Westcott And Hort

I had some Trinitarians try to convince me that the translation of Westcott and Hort Greek Scriptures are not reliable. I would like some opinions of non-Trinitarian Christians. Is it bada If yes, what is a faithful translationa Thank you in advance for your answers!

Basically, what you are asking about is something called the King James Version Only-ism.

types KJVO demonize Westcott and Hort, quite frankly, if these two men were alive the day when they have a case of defamation and liable against these people.

Frankly, KJVO types are almost as bad of a cult like the Jehovah's Witnesses, so I suggest you pay attention to them.

Why these two men so much hatea Because they dared to question the use of translating the King James Bible. Ooooh heresy.

Here is a link that provides balanced information on the King James and its source documents.

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

A point of clarification. Like the King James Bible, it is very lyrical and is easier to remember, but do not use it to study because it is not in modern English and its problems, and any translation into English .

The link below is from an old KJVO

"Confessions of a King James Only Advocate"
My journey through King James Onlyism

http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb019.html

King James types can be spotted easily by hate speeches, the spirit of God is not in evidence in their thoughts, their words or actions.

This is a deep subject and I watched a lot. Email me if you want more info.

I have not finished my own study of the issue, but so far, W & H is not a bargain. First, they use (and have a bias in favor of) a lot less accurate and less represented Alexandrian texts. Secondly, there seems to be evidence that many of their criticisms were politically and financially motivated (as opposed to motivated by the truth). And the third (and not least in importance), philosophy (methodology) of textual criticism is biased and not based on sound reasoning.

Opponents of W & H are more and more, that their methodology is under review increased.

The KJV is not without flaws or problems, but compared to a translation-based W & H, it is far superior. So I agree with 'forgetmenot, use multiple translations, but not blindly go with the majority, since most translations today are based on W & H.

Some quotes of interest (from the article by Robinson, listed below):
"Thus, based on the capabilities of the unproven theory postulated Westcott-Hort's" Syrian recension [Byzantine] "ca. AD 350."

Here means that W & H (and after textual criticism based on their theories) had against the Byzantine text forms:
"Do not be surprised that some of the conclusions that modern eclecticism seems to be that the original form of the NT text (a) will not resemble the Byzantine Textform, but (b) should look at 'textType Alexandrian. "

"If a legitimate criticism can be made against the Byzantine Textform first because witnesses did not reflect his own combination of readings, current models eclectic (regardless of the edition) can be criticized more harshly, because the resulting text to demonstrate a pattern of readings even less documented among existing cookies. "

References (some websites to search):
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robi ...