True (and Mostly True) Accusations against Westcott & Hort
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лют 2024
- Did Westcott and Hort deny inerrancy, hate the Textus Receptus, treat the Bible like any other book, adopt evolution, promote sacramentalism, deny substitutionary atonement, hold to baptismal regeneration?
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
Thank you, both, for helping me to see the importance of rightly appreciating Scrivener in his context as a way to understand W and H better.
Powerful conclusion, and a great contribution to restoring people’s faith in God’s Word rather than faith in lies of men. Praise the Lord!
Amen!
@markwardonwords Question. What affect does Wescott and Hort have on the Modern Versions?? How much of their text is still used today?? Thank you??
@@kevinjodrey7664Good question! Watch the first video in this series!
They are lying through omission. Read the books or letters they are quoting from. These guys are doing exactly the same thing they accuse others of doing. They are chopping quotes from Westcott and Hort then massaging their 'thoughts' into what they think Hort and Westcott are saying. They aren't even addressing the real claims at all.
@@kevinjodrey7664 Watch the video then watch the series of Chris Pinto where he talks about this same subject. These guys aren't even scratching the surface of the accusations that are clear as day. I'll say this much. Any modern Bible that is derived from these texts are Vatican approved. The only thing that's missing from their version to this version is the deutero canonical books. They were Catholics in disguise or became closeted Catholics by the end of their lifetime.
I was wrong about Wescott and Hort. For decades I slandered these men because I believed the slander about them in the books I read. I repent and have asked our Father to forgive me after the first video in this series. I am sorry. Thank you for correcting me.
This is very meaningful to me. Praise God!
That is a beautiful proclamation @moonglow7710 God bless you.
Praise the Lord! God bless you.
Me 2, I have been a KJVO for over 10 years. I recently purchased a NKJV BIBLE and it’s good. Part of me feels guilty reading it instead of the kjv and I don’t know why. I’m going to continue seeking Jesus and not worry about Bible translations.
@@carlosfarias6012 Carlos, I appreciate this. And note that the NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV; Westcott and Hort never touched it!
Thank you brothers! What a blessing of clarity charity. Thank you for your hard work for the truth!
Bro. Mark, your point about the manuscripts are great being a gift from God. This is precisely why I dont lean to one text type over another. I think the Critical Text, the Received Text and the Majority Text are gifts from God that we have the privilege to glean from. Blessings!
Amen! All are good.
This series has been truly excellent! I'm thankful for the balance with which you've handled this subject matter. I also commend your fidelity to the truth. I'm praying that the considerable time and labor that you've invested in this video series will produce the fruit of changed hearts and minds of participants in these errors and falsehoods.
My prayer as well.
I feel like a lot of people attacking Westcott and Hort aren't attacking the actual Westcott and Hort, but a strawman called "Westcottandhort", based on a fusion of the two of them, as well as a different Westcott.
Agreed. Well stated.
The ASV had Unitarians on the translation team, and team head was Modernist / Liberal who wrecked Chambersburg T
S. (German Reformed) then Union, Philip Scap
Reformed
@@user-bd2uw1xu9s Go on about the ERV/ASV translators, but keep special-pleading the KJV translators who weren't exactly in line with IFB dogma...some of whom were out-and-out Romanists...
I pointed out to the KJV-O Gang that the RC Church Influenced at least TR rel 001.00 by gathering the manuscripts, making them accessible and by providing the Vulgate Bible which Erasmus used to validate/correct the manuscripts.
@@user-bd2uw1xu9s Erasmus himself was not only a Romanist but a Mariolater, and yet it was through his work we had the NT in Greek readily available. And if not him, wasn't Zúñiga (Stunica) also a Romanist?
I used to be one of them people who handed out those KJV only tracts with quotes that bent the truth, sets up strawmen, and slanders. Ive repented of slandering and wont go back to that. Its information like this thats helped me see the truth.
Most people wont put in the time and effort to do the research or even watch a video like this. They prefer a tract or accusation that only takes a minute or two to repeat/read. I feel for them because i used to be there.
Praise God for convicting me and renewing my conscience through channels like this, Jonathan Burris, Mike Winger, and all the work that Tim did.
Thank you Mark and God bless you brother.
Also thank you for your testimony at the end Tim, that was extremely powerful. :)
Love this! Thank you so much! Praise God for his mercy to us.
nice you are an apostate.
I have only been heavily involved in this subject and these men for a couple of years and have been guilty myself, but Praise the Lord that He has so quickly delivered me from slandering these men. “Grace, Grace, Gods Grace.”
This was so amazing. I loved the nuanced unpacking of these mortal men. Some of those misquotes, revealed for what they were, are so evil and poor in charity, that their "publishers"/creators seem like the ones who should be accused of being satanists or occultists; not Westcott & Hort.
Amen brother!
Enlightening. Again! And Tim's personal testimony in the last minutes, powerful!
Agreed.
Excellent series, thanks! I was KJV-Only c. 1983-88, so have genuine interest. While watching this video I thought of this verse, applied to many in the TR/KJV-Only crowd, exactly like I used to be. 😉
“For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.”
Romans 10:2 ESV
That seals it. I'm calling the AV the Anglican Version from now on! I've been toying with that idea for quite a while, so it's been coming for a long time.
Love it!
"God help us all."....is a great ending. glad you didn't start with that line in the beginning of the video. lol. sounds more like a terminator is coming for us.
Another excellent conversation on Westcott & Hort.
W and H claimed that the New Testament had been preserved, but for a number of 'primitive corruptions', where Hort was prepared to venture what the original might have been.
This was so edifying Mark. I don’t have a horse in this race of KJV onlyism and W & H but I wanted to learn what the problem is. I see the KJV only followers in the comments periodically on Christian channels I watch and instead of blowing them off as cultists (which I’ve done) I want to understand them. I see the need for charity now and prayer. I cried after Tim’s brief story at the end. Is there guilt to repent from? Yes. Are they victims? Yes.
God bless you all🙏✝️
Late to the party, speaking as a Christian philosopher who holds to a traditional view of inerrancy, I would actually agree with part of what Westcott is saying. From the empirical (foundationalist) perspective, innerrancy is something that is contingent on other beliefs, rather than being primary to either Christianity of Bibliology. That is, I believe in innerrancy because I believe in the doctrinal perfection of the Bible. I believe in the doctrinal perfection both on the historical record in the Bible (Jesus words as author), experience, etc. I believe these things because of the truth of Christianity.
The issue I have with setting innerrancy as a priori is that it would be questionbegging. This doesn't mean I am any weaker on this point than you are, but it does mean I don't draw on inerrancy when discussing the Bible with a critic of Christianity, I dodraw on it in church. There are simple some layers to my theology that some laymen may squash together.
WOW. This was the needed Westcott and Hort video. I learned so much about them from their own writings. I even feel like I identify with their struggles to wrestle with what at times can feel like a difference between the Bible and generally accepted doctrine.
I have tremendous respect for them now where before i felt like i had no idea whp they were havjng only heard from detractors. They truly were careful, God fearing men.
I don't feel as keen on Hort after this process as I do on Westcott. He makes me nervous. But I also feel I can give flesh to the bones of my nervousness and be specific in my appreciation. I'm not nervous, never have been, about his work on NT textual criticism. I read it carefully, and it was clearly careful-and epochal.
@@markwardonwordsapparently the impression you (and Berg) have given doesn't match your own views!
I've watched all four videos of this series on Westcott and Hort and I got to say, all of you really did your homework on this issue. This was super interesting and informative. I know a couple of the people in my church (including my Pastor) have brought up Westcott and Hort and so I have the information to share with them, if they want to do extra research. Thank you for your work, Mark. It's much appreciated. God bless you all. 🙏
Our pleasure!
I don't use the terms inerancy and infallibility because those terms often get taken over by both critics and believers to mean things in not comfortable with. I would not have a problem signing a statement of faith with those terms in them, but I recognize them as slogans that really has "I take the Bible text seriously." But I'm not going to get into the "I hold to inerancy/infallibility better than you" competition. Far too often, "infallibility" or "inerancy" ends up applying to a particular understanding of the text rather than the text itself, or it turns into pedantic error hunting by the skeptic against imaginative apologetics by the a priori believers.
2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Notice some of the things that aren't in that list: history, geology, astronomy, biology, and mathematics just to name a few. So when a skeptic asks me, "How old was Ahaziah when he started to reign," I'm perfectly comfortable saying, "There seems to be a conflict in the records we have regarding that. There are apologetic answers to that, how convincing you find those is a matter of personal conviction. Now, when was the last time you were walking down the street and confronted a problem and you said, 'I will decide how to go forward based on the age of one of the ancient kings'?"
What you said and the fact that scripture includes things that aren't canon, canon is a status that men decide and change back and forth (Martin Luther wanted a lot of the new testament thrown out including Revelation, that's a disturbing look into the reformation's biggest hero). These calls are weighted by denominational dogma and scholastic one-upmanship and it goes into weird tangents that elevate dogma to be celebrated as canon in all but name.
Plus the bigger issue for me is "proclaim trinitarianism, then say it exactly my way or you're a heretic". I argue 3 archetypes from a formless infinity that manifests whatever aesthetic and utility it wants to, and other people usually argue 3 persons of a triune god.... meanings are debatable, particularly when it wasn't originally English. The nicene creed isn't in the bible 😵 but the ideology is considered the litmus test to determine Christian identity. I despise hearing it from people that proclaim sola scriptura 🤦♂️
@@nobodyspecial1852 This is where the distinction between infallibility and the lack of error comes in. Sola scriptura says that the Bible is the only infallible authority, meaning that it is incapable of making error. The Nicene creed can be said to be authoritative and have no errors without being infallible because each point in it has been argued for from scripture. The problem with KJVO is that if you say the KJV has no errors but is not infallible, then you have to answer every question about supposed KJV mistakes, and if you say the KJV in infallible then you violate sola scriptura.
God *used* fallible men to CREATE *THE INFALLIBLE* .
When *GOD WORKS* , His WORK *SHALL NEVER BE LOWER* than THE *WORK OF A KING* .
Did *HE* not give unto you and me the *King James Bible?*
@@albertcabrerajr992 No, God did not give us the King James. King James did. That's why it's called The King James Version.
@@sthelenskungfu *wrong*
Wow! 😍 Nicely done, Berg! This reminds me of how some consider (I think it is) "inerrancy" to be a modern term that has not proven itself yet. 17 minutes in and can't wait to finish! 😋
Cheers from an hour south in Lynnwood, WA. Love the content.
Awesome! Thank you! I have friends in Lynnwood, and I was just in Mukilteo the other day!
@@markwardonwords Great! Mukilteo is just a few minutes from our home in NW Lynnwood. Lovely area. I used to be convinced of the TR/Majority Text arguments. Not so anymore. The ESV is my main but I love all the main ones from NASB to NLT. Thank God all the differences are very minimal.
@@markwardonwords Our family has a yearly Spring tradition to visit Der Rosengaarten in Mt Vernon to see the tulips. 🌷
Thanks for your examination of Wescott and Horta. I have heard many criticisms of them but I have never seen anyone look at what they actually wrote. They sound like other 19th century high Anglican s that I have heard of. Not my cup of tea, but they would probably say the same about me!
Thanks for also putting them into their historical context. That was helpful.
It demonstrates a truth that controversialists need to take to heart. When we quote someone on our side of the debate, we are apt to quote him or her accurately (although even so, there are times when we quote out of context because we can get one more "gotcha" quotation). However, we are FAR more likely to misquote those on the other side of the debate. If we even faintly acknowledged this tendency in our own hearts, we would have to make it a practice to doubly and trebly check the context to make sure that we are not distorting what our opponents say. We should be MORE on our guard against distortion with our opponents than we are with our allies. Sadly, this is almost never true today. I believe this is one of the main reasons why more heat than light is usually present in controversies. Nuance brings light where caricature brings heat.
You are very right.
Thank you.
Watching now !
Thank you, Mark! Loving these videos.
Somewhat unrelated, I believe I may have found another “false friend” that I don’t recall seeing you cover yet. The word “leasing” in Psalm 4:2.
Also somewhat unrelated, I noticed on your blog that you are attending (or at least have attended) Emmanuel Baptist Church in Mount Vernon, Washington. My family attended there in the mid-90s because my dad was a pastor on staff there! My parents still have close friends who live in that area (and maybe even still attend the church but I’m not sure). The world is small, indeed.
Cool! We love it at EBC!
On "leasing"-I have doubted that anyone is actually misunderstanding that word in the KJV. The modern sense. so obviously doesn't fit. But maybe I'm wrong!
@@markwardonwords ah, very true, I forgot that qualifier for a false friend.
Thanks for all your work on the channel! It is profoundly helpful to me and many others.
@@cameronjdecou Thank you for this kind word!
Another great video, thank you! It is always important to treat people fairly and honestly. On another topic, I highly recommend the audiobook on UA-cam of C.S. Lewis reflections on the Psalms and how Christians can struggle with them but find deep meaning in them nonetheless.
Do we know that Scrivener was not placed to block George Vance Smith the Unitarian?
Excellent! Thank you.
You are welcome!
By all means read them. What bugs me about C S Lewis is that pastors sometimes quotes Lewis more than the Bible almost like the Adventists quote White. As a older guy Lewis was kind of quiet before the Narnia movies. The same with Tolkien and the Hobbit.
We lived happily without the knowledge of C S Lewis and JRR Tolkien. Some groups are like that with Bunyan. I tried Bunyan found it super tedious to read and decided to read my Bible instead if I want to see the pilgrim’s progress through life.
Good work.
This makes a lot of sense. And, wow, the double standard is glaringly obvious. I always knew those who translated the KJV were not completely in line with the theology I grew up with, but I've never felt any doubt about my Bible. I didn't grow up KJV only (more like KJV adjacent), but I rubbed up against a lot of those who did, and I always found their arguments to be a little cherry-picked.
Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹⭐🌹 Beautiful testimony of repentance,Tim.
Our pleasure!
"I have been lied to my whole life"
I resonate with that quote.
I was never taught who the KJV Translators were and their church/soteriology connection with the Anglican Church and their connection to Westcott, Hort.
I feel for you, Eric, I really do. You know I do!
@markwardonwords I praise the Lord nearly everyday for your work and your patience with me.
I hear a lot about a closet lesbian being on the NIV84 translation team, how her coming out later means her corruption ruined that whole translation 🤦♂️ .... JMac protects pedophiles at GCC church and nobody cares to bash LSB or NASB (no he didn't produce NASB 95 but many use it because they think it'll help them walk on water while holding his hand), nevermind King James of KJV fame being a hardcore machiavellian partisan and warmonger AND hedonist with both sexes - that bad witness is forgiven without question.
Garbage people can still produce good products, absolutely be skeptical but don't dismiss on reputation alone.
@@EricCouture315 do you know that *that symbol* you have on your photo is a symbol derived from witchcraft?
Thank you for the new video! 😍 I'm greatly looking forward to watching this.
Just one thing before I forget, however. You mentioned W.W. Westcott as a clear example of Gail's "repeating statements she had to know were false" in the description of the first video on slander. White, Wallace, and now the TCC claim Gail Riplinger conflated Bishop Brook Foss Westcott and Rosicrucian William Wynn Westcott to arrive at her conclusion that B.F. Westcott was a "spiritualist". From my own research (which I am still developing, so correct me if I'm wrong) and Gail's own statements (NABV 2021, p. 474), there is no such conflation in her book. The label "spiritualist" seems to be derived from a not easy to be understood quote from B.F. Westcott's son which Gail references without clarifying context (NABV 2021, p. 447) not from his conflation with W.W. Westcott. I hope that you and your team will look into this confusion we have inherited from White's early response to NABV. The very implication that she simply assumed the two Westcotts were one and the same is considered slanderous against NABV by Gail (Blind Guides, p. 35). Irony strikes again.
If you and your team find time to look into this, I trust that your responsible team will make some statements to clear up this confusion. I'm putting together the information on this and my own thoughts on my website bibleversionconspiracy.com/westcottandhort/ under the section titled "W. W. Westcott & Charges of Spiritism". I hope it will be of help. (Since this page is a work in progress, please pardon the typos. 😅)
If I get a chance, I may add a similar comment to the first video about slandering since the W.W. Westcott statement came for its description. I'm sure I'll be making more comments as I go through this new video whenever something pops into my head. 😁
I'm always looking forward to more content from you and the TCC! Thanks again, God bless, and have a great day! ❤
We are still open to correction. I did look over your piece. It is rather long, I confess… It is possible, it seems to me, to read Riplinger as you do: maybe she was self-consciously referring to B.F. rather than W.W. with her "'the Father' of the current channeling phenomenon" comment. In this case, she was still terribly and obviously wrong-slanderous. But perhaps not guilty of conflating the two. But then she can't help but entertain the notion by referencing the "possibly allonym" "W.W. Westcott." I'm having trouble getting around that as evidence for our position on this.
Can you straightforwardly acknowledge, my friend, that Gail Riplinger slandered B.F. Westcott? We can quibble at the edges of what that means, but centrally: she reported his words, as did Waite, in such a way as to bear a false witness about him.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for your reply and for looking over our page!
Can I straightforwardly acknowledge that Gail Riplinger slandered B.F. Westcott? Yes. I definitely acknowledge she greatly misrepresented W/H on many occasions. Your videos are helpful for us as sort through these cases. There are still, however, some odd things they wrote (or seemed to write) that she quoted, and that I hope to look into further.
I cannot get behind her claim that B.F. was "a London spiritualist" or that he fathered modern channeling. (She attempts to support this idea with three ellipsis-riddled quotations from authors Guald, Salter, and Webb not with any quotation regarding W.W. Westcott that I could find.) But, even if she did conflate the two it would make no sense. It's not even true that W.W. Westcott was the father of the current channeling phenomenon.
I'm just tired of the misrepresentation on both sides. That's why I'm here. Thanks again for taking the time to respond and for your efforts to clear up matters in this controversy. God bless!
@@BibleVersionConspiracy This is much appreciated, my friend. An answer to prayer. I can't say I expected this when I first encountered you. But you have shown a willingness to dialogue in good faith, and it has been noticed.
I will ping Peter, too, who made the original statement. ;)
(Just confirming that I did ping Peter.)
@markwardonwords Awesome! Thanks for the kind words. 😁 All this and I haven't even started watching the video yet! 🤣
On the subject of racism. The Jews were expelled from England in 1290 and were not allowd to return until Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's. During this time we had many English translation Bibles in England.
When this series is over, please do a video on Universalism aka Martin Zender UA-cam, but especially, the Concordant Living Translation Bible that Universalists use.
Blessings
Another great video. Many attacks on newer versions translators when you turn them against KJV translators would damage their credibility also. Where can I find the beliefs of the KJV translators without reading or buying fifty books.
Which manuscripts are they analyzing? Alexandrian 40 manuscripts, or Antioch, 5600 manuscripts
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Great video👍 I do love the equal judgment view. Yet, when men like Lewis and Wright denied core theological beliefs, some of which would deny even parts of the Nicene Creed, how beneficial can it be to read them, at least theologically. Of course, as literature, I appreciate the Chronicles, but I would not go to them for doctrine. Where is your Theological triage place belief in Adam as real or eternal punishment? Thanks again, God bless all of you!
There is a lot of meat with both Lewis and Wright, there really is. Many judicious evangelicals have read both with profit. I've read a ton of Lewis-with great profit to my faith and understanding, and I just haven't ever felt tempted by the views I take to be erroneous.
A few things for thought:
1.) Textual Confidence Collective: Resistance is Futile; You WILL be Educated. (Okay, had to go "sci-fi geek for a minute there")
2.) Regarding sacramental efficacy: yeah, the rejection of Wescott and Hort based on this one is EXTREMELY telling about the ignorance of history by the KJVO people who state this point. In fact, if you look at church history, you would be very surprised at the number of prominent Christians who believed in a degree of sacramental efficacy: Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Matthew Henry, and also possibly George Whitefield and John Knox. Truth be told, the prominence of sacramental efficacy in the theology of those non-Catholics was instrumental in my conversion to Lutheranism.
3.) This video is giving me bad flashbacks of a Chick Tract comic called "Sabotage" which essentially made Wescott and Hort the fountainhead of every bad and liberal idea in modern Christendom. Your treatment of this subject has been very good in proving otherwise. Well done.
Right. I'm praying that someone out there in KJV defense will not just listen but will publicly repent. Point 2 in your note, especially, is so clear.
Dr. Ward i was wondering if you could do a video. On what Paul saids about what happens to you when you die. Or if you already have a video on it. Me and another paster from a different denomination have a disagreement on this. It would be great to have a Scholars view on this. Thanks 😊🙏
This is probably beyond the purpose of my channel. I'd suggest you look in systematic theologies and commentaries, my friend!
@@markwardonwords ok 👌 no worries just thought I would ask. Thank you😊
Another good one. Here's a comment for the algorithm. :)
Many thanks!
a lot of these ''kjvo'' authors who are openly lying about these christian gentleman need to be saved themselves
On the flip side, I’ve often heard king James was a bisexual. If that’s true then the KJO movement’s arguments are hypocritical
True (and Mostly True) Accusations against Westcott & Hort
Charitable podcast; some comments:
1. Tim Berg at 1:12:17-46 "... and the Lord smote my heart and He said "You've been wrong about this man and you've telling lies, spreading lies about this man. And I remember I was in the big room at Credo and I went over to ... they had this little room that was kind of blocked off with no windows that they called the map room ... which I would use sometimes as just a little prayer closet. I went in there because I've got to meet with Jesus. And I got down on my knees and I wept. I wept in sorrow and repentance and said "Lord forgive me..."
Response: Luke 15:7 (KJV), "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
Tim, was the effect of this soul shattering experience like that of being in a forest of lumberjacks and hearing one of them yell, "TIMBER!" as the tree fell?
2. Mark Ward at 30:55 - 31:39: "...what's the alternative to naturalistic textural criticism that's charged against us and Westcott & Hort? And that would be supernaturalistic textual criticism, right? ... which means you're claiming God's authority, divine authority for your text. And what we're saying is that's like saying we've now determined that Mary was immaculately conceived, you know, conceived without original sin ... now we've determined that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. Like that would be fine if God said that I would believe both of those things, I would be happy to. I'd be happy to believe that God has given us exactly one text, all the jots and tittles, none missing or added and all in the correct order and it's this one ..."
Response: One text for each, eh?
A. Immaculate Conception: The angelic greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28 which is transliterated from Greek into English as 'kecharitomene.'
B. Bodily Assumption: Revelation 11:19 (NKJV), "Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail."
3. Recall that the term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios, "consubstantial") describing Jesus Christ as possessing the same essence as His Father was adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, three centuries after Christ's ascension into heaven.
Quoting from the Ligonier Ministries youtube video 'Lawson, MacArthur, Mohler, and Sproul: Questions and Answers' of March 21, 2017, R.C. Sproul is hooked up to an oxygen tank not long before his death and near the end of the video he says the following at 40:45 - 41:16:
"I believe the first question, if I'm not mistaken, was something about what is Reformed theology? What does it mean to be Reformed? And anybody who is Reformed is first of all catholic, namely that we embrace the classic ecumenical truths of the ecumenical councils, the Council of Nicea, the Council of Chalcedon, and so on, that we all share the same basic structure of Christianity."
4. Mark Ward at 57:59 - 59:13: "... but I have gotten so much help from Lewis over time in living a holy life, in having joy in Christ, in seeing through the challenges my culture poses against my Christian faith ..."
Response:
A. Three years before his death, C.S. Lewis revised Mere Christianity in 1960 by adding his belief in a purification after death. As if God was the author of his words, C.S. Lewis wrote:
“Make no mistake,” He says, “if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away. But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, WHATEVER INCONCEIVABLE PURIFICATION IT MAY COST YOU AFTER DEATH, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until My Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less.”
[Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1960, p. 172]
B. In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer that was published posthumously in 1964, C.S. Lewis goes into greater detail about his (A) belief in purgatory, as well as (B) praying for the dead that came in response to the loss of loved ones.
[Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109]
5. Returning to the topic at hand, there's the following quote from the preface to Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions: “Daily, during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources - much like the ravens fed Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God - so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger - God as author and Riplinger as secretary.”
[Quoting from A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions, Author: H. Wayne House, Article ID: DB015, Updated: Oct 20, 2023, Published: Apr 6, 2009; Equip website /articles/a-summary-critique-new-age-bible-versions/]
There's the dictation theory of inspiration.
Boy… The mental gymnastics needed to get from Luke 1:28 to the immaculate conception, and from Rev 11:19 to the bodily assumption-I'm just not capable of them. =| Perhaps I am blinded by my own exegetical tradition, but years of working to be a more accurate herald make me fear to make leaps like those.
Great catch on no. 5. And so true on no. 1.
1. Thanks and understandable. You, Tim and your fellow travelers are in proper recovery. After enduring years of indoctrination that only the KJV is infallible, anyone would be wary and reluctant to consider any other claims of infallibility elsewhere, perhaps like Westcott's avoidance of the term.
2. It took nineteen centuries for the Catholic Church to pronounce the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The 14th century Franciscan John Duns Scotus came up with the rationale that, by a singular act of grace (no one else in the Bible is 'kecharitomene'), God saved Mary in advance in anticipation of her Son's saving work. God is outside of time, so He saw that if Mary said 'yes', her Son would save the human race. Therefore, He provided her with the fullness of grace to assist in her free consent to the angel to become the mother of Jesus. However, she would pay a heavy price as indicated by Simeon's prophecy in Luke 2:35 when Jesus was presented in the Jerusalem temple. Five centuries after Scotus' death, Pope Pius IX used Scotus' own words in the 1854 dogmatic pronouncement Ineffibilis Deus.
3. It took twenty centuries for the Catholic Church to pronounce the dogma of the Assumption. Bodily assumption is considered for at least two figures in the Old Testament: Enoch in Genesis 5:24 and Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11. Mary's assumption can be considered conjoined with Jesus' resurrection in Psalm 132:8 (KJV): "Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength." Since Jesus identifies the new covenant with His physical person in Luke 22:30, KJV (Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you"), then she who carried and bore Him would be "the ark of His covenant" in Revelation 11:19 (NKJV).
4. Recall that the Bible itself in two places indicates that Jesus did and spoke many things that are not contained within:
A. John 20:30-31 (KJV): And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
B. Luke 24:25-27 (KJV): Then he said unto them, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
It was God's providence that He would not provide a transcription of this 1-2 hour walking lecture that Jesus gave to two of his disciples on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, an exegesis of the entire Old Testament showing where He was present therein. Did He leave it up to His Church to slowly unravel and decipher this elaborate mystery?
Thanks! I've heard such awful things about them. It is good know what they really believed.
You're welcome!
Excellent info! I wonder if W&H believed in God directly creating a perfect Adam and Eve - our ultimate parents?
One secular comment, if I may.. while watching the whole video I 'clicked' through 15 ads! Was I the only one? Please, check the commercial placements. Thanks :)
Full ads is approximately one advertisement every 4.5 minutes. It’s shameful to allow this level of monetization.
Mark may not be aware of how many ads UA-cam places automatically.
Hmm. I was indeed not aware of the sheer number of ads. That really does surprise me. I pay for UA-cam Premium, in large part because one time UA-cam showed an ad for an HIV medication to my children, an ad featuring amorous gay men.
I have already been considering turning off ads for all videos. This is more grist for the mill. Open to your thoughts, both of you.
@@markwardonwords Having a few ads is fine. It is easy to regulate though... STEP 1: Click on the video you wish to edit. STEP 2: CLICK "Edit Video". STEP 3: Click "Monetization." STEP 4: Click "Review placement." THEN you may either slide or delete (or add?) the white markers on the video timeline. Then "SAVE". I hope this helps. Yes, UA-cam takes liberties to automatically add "Ads" much too often.
@@markwardonwords if you can continue your work without the ad revenue from this channel, I suggest to fully demonetize. You will reach more people and worry less about “what sells” and “the algorithm.”
Mark Ward: do you (A) accept English Bible versions in which a conjectural emendation in the base-text is conveyed by the English text - specifically, in Acts 20:28, and/or First Peter 3:10, or
(B) reject English Bible versions in which the acceptance of the English text is tantamount to a rejection of the idea that the text of the New Testament has been preserved for us ("us" being Mark Ward and Timothy Berg and me)?
Regarding preservation: Hort posited 60 places in the text of the New Testament where there was a "primitive error" and conjectural emendation was needed to recover the original reading. And Hort proposed that ACts 20:28 was among these points. Is this (A) true or (B) false. Timothy Berg, I would like to hear from you: a simple A or B please.
19:52 - There it is folks: in Hort's own words. He considered the TR "vile" and "villainous." And lo and behold, his sunsequent research happens coincidentally to produce the rejection of the Byzantine text in favor of the Alexandrian text (dubbed the "Neutral" text by Hort and Westcott). Brother Mark, is this (A) a coincidence, or (B) intentional ?
Yeah, talk about gaslighting the audience.
As you are the "Textual Confidence Collective." I would like to know which text you collectivists have confidence in? I have confidence in the King James version and its underlying Greek and Hebrew texts used by the KJV translators (who undertook excellent textual criticism with the long line of documents used by Christianity).
We have confidence in that translation and in those texts, too!
43:00 - it's best to just say "Hort was undeniably a racist" and shut up there.
22:46 - This is the sort of praise one gives to one's predecessors right before saying "But we can do better."
45:00 - Ahem. Scrivener could TOLERATE having a Unitarian on the committee.
Westcott and Hort ENGINEERED having a Unitarian on the committee.
There is a difference gentlemen.
Marj Ward: first question: if James R. White says something false about the Bible that he ought to know better than to say, and keeps on saying it, is James R. White morally culpable of an offense tantamount to lying? Kindly answer (A) YES or (B) NO.
If those are the facts, then yes. The “knows better” is tough to demonstrate, however.
I have replaced 2 bibles in my lifetime on my third because I use them the older manuscripts
12:40 - A text with errors in in is NOT an inerrant text.A text with errors in in is NOT an inerrant text. Hort was content to put a historical error [in Matthew 13:35 and again in Matthew 27:49] in the printed text or in double brackets. Is this (A) true or (B) false?
You are conflating a "perfect" text with an inerrant text. It can have flaws, yet be perfectly inerrant in its teaching.
51:30 - Um, yeah. it sure sounds like Hort was wrestling with the idea that it is heresy to say the everybody goes to heaven eventually . . . while holding the office of bishop.
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. - said somebody somewhere.
#sellingJesus. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3 KJV
"Ministers" who run ads are hirelings.
Mark would you consider partaking in a debate on the divinity of ‘Christ’?
No.
@@markwardonwords any particular reason? Or do you take the view that there is no point debating such issues because you are so certain the doctrine of the trinity is true?
I have decided to tackle basically one big public controversy at this time.
@@markwardonwords thank you very much for your kind reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question.
Listened to the whole video finally, I really dont like how they justified some of these accusations against Westcott & Hort, by essentially saying that others were doing the same things.
Good day all! Hot take here, Timothy Berg is Mark Ward's "yes man". Halfway through the watch and multiple times Mark returns to Timothy Berg for commentary, and TB begins with "yeah, I think that's exactly right."
Question for Timothy Berg, in the discussion regarding Hort's use of villainous and vile, you state multiple times that it "certainly not a hatred for the bible" and that it was "just a critic being born", is it fair to say that this is simply your opinion?
Also, is this how all critic are born?
1hr8min, Mark Ward says you can’t slander dead people.
Meanwhile he refuses to apologize for his slander of Bryan Ross, who is not dead, so he should actually be able to reconcile. Where’s the charity in that, Mark?
No reply.
@@markwardonwords duly noted, I think it speaks volumes.
defending wicked men. you will have your reward for that.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Um, Westcott's explicit rejection of the idea of the infallibility of Scripture does not add up to a "partially true" accusation that Westcott explicitly rejected the infallibility of Holy Scripture, brother Mark. It is a DEMONSTRATION that Westcott was GUILTY of doing so. Do not try to spin that sir. Westcott considered the doctrine of infallibility optional, just as he and Hort considered belief in the Trinity optional (to the degree that a Unitarian could be on the translation committee. Do you agree, brother Mark (A) YES or (B) NO
Inerrancy is an error.
Inerrancy is for theology what Evolution is for science, a hindrance.
@markwardonwords OK. Thank you!!