Featured What Stand Does BJU Take?

I found it to be much easier to translate theological terms into English because of the long theological tradition we have in our language. There are many terms for which a Japanese equivalent is difficult.

 

There are some, actually.

 

Looking in James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, and can't find any place where he uses the term "KJV Preferred." His taxonomy is on pp. 1-2, and his first one is "Group #1: 'I like the KJV best." He say then,

"This group of individuals would believe that the King James Version is the best single English translation available today. This belief might be based on the rhythmic beauty of the work as a whole, or upon its historical importance, or any number of other factors. This group, however, would not deny the possibility of a better translation being made. They would simply state that such a translation has not yet arrived.

"These individuals are only marginally 'KJV Only,' as they would probably not be militant in their perspective, and would probably not insist that everyone else agree with them. We have no need to address this particular group, and have no reason to discourage them in their use of the KJV as their translation of choice" (p. 1).

I don't think that even this (White's closest approach to the term KJVP) fits BJU, since they have always allowed other versions (NASB, ESV, etc.) and have to my knowledge always used the UBS Greek NT, which is a critical text.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

Didn't know that.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

Doesn't look like this blogger's Calvinism helped him much. (Just had to say that. )

 

He is mistaken in his description of dynamic equivalence (omitting reader response). He lumps together the Byzantine priority method of textual criticism with the Majority text method of Hodges and Farstad. He says that all early translations were from the Alexandrian (ignoring the Peshitta from Byzantine sources and the Old Latin from Western sources).

In his effort to be master of all bibliology, he fails in these and other areas.

 

I have not found that term in his book.

 

Yes, he pretty much lumps them together in his "Group #2." That, too, shows a lack of understanding of textual criticism. He only mentions the Byz. textform of Robinson and Pierpont in a footnote on p. 6, where he says, "Another representative of the Majority Text viewpoint comes from W. G. Pierpont and M. A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform (Original Word: 1991)."

But the methodology of the two Greek texts is quite different. White's book was copyright 1995, so he could have easily learned about the methodology, but didn't. Frankly, I think his treatment of the Byz. priority and Hodges/Farstad majority positions is shabby and lazy, since he equates us as KJVO when we are far from it.

 

Yes, but to be more specific, I prefer the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. textform over the Hodges/Farstad majority text.

 

There are quite a few minor differences, but few major ones. This demonstrates the homogeneity of the Byz/Maj. text type.

 

To be fair to James White, I have been informed that he did actually consult with Dr. Maurice Robinson for the second edition of his book, which came out in 2009. Therefore, the revision has better information on the Maj/Byz, but still has many inaccuracies for which Dr. Robinson carries no blame.