Featured What Stand Does BJU Take?

I jjust seen too many times when Christians beat each other up on Greek text/bible versions, while the truth is that we all pretty much are still reading the word of God to us...

 

Prove it.

 

Hmm...Robinson, scholar that he is, is notably opposed to the Alexandrian.

 

Perhaps this is a reason why he is not known as a great apologist today. I am not saying the man is perfect as no one is but Christ and his Holy Word.

 

Name his books that you have read in their entirety.

 

Missed those.

 

Just an FYI

On the first page of chapter 5, "The King James Only Camp', White writes, "...the Byzantine textual tradition cannot honestly be included in the KJV Only camp." It seems, at least in the 2nd edition, he makes clear the MT does not equal KJV, but KJVO can use a MT argument.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The footnote occupies about 80% of the page.

You need to know what you are talking about.

He starts off with:
"King James Onlyism is to be distinguished from the scholarly defense of either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Priority Theory. While I do not embrace either theory, I have less problem with some of their arguments than I do with many modern textual theories to engage in mind-reading of the ancient scribes to practice them. Dr. Maurice Robinson, one of the chief proponents of scholarly Byzantine Priority theory, has produced a number of sources in which we can find information on this perspective."

 

You couldn't be more wrong about your silly "advocastes" charge.
"One group that would strongly reject the term KJV Only but believe that the Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to those used by modern translations would be the Majority Text advocates."(P.24)

Within the footnote below on the same page:
"This position at least attempts to present a meaningful defense of its beliefs, and as with the preceding group (those who simply prefer the KJV), does not require a militant, adamant insistance upon everyone else agreeing and toeing the line. Both Hodges and Farstad have been quite helpful in providing information in support of their own position and have been Christian gentlemen in their demeanor and scholarship in their contacts with me, even though I am not in complete agreement with their particular position on textual matters."

Your ill-informed stance I find insulting.

 

But have indeed judged, quite poorly throughout this thread.

White offers no quotes of Alford in the book. You'd agree with the Warfield quote, and White demonstrates the inadequacy of Wuest in dealing with the Granville Sharp rule.

What is the difference between "some really good stuff from back in the day" and "some really out of date stuff"?

Do citations from A.T. Robertson, Machen, F.H.A. Scrivener and Burgon meet with your approval?
If so, you are being inconsistent.

 

Because you had said that "some of his writings leave something to be desired. I wanted specifics on what exactly you had actually read. You know, because JJ wasn't in the loop when making charges against White. He was going on 2nd-hand and 3rd-hand sources. But you are your own person and I appreciate the fact that you have indeed read a number of his books and have even interacted with him over the course of years.

In White's words :"These individuals are only marginally KJV Only, as they would not be militant in their perspective and probably would not insist that everyone agree with them. We have no need to address this particular group, and we have no reason to seek to discourage them from using the KJV as their translation of choice." (p.24)

Such as?

Some day I will get around to that one, but it may be out of print.

It's wonderful --and very clear.

It ranks right up there with the best of modern conservative theology.

 

Carl P. Cosaert has a chapter Clement of Alexandria's Gospel Citations in the book The Early Text of the New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger. Let me cite part of a footnote on page 404.

"...the presence of some Byzantine readings in early papyri does not point to the existence of an early Byzantine text-type, as Harry Sturz mistakenly concludes...The Byzantine text-type only appears several hundred years later, around the time of Chrysostom [349-407 --Rip], when Byzantine readings are no longer occasional but begin to appear as the dominant readings in MSS."

 

The following is taken from a footnote on page 92 of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts.
"...no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries --certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents."

 

Correct, so is there not room for both position to be held, and not ridiculed by each other?