Post by ResLight on Aug 2, 2014 20:47:50 GMT -5
A claim is being made that Russell did not believe in hell, and that he found a translation did not believe in Hell, alleged to have been Alexandrine in nature.
Of course, Russell did believe in the Bible hell. The translation that Russell most often used in his examination of the Bible hell is the King James Version (which he usually referred as the "Common Version"), based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the "Textus Receptus". He examined the scriptures by comparing the KJV with Hebrew and Greek words from those two texts that are translated as "hell" and and "helll-fire" in the KJV, comparing how the KJV rendered these words in different ways from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. He did occasionally refer to other manuscripts or texts in comparison, but mostly he simply presented from the KJV as compared with the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. He did often supply the Hebrew/Greek words transliterated from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, or he quoted from translations that showed the Hebrew or Greek words transliterated. If he did refer to a translation based on another text rather than the Textus Receptus, in most cases the words for hell are the same in those texts as they are in the Textus Receptus. He did not NEED to consult other manuscripts or texts, for the truth can be seen by comparing the KJV with the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. In a few cases, comparison with other manuscripts may be helpful, but not such was not absolutely necessary.
www.htdbv8.com/Volume5/V5_12.htm
www.htdbv8.com/Volume5/V5_13.htm
biblestudents.net/.../what_say_scriptures_about...
ctr.rlbible.com/?p=3087
After giving the above, without actually addressing what is presented, the one making the claim that Russell did not believe hell and that the writers of the "Alexandrian bible called the ASV, Wescott and Hort. They didn't believe in a hell either."
My response:
1) The Old Testament of the ASV is based on the same text as the King James Version, the Masoretic Hebrew Text.
2) I could not find a listing of the actual names of who was on the translation committe for the ASV, but as far as I know Westcott and Hort were not on the translation committee, the translation committee did use the Westcott and Hort text as a basis for the New Testament, but also compared it to other manuscripts. The ASV itself IS NOT the Westcott & Hort text.
3) According to Wikepedia, "30 scholars were chosen by Philip Schaff. The denominations represented were the Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian. These scholars began work in 1872." I am sure that every one of these scholars did believe something regarding "hell", regardless as to whether they agreed on what hell is. I am not sure what beliefs Westcott & Hort had concerning hell. As far as I know, they could have they believed in the alleged "orthodox" interpretation that hades consists of various compartments, and that paradise was taken from hades to heaven by Jesus, and that gehenna represents a compartment of hades, and that tartarus is a compartment of hades. Many present a lot of quotes attempting to condemn Westcott & Hort, but I have already seen how such quotes can be taken out of context, and made to appear to being saying something never intended. At any rate, whatever opinions Westcott & Hort may have had about what hell is, it had no effect whatsover in their text, as can be seen from my next point.
See my page:
binfo.rlbible.com/?p=135
4) There is nothing significantly different in the Westcott & Hort text about hell; indeed, to my knowledge all the scriptures related to hell are exactly the same in the Westcott & Hort as in the Textus Receptus. There is one difference regarding Gehenna, which is not actually hell, but is often rendered as hell or hell-fire. The TR repeats the ending phrase of Mark 9:43 in Mark 9:45 and again in Mark 9:47. The W&H does not repeat the phrase in Mark 9:45,47. This, however, has no effect at all doctrinally concerning Gehenna, or what is pictured by Gehenna. Other than this, regarding all other verses with hades, Gehenna, and tartaroo, the Westcott and Hort text is exaclty the same as the Textus Receptus. Thus any argument regarding what Russell taught about hell as being is based on the idea that the Westcott & Hort text is somehow faulty regarding this is nonsense.
Of course, Russell did believe in the Bible hell. The translation that Russell most often used in his examination of the Bible hell is the King James Version (which he usually referred as the "Common Version"), based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the "Textus Receptus". He examined the scriptures by comparing the KJV with Hebrew and Greek words from those two texts that are translated as "hell" and and "helll-fire" in the KJV, comparing how the KJV rendered these words in different ways from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. He did occasionally refer to other manuscripts or texts in comparison, but mostly he simply presented from the KJV as compared with the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. He did often supply the Hebrew/Greek words transliterated from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, or he quoted from translations that showed the Hebrew or Greek words transliterated. If he did refer to a translation based on another text rather than the Textus Receptus, in most cases the words for hell are the same in those texts as they are in the Textus Receptus. He did not NEED to consult other manuscripts or texts, for the truth can be seen by comparing the KJV with the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. In a few cases, comparison with other manuscripts may be helpful, but not such was not absolutely necessary.
www.htdbv8.com/Volume5/V5_12.htm
www.htdbv8.com/Volume5/V5_13.htm
biblestudents.net/.../what_say_scriptures_about...
ctr.rlbible.com/?p=3087
After giving the above, without actually addressing what is presented, the one making the claim that Russell did not believe hell and that the writers of the "Alexandrian bible called the ASV, Wescott and Hort. They didn't believe in a hell either."
My response:
1) The Old Testament of the ASV is based on the same text as the King James Version, the Masoretic Hebrew Text.
2) I could not find a listing of the actual names of who was on the translation committe for the ASV, but as far as I know Westcott and Hort were not on the translation committee, the translation committee did use the Westcott and Hort text as a basis for the New Testament, but also compared it to other manuscripts. The ASV itself IS NOT the Westcott & Hort text.
3) According to Wikepedia, "30 scholars were chosen by Philip Schaff. The denominations represented were the Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian. These scholars began work in 1872." I am sure that every one of these scholars did believe something regarding "hell", regardless as to whether they agreed on what hell is. I am not sure what beliefs Westcott & Hort had concerning hell. As far as I know, they could have they believed in the alleged "orthodox" interpretation that hades consists of various compartments, and that paradise was taken from hades to heaven by Jesus, and that gehenna represents a compartment of hades, and that tartarus is a compartment of hades. Many present a lot of quotes attempting to condemn Westcott & Hort, but I have already seen how such quotes can be taken out of context, and made to appear to being saying something never intended. At any rate, whatever opinions Westcott & Hort may have had about what hell is, it had no effect whatsover in their text, as can be seen from my next point.
See my page:
binfo.rlbible.com/?p=135
4) There is nothing significantly different in the Westcott & Hort text about hell; indeed, to my knowledge all the scriptures related to hell are exactly the same in the Westcott & Hort as in the Textus Receptus. There is one difference regarding Gehenna, which is not actually hell, but is often rendered as hell or hell-fire. The TR repeats the ending phrase of Mark 9:43 in Mark 9:45 and again in Mark 9:47. The W&H does not repeat the phrase in Mark 9:45,47. This, however, has no effect at all doctrinally concerning Gehenna, or what is pictured by Gehenna. Other than this, regarding all other verses with hades, Gehenna, and tartaroo, the Westcott and Hort text is exaclty the same as the Textus Receptus. Thus any argument regarding what Russell taught about hell as being is based on the idea that the Westcott & Hort text is somehow faulty regarding this is nonsense.
