Brooke Foss Westcott has long been a person of controversy and is considered anathema to King James Version Onlyists. His work, along with Fenton Hort and others, in producing The New Testament in Original Greek in 1881 has placed him among the most cruelest of heretics in the eyes of King James Version Onlyists for allegedly perverting the word of God. Let’s look at one accusation in particular that these have made against Westcott regarding his involvement with the “Ghostly Guild”. The accusation generally goes like this: “Westcott and Hort were not only ‘Fathers’ in the Anglican church but, according to numerous historians and New Age researchers, appear to be among the ‘Fathers’ of the modern channeling movement.” (Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p.404) …


10 Responses

      • I think C.I. Schofied is wrong. He appears to be a gap/day age person. (tonight is the first time I have read his commentary on Gen 1. — I completely disagree, but I think in Gen 2 & 3 he is back in line with scripture.

        John Sailhammer pulled “morning and evening” out of all six days in the NLT because of his believe in day age, though the NLT put the “morning and evening” back in in one of their post 1995 revisions. You see a lot of modern versions making changes to Gen 1 in order to have gap or day age work easier.

        Peter Ruckman I think is gap theory also on Gen 1, and he is out to lunch on that theology.

        That said, Scofield is wrong, and his position is not Biblical. I don’t think I have ever used the his Study Bible.

        Problem with Westcott, is he states: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did”

        So, that is not just Gen 1, but is also Adam and Eve, and their fall. As Ken Ham state, the entire Bible is Gen 1-6, so as soon as you start doubting Gen 1-6 you have some serious issues.

        Gen 1-6 is written as literal, to read it otherwise is wrong.

        • I completely agree. That’s why I have a video refuting William Lane Craig on Genesis. I take your exact position. But wouldn’t you agree that it is also horrible theology to believe that the bread and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ? That’s the father of the TR. I would also expect you think it is wrong to persecute Baptists as some of the AV translators did. May I also assume you are not a Calvinist? How do you feel about Beza, Stephanus, and the KJV translators affirming Calvinism?

          My point is simple. We don’t throw the KJV out because we have disagreements with some of the people who gave it to us. The same should be said for other versions as well — in most cases. With the Critical Greek Text, we can do something that we cannot do with the KJV. We can trace their work through the Critical Apparatus. Therefore, we can verify their decisions. Case in point, we can disagree with the ESV revision’s Gen 3:16 based on evidence. We can also disagree with places in the KJV because of manuscript evidence.

          That should be the basis for our disagreements.

          • “That’s the father of the TR” — I would have to disagree. The textural selections made by the KJV translators IS the TR, while influenced by Erasmus, he was not the final say.

            I am not a Calvinist, that said I think John MacArthur does have some good Biblical teaching. I think John Washer is a heretic related to works based salvation, but that does not mean he is wrong about every theological point he makes.

            Critical Apparatus — Okay, so this is somewhat of a loop… which current scholars are making the correct selections from the “Apparatus”? They all make different ones, and it is diverging over time. Who determines weighting? Who determines linage? I think Bart Ehram just nails this issue.

            As I have said before, I think you would have a rational argument if you were telling me your research has led you to determine the NKJV or NASB95 was a better translation of what you believe are the “best” manuscripts, but once you open the door to all modern translations any rationality in the argument looses any sense of credibility. Whether it is copyright compliance and requirement which the Publishers stated they followed, or divergence of decisions based on “scholarship” the variance between versions is huge.

            There is no Pluperfect tense Gen 2:19, malakos is not some hard Greek word to understand, there is just a lot of versions are just flat wrong in translation.

          • I absolutely believe the NASB95 is superior to most other translations. I believe the NKJV is more faithful to the “TR” than the KJV. I actually prefer the LSB over the NASB95. It is a better translation than the NASB2020.

            But, just because I think these are better translations does not mean that the others are not the word of God. As the KJV translators said, even the meanest translation is the word of God. And to be clear, while I have my preferences, there is no perfect translation and doesn’t have to be. Ref: my earlier comment on Jeremiah 31:32 and Hebrews 8:9.

            Goodnight Sir.

    • Have you applied the same doctrinal scrutiny to the KJV translators? Is their persecution of Baptists “pretty problematic” to you? What about their Calvinism? Do you have a problem with Erasmus’ writing in defense of Transubstantiation? Do you discount their work based on their personal beliefs? I’m just curious if you apply a consistent standard.

      • Have you applied the same doctrinal scrutiny to the KJV translators? – Yes, most definitely.

        Is their persecution of Baptists “pretty problematic” to you? – Yep.

        What about their Calvinism? – Yep, big issue. (and I wonder if that and Lordship Salvation are impacted in the LSB)

        Do you have a problem with Erasmus’ writing in defense of Transubstantiation? – Yes

        Do you discount their work based on their personal beliefs? – Yes.

        So, in total agreement. Now, I know the bias of the KJV family (Bishop, Geneva, etc) of translators, the questions is can I see where their theology impacted translation? Sure, “Church” vs. “Congregation” as a rule for translation was an impact. Are there other places? Frankly I don’t know of anything in the KJV that shows a bias toward certain doctrines, I am sure there are things you could point out, but I am not aware of anything.

        That said, there is no question translator’s ideology impacted in modern versions. Gen 3:16 in the ESV, 1 Cor 6:9 in the NRSVue, your own Statement of Faith does not work in Hermeneutics with the CSB, the NLT (and frankly most modern versions) have made slight modifications to make Catholic doctrine more palatable. We can debate the Greek in 2 Cor 2:15, but “saved” vs. “being saved” is a difference.

        Were Shadrach, Mishael and Abednego part of the royal family? Well, depends on what modern version you read. Did they not worship a golden image or statue? Depends….

        • For the record, “being saved” is grammatically consistent with the Greek. It doesn’t change the certainty of salvation. It is consistent with the entirety of our salvation. This is a good example of how applying the same hermeneutical principles to most modern versions as we do to the KJV will result in the same meaning and doctrine. For the record, I am not a fan of the NRS. The NLT is a very dynamic equivalent that I believe typifies the KJV preface’s “meanest translation”. Not all translations are equal. I admit that often. I simply hold to the same view of preservation as they. I also believe this is consistent with the NT authors in their use of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew for many Tanakh quotations. Particularly, Hebrews 8:9 and its use of the LXX for Jeremiah 31:32.

          Isn’t it a beautiful thing that the two of us can have a civil conversation without attacking each other and without defensive posturing? This is how Christian brothers are supposed to handle disagreements on subjects like this.

          • “meanest translation” – Nope…. they are specifically talking about a specific Bible in this context. I understand the desire it to extrapolate this to all Bibles, but that simply is not what is said in the preface.

            For the record, “being saved” is grammatically consistent with the Greek. — Well, I don’t know that. That is what I have been told, but I also know the translators of the KJV, Geneva, and Tyndale all have “are saved.” So, as a plowboy in the pew, do I trust the translation agreement of all the translators between Tyndale and Webster or they were all wrong, and now we finally understand how to interpret Greek?

            “I simply hold to the same view of preservation as they” — I simply don’t know what that is. I am not being argumentative by saying this, I honestly don’t understand theoretically what “preservation” means outside of a KJVO standpoint. Could a new manuscript discovery impact scripture? That is what James White states. I can’t wrap my head around the God allowing the Bible being wrong in including the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) for the last 490 years and at the same time trust any of it.

            While I am not going to disagree with LXX & Hebrews 8:9, I think the Septuagint can become pretty problematic pretty fast. I would go as far to have no issue if you stated there were new testament quotes from The Book of Nathan the Prophet or Gad the Seer (1 Chron 29:29) but I would not see any modern day production of these two books to be reliable. I would say the same for the Septuagint, some parts might be correct, but the Masoretic Text is what I would have faith in.

            Oh, I hope you never see my discussions as personal attacks or anything. My purpose is to understand issues as much as to try to prove my point with a hammer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *