Westcott and Hort

[placebofactor]

[placebofactor]

[historia]

[placebofactor]

[Capbook]

With that said, when we compare the modern-day Bibles with the King James, the Bishops Bible, Douay, many differences stand out concerning certain important doctrines. For example, is Jesus the only begotten of the Father, or is he the Westcott and Hort version "the one and only son?" Only begotten in Greek holds a significant meaning concerning the Son, where "one and only" is vague because we are all called sons, but "only begotten" belongs to Jesus alone.

May I beg to differ to your Westcott and Hort's use of "the one and only son," as you will see below Mounce lexicon definition of the Greek word "monogenes" in John 1:18 as only-begotten and etc.

And besides if you compare Westcott and Hort with NAS95 in rendering of the text, it says "the only-begotten God" which was supported by the oldest manuscripts the papyrus 66 and papyrus 75, a contrast to the Arians beliefs of Jesus nature.

May we know what is your interpretation of the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7?
And why the text differs to many translations?

(Westcott and Hort+) Jhn 1:18 ?????G2316 N-ASM? ???????G3762 A-NSM-N? ????????G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT? ??????? G4455 ADV? ????????? G3439 A-NSM? ?????G2316 N-NSM? ??G3588 T-NSM? ???G1510 V-PAP-NSM? ????G1519 PREP? ????G3588 T-ASM? ???????G2859 N-ASM? ????G3588 T-GSM? ???????G3962 N-GSM? ????????G1565 D-NSM? ??????????G1834 V-ADI-3S?

(NAS95+) Jhn 1:18 ?R1?No?G3762? one?G3762? has seen?G3708? God?G2316? at any?G4455? time?G4455?; ?R2?the only?G3439? begotten?G3439? God?G2316? who is ?R3?in the bosom?G2859? of the Father?G3962?, ?R4?He has explained?G1834? Him.

G3439 (Mounce)
????????? monogen?s
9x: only-begotten, only-born, Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jhn 1:14; Jhn 1:18; Jhn 3:16; Jhn 3:18; 1Jn 4:9.

[placebofactor]

With that said, when we compare the modern-day Bibles with the King James, the Bishops Bible, Douay, many differences stand out concerning certain important doctrines. For example, is Jesus the only begotten of the Father, or is he the Westcott and Hort version "the one and only son?" Only begotten in Greek holds a significant meaning concerning the Son, where "one and only" is vague because we are all called sons, but "only begotten" belongs to Jesus alone.

May I beg to differ to your Westcott and Hort's use of "the one and only son," as you will see below Mounce lexicon definition of the Greek word "monogenes" in John 1:18 as only-begotten and etc.

And besides if you compare Westcott and Hort with NAS95 in rendering of the text, it says "the only-begotten God" which was supported by the oldest manuscripts the papyrus 66 and papyrus 75, a contrast to the Arians beliefs of Jesus nature.

May we know what is your interpretation of the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7?
And why the text differs to many translations?

(Westcott and Hort+) Jhn 1:18 ?????G2316 N-ASM? ???????G3762 A-NSM-N? ????????G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT? ??????? G4455 ADV? ????????? G3439 A-NSM? ?????G2316 N-NSM? ??G3588 T-NSM? ???G1510 V-PAP-NSM? ????G1519 PREP? ????G3588 T-ASM? ???????G2859 N-ASM? ????G3588 T-GSM? ???????G3962 N-GSM? ????????G1565 D-NSM? ??????????G1834 V-ADI-3S?

(NAS95+) Jhn 1:18 ?R1?No?G3762? one?G3762? has seen?G3708? God?G2316? at any?G4455? time?G4455?; ?R2?the only?G3439? begotten?G3439? God?G2316? who is ?R3?in the bosom?G2859? of the Father?G3962?, ?R4?He has explained?G1834? Him.

G3439 (Mounce)
????????? monogen?s
9x: only-begotten, only-born, Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jhn 1:14; Jhn 1:18; Jhn 3:16; Jhn 3:18; 1Jn 4:9.

Let me end with this. If you are comfortable using the N.W.T. or the N.I.V. or a similar work, that's up to you; it will be your choice. But as you read and study, please don't forget to pray that the Holy Spirit can help you get through the tangle of confusion.

[historia]

[placebofactor]

[historia]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #17]

That's your reply to what I wrote in post #16?

I just demonstrated that you quoted Wescott and Hort out of context. And, in doing so, you gave a completely false impression of what they had to say about the authority of Scripture. You were essentially spreading lies about their views on that topic.

Surely, that should generate some kind of apology or retraction, no?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #17]

That's your reply to what I wrote in post #16?

I just demonstrated that you quoted Wescott and Hort out of context. And, in doing so, you gave a completely false impression of what they had to say about the authority of Scripture. You were essentially spreading lies about their views on that topic.

Surely, that should generate some kind of apology or retraction, no?

Well, we all have opinions. I still believe the two had an Arian bent.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #19]

The year 1890: Westcott and Hort were given copies of Darwin's first edition. Westcott wrote, "No one now, I suppose, believes that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." The was written in Westcott, op. cit, Volume 2. page 69.

Both Westcott and Hort were Darwinists from the time the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Hort did everything he could to see that the intellectual community would accept evolution. His help, publicly exemplified by his presence at an honorary dinner given at Cambridge