KJVOnly and the Textual issue

I think you might be the first person I have ever heard of who actually changed sides on this issue.

 

No, I'm another one Pete. See, God still does great and mighty works

 

NIV= Non Inspired Version

 

Hey there friend, care to expand on that thought? Do you have some sort of evidence of this?

Michael

 

If y'all want to discuss the merits of the NIV, do it on an appropriate thread. This is not the topic here, and we're not going to chase rabbits. BB doesn't have the resources to make every thread a version bashing party.

 

I am another convert from KJVO.

 

There is a KJVO following that believes the 1611 English is the "re-inspired" text through the direct intervention of God upon the KJV translators.

Therefore the KJV 1611 English supercedes the Greek and Hebrew.

The problem being that they all use the KJV 1769 revision with hundreds of differences between it and the 1611 first edition. When pressed for an answer to this problem, I have seen at least one indidual quote Psalms 12:6

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

and apply it to the several revisions of the 1611KJV.

In other words it took God seven attempts to come up with "pure" words. Even if this were true then they should be backing the 1769 Revision (since that is the one they all use), Second, they need to revise their doctrine of re-inspiration to cover the later publishers, editors and printers who corrected the mistakes (impurities) of the perpetrators of these impurities of the 1611 Edition.

As their explanations become more bizzare, their credibility becomes less credible (at least to me).

(edited by HankD for errors of spelling who couldn't get it right the first time).

HankD

[ April 22, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I have converted from "KJVO" to "Byzantine Superiority" over the course of the past few months.

 

Ryan, amen! Welcome to the Byzantine priority position.

 

HHHHHHeeeeeerrrrrreeeeeee wwwwwweeeee gggggoooo aaaggggaaaaiiiiinnnn! With apologies to Thomas Cassidy and Ryan... Brother Glen

[ April 24, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

What do the folks who support the Byzantine text do when the Byzantine texts disagree on a reading? Is there some solution to that which has been developed? I'm very curious.

Michael

 

We do the same thing everybody else does. We evaluate the manuscript evidence and determine the correct reading. We look, primarily, for these indicators.

1. Numerical superiority. What do most of the MSS say?
2. Historical superiority. What have the churches believed/taught down through the ages of history?
3. Contextual superiority. What fits the context best?
4. Cross textual superiority. Does any Alexandrian MSS evidence support a Byzantine reading?
5. Vernacular superiority. What do the oldest versions say?

And, just like very one else, when we fail to reach a conclusion using the above criteria, we guess, but use scholarly language and call it a "conjectural emendation."

 

i wonder whether these "canons" are ranked n how they apply when in conflict w one another.

example: how does 1Jn5:7 match up to 1. Numerical superiority. What do most of the MSS say?

in Practice, does faith in Byzantine priority make way for KJB Superiority?

anyone can make a list of criteria--application is the test of consistency.

 

Yes, if the #1 criteria is majority (numerical suppport), is that actually applied consistently. I believe Zane Hodges holds to that point of the "majority" text. I don't know that the majority text always sides with Byzantine though.

Michael

 

My NT professor, Maurice Robinson, is probably the premier proponent of the Byzantine Priority position. He does not in any way, shape or form, hold to KJVO.

This goes for CT proponents as well.

 

One criteria that Thomas appears to have omitted although he might include in one of the ones he listed there is this: What reading best accounts for the others? Here, the idea is that the variants are a change from the original (obviously) and that the one that is original best explains how the others came to be.

I do believe age of a reading plays a bigger role than Thomas would believe, simply because the closer we get to the original, the more likely we are to be accurate, all other things being equal. Of course, this last phrase is the kicker and a matter of discussion ... how equal are "all other things."

It is true that consistency is the key. And I think this is where the TR only folks stumble a bit. There are places in the TR that differ from the Majority (1800x rings a bell). Under Thomas's criteria, those would seem to need to be changed (as many people such as Burgon, Scrivener, etc. readily admit).

However, IMO, this is where the discussion should be taking place ... the realm of original language manuscripts rather than English translations.

[ April 25, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Thomas,
Are those your steps in order? Do you give higher weight to #1 than #4 and so on? Just want to clarify.

[ April 25, 2002, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

yes, when somehow heads always winds up on top every time a coin is tossed, u have to wonder

what's uncanny is that KJB-Superior analyses somehow always manages to defend the KJB as superior even in the most unlikely of passages--it's hard not to be suspicious.

there's no such serendipity in the CT--sometimes the Majority or Byzantine comes up tops, sometimes a minority reading, occasionally perhaps the TR. every variant is considered n the options weighed without a preconceived conclusion (e.g. a KJB reading) in mind.

This goes for CT proponents as well. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

No.