A Question

[John of Japan]

Don't KJVO Christians take the textual position that ONLY the TR was to be seen as the true greek text?

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.

And that conservative Christians who do NOT see it in same light would normally be either a MTP, or else a CTP ?

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).

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Van]

Right!

I'm going to go back and interact a little more with the OP, and try to clear up some confusion.

1. The people who refuse to accept anything other than a TR based NT such as the KJV (or occasionally NKJV) are TR only, which is often simply another kind of KJV-Only. They sometimes refer to the Byzantine/Majority text-type to bolster their position, but rarely understand textual criticism. So they're not going to accept the WEB because they are usually another brand of KJVO.
2. Byzantine Priority is a method of textual criticism. It is not what TR-Only people refer to. Most of them don't know what the Byz. Priority method of textual critcism is. Byz. Pri. people willingly use the WEB, and are certainly not KJVO. The Greek NT produced by the Byz. Pri. method is usually referred to as the Byzantine Textform NT, ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
3. The Majority Text usually refers to the Greek NT edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, though there are other majority texts out there, such as that edited by Wilbur Pickering (not in book form). Their method of textual criticism was quite different than the Byz. Pri. method, but the great unity of the Byz./Maj. text-type means that this NT is quite similar in readings to the Byzantine Textform. People advocating the Hodges/Farstad Greek NT would usually have no trouble using the WEB.

I note with interest, here JOJ completely agrees with the OP. Yet, he never seemed to understand it, being blinded by his zeal the defend what he mistakenly thought was an attack on the Byzantine Textform. Go figure. Dare I observe, yet again he did not know what he was talking about.

They sometimes refer to the Byzantine/Majority text-type to bolster their position....

but it is a smokescreen.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

And JKD wouldn't exist without Wing Chun, so there! :tongue3:

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

 

[John of Japan]

I note with interest, here JOJ completely agrees with the OP. Yet, he never seemed to understand it, being blinded by his zeal the defend what he mistakenly thought was an attack on the Byzantine Textform. Go figure. Dare I observe, yet again he did not know what he was talking about.

but it is a smokescreen.

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:

 

[John of Japan]

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

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

 

[Van]

As usual JOJ makes one charge after another, with no facts. Did I at any time in this thread or any other thread ever make a claim that I had expertize in textual criticism? No quote with be forthcoming. So a false charge.

I did use Byzantine Priority to refer to giving priority to the Byzantine text over and against the Alexandrian text. Obviously I was referring to the underlying text used to produce an English translation, but JOJ saw an opportunity to muddy the water and proclaim his superior knowledge.

 

[Yeshua1]

As usual JOJ makes one charge after another, with no facts. Did I at any time in this thread or any other thread ever make a claim that I had expertize in textual criticism? No quote with be forthcoming. So a false charge.

I did use Byzantine Priority to refer to giving priority to the Byzantine text over and against the Alexandrian text. Obviously I was referring to the underlying text used to produce an English translation, but JOJ saw an opportunity to muddy the water and proclaim his superior knowledge.

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...

 

[Rippon]

I did use Byzantine Priority to refer to giving priority to the Byzantine text over and against the Alexandrian text. Obviously I was referring to the underlying text used to produce an English translation...

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.

 

[John of Japan]

As usual JOJ makes one charge after another, with no facts. Did I at any time in this thread or any other thread ever make a claim that I had expertize in textual criticism? No quote with be forthcoming. So a false charge.

I did use Byzantine Priority to refer to giving priority to the Byzantine text over and against the Alexandrian text. Obviously I was referring to the underlying text used to produce an English translation, but JOJ saw an opportunity to muddy the water and proclaim his superior knowledge.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!"

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[jonathan.borland]

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!

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?

 

[jonathan.borland]

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

 

[Van]

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

Did I claim expertize in textual criticism? Nope. Did you slander me by claiming I would not admit to a lack of knowledge? Yep
Did you admit your mistake? Nope.

You see, I can provide the quotes, the facts, and evidence. You blew it and you seem to lack the character to admit it.

The issue is not that KJVO or P actually have expertize in textual criticism, the issue is, as you agreed, they attempt to bolster there support for the KJV by claiming the underlying Byzantine "textform" is superior.

Therefore I made no mistake and you agreed with me. The non-use of the WEB blows the whole "underlying text (Byzantine Textform) is superior" right out of the water.

 

[Rippon]

The issue is not that KJVO or P actually have expertize in textual criticism, the issue is, as you agreed, they attempt to bolster there[sic] support for the KJV by claiming the underlying Byzantine "textform" is superior.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Did I claim expertize in textual criticism? Nope. Did you slander me by claiming I would not admit to a lack of knowledge? Yep
Did you admit your mistake? Nope.

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.