious occurrences are due either to purely
natural causes, or to delusions of the mind or senses, or to willful
deception. But there are many others who believe it possible that the
beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves in extraordinary
ways...If the belief of the latter class should be
ultimately confirmed, the limits which human knowledge respecting the
spirit world has hitherto reached might be ascertained with some
degree of accuracy."

Brooke F. Westcott wanted to investigate occult phenomena to see if it
could be shown to reliably exist.

Yet at least 17 verses in the Bible warn against dealing with familiar
spirits. Other texts say not to consult wizards, soothsayers,
astrologers, or diviners. Many followers of Westcott and Hort will
refuse to consider that these two
were violating Biblical law by dealing with the occult.
Ezekiel 13: 22 can be interpreted to teach that the promoters of
Westcott and Hort have "...strengthened the hands of the wicked, that
he should not return from his wicked way..." Some may be caught in the
Westcott-Hort trap,
and are boxed in so that they will not see the problems of these two
unbelieving Anglican churchmen.

W.H. Salter in his book,The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline
of It's History, London, 1948, p. 8, says "The original objective of
the Society for Psychical.Research (S.P.R,). was to conduct research
into "that large group of debatable phenomena designated by such terms
as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic." Committees were organized to
examine telepathy, hypnotism, mesmeric trance, clairvoyance, ESP,
apparitions, haunted houses, and to determine the laws of physical
spiritualistic phenomena. In recognition of the important work
accomplished by Benson, Westcott and Hort -- the leaders of its
precursor, the Cambridge Ghost Society -- the S.P.R. Historical
Outline posits, "It would hardly have been possible for the new
Society to undertake an enquiry of such a kind or on such as scale if
several of its
leading members had not already gained previous experience of the
difficulties attaching to that type of investigation."

The son of Fenton Hort, Arthur Hort, in Life and Letters of Fenton
John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, 1896, Vol 1, pp. 170-172 wrote that his
father was active in "Two other societies...in both of which Hort
seems to have been the moving spirit...the other called... the Ghostly
Guild. The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances
of what are now called psychical phenomena."

Hort and his associate Westcott were both heavily involved in the
Society for Psychical Research.

There is a reference which says that the Society for Psychical
Research held seances and interviewed Helena P. Blavatsky, who is a
forerunner of the present New Age Occult movment. "In its early
stages, the S.P.R. (Society For Psychical Research) held séances in
the townhouse of Arthur Balfour of which his sister Eleanor was the
principle organizer. Various mediums of reputation were investigated
with the purpose of ruling out charlatans and determining if entities
from the spirit realm or deceased persons did in fact communicate with
the living. In 1884, Madame H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the
Theosophical Society, was interviewed by a committee of the
S.P.R....the S.P.R. was at first -- "…considerably impressed by the
evidence of Mme Blavatsky and her friends..." From: W.H. Salter, The
Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it's History,
London,1948, pp 21-22.

In addition, the Society For Psychical Research sponsored a number of
seance settings from 1889 to 1890 by spirit medium Leonora Piper of
Boston, and by Rosalee Thompson, a British spirit medium in 1897 and
1898. There are a few links on Google to these seances held by the
Society For Psychical Research. Type in the names of the two spirit
mediums above and "Society For psychical Research."

In studying the occult, the Anglican theologians and other members of
the English elite class made the occult more acceptable. This same
process seems to have happened in the seventies and eighties when
American psychologists and communications professors studied hard core
pornography. They made pornography more acceptable, not only to the
college students they showed it to, but also to others.

Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz of the University of Wisconsin and Ed
Donnerstein - another Wisconsin professor - showed a porno movie of
two men tying up and raping a
woman. This was reported in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. See Donnerstein, E. & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim
reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 710-724.

 

[tulsa 2011]

There is a strong possibility that there were 3rd and 4th century
gnostic influences upon some verses in the Greek New Testament texts -
Sianaticus and Vaticanus - used by Westcott
and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. And - Westcott and Hort were interested
in occult phenomena according to their sons who both wrote biographies
of their fathers. Gnosticism was a source for the 19th century English
occult movement, which Westcott and Hort took part in. Now we are
seeing a revival of gnosticism and gnostic influences in the New Age
Occult movement, which has seeped over into the Christian Church.

Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) was an important figure in the 19th century occult
movement in England. Several Anglican Spiritualists were part of the
occult revival that included Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott.

That British occult revival and Helena Blavatsky were one of the forerunners of the
20th century New Age Occult, with its leaders such as Barbara Marx Hubbard, Benjamin Creme,
John Randolph Price and Marilynn Ferguson. There were a number of these people who channeled demon spirits for instruction in the occult. The New Age Occult was loosely an allied
movement of the hippie and drug movement counterculture of the sixties and seventies.

Westcott and Hort were active in the British nineteenth century Ghost
Society and in the Society for Psychical Research. They were
interested in paranormal phenomena. These two
Anglican theologians created a Greek text which disagrees in many verse
wordings with the Textus Receptus Greek text, used for the King James
Version of 1611. Almost all recent New Testament translations are from
the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text - and not from the Textus Receptus.

The loyal followers of Westcott and Hort - the Riders on their
Wrecking Machine - will deny that the two Anglican theologians had
anything to do with the 19th century English occult revival. This is
why we should be more careful than Christians usually are in
identifying our sources for
the claim that Westcott and Hort were important figures within the
British nineteenth century occult movement.

Alan Gauld in The Founders of Psychical Research, NY:Schocken Books,
1968, p. 66, says "Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony
Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott . and the future
Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge
Ghost Society in 1851."

Then Arthur Westcott tells us in Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, New
York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 118, 119, that "His devotion
with ardour is indicated in a 'Ghostly Circular' authorized by him.
'The interest and importance of a serious and
earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely
called 'supernatural' will scarcely be questioned." "His" refers to
Arthur Westcott's father, Brooke Foss Westcott.

On page 118 Arthur Westcott writes that his father Brooke F. Wesctott
said in the "Ghostly Circular" that "Many persons believe that all
such apparently mysterious occurrences are due either to purely
natural causes, or to delusions of the mind or senses, or to willful
deception. But there are many others who believe it possible that the
beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves in extraordinary
ways...If the belief of the latter class should be
ultimately confirmed, the limits which human knowledge respecting the
spirit world has hitherto reached might be ascertained with some
degree of accuracy."

Brooke F. Westcott wanted to investigate occult phenomena to see if it
could be shown to reliably exist.

Yet at least 17 verses in the Bible warn against dealing with familiar
spirits. Other texts say not to consult wizards, soothsayers,
astrologers, or diviners. Many followers of Westcott and Hort will
refuse to consider that these two
were violating Biblical law by dealing with the occult.
Ezekiel 13: 22 can be interpreted to teach that the promoters of
Westcott and Hort have "...strengthened the hands of the wicked, that
he should not return from his wicked way..." Some may be caught in the
Westcott-Hort trap,
and are boxed in so that they will not see the problems of these two
unbelieving Anglican churchmen.

W.H. Salter in his book,The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline
of It's History, London, 1948, p. 8, says "The original objective of
the Society for Psychical.Research (S.P.R,). was to conduct research
into "that large group of debatable phenomena designated by such terms
as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic." Committees were organized to
examine telepathy, hypnotism, mesmeric trance, clairvoyance, ESP,
apparitions, haunted houses, and to determine the laws of physical
spiritualistic phenomena. In recognition of the important work
accomplished by Benson, Westcott and Hort -- the leaders of its
precursor, the Cambridge Ghost Society -- the S.P.R. Historical
Outline posits, "It would hardly have been possible for the new
Society to undertake an enquiry of such a kind or on such as scale if
several of its
leading members had not already gained previous experience of the
difficulties attaching to that type of investigation."

The son of Fenton Hort, Arthur Hort, in Life and Letters of Fenton
John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, 1896, Vol 1, pp. 170-172 wrote that his
father was active in "Two other societies...in both of which Hort
seems to have been the moving spirit...the other called... the Ghostly
Guild. The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances
of what are now called psychical phenomena."

Hort and his associate Westcott were both heavily involved in the
Society for Psychical Research.

There is a reference which says that the Society for Psychical
Research held seances and interviewed Helena P. Blavatsky, who is a
forerunner of the present New Age Occult movment. "In its early
stages, the S.P.R. (Society For Psychical Research) held séances in
the townhouse of Arthur Balfour of which his sister Eleanor was the
principle organizer. Various mediums of reputation were investigated
with the purpose of ruling out charlatans and determining if entities
from the spirit realm or deceased persons did in fact communicate with
the living. In 1884, Madame H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the
Theosophical Society, was interviewed by a committee of the
S.P.R....the S.P.R. was at first -- "…considerably impressed by the
evidence of Mme Blavatsky and her friends..." From: W.H. Salter, The
Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it's History,
London,1948, pp 21-22.

In addition, the Society For Psychical Research sponsored a number of
seance settings from 1889 to 1890 by spirit medium Leonora Piper of
Boston, and by Rosalee Thompson, a British spirit medium in 1897 and
1898. There are a few links on Google to these seances held by the
Society For Psychical Research. Type in the names of the two spirit
mediums above and "Society For psychical Research."

In studying the occult, the Anglican theologians and other members of
the English elite class made the occult more acceptable. This same
process seems to have happened in the seventies and eighties when
American psychologists and communications professors studied hard core
pornography. They made pornography more acceptable, not only to the
college students they showed it to, but also to others.

Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz of the University of Wisconsin and Ed
Donnerstein - another Wisconsin professor - showed a porno movie of
two men tying up and raping a
woman. This was reported in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. See Donnerstein, E. & Berkowitz, L. (1981). Victim
reactions in aggressive erotic films as a factor in violence against
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 710-724.