[Biblestudent]

I read that Lancelot Andrewes was conversant in 15 languages, John Reynolds had a photographic memory and a "third university", and Miles Smith was a walking library.

How about the NIV translators, anyone?

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

I read that Lancelot Andrewes was conversant in 15 languages, John Reynolds had a photographic memory and a "third university", and Miles Smith was a walking library.

How about the NIV translators, anyone?

Yea that is ture about Lancelot Andrewes and John Reynolds. Yea the new versions had some great "scholars" in them. Lets see, first off, Wescott and Hort were closet Catholics, Wescott as a spiritualist (ie, he blievend in talking to the dead) and he was a member of the Gostly guild. I was also informed that Wescott lost his ability to speak. Also Hort embraced evolution.
Well I don't know much about the commities in the ASV, RSV, and what not. I know that there were a few others in them that lost there ability to speak.
In the NIV commite the chairmen was an admitted unrepentent Sodomite. The Ladie (I am being generus in calling her a laidie) who was head editor and was in charge of gramer, and styll, was a lesbian.
Thats something isn't it. I know that King James may have played Tennise, I know that some of the translators were Amilleialest baby sprinklers. But they were all saved humble men of God, who would never dare to correct the Word of God.
You know, during the OT times, if the preist who was doing the sacrfice, even brushed up againsed something unclean, the whole sacrfice was counted unclean, and they were required to start again. If the roots of the new versions are corrupt, then the fruit will be corrupt also.
That is why the body of Christ is in the shape it is in. Because these bastardised versions have corrupted the word of God. Thank the Lord we can still find his word perfect (no, you don't need greek or hebrew to know what God said) in the AV, The champion of all books.

[Paladin54]

Originally Posted by joshjefflawn

You know, during the OT times, if the priest who was doing the sacrifice, even brushed up against something unclean, the whole sacrifice was counted unclean, and they were required to start again. If the roots of the new versions are corrupt, then the fruit will be corrupt also.

Right there, we have an important point to make to the defenders of the modern versions: We are not calling you a bunch of demonic perverters of the Word of God. This is what instantly turns our opponents off to our arguments: we can't just start calling them names-at least not until we explain our frustration! We have to show them that no matter how honest your intentions are, you can't make a holy sacrifice if anything unclean is touched, you can't make a perfect copy of God's Word if unholy tools are caught up in the process! You can't make an apple tree grow oranges!

[bibleprotector]

The very fact that Westcott and Hort REJECTED receiving the Word of God as supplied is a greater sin than any other accusation that can be made against them.