Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Hort on Rome
- Paul gives a link to an "explict quote from Hort denouncing Rome."Newman did the same thing, Paul, to hide the fact that he was secretly falling for Romanism. For every quote you can produce, where Westcott or Hort SEEM to "denounce Rome," I can produce 2 to the contrary."Newman certainly raises many thoughts. At present I have hardly got beyond the feeling of astonishment at our having the privilege of such an autobiography...Anglicanism, though by no means without a sound standing, seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome."
The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the EvangelicalAnd here are a couple, regarding Hort's Tractarianism:
It is hard to resist a vague feeling that Westcotts going to Peterborough will be the beginning of a great movement in the church, less conspicuous, but not less powerful, than that which proceeded from Newman.
How inexpressibly green and ignorant ***** must be, to be discovering Newmans greatness and goodness now for the first time.Regarding your other post to me, I am well aware of when the Oxford Movement started, and when the ERV was published. I apologize for the confusion, and will re-phrase the statement you say I am "off base" with:The call for a revision of the Authorized King James Bible in the late 1800's was the inevitable and direct result of the Jesuit-crafted Oxford Movement.
The English clergy were formerly too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion by Bossuet and the Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from history and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usages of the English Church, whence, through the exertions ofthe Jesuits concealed among its clergy, might arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from their Bibles. (Desanctis [former Romish PRIEST], Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, pp. 128, 134, quoted in Walsh, Secret History of Oxford Movement, p. 53)
As is recognized by all who are familiar with the Jesuit plot to destroy Protestantism, there were three things standing in the way:the Prayer Book,and the Thirty-nine Articles.
The fact that Cardinal Newman and Dr. Pusey were invited to be a part of the English New Testament Revision Committee speaks volumes regarding the great influence the Oxford Movement played in the "revision" of the Authorized Version. The following is a letter written from Rome, by Cardinal Newman to Cardinal Wiseman, in which he calls for a revision of the KJV:
"The Superior of the Franciscans, Father Benigno, in the Trastevere, wishes us out of his own head to engage in an English Authorized Translation of the Bible. He is a learned man, and on the Congregation of the Index. What he wished was, that we would take the Protestant translation, correct it by the Vulgate...and get it sanctioned here." (Ward, Life of Wiseman, Vol 1, pg. 454)
As I said before, Newman's mission was to get the Church of England to accept the Council of Trent. He could not get the Church of England to accept Trent without first getting them to accept, as "alternate readings," the Catholic readings [of Aleph and B]...readings that had been previously rejected by the Reformers! So you see, revision of the Authorized King James Bible was one of the inevitable (read: PLANNED) outcomes of the Oxford Movement! To put this all in perspective, all one needs to know is what prompted the publishing of the Rheims Bible in 1582. Once the motives behind that translation are ascertained, you will quickly see how history repeated itself in the late 19th century!Keith----- Original Message -----From: Anglicananswer@...Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:56 PMSubject: [Covenanted Reformation] Hort on Romeexplict quote from Hort denouncing Rome.
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html under the heading "Theodore P. Letis Letters/Replies pp. 229-232.
- Dan:Blessings to your and your loved ones as well.Barry
Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...> wrote:
> Are there any errors in the K.J.V.?
I don't know. I'm still a novice in Greek and Hebrew. Ask me again
in about 30 years. Right now I find the KJV to be the most accurate
and most skillful translation among all English translations which I
> Calvin and King James are both first rate, but are there no
contemporary translations or commentaries you can safely recommend?
The New King James Version is not bad. I'm not as well-read in newer
commentaries compared to the older stuff. I hear that James M. Boice
has some good stuff.
Blessings in Christ,
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.