"treasure_lost"'s Pastor Fired!!

Most are unaware of what Westcott and Hort actually said, in their own writings:

They believed Jesus' sacrifice was a payment to Satan:

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a Ransom paid to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, p. 77)

Oh, forgot to mention: "Our Bible as well as our faith is a mere compromise." -Wescott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. viii


They disagreed with Christians on both the authority and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." -Wescott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 207

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted... There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." -Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, p. 400


They did not believe Jesus was the Word, in deity, nor a distinct person of the Trinity:
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." -Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 16
"He never speaks of himself directly as God, but the aim of his revelation was to lead men to see God in him." -Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297
This is why the NASB changed John 1:18 to match the Jehovah's Witness' belief on the matter: they changed it to say Jesus was a "begotten God" rather than the "begotten Son". Jesus was already God and the Word by which all things were created from eternity past, he was not merely revealing to people "God in him", as we do today.

They were Socialist Communists staunchly against America and Democracy:
"America is a standing menace to the whole civilization. I wish the American Union may be shivered to pieces." -From Hort's Biography, section on "My Deep Hatred of Democracy and All its Forms"


Westcott and Hort took the traditional Greek text underlying the English translations and changed it in 8,000 places by diluting it with the wildcard manuscripts Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, etc.
The end result was the equivalent of erasing the entire books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter from the Bible: that's how many phrases, verses, half-verses, and total words were removed. Every single New Version since has incorporated these manuscripts in their translations.


The Nestle Aland Text (which incorporates Westcott and Hort's manuscripts) in the 25th-28th Editions has actually had to add 400 Textus Receptus readings back into the text because had to finally concede that they were more accurate and shouldn't have been removed. Even still, the recent New Versions have not significantly changed to reflect them doing so from the days of Westcott and Hort.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in over 3,000 places in just the Gospels alone. But because they are dated as being around longer (meaning they survived because they were sheltered and not burned), Westcott and Hort were able to convince modern Christianity to reconsider them, even though Erasmus clearly rejected them, which James White has lied about (source: Al Hembd, Trinitarian Bible Society).


Westcott and Hort dabbled with the occult and communicating with spirits, and had a club called the "Ghostly Guild", which included a man named Lightfoot, who created a Lexicon to support their new Greek Text. This club became the "Society for Psychical Research", who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her.

Theosophy involves channeling demons through a process called "automatic writing", from which they receive their instructions which have since been championed at the world government level at the UN, through Blavatsky's protégé Alice Bailey, who founded Lucifer Trust Publishing (since changed to "Lucius Trust"), which is held in high regard by the UN.

Blavatsky believed she was reviving the ancient Mystery Religions of Babylon, essentially the original religion of Satan that split into the world religions today: all of the fundamental aspects of which, such as dualism, survived in Hinduism (different gods over dualistic aspects of nature), Buddhism (yin yang), Islam (sun and moon), etc. The original source of this was Nimrod and Semiramis, who originally became allegorized as the sun and moon.


At the First Annual Congress of the Theosophical Society, which took place around 1900 (the same time Westcott and Hort's new versions were just entering churches), the original transactions of which states, quote, "I believe it is through the churches, and NOT through the Theosophical Society, that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer] must and should come to large bodies of people... The work of destructive criticism [Westcott & Hort's Textual Criticism / Critical Text] and has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages that grate on the ears: the phrase 'washed in the blood' is one. "

This is why Col. 1:14 "through his blood" has been removed in the NASB and NIV.
Rom. 3:25 through faith "in his blood" has been removed.
Rev. 1:5 "washed" us from our sins has been removed.
Luke 22:20 "blood which is shed" has been removed and replaced with "cup which is poured". Gotta love allegories.

We see here clear evidence of these relationships and the outworkings of their stated motives found plainly in the New Verisons.


Henry Travers Edge was a friend of Blavatsky's who stated, "The New Versions have produced a rendering much more in accord with the views of a Theosophist [Satanist]." -Henry T. Edge, Esoteric Keys

The Chief Editor of the NIV, Edwin Palmer, called verses that support Salvation by Grace a "great error", and stated: "This shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some Orthodox Protestant circles, and that namely the error that Regeneration depends upon faith, and that in order to be born again, one must first accept Jesus as savior." He called the Gospel of Grace a "great error".

This is why Matt. 7:14 was changed to say, "difficult is the way" instead of the original "narrow is the way" in support of Catholic works salvation doctrine.
Mark 10:24 was also changed to say, "Children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God" in support of works salvation, rather than the original, "how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter", was we must recognize our need for a savior and trust Christ's payment on the cross.


At this point I don't even need to mention Isaiah 14:12, which replaced Satan, the shining falling angel, with Jesus Christ, the Morning Star. This is all part of their clearly stated plan to bring Lucifer worship in through the churches to prepare them to worship the Antichrist, as many of them don't even believe an Antichrist will come, are Amillennial just like the Catholic church, and are now turning to Replacement Theology, in part due to these New Versions and in part due to infiltration of Satanic ministers the Bible warns against.

In addition to this there must be a clear move against Dispensationalism, which retains the sound reading of Biblical End Times Prophecy, which depends entirely on the crucial distinction between Israel and the Church. This is why they've created blatant lies about Dispensationalism, claiming it and the pre-trib rapture were "invented" by Darby in the 1800's (debunked in the books Ancient Dispensational Truth and Dispensationalism Before Darby), while notice that no such lies about the history of Covenant/Replacement Theology were needed. Because these theologies are already Satanic. This is how Satan combines books like Hebrews, which is for Hebrews in the Great Tribulation under the Gospel of the Kingdom, with the Body of Christ in the Church Age, in order to create muddy, distorted, sometimes outright false works, "persevere" gospels (no doubt why he made Calvin famous) promoted in megachurches (I have witnessed firsthand) and sending many to hell.

So now you know which side people like Ransom are working for.
 
Wait so what do you think about Westcott and Hort's statements that they don't believe Jesus is God, that Christ's death was a "ransom paid to Satan", they didn't believe the scriptures were inspired, and they were impressed by Theosophy (Satanic religion).
Same thing I always think when KJV nuts bring up Westcott and Hort.

I assume they're lying.

But thank you for posting your list of doctored quotes. I will deal with these shortly. It is, of course, very common for KJV-only websites to copy these quotes from each other, although they are too lazy to look up the primary sources and determine that they are being quoted accurately and in context.
 
I assume they're lying.
Check the sources yourself. They are from their own writings and biographies.

You New Version nut who has literally told us you believe Lucifer is Jesus because it means "shining one".
 
Are you going to change your name to "Ransom to Satan" now in continued support of their versions?
Are you going to change your name to "I'm a low-IQ fundamentalist retard" in continued support of reality?
 
Ah, so I guess you haven't actually looked them up yourself, then.

Both intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest.
 
They believed Jesus' sacrifice was a payment to Satan:
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a Ransom paid to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, p. 77)
This quotation does not occur on page 77 of Hort's The First Epistle of St. Peter; nor, indeed, does it occur anywhere in that volume. UGC, who just told me to "check the sources yourself," has not checked the sources himself.

I said earlier that when a KJV nut quotes Westcott and Hort, I assume they're lying. That assumption is not made without foundation. Here is UGC's lie #1.

The quotation is actually from a letter written to B. F. Westcott in August 1860, in which Hort was trying to recruit Westcott and his friend J. B. Lightfoot to assist him in a rebuttal to a collection of essays by liberal Anglicans. Note what Hort actually says:

I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father. (Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 2 [London: Macmillan, 1896], 428, emphasis added.)​

Note the part I've italicized. Does that appear in the quote UGC gave us? Nope. Does he give any indication that it was omitted? Nope. He just presented a doctored quote that makes Hort's statement of qualified skepticism concerning the "ransom to Satan" appear to be unqualified acceptance.

That's lie #2 from UGC. And no, this doctored quotation didn't come from him originally. I have a text file I copied from another forum several years ago that gave exactly the same misattribution. He's just stolen this lie from some other KJV nut and repeated it himself.

Here's what he actually says in his commentary on 1 Peter:

The idea of the whole passage is a simple one, deliverance through the payment of a costly ransom by another. On two further occasions connected with it St. Peter here is silent, viz. who it was that made the payment, and to whom it was made. In some of the passages already quoted, Christ Himself appears as the ransomer: elsewhere it is the Father, as in Acts xx. 28, rightly understood, and illustrated by Rom. v. 8 (where note ἑαυοτοῦ) and viii. 32. The two kinds of language are evidently consistent. As regards the second point, the testimony of the Bible is only inferential, and serious difficulties beset both the view which chiefly found favour with the Fathers, that the ransom was paid to the evil one, and still more the doctrine widely spread in the middle ages and in modern times, that it was paid to the Father. The true lesson is that the language which speaks of a ransom is but figurative language; the only language doubtless by which this part of the truth could in any wise be brought within our apprehension; but not the less figurative, and therefore affording no trustworthy ground for belief beyond the limits suggested by the silence of our Lord and His apostles. (F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle To Peter I.1-II.17 [London: Macmillan, 1898], 79-80)​

It's clear enough that Hort has difficulty with the ransom-to-Satan theory of the atonement; to be fair, he has difficulty with the ransom being paid to the Father as well. The reason is that he has a problem with the concept of a ransom, and he concludes that the term is being used figuratively. (Because no wealth or goods literally changes hands, perhaps; he doesn't really articulate where the difficulty lies.) That the early church fathers largely believed in the ransom-to-Satan theory, and the medieval church in the ransom-to-the-Father theory, is simply a fact of history.

In the same place, he also writes:

These passages together represent the blood of the Lamb as the ransom paid for the release of men of every nation from the bondage of the earth, and from the bondage of men (answering to what is elsewhere called "the world"), and from the bondage of their sins: and they in turn are represented as reflecting the character of the Lamb, they are undefiled and without blemish. (Ibid., 79)​

And that, if read without KJV-only prejudice, can easily be taken as an orthodox affirmation of substitutionary atonement. Christ dies in the place of sinful men, taking on, as it were, their sinful nature; they, in return, are imputed the "undefiled" and sinless nature of Christ.

We can also note that UGC's doctored quote attributes the false belief in the ransom-to-Satan to both Westcott and Hort, even though he presents no evidence of Westcott ever holding such a belief. So let's just chalk that false generalization up as lie #3, shall we?
 
Oh, forgot to mention: "Our Bible as well as our faith is a mere compromise." -Wescott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. viii
Here's a bit more of the context:

Hitherto the coexistence of several types of apostolic doctrine in the first age and of various parties in Christendom for several generations afterwards, has been quoted to prove that our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. But while I acknowledge most willingly the great merit of the Tübingen School in pointing out with marked distinctness the characteristics of the different books of the New Testament, and their connexion with special sides of the Christian Doctrine and with various eras of the Christian Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they should not have found in those writings the explanation instead of the result of those divisions which are traceable up to the Apostolic times. (B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [London: Macmillan, 1875]., vii-viii.)​

So this one's easy to refute. "Our Bible as well as our faith is a mere compromise" is not Westcott's view. It's the view of his theological opponents. UGC just told lie #4.
 
Quote wars:

Ransom - 10

UGC - 0
 
This quotation does not occur on page 77 of Hort's The First Epistle of St. Peter
It is found in the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume 1, p. 428.

I did have to quote many items since you avoided watching the video, so my mistake mixing those 2 books up.


It doesn't matter if he "didn't give full assent to it", the very next sentence excluded all other options for him anyway, affirming that without saying it:

"I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable. Anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."


I said earlier that when a KJV nut quotes Westcott and Hort, I assume they're lying.
Looks like you were wrong. Your laziness and bias against new information is extremely amateur.

You were so lazy you didn't even Google the actual quote itself:
Google Books

Look at this amateur frantically posting paragraph after paragraph in a hopeless effort to cover up the truth. Notice how he address NOTHING else in my post except this one quote, that is real, however the book it is associated with was mixed up, so he took that and ran with it, trying to cover up the plain truth with an endless nonsensical shrouding.

You're a professional liar.


Quote wars:
Smh, you're still being duped by this lying disinfo agent Ransom. The guy's an idiot, Twisted.

So far on these forums:
UGC: 100
Ransom: 0
 
It's clear enough that Hort has difficulty with the ransom-to-Satan theory of the atonement; to be fair, he has difficulty with the ransom being paid to the Father as well.
Smh, this guy doesn't get it.

First, that quote is found in the context of an internal struggle Hort had in understanding the substitutionary atonement from the perspective of judicial vs. moral justice, and whether or not the atonement additionally abolishes suffering for the saved individual after the fact. On this he said he couldn't make up his mind, showing the Biblical illiteracy of this moron: He didn't even know if after someone came to Christ, they would still experience suffering or if the atonement should have abolished this for them as well.

Then he goes into further heresy by questioning the atonement:
"Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering." (He wasn't convinced that the atonement was absolutely proportionate since believers still experience suffering).

THEN he immediately considers that the ransom was paid to Satan, and that he can see NO OTHER POSSIBLE form in which this ransom is at all tenable, and that ANYTHING is better than a ransom paid to the Father.



Second, these notions clearly carry the additional benefit of appealing to his Theosophical and Satanist friends.

Westcott and Hort dabbled with the occult and communicating with spirits, and had a club called the "Ghostly Guild", which included a man named Lightfoot, who created a Lexicon to support their new Greek Text. This club became the "Society for Psychical Research", who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her.

Theosophy involves channeling demons through a process called "automatic writing", from which they receive their instructions which have since been championed at the world government level at the UN, through Blavatsky's protégé Alice Bailey, who founded Lucifer Trust Publishing (since changed to "Lucius Trust"), which is held in high regard by the UN.

Blavatsky believed she was reviving the ancient Mystery Religions of Babylon, essentially the original religion of Satan that split into the world religions today: all of the fundamental aspects of which, such as dualism, survived in Hinduism (different gods over dualistic aspects of nature), Buddhism (yin yang), Islam (sun and moon), etc. The original source of this was Nimrod and Semiramis, who originally became allegorized as the sun and moon.

At the First Annual Congress of the Theosophical Society, which took place around 1900 (the same time Westcott and Hort's new versions were just entering churches), the original transactions of which states, quote, "I believe it is through the churches, and NOT through the Theosophical Society, that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer] must and should come to large bodies of people... The work of destructive criticism [Westcott & Hort's Textual Criticism / Critical Text] has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages that grate on the ears: the phrase 'washed in the blood' is one. "

Henry Travers Edge was a friend of Blavatsky's who stated, "The New Versions have produced a rendering much more in accord with the views of a Theosophist [Satanist]." -Henry T. Edge, Esoteric Keys
 
Spam deleted. - Ransom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smh, you're still being duped by this lying disinfo agent Ransom. The guy's an idiot, Twisted.

So far on these forums:
UGC: 100
Ransom: 0
I looked up the quote and its not in that book. Sorry. Can you tell me where you got it from?

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a Ransom paid to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter, p. 77)
 
They disagreed with Christians on both the authority and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." -Wescott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 207
"I reject the word infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." Just the shoddy grammar of that phrase should make you question its veracity. And you would not be wrong to do so. It's another doctored quotation: part of the sentence has been removed and the punctuation altered, so as to distort its meaning. Then, it appears as though the quote doctor has realized how ungrammatical his doctoring is, so he has also changed the word "overwhelming" (in the original) to "overwhelmingly" to try and make it look more like English.

Again, context matters. This is from a letter that forms part of a conversation (again in 1860) between Westcott, Hort, and J. B. Lightfoot about the possibility of working together on a proposed commentary on the New Testament. Westcott writes to Hort:

I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's--glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too "must disclaim setting forth infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth--I reject the word infallibility--of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve. (Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. 1 [London: Macmillan, 1903], 207.)

Note what he says:
  • Where he has diffculties or doubts, he believes they come from himself, not from Scripture.
  • He rejects the word "infallibility," for reasons he does not explain in this letter.
  • He affirms the concept of infallibility when he says he overwhelmingly believes in the Scriptures' "absolute truth." (How does one believe the Scriptures are "absolutely true," but not "infallible"?)

So what UGC, or his source that he was too lazy to investigate and correct, has done, is to distort what basically amounts to a quibble about a word into a denial of the concept the word represents. So let's call this lie #5.

Here's what Hort had to say about the topic of infallibility, in an earlier letter to Lightfoot:

If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels. I am most anxious to find the N.T. infallible, and have a strong sense of the Divine purpose guiding all its parts; but I cannot see how the exact limits of such guidance can be ascertained except by unbiased a posteriori criticism. Westcott--and, I suppose, you--would say that any apparent errors discovered by criticism are only apparent, and that owing to the imperfection of our knowledge. I fully believe that this is true of a large proportion of what the rasher critics peremptorily pronounce to be errors; and I think it possible that it may be true of all, but, as far as my present knowledge goes, hardly probable. (Hort, Life and Letters, vol. 1, 420.)​

In his next letter to Westcott, he adds:

I do most fully recognize the special "Providence" which controuled [sic] the formation of the canonical books: my only difficulty is to understand how you can have had any doubts about the matter, considering how often we have talked over subjects in which such a belief was implied if not expressed....But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism. (Ibid, 422.)​

Again, note:

  • Hort was definitely more theologically liberal and "high church" than Westcott or Lightfoot, who represented the "low church" or "evangelical" wing of the Church of England. He was influenced by such theologians as F. D. Maurice, the influential Christian Socialist thinker. I have no intention of excusing his errors; I simply point out that it is intellectually dishonest to lump Westcott and Hort together, as KJV-onlyists invariably do, confusing one for the other or attributing one opinion to both, as though their thinking moved in lockstep. Just because they were friends does not mean they thought alike.
  • He believed the Bible to be at least partly of human rather than divine origin. Nonetheless, he did acknowledge the hand of Providence in its formation. He believed the Bible to be, in part, a divine book--not, as many modern theological liberals do, a wholly human work chronicling man's experience of God.
  • He acknowledges that Westcott and Lightfoot believe in biblical inerrancy. If the liberal in the group recognizes this, then why don't the KJV-onlyists? Simple: their desire is not to paint a truthful portrait of Westcott and Hort--only an unflattering one.
And Hort was correct. Westcott did believe in the inspiration of Scripture. In his book The Bible in the Church, he writes:

Where we can trace the history of the component writings [of the Bible] with the greatest precision, it does not appear that they were designed to form part of a written code of doctrine or discipline. Humanly speaking, they arose out of passing circumstances and were designed to meet occasional wants. That annals and prophecies and letters, thus (apparently) casual in their origin, should combine into a whole marvellously complete and symmetrical in its spiritual teaching is, indeed, a clear intimation of the presence of a controlling power both in their composition and in their preservation. (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church [London: Macmillan, 1864], 9.)

Some time elapsed before the separate societies [of Christians], or the separate books, were formally united; but the catholicity which was realized in combined action, and the complete Bible which was gradually built up by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are implicitly recognized in the earliest Christian records of the sub-apostolic age. (Ibid, 72.)

The Bible, no less than the Church, is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: Holy, for they who wrote it were moved by the Holy Spirit: Catholic, for it embraces in essence every type of Christian truth which has gained entrance among men: Apostolic, for its limits are not extended beyond that first generation to which was committed the charge of preaching the Gospel in the fulness of its original power. (Ibid., 296.)​

So Westcott believed:
  • The Bible was "absolute truth"--in other words, it was inerrant and infallible, even if he didn't like that latter word.
  • The words of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
  • The formation of the Bible from its separate elements was also divinely guided by the Holy Spirit.

Doesn't really sound like they disagreed with Christians about the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures, does it? Nope. KJV-onlyists are liars.​
 
It is found in the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Volume 1, p. 428.

Yes, I know where it is found. I just told you were it's found, before you repeated it back to me.

You're welcome.

I did have to quote many items since you avoided watching the video,

Yes, I find myself quite busy researching primary sources. Can't bother with YouTube drivel produced by hacks and Riplinger sycophants.

so my mistake mixing those 2 books up.

Funny, that. I happen to have a post I copied from a KJV-onlyist on the CARM forums several years ago. He apparently made exactly the same misattribution.

In fact, a Google search on "no repugnance to the primitive doctrine" hort "first epistle" brings up several examples of the same error:


And that's just the top five hits. Plenty more where that came from. But by all means, if it makes you feel better to pretend you accidentally mixed up those two books all by yourself, instead of admitting you regurgitated some BS you read on a Web page and couldn't be bothered to verify the attributions yourself, well, you do you.

I'm just going to call it lie #6, though.
 
Last edited:
Now that that's cleared up with yet another checkmate
It's cute that you think "try to bury Ransom under a mountain of BS" constitutes some sort of victory. Because as I go down your list of quotes that you were too lazy, too stupid, or too dishonest to verify yourself; and prove, one after another, that they are misrepresentations of Westcott or Hort's actual opinions, at some point it's fair to ask whether I need to bother to continue.

Maybe you can help me out, though. How many lies must I tally up on my running total before you're considered a liar?
 
OK, one more before the night is out. I'm in no hurry; I'm contemplating writing a book on KJV-only lies, so this just saves me research and writing later.

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted... There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." -Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, p. 400

By some strange coincidence, this doctored quotation has the same mangled first sentence, the same ellipsis, the same exact text, as that old CARM post I mentioned earlier. Remarkable. What a coincidence that just happened. It's almost as though UGC didn't do any real research himself, but just vomited a bunch of KJV-only copypasta onto the forum. But that would never happen, of course. Nope. Nohow.

Again, context is king. This is from an 1858 letter from Hort to Rowland Williams. He was one of the contributors to the infamous 1860 publication Essays and Reviews, which contained seven essays introducing aspects of German liberal theology to England. While Essays and Reviews is hardly known today, compared to Darwin's The Origin of Species (published the previous year), in the short run it was more widely read and debated, selling as many copies in two years as Darwin did in 20. Apparently, Williams had invited Hort to contribute, but Hort had to decline, writing:

The chief impediment is a wide difference of principles and opinions from the body of your coadjutors. I can go all lengths with them in maintaining absolute freedom of criticism, science, and speculation; in appealing to experience as a test of mere a priori dogma; and in upholding the supremacy of spirit over letter in all possible applications. Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernicious kind. But I fear that in our own positive theology we should diverge widely. I have a deeply-rooted agreement with High Churchmen as to the Church, Ministry, Sacraments, and above all, Creeds, though by no means acquiescing in their unhistorical and unphilosophical treatment of theology, or their fears and antipathies generally. The positive doctrines of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible; and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss. (Hort, Life and Letters, vol. 1, 400.)​

If there's anything "perverted" here, it's the KJV-only distortion of the quote. There's a world of difference between "Evangelicals seem to me perverted," and "The positive doctrines of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue." Hort isn't arguing against the Evangelical, or low-church, wing of the Church of England per se; he argues that their views are, in fact true, although "perverted"--by which he probably means something like "overly dogmatic" or "emphasized out of balance." (He's certainly not arguing they're wrong if he's denying they're untrue!)

Rowland Williams' contribution to Essays and Reviews was a review of Baron von Bunsen's Biblical Researches, in which he commended the then-new German higher criticism. He was later tried and convicted of heresy on the grounds that he denied the inspiration of the Bible (although upon appeal he was subsequently acquitted). One of his defenders was Benjamin Jowett, another contributor, whose essay "On the Interpretation of Scripture" argued in favour of progressive revelation and that it was on each successive generation to re-interpret the Bible for itself.

Hort was sympathetic to the high-church wing. He believed in their view of the authority of the creeds, the Scriptures, and the sacerdotal function of the priesthood. Men like the authors of Essays and Reviews were unravelling that view. So when Hort said he differed with them on the authority of the Bible, he was saying he took the more conservative position than them. Of course, UGC's borrowed, doctored quote ignores the historical context and distorts Hort's words. Lie #7.
 
Sorry. Can you tell me where you got it from?
Read the movement of the thread. Post 31 & 32.

Well, Ransom is now continuing to amass paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense: I addressed your twisting of the first quote and it's context in Posts 31-33.

Then, it appears as though the quote doctor
I appreciate your respect choosing to refer to me by the term 'doctor', and as I have indeed checked these quotes years ago to make sure they are authentic and for a sure certainty not taken out of context, in the interest of saving valuable time I quoted them directly from the video (where I guess they were quoted with brevity in the interest of maintaining context while removing excessive, unnecessary words, which is an extremely common practice in quoting).

Here is the full quote addressing your second horsecrap:

"All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth — I reject the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."

We see here that Westcott had what most idiots have: an inability to see the literal paradox occurring in his own mind. He said he is in favor of the notion that there is "absolute truth" (which he also says he "doubts" and "can't solve", trying to "solve" everything rather than having faith) in the scriptures, however he rejects that this means the scriptures are infallible. Notice the self-contradicting idiocy of a man ever learning but nothing coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Birds of a feather flock, which is why an amateur like you comes to the aid of these men who were constantly doubting and uncertain about anything EXCEPT Orthodoxy, which they ruled out in favor of heavily entertaining ideas that support Theosophy and Satanism.


And the original quoter in the video actually corrected Westcott's grammar by adding the "ly" at the end of the word "overwhelming" so that it actually makes sense in the sentence, you incredibly blind zealot for contemporary apostate "scholarship".
 
Notice how he address NOTHING else in my post except this one quote,
Yes, well, some people prefer to do actual research and reading instead of copy-pasting crap they read on someone's tabloid Web page. So sorry to overtax your limited mental capacity with actual writing and analysis. Would it help if I posted in large red letters for you?
 
Top