A Question

[John of Japan]

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.

Very cool!

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

Shogi has some other differences from both Chinese and international chess. In Shogi you have two extra pieces, Gold and Silver, which move similarly to the king except that Gold can't move diagonally back and Silver can't move straight back or to the sides. You have two rooks, but one can only move straight. There is no queen and only one bishop. There is a knight but it can only move forward. All of these promote when reaching enemy territory (3 rows), but usually only receive extra spaces to side, front and rear.

It's fun, but in the long run I prefer international chess.

 

[Van]

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.

I am not the one riding a high horse. I made no error, you did.

You did not understand the point of the thread, but later agreed with the OP.

You slandered me when you said I would not admit to a lack of knowledge concerning textual criticism. I never claimed any!

I did refer to the Byzantine textform as the Byzantine Priority, reflecting the idea of giving preference to that textform. I explained what I meant in post #8. You missed my idea completely, being blinded in your zeal to find fault.

Malice, sir, is no virtue.

 

[John of Japan]

And with this I've put Van on my "ignore" list. I'm sure that's better for both of us. :type:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

JoJ, just as the kjv corrects the Hebrew, JKD corrects the Chun. Just kidding....I'm NOT a dual-inspiration type...just thought I'd use stupidity.

You mentioned a Matthew Bible? What is that?

 

[rsr]

Another Majority Text translation is the English Majority Text Version by Paul Esposito, for which he used Hodges & Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont and Pickering's text. It's been reissued in paperback and is available in e-Bible modules.

Pickering's own translation of his text is at http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering1.htm. It includes extensive notes, including a defense of the Pericope Adulterae. It also excludes the Comma Johanneum.

 

[Van]

And with this I've put Van on my "ignore" list. I'm sure that's better for both of us. :type:

Thanks JOJ, I am sure this will cut down on the number of people who slander me with false and self serving charges.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Just saying.....

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, just as the kjv corrects the Hebrew, JKD corrects the Chun. Just kidding....I'm NOT a dual-inspiration type...just thought I'd use stupidity.

If JKD corrects the chun, then the little fish must swim upstream until the duck reviles him. (A meditation subject for JKDers.)

You mentioned a Matthew Bible? What is that?

I actually meant the book of Matthew in the World English Bible, which I was able to download free for my Kindle.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks JOJ, I am sure this will cut down on the number of people who slander me with false and self serving charges.

Have you ever admitted that you made a mistake on the BB? Have you ever humbled yourself and said that you were mistaken? I know I have numerous times. I don't think that you are Mr. Perfect. Others may concur with my view.

 

[Van]

Have you ever admitted that you made a mistake on the BB? Have you ever humbled yourself and said that you were mistaken? I know I have numerous times. I don't think that you are Mr. Perfect. Others may concur with my view.

Yet another off topic attack, again claiming I lack humility or the integrity to admit my many mistakes. This is all they (Calvinists) have folks, ad homenims.

Back to the topic, the use by KJVO and KJVP folks of the claim they stick to the KJV because the underlying text (Byzantine) is superior to the Critical Text.

This argument is a smokescreen because if they really thought the Byzantine Text was superior, they would use the WEB. So their argument is one of convenience, to offset the many arguments demonstrating the TR is deeply flawed.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Well, Van, you're the one who confused slander with libel.... If you owned up to that, then that would be great. I'm messing with you, Van. Smile. Laugh. Don't let other Baptists get you down. Now where you say all Calvinists have is ad hominem attacks really isn't true. That's not a fair statement. I'm not a Calvinist, but I know enough to know that certain of them are able to avoid ad hominem attacks in order to argue their theology.

I can say that I've yet to hear any KJVO person argue from a "Byzantine text type is best" viewpoint. I've always heard "the TR is best because it wasn't corrupted like the Alexandrian text was" line of...uhm.."reasoning" if we can call it that.

I go to a KJVO church. I hadn't heard of a Byzantine text until a few months ago in here and somebody mentioned the WEB...and I downloaded it. Van, I've just never heard it put on the table. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Have a great week.

 

[Van]

Hi Jkdbuck76, you can google KJVO and find it mentioned. I first came across the argument at a SBC in Tucson.

BTW, I use slander as used in the NT, which predates the distinction you point to to undercut the truth.

My statement is true as it refers simply to the arguments put forth on this forum. Many times someone will cut and paste arguments but no answer is forthcoming addressing the rebuttal. Many of the authors of these arguments lived years ago.

So if you are aware of any support for the TULI, by all means, present it. But it will be like the Calvinist claim for John 6:37, saying it says everyone drawn comes to Christ, i.e. the support will be based on word redefintion or addition (all men = all kinds of men).

 

[Rippon]

Now where you say all Calvinists have is ad hominem attacks really isn't true. That's not a fair statement. I'm not a Calvinist, but I know enough to know that certain of them are able to avoid ad hominem attacks in order to argue their theology.

I can say that I've yet to hear any KJVO person argue from a "Byzantine text type is best" viewpoint. I've always heard "the TR is best because it wasn't corrupted like the Alexandrian text was" line of...uhm.."reasoning" if we can call it that.

I go to a KJVO church. I hadn't heard of a Byzantine text until a few months ago in here and somebody mentioned the WEB...and I downloaded it. Van, I've just never heard it put on the table. Anyway, that's all I have to say. Have a great week.

Are you listening Van?

 

[Rippon]

So if you are aware of any support for the TULI, by all means, present it. But it will be like the Calvinist claim for John 6:37, saying it says everyone drawn comes to Christ, i.e. the support will be based on word redefintion or addition (all men = all kinds of men).

You need to know where to place remarks (i.e. errant theology)that don't fit on this forum.

 

[Van]

Now where you say all Calvinists have is ad hominem attacks really isn't true. That's not a fair statement. I'm not a Calvinist, but I know enough to know that certain of them are able to avoid ad hominem attacks in order to argue their theology.

You need to know where to place remarks (i.e. errant theology)that don't fit on this forum.

Hi JKDbuck76, would you agree that it is fair to say yet another ad homenim ("you need to know") devoid of any on topic content.

Returning to topic:

Dr. Robinson is not a TR advocate, and he's certainly not a KJVO guy. What he does is provide a scholarly, reasonable argument that the Byzantine textform is superior (i.e. more faithful to the originals) to the Alexandrian and other textforms....

 

[Rippon]

Lots of folks claim they stick with the KJV or the NKJV because they accept the notion of Byzantine Priority,

You still haven't proven that thesis. You're just throwing that out there. Did you take a personal poll in your area? Is there a survey you have come across?

No Van, your OP is bogus. Let's hear some testimonies from your "lots of folks."

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Hi JKDbuck76, would you agree that it is fair to say yet another ad homenim ("you need to know") devoid of any on topic content.

Returning to topic:

The longer I stay here, the more I like Puritanboard. The infantile fighting here is too much. Every few years, I get my fill of BB and take a several month break. I think it is time for a break again.

 

[Van]

Perhaps it is. BTW I am sure you did not mean that those who stand up for truth are infantile.

1) Was I slandered? Yes

2) Did you seek to deflect that truth using humor? Yes

3) Is Rippon a Calvinist? Yes

4) Put your thinking cap on and consider why an advocate for the Byzantine textform offers a disclaimer about not being a KJVO guy.

Game, set and match.

 

[Yeshua1]

The longer I stay here, the more I like Puritanboard. The infantile fighting here is too much. Every few years, I get my fill of BB and take a several month break. I think it is time for a break again.

Too bad they only accept Reformed over there to discuss theology with though!

 

[Jkdbuck76]

No Van. You did not win.