Why so much confusion?

[placebofactor]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

Traditional Christian doctrine, particularly in Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, holds that Jesus is fully divine and part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We know that there is no love lost between the Catholic and Protestant churches, yet these two giants of religion agree concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine. However, other groups, such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians, reject the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, arguing that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.”

Early Christianity saw significant disputes over Jesus' nature. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) (a Catholic council) affirmed Jesus' divinity, leading to the Nicene Creed, which defines the Trinity. However, groups like the Arians argued that Jesus was created by God and not co-eternal with Him.

The first followers of Jesus, many of whom were Jewish, struggled to reconcile his teachings with Jewish monotheism and Greco-Roman thought. John 1:1, for example, explicitly presents Jesus as divine, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was a pivotal moment in Christian history, affirming that Jesus was "of one substance" with God the Father. This was in response to Arianism, which argued that Jesus was created and not co-eternal with God. Later, the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) established the doctrine of the hypostatic union, declaring Jesus as both fully divine and fully human.

Most of us who read and study the Scriptures are laypeople. Few of us speak, read, or are capable of interpreting the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, so we have to leave that work to the scholars. Their conclusions can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture.

Now the question is, is Jesus God? And because I am a layperson like 99% of all Christians, I have to depend on the Bible that is in front of me. I use the King James Bible. Why do I use the K.J.B.? Because of its history, and because of the men who gave 8 years of their lives to translate the various manuscripts they had.

The following is a history of two Bibles. After you read the following, you will better understand why the K.J.B. is trusted by millions of Christians, and why 6 billion copies have been sold.

There are over 600 different Bible translations in more than 2,000 languages for sale of bookshelves. Different versions exist due to variations in translation methods, historical updates, and denominational preferences. The most popular versions include the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And because of the differences, foundational truths have been corrupted, and confusion reigns throughout the body of believers. God is not the author of confusion; men and their organizations create confusion.

Here is the history of the King James Bible:
The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 under the sponsorship of King James I of England. Commissioned in 1604: King James I convened a conference at Hampton Court to address issues within the Church of England, leading to the decision to create a new English translation of the Bible.

It’s influence on English literature: The poetic and majestic language of the King James Bible has shaped English literature, inspiring writers like John Milton, John Bunyan, and William Blake.

Standard English Bible for centuries: From the mid-17th to the early 20th century, it was widely accepted as the standard English Bible. It includes Old and New Testaments: The King James Bible contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, making it a complete Christian Bible. Its impact on religious tradition and English-speaking culture is profound.

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers, and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, schoolteachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats.

All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result, many delayed marriages until they had established themselves in a church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties, and one over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They were all familiar with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian Gordon Campbell has observed:

Gordon Campbell is a professor of Renaissance Studies at the University of Leicester and is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the King James Bible. He has published extensively on various topics, including John Milton and biblical history.

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the K.J.B. Translators.

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no “tell-all books” published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the K.J.B., the Translators “were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own and sought truth rather than their own praise”. They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith “craved the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer” as they proceeded in their work.
Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years later. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived.

Also, the lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance are in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty.

Now let us compare the above with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s a Bible translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and is primarily used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Before the N.W.T., Jehovah’s Witnesses primarily used the King James Version. The translation was proposed in October 1946 by Nathan H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society. Work began on December 2, 1947, with the formation of the New World Bible Translation Committee. The New Testament portion was released in 1950, and the complete Bible was published in 1961. The translation has undergone multiple revisions, including in 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013.

Who were the translators
The New World Bible Translation Committee was composed of Jehovah’s Witnesses who professed to be anointed.
The identities of the translators were never officially disclosed by the Watch Tower Society.
The translation is based on Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and Westcott & Hort for the New Testament.

Some scholars have noted that significant effort went into producing the translation, but others have described it as biased.
The New World Translation differs from other Bible translations in several keyways: It restores the name Jehovah in the Old Testament over 6,000 times, whereas most translations use LORD or YHWH.
It also inserts Jehovah in the New Testament, even though the original Greek manuscripts do not contain it.

The N.W.T. reflects Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological views, particularly regarding the nature of Jesus.

John 1:1 is translated as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”, which differs from mainstream Christian translations.
Colossians 1:16 adds the word “other” to say, “by means of him all other things were created”, implying Jesus was created rather than eternal.

The N.W.T. aims for modern, clear language, avoiding archaic terms found in translations like the King James Version. It is considered a thought-for-thought translation rather than a strict word-for-word rendering.
Unlike most Bible translations, the N.W.T. was produced by an anonymous committee, raising questions about the qualifications of its translators. Critics argue that the NWT introduces doctrinal bias concerning the Godhead, Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Hell, etc.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

[placebofactor]

[Replying to Capbook in post #10]

Following is my evidence concerning the accuracy of the King James Bible compared to modern-day Bibles.

The following came from AI.
The majority text, which forms the basis of the Received Text (Textus Receptus) used in the King James Bible, is supported by a significant portion of biblical manuscripts. Some sources suggest that 90% of manuscripts align with the King James Bible, while modern translations rely on a much smaller percentage of manuscript evidence.

Fortunately, we have tens of thousands of pieces of information to work with for the New Testament in compiling an accurate replica of the originals. We have pieces of papyrus and scrolls, over 5,500 Greek manuscripts, various translations in different languages (e.g., over 10,000 Latin manuscripts), and quotations from early church fathers who quoted from the originals. If we were to lose all this manuscript evidence, we could still recreate the entire New Testament from the over one million quotations in the writings of the early church fathers.

[historia]

Your thoughts

If there is one thing I would like to enjoin upon both the KJV Onlyists and the Jehovah's Witnesses who frequent this form it's this: Please update your scholarship!

For some odd reason, you both like to quote scholarship from the late-19th and early-20th century, even when that scholarship has been superseded by newer, better research. For example:

According to John Burgon, Westcott and Hort altered the Greek text based on a handful of little used highly questionable texts that differed not only from the main body of extant Greek manuscripts but also exhibited major differences from each other.

John Burgon died in 1888. Hort died in 1892. Wescott died in 1901. None of these men lived to see the many NT manuscript discoveries of the 20th Century, let alone the advancements in technology that are revolutionizing NT textual criticism as we speak.

Some of Wescott and Hort's theories have been vindicated by the historical research and manuscript discoveries of the last 120 years. Some have not. But, ultimately, Wescott and Hort are simply not relevant to NT textual criticism in the year 2025.

Citing outdated critiques of outdated theories from the 19th century is, in my estimation, a pointless endeavor. It's like going onto an automobile enthusiast message board and railing against the engine designs of Henry Ford and Harold Wills. While you're critiquing the Model T, everyone else is driving Teslas.

[placebofactor]

Your thoughts

If there is one thing I would like to enjoin upon both the KJV Onlyists and the Jehovah's Witnesses who frequent this form it's this: Please update your scholarship!

For some odd reason, you both like to quote scholarship from the late-19th and early-20th century, even when that scholarship has been superseded by newer, better research. For example:

According to John Burgon, Westcott and Hort altered the Greek text based on a handful of little used highly questionable texts that differed not only from the main body of extant Greek manuscripts but also exhibited major differences from each other.

John Burgon died in 1888. Hort died in 1892. Wescott died in 1901. None of these men lived to see the many NT manuscript discoveries of the 20th Century, let alone the advancements in technology that are revolutionizing NT textual criticism as we speak.

Some of Wescott and Hort's theories have been vindicated by the historical research and manuscript discoveries of the last 120 years. Some have not. But, ultimately, Wescott and Hort are simply not relevant to NT textual criticism in the year 2025.

Citing outdated critiques of outdated theories from the 19th century is, in my estimation, a pointless endeavor. It's like going onto an automobile enthusiast message board and railing against the engine designs of Henry Ford and Harold Wills. While you're critiquing the Model T, everyone else is driving Teslas.

[JehovahsWitness]

If there is one thing I would like to enjoin upon both the KJV Onlyists and the Jehovah's Witnesses who frequent this form it's this: Please update your scholarship!

Christian Greek Scriptures:

While the primary Greek text used was the 1881 edition by Westcott and Hort. Other Greek texts and versions consulted in the translation of the NWT. These include:

• Nestle’s Greek Text (18th edition, 1948)

• Novum Testamentum Graece

• Works by Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948)

• United Bible Societies' text (1975)

• Nestle-Aland text (1979)

• Armenian Version

• Coptic Versions

• Latin Vulgate

• Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts

• Textus Receptus

• Griesbach's Greek Text

• Emphatic Diaglott

• Various papyri (e.g., Chester Beatty P^45, P^46, P^47; Bodmer P^66, P^74, P^75)

The New World Translation has thus been revised several times in an effort not only to reflect changing modern language but to keep up with the latest scholarship, most notably in 1984 (Reference bible) and more recently in 2013.

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[placebofactor]

If there is one thing I would like to enjoin upon both the KJV Onlyists and the Jehovah's Witnesses who frequent this form it's this: Please update your scholarship!

Christian Greek Scriptures:

While the primary Greek text used was the 1881 edition by Westcott and Hort. Other Greek texts and versions consulted in the translation of the NWT. These include:

• Nestle’s Greek Text (18th edition, 1948)

• Novum Testamentum Graece

• Works by Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948)

• United Bible Societies' text (1975)

• Nestle-Aland text (1979)

• Armenian Version

• Coptic Versions

• Latin Vulgate

• Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts

• Textus Receptus

• Griesbach's Greek Text

• Emphatic Diaglott

• Various papyri (e.g., Chester Beatty P^45, P^46, P^47; Bodmer P^66, P^74, P^75)

You referenced all the above, but the problem is, many of those manuscripts in certain passages agree with the K.J.B., but not the N.W.T. This tells me, the authors of the N.W.T. picked through these manuscripts and used only what agreed with their teaching. John 1:1 is a perfect example.

The New World Translation has thus been revised several times in an effort not only to reflect changing modern language but to keep up with the latest scholarship, most notably in 1984 (Reference bible) and more recently in 2013.

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[servant1]

[Replying to Capbook in post #10]


Many men studied, all proof texts, history, translations-- via holy spirit God corrected the errors and alterations= The New world translation.

[1213]

Verse below is the words of Jesus Himself, that said, no one had heard the voice of the Father at anytime.
Is Jesus words below wrong to you?

John 5:37
37 "And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
NASB

No, Jesus words are not wrong to me. But, it is interesting that you change them to "no one had heard the voice of the Father at anytime" from "You have neither heard His voice at any time".

[onewithhim]

The following article is quite long, but the subject is important to every Christian's eternal future. The major cause for differences concerning whether Jesus is God or not stems from theological interpretations, specific biblical passages, and historical debates, and for most of us, what Bible we are being taught from.

Traditional Christian doctrine, particularly in Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism, holds that Jesus is fully divine and part of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We know that there is no love lost between the Catholic and Protestant churches, yet these two giants of religion agree concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine. However, other groups, such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarians, reject the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, arguing that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

There are verses in the K.J.B. Bible that affirm Jesus' divinity. Jesus said in Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, --- the Almighty.” John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am"). 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and he is Matthew 1:23, Jesus is, “God with us.”

Early Christianity saw significant disputes over Jesus' nature. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) (a Catholic council) affirmed Jesus' divinity, leading to the Nicene Creed, which defines the Trinity. However, groups like the Arians argued that Jesus was created by God and not co-eternal with Him.

The first followers of Jesus, many of whom were Jewish, struggled to reconcile his teachings with Jewish monotheism and Greco-Roman thought. John 1:1, for example, explicitly presents Jesus as divine, stating, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was a pivotal moment in Christian history, affirming that Jesus was "of one substance" with God the Father. This was in response to Arianism, which argued that Jesus was created and not co-eternal with God. Later, the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) established the doctrine of the hypostatic union, declaring Jesus as both fully divine and fully human.

Most of us who read and study the Scriptures are laypeople. Few of us speak, read, or are capable of interpreting the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, so we have to leave that work to the scholars. Their conclusions can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture.

Now the question is, is Jesus God? And because I am a layperson like 99% of all Christians, I have to depend on the Bible that is in front of me. I use the King James Bible. Why do I use the K.J.B.? Because of its history, and because of the men who gave 8 years of their lives to translate the various manuscripts they had.

The following is a history of two Bibles. After you read the following, you will better understand why the K.J.B. is trusted by millions of Christians, and why 6 billion copies have been sold.

There are over 600 different Bible translations in more than 2,000 languages for sale of bookshelves. Different versions exist due to variations in translation methods, historical updates, and denominational preferences. The most popular versions include the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And because of the differences, foundational truths have been corrupted, and confusion reigns throughout the body of believers. God is not the author of confusion; men and their organizations create confusion.

Here is the history of the King James Bible:
The King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version, was published in 1611 under the sponsorship of King James I of England. Commissioned in 1604: King James I convened a conference at Hampton Court to address issues within the Church of England, leading to the decision to create a new English translation of the Bible.

It’s influence on English literature: The poetic and majestic language of the King James Bible has shaped English literature, inspiring writers like John Milton, John Bunyan, and William Blake.

Standard English Bible for centuries: From the mid-17th to the early 20th century, it was widely accepted as the standard English Bible. It includes Old and New Testaments: The King James Bible contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, making it a complete Christian Bible. Its impact on religious tradition and English-speaking culture is profound.

At least sixty men were directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJB). Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers, and editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, schoolteachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats.

All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.

All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While several Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38 of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they were not allowed to marry. As a result, many delayed marriages until they had established themselves in a church office away from the university. When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties, 15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.

One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three in their eighties, and one over one hundred. Nine of the Translators died before the KJB was published in the 1611.

Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances during and after their time involved in the translation. The association and friendships they developed during the translation project generally advanced their careers. Some of the Translators went on to high church and academic office. Five went on to serve as bishops and two as archbishops.

They were all familiar with the ancient languages of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and many more. They came on the historical scene at a time when the knowledge of early biblical texts and language was exploding. Such a flowering of interest and expertise was unique. Bible historian Gordon Campbell has observed:

Gordon Campbell is a professor of Renaissance Studies at the University of Leicester and is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the King James Bible. He has published extensively on various topics, including John Milton and biblical history.

The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the K.J.B. Translators.

For such a diverse group, they worked together in harmony during a generally contentious time. They had disagreements, to be sure, but they labored on, year after year. There were no “tell-all books” published after the fact. Miles Smith remarked in his preface to the K.J.B., the Translators “were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own and sought truth rather than their own praise”. They approached the task of translation with humility, understanding they were standing on the shoulders of giants like William Tyndale. Believers all, the Translators, according to Smith “craved the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer” as they proceeded in their work.
Though almost all were well known within the religious and academic community of the time, their involvement in the translation went largely unnoticed by the public. Their individual and group effort was not the subject of historical inquiry until many years later. As a result, little information about the process of translation survived.

Also, the lives of the Translators and sometimes their very identity became obscured with time. In certain instances, the place of their birth and burial is unknown, and their family circumstance are in doubt. Until this anniversary year, few could name even one Translator, let alone sixty.

Now let us compare the above with the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s a Bible translation published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and is primarily used by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Before the N.W.T., Jehovah’s Witnesses primarily used the King James Version. The translation was proposed in October 1946 by Nathan H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society. Work began on December 2, 1947, with the formation of the New World Bible Translation Committee. The New Testament portion was released in 1950, and the complete Bible was published in 1961. The translation has undergone multiple revisions, including in 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013.

Who were the translators
The New World Bible Translation Committee was composed of Jehovah’s Witnesses who professed to be anointed.
The identities of the translators were never officially disclosed by the Watch Tower Society.
The translation is based on Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and Westcott & Hort for the New Testament.

Some scholars have noted that significant effort went into producing the translation, but others have described it as biased.
The New World Translation differs from other Bible translations in several keyways: It restores the name Jehovah in the Old Testament over 6,000 times, whereas most translations use LORD or YHWH.
It also inserts Jehovah in the New Testament, even though the original Greek manuscripts do not contain it.

The N.W.T. reflects Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theological views, particularly regarding the nature of Jesus.

John 1:1 is translated as “the Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”, which differs from mainstream Christian translations.
Colossians 1:16 adds the word “other” to say, “by means of him all other things were created”, implying Jesus was created rather than eternal.

The N.W.T. aims for modern, clear language, avoiding archaic terms found in translations like the King James Version. It is considered a thought-for-thought translation rather than a strict word-for-word rendering.
Unlike most Bible translations, the N.W.T. was produced by an anonymous committee, raising questions about the qualifications of its translators. Critics argue that the NWT introduces doctrinal bias concerning the Godhead, Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Hell, etc.

These are the facts; each of us needs to consider carefully which of the two can be trusted most.
Your thoughts:

Maybe NWT textual basis of their New Testament is from Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. But what I've observed, their English translation largely differs from W&H Greek.

It does not "largely differ" from the W&H Greek.

[placebofactor]

Your thoughts

If there is one thing I would like to enjoin upon both the KJV Onlyists and the Jehovah's Witnesses who frequent this form it's this: Please update your scholarship!

For some odd reason, you both like to quote scholarship from the late-19th and early-20th century, even when that scholarship has been superseded by newer, better research. For example:

According to John Burgon, Westcott and Hort altered the Greek text based on a handful of little used highly questionable texts that differed not only from the main body of extant Greek manuscripts but also exhibited major differences from each other.

John Burgon died in 1888. Hort died in 1892. Wescott died in 1901. None of these men lived to see the many NT manuscript discoveries of the 20th Century, let alone the advancements in technology that are revolutionizing NT textual criticism as we speak.

Some of Wescott and Hort's theories have been vindicated by the historical research and manuscript discoveries of the last 120 years. Some have not. But, ultimately, Wescott and Hort are simply not relevant to NT textual criticism in the year 2025.

Citing outdated critiques of outdated theories from the 19th century is, in my estimation, a pointless endeavor. It's like going onto an automobile enthusiast message board and railing against the engine designs of Henry Ford and Harold Wills. While you're critiquing the Model T, everyone else is driving Teslas.

A Model-T is far more valuable than a Tesla. Not only that, but the model T's value increases and a new Tesla's value decreases. As far as transportation goes, I purchased my vehicle for one purpose only, to get from point A to point B, not to be entertained. By the way, it's not the car that's important, it's the driver. These new cars like all these newfound manuscripts do nothing but distract, confuse, and are dangerous. To me, old is better because it's been proven and can be trusted. The oracles of God were given to the Jews, and the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, not yesterday to teach. "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance."

One more issue, I do my research from a library of books, some 400 of them. Most pre-date 1850, and have been written by well-known, and respected theologians, theologians that can be trusted in their commentaries and conclusions. But if someone has an issue with the old and decides that new is better, "Good Luck!"

[historia]

To me, old is better because it's been proven and can be trusted.

Cool. I look forward to your forthcoming conversion to the Catholic Church, then.

I do my research from a library of books, some 400 of them. Most pre-date 1850, and have been written by well-known, and respected theologians, theologians that can be trusted in their commentaries and conclusions.

This is a non sequitur. There are lots of topics for which we haven't made recent discoveries. In which case, older research is perfectly adequate.

But textual criticism is not one of those topics. We've made a ton of manuscript discoveries over the past 175 years. A book on textual criticism from 1850 or 1880 simply won't have that evidence to take into account.

The irony here is that most of the 19th century authors who wrote on this topic would have loved to have had the evidence we have today to inform their research, and certainly would have done so were it available in their day.

That holds true for Erasmus and the King James translators in the 16th and early-17th centuries, too. They were at the cutting edge of textual criticism in their day, and were opposed by those who, like you, thought all this 'new' information was dangerous.