The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

In regards to the quotes on Mary by Westcott and Hort as found at WestcottHort.com:

I think Hort using the word “Mariolatry” is not in the same way the evangelical is using it.
Hort refers to Mary worship is a tendency towards unity of worship. So yes, Hort asks this as a question but the statement implies that he is not against Mary worship even if it is asked as a question. So how could Hort use the derogatory term “Mariolatry” if he is not against the worship of Mary? Because Hort is an extreme liberal. Hort is for the worship of all kinds of spirits and gods. He was in the occult after all. To worship only Mary or to give her more importance would be idolatry. Hence, “Mariolatry.” In Hort’s view, it appears he is for the worship of many spirits. This is the impression I am getting by what he is saying.

When Westcott says Rome is in error, this is not in the same way that the evangelical means. I believe he is not referring to their veneration of Mary because he refers to how they would imitate their devotion of her. I believe Westcott is saying they are in error to not being as liberal as they are. Rome sticks by certain dogmas and beliefs that seeks to keep people in their church. Westcott and Hort are too liberal for that. They may see value in their practices of the veneration of Mary, but they are not going to become Catholic only. They are too liberal for that. If you go back and read ALL the words that they say and really try to figure out what they are saying, this sounds more like what they believe.

Here is the article again, just in case folks might have missed it.

http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_mary.html

So while Wilkerson was wrong for piecing together the quotes, it does not change that Westcott and Hort hold to Catholic practices, although they are not exactly Catholic.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I think I understand your reluctance to acknowledge an accurate modern copy of the LXX. However, there seems that there did exist during the time of Jesus a Greek translation of at least the first five books. Several early church figures speak of it in detail.

The reasoning goes that if the accepted current Hebrew uses slightly different phrasing than the Greek behind the KJV, then certainly that might point to a nuanced difference attributable to a Koine mss contemporary to the Hebrew text of that era.

Jesus quotes the Scriptures a lot. He even defeats the devil by quoting Scripture. Jesus told His disciples not to go in the way of the Gentiles. Jesus said salvation was of the Jews. This means that they had the Scriptures. If there was a pre-Christian LXX, then salvation would also be of the Gentiles, too. In fact, the fall of the Jews is what led to salvation going out to the Gentiles. It was a very big deal. So just believing the Bible, we get the strong impression that a Pre-Christian LXX does not sit well with a normal reading of Scripture. In other words, if we build our faith on the Bible in what it says and not Science (what we see by some article or whatever), we will come to the conclusion that a pre-Christian LXX conflicts with Scripture.

This is why I believe the LXX is a fraud.
Some early church fathers were duped into believing it was legitimate.
But if they knew Scripture, they would know it was false.

 

[posthuman]

is it really worth all this effort to harm the faith of those who believe every word of the scripture as translated into English in the KJV....?

 

[posthuman]

i am not kjv-only.

i recognize its shortcomings & flaws.

but one very valuable thing i learned from my time at CC is that it is not fruitful to argue the point. at best it's useless and at worst it's damaging.

kjv gets it right more than it gets it wrong.

overall ((not as tho i am qualified to judge)) there is probably no better translation into the pagan language we call English; i typically quote nkjv vs kjv because nkjv capitalize pronouns referring to God, but kjv does not.

please be kind to each other

 

[posthuman]

He even defeats the devil by quoting Scripture.

i don't think that statement is accurate

Christ is God. He is never not God.
when Satan tests ((not tempts)) God in the wilderness, Satan does not understand Who he is speaking to. he is speaking to God Himself, Who created Satan, and Who has all. power, glory, honor and praise, Who can destroy and create with a single word.

He does not "defeat" Satan by quoting scripture - He lays bare Satan's flawed use of scripture by reminding him of other scripture.

Christ "defeats" Satan 'by the breath of His mouth' - He says, "Depart" and the devil has no choice; he is banished from His presence by His word. ((Matthew 4:10))

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

i don't think that statement is accurate

Christ is God. He is never not God.
when Satan tests ((not tempts)) God in the wilderness, Satan does not understand Who he is speaking to.

he is speaking to God Himself, Who created Satan, and Who has all. power, glory, honor and praise, Who can destroy and create with a single word.

I 100% agree.

He does not "defeat" Satan by quoting scripture - He lays bare Satan's flawed use of scripture by reminding him of other scripture.

Christ "defeats" Satan 'by the breath of His mouth' - He says, "Depart" and the devil has no choice; he is banished from His presence by His word. ((Matthew 4:10))

You might get that impression from the reading in Matthew, but if you read it in Luke 4, it does not lead us to believe that was the case. In Luke, it says, "And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season." (Luke 4:13).

In Matthew 4, the King James Bible Jesus says, "Get thee hence, Satan:" (Matthew 4:10) (KJV).
Satan did not immediately depart or leave after these words. Jesus said some more words for him to hear.

"for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matthew 4:10) (KJV).

Matthew 4:11 says,
"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him."

When I read this above verse, I do not get the impression that Satan is being cast out. There are no screams or him fleeing away quickly.
It just sounds like the devil is choosing to leave here because he ended his test or, temptation.

Jesus defeats the devil's tests by using Scripture.
So please do not undermine the power of Scripture.
God's Word is said to be like a fire, and like a hammer.
The Scriptures are given by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Scripture is referred to as being holy according to 2 Timothy 3:15.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

i am not kjv-only.

i recognize its shortcomings & flaws.

but one very valuable thing i learned from my time at CC is that it is not fruitful to argue the point. at best it's useless and at worst it's damaging.

kjv gets it right more than it gets it wrong.

overall ((not as tho i am qualified to judge)) there is probably no better translation into the pagan language we call English; i typically quote nkjv vs kjv because nkjv capitalize pronouns referring to God, but kjv does not.

please be kind to each other

The NKJV does not include personal pronouns like the KJB (thee, thine, thou, ye, etc.), so you don't know if a singular person is being referred to or two or more people. There are also a bunch of other problems with the NKJV, of course.

See this video here on the NKJV:

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

is it really worth all this effort to harm the faith of those who believe every word of the scripture as translated into English in the KJV....?

You have things backward. Many who went to Bible college have lost their faith due to Textual Criticism and not because a Pastor encouraged them to believe in a perfect Bible.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

i don't think that statement is accurate

Christ is God. He is never not God.
when Satan tests ((not tempts)) God in the wilderness, Satan does not understand Who he is speaking to. he is speaking to God Himself, Who created Satan, and Who has all. power, glory, honor and praise, Who can destroy and create with a single word.

He does not "defeat" Satan by quoting scripture - He lays bare Satan's flawed use of scripture by reminding him of other scripture.

Christ "defeats" Satan 'by the breath of His mouth' - He says, "Depart" and the devil has no choice; he is banished from His presence by His word. ((Matthew 4:10))

God's Word today would be Scripture. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17).
So yes, it is a weapon that our Lord used.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

@HealthAndHappiness

I watched New World Order Bible Versions.

Overall, it was surprisingly good. There were a few verse points I disagreed with like Matthew 7:14, but it was still very worthwhile to watch it. I did not know that the Latin was put next to the Greek in Erasmus’ TR edition. That is so cool. It would have exposed the errors in the Latin Catholic Bibles. I also see what you mean about certain verses promoting a new world order in Modern Versions now. I did not know that. That was also really good to know.

While I do not agree with Anderson, I still appreciate the recommendation.
I would not have watched it if you did not try to convince me to see it.

Thank you again.

Side Note:

I did see Anderson and. James White discussed the Bible issue before.

It was interesting that they added clips from this video into his documentary.

 

[Dino246]

You have things backward. Many who went to Bible college have lost their faith due to Textual Criticism and not because a Pastor encouraged them to believe in a perfect Bible.

Who are these “many”? Where are their manifold testimonies? Please support your claim with evidence.

 

[Sipsey]

You didn't mention the part I said about "Jerome" who translated the Scriptures into Latin(Latin Vulgate) but here is something he stated about the source used in this instance for Matthew (see 3. Matthew in text)... https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

I am still in the midst of relearning a few things I once studied some time ago. See if you agree with this summation:
https://christianity.stackexchange....bout-jeromes-latin-translation-of-the-bible-t

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Who are these “many”? Where are their manifold testimonies? Please support your claim with evidence.

You obviously have never done any research on this. It’s pretty common knowledge that falling away happens at Bible College.
There are many stories like this.
These articles are not KJV-only.

https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-ar...ymptom-of-a-larger-issue-plaguing-the-church/

https://medium.com/christian-perspe...lege-and-i-struggle-with-my-faith-75a9649da9d

https://www.christianweek.org/losing-faith-at-bible-college/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...ts-faith-crisis-christian-higher-ed-cccu.html

So why would they fall away?
Some folks seemed perplexed as to why this happens.
But I will tell you why. It is because of the false Science of Textual Criticism.
They did not know about Textual Criticism before Bible college.
It gets them to question the Bible’s trustworthiness.
I know. While I did not attend Bible college, I heard the lies by Textual Critics in attacking the Bible (the KJB) that made me believe there was an error in the Bible when, in reality, it was the Textual Critic's own lack of Bible knowledge.

[To be continued]

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Who are these “many”? Where are their manifold testimonies? Please support your claim with evidence.

Here is the problem of the Science of Textual Criticism:

The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a pure Bible.

Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to restore or reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age, assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).

As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends its own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.

Then, there are translation disputes and disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises: how do we determine the precise word (meaning) that the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?

When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than theoretical guesswork, an academic exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

False doctrine originates with the acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… (Gen.3:4). The beginning of the end came when Satan interjected a false thought into Eve’s mind. A bold lie that sounded logical, even though it was contrary to what God had said, but tragically, Eve accepted it. Why was Eve so easily deceived?

It has been wisely stated that the heart of every problem is a problem in the heart. Eve was beguiled because she questioned what God had said. So then, so now, And the serpent said unto the “biblical scholar,” God hath not preserved His Word. The clever lie that God’s words perished, along with the papyri or vellum on which they were written initially, has been broadly propagated and widely accepted, even though it is contrary to what God has said. Papyri and vellum are physical, material, and temporal. God’s Word is spiritual (John 6:63) and eternal (1 Peter 1:21). The students of the school of modern textual criticism have little, if any, faith in God’s ability to preserve His own words. In effect, their position accuses God of negligence.

The false doctrine of non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a theory constructed upon a flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. A method strikingly similar to “Darwin’s theory of evolution” also founded on a lie. Textual criticism and evolution are similar in that both utilize man’s wisdom to refute God’s Word; both replace certainty with uncertainty. The common goal is the destruction of absolutes (one of the primary objectives of secular humanism).

Absolute truth is the foundation of morality that holds man accountable; therefore, his fallen nature dictates that he challenge, resist, and deny it, especially where it applies to his conduct. In a sense, evolution got rid of God, and textual criticism got rid of His words. The so-called “scholars” begin with absolute inerrancy (the original lost autographs) and end up with relative inerrancy (hundreds of “relatively pure” albeit conflicting versions of the Bible).

The crux of textual criticism concerning the Bible isn’t restoring lost truth; the real issue is the final authority. The whole process lacks any Scriptural justification and is inconsistent with the nature of God. How can we explain the Sovereignty of a God who relies on the mind of fallen man to discern, decide, and declare what is and isn’t true? The truth of God’s Word needs to be resurrected by man’s wisdom, which lacks underlying support within the Bible. When we examine the Scriptures, we find just the opposite. Jesus Himself stated, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). That God’s words would be lost is contrary to His nature as revealed in Scripture; if God is pure, perfect, holy, and eternal (and He is), then it stands to reason, so must His Word be. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb .13:8).

Textual critics have accomplished much if uncertainty is better than certainty, if confusion is more desirable than clarity, and if impurity is superior to purity. As a direct result of the modern school of textual criticism, we have more than two hundred different versions of the Bible today, all of which disagree in one form or another (to satisfy copyright laws, among other things). As a result, Bible publishing has become a lucrative enterprise.

The resulting confusion within the Body of Christ is yet another confirmation that the whole process is not from God ” For God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Cor. 14:33). In reality, the science of modern textual criticism has proven to be a “Pandora’s box,” a contemporary form of “Yea, hath God said…” resulting in continuous controversy and significant divisions within the Body of Christ. “As if it weren’t enough for proud men to doubt God’s Holy Word, in their folly, they imagine they could somehow resurrect it!” Humility is hardly the hallmark of supposed higher learning.


Article Source:
https://www.perfectingofthesaints.c...the-king-james-bible-is-the-pure-word-of-god/

 

[CS1]

Here is the problem of the Science of Textual Criticism:

The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a pure Bible.

Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to restore or reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age, assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).

As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends its own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.

Then, there are translation disputes and disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises: how do we determine the precise word (meaning) that the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?

When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than theoretical guesswork, an academic exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

False doctrine originates with the acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… (Gen.3:4). The beginning of the end came when Satan interjected a false thought into Eve’s mind. A bold lie that sounded logical, even though it was contrary to what God had said, but tragically, Eve accepted it. Why was Eve so easily deceived?

It has been wisely stated that the heart of every problem is a problem in the heart. Eve was beguiled because she questioned what God had said. So then, so now, And the serpent said unto the “biblical scholar,” God hath not preserved His Word. The clever lie that God’s words perished, along with the papyri or vellum on which they were written initially, has been broadly propagated and widely accepted, even though it is contrary to what God has said. Papyri and vellum are physical, material, and temporal. God’s Word is spiritual (John 6:63) and eternal (1 Peter 1:21). The students of the school of modern textual criticism have little, if any, faith in God’s ability to preserve His own words. In effect, their position accuses God of negligence.

The false doctrine of non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a theory constructed upon a flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. A method strikingly similar to “Darwin’s theory of evolution” also founded on a lie. Textual criticism and evolution are similar in that both utilize man’s wisdom to refute God’s Word; both replace certainty with uncertainty. The common goal is the destruction of absolutes (one of the primary objectives of secular humanism).

Absolute truth is the foundation of morality that holds man accountable; therefore, his fallen nature dictates that he challenge, resist, and deny it, especially where it applies to his conduct. In a sense, evolution got rid of God, and textual criticism got rid of His words. The so-called “scholars” begin with absolute inerrancy (the original lost autographs) and end up with relative inerrancy (hundreds of “relatively pure” albeit conflicting versions of the Bible).

The crux of textual criticism concerning the Bible isn’t restoring lost truth; the real issue is the final authority. The whole process lacks any Scriptural justification and is inconsistent with the nature of God. How can we explain the Sovereignty of a God who relies on the mind of fallen man to discern, decide, and declare what is and isn’t true? The truth of God’s Word needs to be resurrected by man’s wisdom, which lacks underlying support within the Bible. When we examine the Scriptures, we find just the opposite. Jesus Himself stated, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). That God’s words would be lost is contrary to His nature as revealed in Scripture; if God is pure, perfect, holy, and eternal (and He is), then it stands to reason, so must His Word be. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb .13:8).

Textual critics have accomplished much if uncertainty is better than certainty, if confusion is more desirable than clarity, and if impurity is superior to purity. As a direct result of the modern school of textual criticism, we have more than two hundred different versions of the Bible today, all of which disagree in one form or another (to satisfy copyright laws, among other things). As a result, Bible publishing has become a lucrative enterprise.

The resulting confusion within the Body of Christ is yet another confirmation that the whole process is not from God ” For God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Cor. 14:33). In reality, the science of modern textual criticism has proven to be a “Pandora’s box,” a contemporary form of “Yea, hath God said…” resulting in continuous controversy and significant divisions within the Body of Christ. “As if it weren’t enough for proud men to doubt God’s Holy Word, in their folly, they imagine they could somehow resurrect it!” Humility is hardly the hallmark of supposed higher learning.


Article Source:
https://www.perfectingofthesaints.c...the-king-james-bible-is-the-pure-word-of-god/

The number one thing to consider in the approach of textual Criticism is Truth.


God is not the author of Confusion. Human intellect is substandard to God's knowledge and wisdom.

Systematic theology only makes sense once one has been born again and Has the Holy Spirit helping them along.

There are groups in Christianity who believe If they achieve more knowledge it in some way makes them more holy or righteous.


Paul had a comment about that from the holy Spirit that will happen in the last days:
2Tim 3


1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was


Consider what is said here. Many of these teachers have a "word " that takes root in the Household or church that captive unlearned women, I.e., the Church's new believers. And lead them away from TRUTH!


Attack church doctrine yet never producing the truth when doing so is not correction it is deception.

 

[Magenta]

They are minor supposed errors that exist only in the minds of those who want to see such supposed errors.

Like I said: you are in denial, and that applies to you as well. Pretending
there are no errors does not make the actual errors magically disappear.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The number one thing to consider in the approach of textual Criticism is Truth.


God is not the author of Confusion. Human intellect is substandard to God's knowledge and wisdom.

Systematic theology only makes sense once one has been born again and Has the Holy Spirit helping them along.

There are groups in Christianity who believe If they achieve more knowledge it in some way makes them more holy or righteous.


Paul had a comment about that from the holy Spirit that will happen in the last days:
2Tim 3


1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was


Consider what is said here. Many of these teachers have a "word " that takes root in the Household or church that captive unlearned women, I.e., the Church's new believers. And lead them away from TRUTH!


Attack church doctrine yet never producing the truth when doing so is not correction it is deception.

Notice the passage. They are lovers of money. Modern Bibles are based on the love of money because they get extra kickbacks for making new translations with copyrights. So, the industry is based on greed. No standard also exists. You would think that by the time Westcott and Hort started the Modern Textual Critical movement back in 1881, you would have a settled text by now. But your Bibles keep changing based on new discoveries. What was true before is now in error. So your truth is ever-shape-shifting and changing and evolving. In a video interview between Steve Anderson and James White, James White admits that we have so many modern translations because of money. This is the fruit of Textual Criticism.

Also, notice 2 Timothy 4:3.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;" (2 Timothy 4:3).

A time will come.

A time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.
It is odd how Modern Bibles teach heretical doctrines, and I have experienced firsthand folks defending these false doctrines in their own corrupted Modern Bibles.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Like I said: you are in denial, and that applies to you as well. Pretending
there are no errors does not make the actual errors magically disappear.

As I told you before, the atheist can say the same exact thing about places in the Bible that you cannot explain but you have faith it is true. We believe the promises of God like in Psalms 12:6-7 unlike Westcott and Hort and the movement today that comes from them.

 

[John146]

Who are these “many”? Where are their manifold testimonies? Please support your claim with evidence.

Most seminary graduates today have been influenced out of their belief in God's word and into the belief that they can properly correct it and understand it better than the simpletons because they've been educated in Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Like I said: you are in denial, and that applies to you as well. Pretending
there are no errors does not make the actual errors magically disappear.

If you are for the Westcott and Hort texts (like the Vaticanus), then you run into a very serious problem.
Why? Well, if you believe the Vaticanus is better than the TR, you would have to believe Catholics who killed Christians had the more accurate words of God, and the Christians who were being called by the Catholics had the corrupted words of our Lord.

Notice.

It is called the VATICANus.
They get the Vaticanus from the Vatican (who are Catholic).
Westcott and Hort did not have a problem with Mary's worship.
If those are the men you want to translate your Bible, then be my guest.
We are told in Revelation, come out from among her my people.