RE: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek
Differances
------------------------
Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Westcott and Hort:
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleversiondiscussionboardfrm21.showMessage?
topicID=12.topic
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleversiondiscussionboardfrm21.showMessage?
topicID=12.topic&index=1

Subject: Re: Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances
Posted By: BrianT - ezOP
Posted At: (12/11/03 1:59 pm)

Subject: Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek Differances
Posted By: rjjjjj6 - Registered User
Posted At: (12/11/03 12:01 pm)

rjjjjj6 wrote:
Evidently, as shown below, there's some differances between the
Textus Recepticus and the Hort Wescott Greek -- however, does anybody
know about how many differances there are, & also, what the relevance
is??:

BrianT wrote:
There are quite a number of places where the W/H text is
*translationally* different from the TR -- an aquaintance of mine
counted 3,618 places -- see:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/stats.html
However, this is less than 5% of the NT, and even in most of these
cases, the difference is relatively minor.

rjjjjj6 wrote:
1 Kings 20:38 NIV: Then the prophet went and stood by the road
waiting for the king. He disguised himself with his headband down
over his eyes.
1 Kings 20:38 KJV: So the prophet departed, and waited for the king
by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face.

BrianT wrote:
Since the TR and W/H texts are New Testament only, 1 Kings isn't
affected by the W/H text. However, I'll discuss it here anyways.
Originally in the Hebrew, everything was written without vowels
("vowel points" were added later, little dots around the consonants
to indicate vowels). The word in question here (without vowels) is
aleph-phe-reysh (left to right), and can mean either ashes, or a
covering (like a bandage, a turban, a headband, etc), depending on
which vowels are added. You can see this if you look up words 665 and
666 in a Hebrew dictionary that uses Strong's numbering (if you don't
have this, and are interested in seeing the difference in vowel
points, I can scan something for you). I don't have a Hebrew OT handy
at the moment, so I'm not sure which is actually in the text, but
either is possibly "original", because as I said, the vowel points
were added later. I guess the NIV translators felt the "headcovering"
was more likely textually and/or logicallly.

rjjjjj6 wrote:
Matthew 17:21 NIV: [The verse is deleted.]
Matthew 17:21 KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting.
Mark 9:29 NIV: He replied, 'This kind can come out only by prayer.'
Mark 9:29 KJV: And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by
nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

BrianT wrote:
These differences are due to W/H examining the textual evidence, and
deciding that the longer readings (as found in the KJV) were not
originally part of these passages, but added later. Detailing the
exact reasons are a little complicated. If you are looking for a
longer answer, I can provide more info.
God bless, Brian
------------------------
In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...>
wrote:
From: "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...>
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Which Version] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek
Differances

<SNIP>

Dr. D.A. Waite has thoroughly studied this matter and here are his
comments:
"In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the
Anglican Church (Church of England), Westcott and Hort, published
their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places by
my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either
added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This
involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New
Testament, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of
140,521 words in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament." (Waite,
Defending The King James Bible, p41)

Remember, this is only the Greek texts -- not the English versions
taken from these texts. The actual number of the English versions as
compared to the AV is much higher.

As a point of reference, 1 Kings 20:38 is not part of the W/H Greek
text or the Textus Receptus (these are New Testament texts).

Your last question (i.e. 'what the relevance is') would take much
time to answer (more than I have this evening). Perhaps some examples
would better serve to demonstrate how relevant the changes are. If
Will doesn't post some examples I will try to do so tomorrow.
Thanks for the questions! Marty
------------------------
In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
From: brandplucked
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:20 am
Subject: Differences in Greek texts

...... here is a site that shows clearly just what is missing in the
versions based on the Westcott-Hort texts as compared to the KJB.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
It is in two parts, and is very easy to read.

God either inspired these words, phrases and whole verses, or He
didn't. We are well acquainted with Brian T, since we have had
discussions with him before at other boards, so none of his stuff is
new to us here. He will admit that he believes no single Hebrew or
Greek text and no single English version is the inerrant word of God.
He thinks we need to examine the evidence and make up our own minds,
yet he does not accept many readings found in various bible versions.
What he has done is to place his own understanding as his Final
Authority, and he picks and chooses which readings he thinks are
legitimate and which are not. This is in effect exactly what every
person does who doesn't believe God has given us a perfect Bible
anywhere on this earth. Are you new to this discussion? What are your
views? Has God preserved His infallible words? If so, where do you
think they are found today?
God bless, Will K
------------------------
In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
From: "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:34 am
Subject: Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Textus Recepticus/Hort Wescott Greek
Differances

In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...>
wrote:
Dr. D.A. Waite has thoroughly studied this matter and here are his
comments:
"In 1881, two theological heretics (posing as conservatives) from the
Anglican Church (Church of England), Westcott and Hort, published
their Greek text that rejected the Textus Receptus in 5,604 places by
my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either
added, subtracted, or changed from the Textus Receptus. This
involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek New
Testament, or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of
140,521 words in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament." (Waite,
Defending The King James Bible, p41)

Remember, that this is only the Greek texts -- not the English
versions taken from these texts. The actual number of the English
versions as compared to the AV is much higher.

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
Waite has thoroughly *skewed* this matter. Waite's claims of heresy
have been repeatedly shown to be false and slanderous. Waite takes
quotes completely out of context, deliberately trying to get W&H to
appear heretical. Waite's claims are completely erroneous on this
point. I have many of Westcott and Hort's books in my library, and I
have personally looked up many of Waite's "quotes" -- only to find
that the immediate context clearly vindicates Westcott and Hort, and
thus shows Waite to be deliberately deceptive, or grossly
incompetent, or both.
7% is not much. Many other counts by others have the total difference
a little lower. Most of this 7% is very minor, and I think that after
such a thorough, detailed, critical examination of the textual
evidence, a difference of at most 7% (with much of this 7% not cause
for much concern) is amazing, and in fact, it shows the reliability
of the text.
--------
In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
...... here is a site that shows clearly just what is missing in the
versions based on the Westcott-Hort texts as compared to the KJB.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
It is in two parts, and is very easy to read.

God either inspired these words, phrases, and whole verses, or He
didn't. We are well acquainted with Brian T, since we have had
discussions with him before at other boards, so none of his stuff is
new to us here.

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
And without textual criticism, at best, all you have are assumptions
and guesswork to determine which are which.

In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
He will admit that he believes no single Hebrew or Greek text, and
that no single English version is the inerrant word of God.

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
To the exclusion of all others, yes, you are correct about what I
believe. If I am not mistaken, I think you said you believed the same
thing was the case in 1605 and prior. If you didn't say that, I'd be
interested in hearing what was the single Hebrew or Greek text or
English version that was the inerrant word of God, and why the KJV
"corrected" it.

In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
He thinks that we need to examine the evidence, and then make up our
own minds,

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
As opposed to ignoring evidence, and having your mind made up before
hand. :)

In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
yet he does not accept many readings found in various bible versions.

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
In what sense? For example, I accept both the KJV's reading of John
1:18, as well as accepting the NIV's reading. I don't know for
certain which reading was originally penned by John, but I can accept
them both, be aware of the question of the variation, and move on
with life.

In whichversion@yahoogroups.com, brandplucked <no_reply@y...> wrote:
What he has done is to place his own understanding as his Final
Authority,

In bibletranslationforum@yahoogroups.com, "tegarttech" <brian@t...>
wrote:
*Everybody* does this, even you. You, by whatever reasoning, have
personally chosen to believe that the KJV is inerrant. You used your
own understandings, interpretations, and choices to arrive at this
conclusion. You oppose me because I disagree with *your*
interpretation and authority on the matter. Is the KJV really your
"final authority"??? It, itself, does not say that KJV-onlyism is
correct, nor that a translation needs to be word-for-word perfect to
be "the word of God" -- you have thrust that idea *upon* the KJV, and
it is an *external, non-Biblical* doctrine that you have chosen to
believe. Since the KJV doesn't teach it, but rather it is an external
doctrine, then "by what authority" should we believe you? By what
authority should we believe KJV-onlyism? Seriously, try to answer the
question. Don't explain all the circumstantial evidence (as
interpreted by you), just deal with the question of authority.
God bless, Brian