Fundamental View of the Bible

[Van]

Hi JOJ, I do not disagree usually with your posts, rather you find fault with my many of mine.

Back once more into the topic valley of study:

All these efforts to discuss the merits of this copy, i.e. Byzantine, over and against the NA27/UBS4 really seem to be an effort to use the JKV over and against the NET, HCSB, NASB95 or other modern translation based on the CT. I love the NKJV, but it needs an update to excise the egregious flaws of the TR and archaic words like "begotten" especially when the translation is based on a mistake.

But the process of replacing mistaken views of the past, no matter how "traditional," must go forward, and the starting place is our fundamental view of what we actually believe about the Bible.

First we must be clear as to what we believe, and to understand the logical consequences of those beliefs, and then we can defend them with truth rather than relying upon the scholarship of the pre-digital age.

 

[Van]

9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi JOJ, I do not disagree usually with your posts, rather you find fault with my many of mine.

Back once more into the topic valley of study:

All these efforts to discuss the merits of this copy, i.e. Byzantine, over and against the NA27/UBS4 really seem to be an effort to use the JKV over and against the NET, HCSB, NASB95 or other modern translation based on the CT. I love the NKJV, but it needs an update to excise the egregious flaws of the TR and archaic words like "begotten" especially when the translation is based on a mistake.

But the process of replacing mistaken views of the past, no matter how "traditional," must go forward, and the starting place is our fundamental view of what we actually believe about the Bible.

First we must be clear as to what we believe, and to understand the logical consequences of those beliefs, and then we can defend them with truth rather than relying upon the scholarship of the pre-digital age.

To modern man, aren't theological term such as justification, substitionary, propiation etc also seen as being archaic?

Should we take those all out of modern versions than?

And since those who use versions like both KJV/NKJV still use them with profit, why the need to do such as you want to?

 

[John of Japan]

Hi JOJ, I do not disagree usually with your posts, rather you find fault with my many of mine.

I'm trying to keep you honest. But your problem is you hate to admit you are wrong, as witness your denial of plagerism. (Whether your plagerism was a simple mistake or not I don't know, but it was plagerism.) You make factual error after factual error, then deny each one of them even after conclusive proof is given. Then you shoot the messenger.

Back once more into the topic valley of study:

All these efforts to discuss the merits of this copy, i.e. Byzantine, over and against the NA27/UBS4 really seem to be an effort to use the JKV over and against the NET, HCSB, NASB95 or other modern translation based on the CT. I love the NKJV, but it needs an update to excise the egregious flaws of the TR and archaic words like "begotten" especially when the translation is based on a mistake.

You say the TR has egregious errors. Does the New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform have egregious errors? If so, what are they? Please offer proof of your position that the CT is best.

But the process of replacing mistaken views of the past, no matter how "traditional," must go forward, and the starting place is our fundamental view of what we actually believe about the Bible.

First we must be clear as to what we believe, and to understand the logical consequences of those beliefs, and then we can defend them with truth rather than relying upon the scholarship of the pre-digital age.

This is pseudo-intellectualism. The "pre-digital age" means what? 1980s? FYI, the Byzantine priority position (as against the errors of CT scholarship) is very much a product of the digital age. Dr. Maurice Robinson, its primary advocate, is responsible for a number of the digital Greek texts we enjoy in our Bible software. It is would be CT advocates such as yourself who are in the pre-digital era.

 

[Van]

I'm trying to keep you honest. But your problem is you hate to admit you are wrong, as witness your denial of plagerism. (Whether your plagerism was a simple mistake or not I don't know, but it was plagerism.) You make factual error after factual error, then deny each one of them even after conclusive proof is given. Then you shoot the messenger.

More slander, no evidence. A know-it-all pretending he is on the side of truth.

You say the TR has egregious errors. Does the New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform have egregious errors? If so, what are they? Please offer proof of your position that the CT is best.

I specifically referenced the TR. Surely you know the difference. Why change the subject?

This is pseudo-intellectualism. The "pre-digital age" means what? 1980s? FYI, the Byzantine priority position (as against the errors of CT scholarship) is very much a product of the digital age. Dr. Maurice Robinson, its primary advocate, is responsible for a number of the digital Greek texts we enjoy in our Bible software. It is would be CT advocates such as yourself who are in the pre-digital era.

Once more a change of subject, the TR is from 1550, not 1980's.

And finally yet another attack on my character and qualifications (pseudo-intellectualism) when I make no claim of expertize at all. Folks, this is the pot calling the stainless steel coffeemaker black.

Plagerism is where a person takes credit for the writings of others. See the OP. I clearly indicated what was taken off the internet and my commentary on it. JOJ charge arises from an effort to derail and debunk the thread, a in a turf war.
Like Don before him, he sets himself up as the judge and jury and lord of the manor, finding fault in others to build himself up. Pitiful.

 

[John of Japan]

More slander, no evidence. A know-it-all pretending he is on the side of truth.

I specifically referenced the TR. Surely you know the difference. Why change the subject?

I'm going to ignore your insults and personal attacks this time and try to hold you to your statements that the CT is the best Greek text. Please prove this. Why do you say the criticial text, UBS and Nestle-Aland, are the best? How are they better than the Byzantine?

 

[Van]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by know-it-alls.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions like prove the CT is better than the Byzantine Text. Not even germane.

 

[Don]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by know-it-alls.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions like prove the CT is better than the Byzantine Text. Not even germane.

So quit arguing against the TR, and just argue your primary points. Ignore the "diversionary questions" (which you only perpetuate by responding to them).

Unless you're advocating that everyone must use a version of scripture based on the CT in order for the discussion to continue.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by know-it-alls.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions like prove the CT is better than the Byzantine Text. Not even germane.

Fine. I'll bite. Just prove the CT is better than the TR and I'll be content.

 

[Yeshua1]

So quit arguing against the TR, and just argue your primary points. Ignore the "diversionary questions" (which you only perpetuate by responding to them).

Unless you're advocating that everyone must use a version of scripture based on the CT in order for the discussion to continue.

Why not have it as one can be a CT/MT/Byz greek text preferred, and while holding that say nasb better english version, the NKJV if fine for use also?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm going to ignore your insults and personal attacks this time and try to hold you to your statements that the CT is the best Greek text. Please prove this. Why do you say the criticial text, UBS and Nestle-Aland, are the best? How are they better than the Byzantine?

Again, how can van or me or just about anyone else discussing this topic prove if ANY greek text is superior?

Does Van or anyone else here have the qualification to weight he difference in varients/manuscripts/textual issues involved in this discussion?

 

[Don]

Why not have it as one can be a CT/MT/Byz greek text preferred, and while holding that say nasb better english version, the NKJV if fine for use also?

....

Does Van or anyone else here have the qualification to weight he difference in varients/manuscripts/textual issues involved in this discussion?

You'll have to ask Van those questions.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, how can van or me or just about anyone else discussing this topic prove if ANY greek text is superior?

Does Van or anyone else here have the qualification to weight he difference in varients/manuscripts/textual issues involved in this discussion?

Van shouldn't make his statements that the CS is better than the TR if he can't prove it. This is a debate forum, after all. So I'm willing to debate him on why he thinks the CT is better. And this fits his desire to debate vs. traditionalism (as far as I can tell anyway).

 

[Yeshua1]

Van shouldn't make his statements that the CS is better than the TR if he can't prove it. This is a debate forum, after all. So I'm willing to debate him on why he thinks the CT is better. And this fits his desire to debate vs. traditionalism (as far as I can tell anyway).

But his answers would be at best "my greek experts vrs your greek experts?"

so not really able to answer that !

 

[Van]

Reply to Yeshua1,

Why not have it as one can be a CT/MT/Byz greek text preferred, and while holding that say nasb better english version, the NKJV if fine for use also?

My position exactly! Our doctrinal statement should identify which witness, CT, or Majority Text is preferred. No one should claim to be advocating scripture alone, and then advocate for the 1550 TR which underlies the KJV.

 

[Van]

LOL, there JOJ goes again. Now I must prove to his satisfaction my views on this forum. Has he said he prefers the Byzantine Text to the TR? Yes. Did he prove that statement? Nope. So he sets rules for others like a lord of the manor, and does not meet those standards himself.

All he is actually doing is trying to stop the discussion of the topic with diversionary questions, and charges. Now if he wants to open a new thread, Why I believe the Byzantine Text is superior to the 1550 TR, he is welcome. I would undoubtedly learn a great deal.

 

[Van]

Bump

Returning once again to topic

9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

 

[John of Japan]

But his answers would be at best "my greek experts vrs your greek experts?"

so not really able to answer that !

But Van has referred to the TR and/or textual criticism in posts #48, 56, 84, 91, 95, 99, 105, 109, 113, 117, 123, 126, 129, 132, 137, 141, 145, 147, 155, 156. Yet every time I try to debate him on the TR he says it's not germane or some such thing.

Furthermore, in #68 Van wrote,

Teachers who refuse to discuss their beliefs are not teachers of fundamental Baptist doctrine.

He should follow his own words.

Tell you what. Van might know a little Greek, but I'm a Greek teacher and a Bible translator. So to be fair, Van can consult any Greek expert he wants on CT vs. TR (since he refuses to acknowledge any connection between this thread and my Byzantine priority position). For my part, I will quote no experts, but will simply debate him with my own knowledge.

How about it, Van? You and me, mano a mano, no insults or name calling, just pure debate: "Which is Better, the CT or the TR?" I'll start the thread in the Bible Versions forum if you agree. You get to use whatever authorities or scholars you want, I'll just be me. Are you up to it after 20 posts on this thread on textual criticism?

 

[Don]

Originally Posted by Yeshua1
Why not have it as one can be a CT/MT/Byz greek text preferred, and while holding that say nasb better english version, the NKJV if fine for use also?

My position exactly! Our doctrinal statement should identify which witness, CT, or Majority Text is preferred. No one should claim to be advocating scripture alone, and then advocate for the 1550 TR which underlies the KJV.

I've read this four times, and I'm just not getting it. Yeshua says that the doctrinal statement should say: "Identify preferred text; but NKJV is fine for use also"; and then you say, "Identify preferred text, but don't say 'scripture alone' if you advocate for the 1550 TR."

Does your statement also apply if we say "Identify preferred text, but don't say 'scripture alone' if you advocate for the CT"? In which case, would the better way of saying it be, "Identify preferred text, but don't say 'scripture alone' if you advocate for any particular set of manuscripts over all others"?

 

[Van]

All he is actually doing is trying to stop the discussion of the topic with diversionary questions, and charges. Now if he wants to open a new thread, Why JOJ believes the Byzantine Text is superior to the 1550 TR, he is welcome. I would undoubtedly learn a great deal.