Featured A Question

Pretty much so. If they believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of the original, they are going to say that the TR is God's preserved Word in Greek. But the Ruckmanite/Riplingerite crowd is going to see the Eng. KJV as such, having invented a doctrine of continued inspiration.

Pretty much so, though I've known people who were not KJVO yet believed the Greek NT was best preserved in the TR. Such folk will not reject out of hand such translations as the WEB, but will prefer the KJV or NKJV or maybe the Modern KJV as done by Jay Green (who would obviously fall in this last category, having done his own revision of the KJV).

 

true, as they would be those who would also allow for versions such as the Geneva and NKJV as being English word of God to us!

Think after studying/reading all of the various theories concerning textual criticism, I come down on the side of one can prefer to use as the basis the TR/MT/CT, and if the parties have a proper translation theory/practice, we can get decent and good versions from any of those!

 

Hey, this is BB. We'll have no logic nor reason here. Bruce fixed the Chun, btw.

 

I understood easily what you were saying in your OP. But you mis-characterized the Byzantine Priority method of textual criticism in your OP, so I corrected you. You said in the OP, "Lots of folks claim they stick with the KJV or the NKJV because they accept the notion of Byzantine Priority...." This is not true. The average KJVO advocate doesn't even know what Byzantine Priority is. (I've discussed it with them.)

You, as usual, are unwilling to admit your lack of knowledge in the area of textual criticism, so you obfuscate. End of story. :type:

 

Oh, yeah, well if Bruce Lee were here right now, I'd challenge him...to a game of Shogi, Japanese chess that is. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Think the point is that to those advocating KJVO, ONLY the TR was the right Greek text to use, so unless the Web uses JUST that source...

 

He told you that the Byzantine priority business is not something the average Joe KJVO knows anything about. So it is not A or THE reason for their reliance on the KJV alone.

 

Yeah, I knew you'd say something like this. It's your usual response rather than admitting you made a mistake. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Think the average KJVO would not be able to use textual criticism to support why TR better than either CT/MT texts, but that "God gave us the Kjv!"

 

Peter Ruckman butchers what little knowledge he has of textual criticism. Riplinger's lack of knowledge in this area would fill books--all she's written in fact! D. A. Waite has a good education in Greek, so sometimes I wonder if he's secretly ashamed of some of the positions he's taken. Jay Green, according to a source of mine, allegedly needs lots of help in the original languages.

Time forbids my delineating the ignorance of the other various writers in the movement. Those listed above often depend on Edward Hills or John Burgon for what little they know.

 

Is that the same as 象棋, Chinese chess, or does Japan really have a different version than China?

 

Shogi (将棋) is different from the Chinese version, which I was able to buy in Hong Kong some years ago. The interesting thing about Shogi is that when you capture a piece you can face it the other way and put it anywhere on the board you want, or even save it for an emergency!

 

Interesting that those whose expertise is not in the original manuscripts would have such confidence that those whose life work are in such things would have to be all wrong!

 

That's too cool, basically doubling the adverse effect of losing a piece.

Chinese chess has some peculiarities from Int'l chess, such as: the kings are able to pin pieces because the two kings can never directly face each other; the 炮, cannon, can only capture a piece by jumping an intermediate piece; no powerful piece like the queen; the two 仕, officials to protect the king, as well as the king itself, are confined to a small square of 3 spaces x 3 spaces on each respective side; the two 象, elephants, are like our bishops but can only move a few spaces at a time and cannot cross the center into enemy territory; the 兵, soldiers or pawns, capture the piece directly in front of them until they pass the center board, after which they can also capture a piece horizontally (but never diagonally as in int'l chess); there is no upgrading of pawns to higher pieces; luckily, the horses and rooks act as in int'l chess, except that the horse can be blocked (and therefore its ability to check) by any piece directly in front of it.

After these structural differences are taken into account, the game is pretty fun and attack sequences are similar, but IMO take longer to develop than in int'l chess.

Is Shogi anywhere similar to what I've just described?

 

Also in Chinese chess you cannot use captured pieces to your advantage. Bummer!

 

People of the KJVO or KJVP persuasion by and large are completely unaware of the Byzantine priority issue as has been pointed out several times.

 

I showed you clearly an error in your OP concerning Byzantine Priority. You have refused to acknowledge said error. Period. End of story. Not a shred of evidence of slander by me. Get off your high horse.