- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"treasure_lost"'s Pastor Fired!!
- Thread starter Twisted
- Start date
Perhaps the one thing you got correct.
Of which you absolutely wrested the context of the first quote (go back and read how I corrected you in Post #31-32), pandered to high heaven to cover the butt of your idol in the second quote while red herring everyone to your whining about how the quoter added "ly" to the end of the word "overwhelming" to actually make it work in the sentence, and your idiocy precedes you to not waste my time in demolishing your lies further in quote 3. You'll have to pay me to educate you further.
As usual, all you did was scramble in nonsense shrouded in the appearance of too many paragraphs. How incredibly delusional it must be to not see the simple truth by allowing your mind to run rampant with proud, Satanic excuses in the form of self-contradicting pandering and theories.
Every single quotation that you whined was "doctored" or "taken out of context" had the context ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and the VIDEO merely omitted extraneous material that did not affect context, probably to fit it on the screen without boring people with meaningless paragraphs designed to fill space and cover your butt.
Side note, look at the franticness to cover Westcott & Hort's butts.
And the absence of anyone else on these forums except this bully of an admin who no doubt scared them all away.
Sometimes God sends someone in to put the bully on his behind in the pavement.
It's sad because most scholars KNOW Westcott & Hort are corrupt, so they don't even bother defending them.
The popular approach in the current ethos of scholarship on this issue is avoidance, which is why they've fabricated the notion that "The modern eclectic translational techniques do not incorporate the outdated methods of W/H anymore!" Even though the most recent New Versions are pretty much the same as the New Versions that came out in W/H's day, so there goes that argument.
And the absence of anyone else on these forums except this bully of an admin who no doubt scared them all away.
Sometimes God sends someone in to put the bully on his behind in the pavement.
It's sad because most scholars KNOW Westcott & Hort are corrupt, so they don't even bother defending them.
The popular approach in the current ethos of scholarship on this issue is avoidance, which is why they've fabricated the notion that "The modern eclectic translational techniques do not incorporate the outdated methods of W/H anymore!" Even though the most recent New Versions are pretty much the same as the New Versions that came out in W/H's day, so there goes that argument.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 989
- Reaction score
- 472
- Points
- 63
Multiple choice question: Who was the author of this quote, denying the authority of the original manuscripts of the Bible - "I told a fellow one time, 'If I had the originals right here in my pulpit tonight, I wouldn't teach them to you' - and I meant it. If I was over in that room and an angel of the Lord came down in that room and said, 'Here, Brother [name deleted], here are the original manuscripts.' Do you know what I'd teach you when I came over here tonight? Just what I got on the table. . . . A fellow said, 'If we only had the originals.' If you only had the originals, you'd still be as blind as a bat. You couldn't find out anything."
Who said it? A. Brooke Foss Westcott
B. Fenton John Anthony Hort
C. Peter S. Ruckman
Answer: Peter Ruckman, in "A Survey of the Authorized Version," 1978, pp. 16-22.
Will the real heretic please step forward?
Who said it? A. Brooke Foss Westcott
B. Fenton John Anthony Hort
C. Peter S. Ruckman
Answer: Peter Ruckman, in "A Survey of the Authorized Version," 1978, pp. 16-22.
Will the real heretic please step forward?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
UGC,
Let's pretend everything you say about Westcott & Hort is correct.
If we can find someone significantly involved in the translation of the KJV Bible (or several people) that believed seriously corrupted doctrines or lived wicked lifestyles, would that invalidate the KJV?
Let's pretend everything you say about Westcott & Hort is correct.
If we can find someone significantly involved in the translation of the KJV Bible (or several people) that believed seriously corrupted doctrines or lived wicked lifestyles, would that invalidate the KJV?
Exactly. To a KJVOist..... "Guilt by association" only works one way.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Another day, another fresh opportunity to present more nonsense and disinfo to all you gullible rubes. Because I'm frantic to cover up their corruption. Maybe I shouldn't have said that out loud. Anyway, howdy!
Next quote from UGC's list of lies:
What Westcott really writes:
Now, why does UGC's totally-not-copied-from-someone-else's doctored quote not indicate the omitted words with an ellipsis? He wants us to believe Westcott denied that Jesus was the Word--when in fact Westcott says John assumed Jesus was the Word, and took for granted that his readers would make the connection. Lie #8.
Westcott's assertion is literally true. John never does explicitly say "Jesus is the Word." He doesn't need to. It's part of his and his readers' shared experience. See verse 16: "For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace."
Next quote from UGC's list of lies:
Once again, this quotation, which UGC totally researched all by himself and could not possibly have cribbed from someone else's Web site, coincidentally has the same misused punctuation--the parentheses around "John" that should be brackets, indicating an interpolation by the editor--as my old CARM post (which, I checked, dated from sometime in early 2014 or thereabouts, which means this incestuous bunch of quotations has been floating around the Net for some time.
What Westcott really writes:
There is no effort on the part of the writer to establish, or to enforce, or to explain. He sets forth what is matter of experience to him with complete conviction and knowledge. Nothing can be farther from the appearance of introducing any new teaching. The Evangelist takes for granted that his readers understand perfectly what he means by "the Word," "the Father." He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ (v. 17). (B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John [London: John Murray, 1892], 16, emphasis added.)
Now, why does UGC's totally-not-copied-from-someone-else's doctored quote not indicate the omitted words with an ellipsis? He wants us to believe Westcott denied that Jesus was the Word--when in fact Westcott says John assumed Jesus was the Word, and took for granted that his readers would make the connection. Lie #8.
Westcott's assertion is literally true. John never does explicitly say "Jesus is the Word." He doesn't need to. It's part of his and his readers' shared experience. See verse 16: "For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace."
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
This quote goes with the previous one. First Liar UGC falsely claims Westcott denied Jesus was the Word (when in fact he assumed Jesus was the Word). Now Liar UGC falsely claims Westcott denies the deity of Christ.
One problem this quotation poses for the KJV nuts is that it doesn't actually say anything unflattering about Westcott. It only does so because we're being given their spin on what it means.
These remarks come from his commentary on John 20:28: "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'" He writes:
The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person...expressed in the form of an impassioned address. The discipline of self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine knowledge, enabled St. Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in the Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St. John traces. At first (ch. i. I.) the Evangelist declared his own faith: at the end he shews that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. v. 18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him. (Westcott, St. John, 297.)
Why in the world does the anonymous fraud that UGC plagiarized think that Westcott, stating the fact that Jesus never explicitly says, "I am God," cast doubt on Westcott's belief in Christ's deity? It doesn't in the least. Westcott's point is that John's entire Gospel has been leading to this confession: Thomas, upon witnessing the risen Christ, declares him Lord and God. It was implicit in John 1; in John 20, it's become explicit.
Moving back to chapter 1, though, let's have a look at Westcott's commentary on John 1:1, specifically the phrase "the Word was God." It puts to rest all doubt: Westcott expressed pure, orthodox, Trinitarian Christology:
The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24. It is necessarily without the article (θεὸς not ὁ θεὸς) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify his Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say "the Word was ὁ θεὸς." No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare for the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ v. 27....
On the other hand it will be noticed that "the Word" is placed in personal relation to "God" (ὁ θεὸς) spoken of absolutely in the second clause; while in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "God," and so included in the unity of the Godhead. Thus we are led to conceive that the divine nature is essentially in the Son, and at the same time that the Son can be regarded, according to that which is His peculiar characteristic, in relation to God as God. He is the "image of God" (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ) and not simply of the Father. (Ibid., 3.)
On the other hand it will be noticed that "the Word" is placed in personal relation to "God" (ὁ θεὸς) spoken of absolutely in the second clause; while in the third clause "the Word" is declared to be "God," and so included in the unity of the Godhead. Thus we are led to conceive that the divine nature is essentially in the Son, and at the same time that the Son can be regarded, according to that which is His peculiar characteristic, in relation to God as God. He is the "image of God" (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ) and not simply of the Father. (Ibid., 3.)
Westcott affirmed that the Word was Jesus, and the Word was God. Do the math. There is no debate to be had about his Christology. This is UGC's lie #9.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ohhhh. You mean the grand total of zero lies in that entire post?
Let me get this straight. I post something that flows perfectly from beginning to end with nothing but sound data,
HOWEVER, because I accidentally mislabeled/mixed up the SOURCE (NOT the quote ITSELF, it's SOURCE) of just ONE quote, your first response was to ignore EVERYTHING else, hone in on that ONE mislabeled quote (the quote is still real. He said it. And he said it the exact context I said he did),
you hone in on this ONE mislabeling (Nitpick George over here with the highly critical spirit, zero desire to learn, only to create arguments where none need exist),
you write like 14 paragraphs over something like 3-4 posts exclusively focused in on how "this person is a liar, "doctoring quotes" (we'll get to that in a min), and this is why you should also never trust KJV people (so now 1 INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL gets applied to everyone), Westcott and Hort are great guys (Delusional), here's some COMPLETELY FABRICATED "Context" on the quote to save their reputation, don't I appear intelligent (you're a moron.)"
Let's go one step at a time so you can't hide all your lies in hundreds of disinfo paragraphs designed only to mislead:
1. Fixing your absolute disaster of an "exposition" on that first quote you claim was "quoted out of context":
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 doubter: 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.
SO FAR:
UGC: Keepin' it real
Ransom: Lying narcissistic sociopath
We're going one step at a time. Waiting for Ransom's response on quote 1. We will stick with it until he is exposed, then move to quote 2.
Then we continue and I'll slowly demolish all his disinfo smearing one at a time.
People need to know what a disinfo agent looks like so they can learn to never believe a word they say.
Unless he runs away, verifying this anyway.
Focus on what I just said about quote 1 ONLY, Ransom. No tricks or shrouding your saving face in extra pages of red herrings.
Then we continue and I'll slowly demolish all his disinfo smearing one at a time.
People need to know what a disinfo agent looks like so they can learn to never believe a word they say.
Unless he runs away, verifying this anyway.
Focus on what I just said about quote 1 ONLY, Ransom. No tricks or shrouding your saving face in extra pages of red herrings.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Here UGC is trying to pull a little bait-and-switch, slipping in some pro-America rah-rah. Most of Hort's 1862 letter to Rev. John Ellerton is a commentary on the state of the Civil War then in progress. While it's true that Hort was an admirer of F. D. Maurice, the seminal Christian Socialist (as was Ellerton), he came under his influence while an undergraduate, before Marx published The Communist Manifesto (1848) or Das Kapital (Vol. 1, 1867). And The Communist Manifesto languished in obscurity for years after its publication. So I think it's safe to say Communism wasn't on Hort's mind in the late 1840s.
It's certainly safe to say it wasn't on Hort's mind in his 1862 letter to Ellerton, which nowhere mentions Socialism or Communism. So why has UGC pulled this quote and used it to accuse Hort of Communism? Lie #11.
Lie #12 is the quote itself. If I told you it was doctored, would you be surprised? Hort is strongly pro-Europe: "I care more for England and for Europe than for America...and I contend that the highest morality requires me to do so" (Hort, Life and Letters, vol. 1, 459). While I can't be sure what he means by "the highest morality," I personally suspect a clash of worldviews. Reacting to the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment, most of Europe had adopted the Romantic ideology, which glorified emotion and intuition over rationalism, nature, the past, and nationalism. America, on the other hand, was Enlightenment rationalism taken form. Moreover, Americans themselves were seen as vulgar and unrefined. Charles Dickens, a contemporary author, wrote an entire novel (Martin Chuzzlewit) satirizing Americans.
Hence Hort, a proud Old Worlder, would write of America:
Some thirty years ago [Barthold] Niebuhr wrote to this effect : Whatever people may say to the contrary, the American empire is a standing menace to the whole civilization of Europe, and sooner or later one or the other must perish. (Ibid.)
Now, why did UGC omit "of Europe"? It's essential to establishing Hort's intent. He's not saying America threatens human civilization. He's saying it's threating Europe. If most Europeans disliked rationalism and democracy, keep in mind they had only just witnessed the effects of the French Revolution a few decades earlier. They were horrified at the thought of that kind of chaos spreading to their own nations.
Along similar lines, lie #13 is the lack of ellipsis between "the whole civilization" and "I wish." There's actually about half a page between them. And right on its heels, lie #14 is the fact that "I wish" is entirely made up. While I'm sure Hort used the words "I" and "wish"
somewhere in his writings (and I guess that by Riplingerian standards, that's sufficient to establish the quote's authenticity), the actual sentence is: "Surely, if ever Babylon or Rome were rightly cursed, it cannot be wrong to desire and pray from the bottom of one's heart that the American Union may be shivered to pieces" (Ibid.). As I said earlier, I'm not going to excuse Hort's errors of thinking, but what does it say that KJV-onlyists seem to need to invent worse things for him to believe? The demand for Hort's heresies is greater than the supply, it seems.
Finally, though, what's the point? That you can't be a good Christian and hate America? Is this some sort of new super-duper complete real true Dispensationalism that substitutes philo-Americanism for philo-semitism? Spare me your parochial myopia, thankyouverymuch.
While we're on the topic of Hort, Communism, and anti-Americanism, you know who actually did admire America? Marx.
It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map. Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world. All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World. (Karl Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, December 28, 1846, http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html, emphasis added.)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,034
- Reaction score
- 2,128
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada