What Stand Does BJU Take?

[Yeshua1]

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.

Do you agree with his general tone, that the modern version were not satanic inspired, and do not intentionally water down Jesus and the Gospel message?

 

[McCree79]

Dr White does not say that there is a Kjvp stance then, just Kjvo?

Dr. White doesn't deny that KJVP exists, he just doesn't address it since he has no issue with it. Everybody(english readers) prefers some English version.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

Do you agree with his general tone, that the modern version were not satanic inspired, and do not intentionally water down Jesus and the Gospel message?

Yes.

In particular, it is impossible for any Biblical text to be Satanically inspired, since it is God-breathed in the originals. To become Satanically inspired, it must be purposefully mistranslated, such as in the JW Bible's rendering of John 1:1.

 

[McCree79]

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.

He is not saying that those who are Majority text advocates are all KJVO. He is saying that some KJVO are majority text advocates. He states that the TR text is different then MT and different types support one or the other. He also states that "a number of different possible postions fall within this one category."

He is defining the KJVO arguments by postion of defense. He is not defining all of those who advocate for the MT or even the TR. To expect Dr. White to proper define all postions of those who hold to MT or TR property is unfair. That is not the intent of the book.

He says Farstad and Hodges view is "one group that would strongly reject the term KJVO but believe that the texts used by KJV translators are superior to those used my modern translations would be majority text advocates". What is wrong with that? Were they not majority text advocates?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

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.

Nevermind previous post then....i have the 2009

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[John of Japan]

He is not saying that those who are Majority text advocates are all KJVO. He is saying that some KJVO are majority text advocates. He states that the TR text is different then MT and different types support one or the other. He also states that "a number of different possible postions fall within this one category."

He is defining the KJVO arguments by postion of defense. He is not defining all of those who advocate for the MT or even the TR. To expect Dr. White to proper define all postions of those who hold to MT or TR property is unfair. That is not the intent of the book.

He says Farstad and Hodges view is "one group that would strongly reject the term KJVO but believe that the texts used by KJV translators are superior to those used my modern translations would be majority text advocates". What is wrong with that? Were they not majority text advocates?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

My first edition of the book starts out with an intro about a radical KJVO person in a bookstore demanding a "real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James Bible, the A.V. 1611" (p. iii). Then he goes on to strongly accuse the KJVO movement of destroying churches. This (true or not) sets the tone for the first chapter.

After this beginning he gives his taxonomy, from which I quoted in this thread, in Ch. 1, "King James Only." Before listing his taxonomy he writes, "The King James Only movement...defies precise definition. One will find a range of beliefs within the broad category of 'KJV Only.' We run the risk of offending individuals within the movement when we make broad generalizations [Ya think??--JoJ], but such cannot be avoided completely. Hopefully, by defining the various positions found within the movement, we can help to focus attention upon the important issues that are at stake" (p. 1).

He then goes on to list his taxonomy, including "Group #2," which I quoted above. In that section, on p. 2 he refers to "Majority Text' advocates, mentioning in the footnote on pp. 5-6 such genuine scholars of textual criticism such as Hodges, Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont. This means he thinks of these genuine scholars, all of who oppose (or opposed) strongly the KJVO position, as KJVO advocastes.

As one who gladly contributed an essay to the 2014 Festschrift in honor of Dr. Maurice Robinson, Digging for the Truth, I find this very insulting.

 

[McCree79]

He then goes on to list his taxonomy, including "Group #2," which I quoted above. In that section, on p. 2 he refers to "Majority Text' advocates, mentioning in the footnote on pp. 5-6 such genuine scholars of textual criticism such as Hodges, Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont. This means he thinks of these genuine scholars, all of who oppose (or opposed) strongly the KJVO position, as KJVO advocastes.
.

Well, looks like he fixed that is the second edition. It is in the body of the book, not the footnote, that he says they reject KJVO, but lays ground work for some moderate KJVO people to use Farstad's and others work and postion to justify the KJVO postion.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Dr. White doesn't deny that KJVP exists, he just doesn't address it since he has no issue with it. Everybody(english readers) prefers some English version.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That is true, as evidenced here on the board!

 

[Yeshua1]

He is not saying that those who are Majority text advocates are all KJVO. He is saying that some KJVO are majority text advocates. He states that the TR text is different then MT and different types support one or the other. He also states that "a number of different possible postions fall within this one category."

He is defining the KJVO arguments by postion of defense. He is not defining all of those who advocate for the MT or even the TR. To expect Dr. White to proper define all postions of those who hold to MT or TR property is unfair. That is not the intent of the book.

He says Farstad and Hodges view is "one group that would strongly reject the term KJVO but believe that the texts used by KJV translators are superior to those used my modern translations would be majority text advocates". What is wrong with that? Were they not majority text advocates?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

The 2 main Majority texts though would NOT be the sources used by KJV, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

My first edition of the book starts out with an intro about a radical KJVO person in a bookstore demanding a "real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James Bible, the A.V. 1611" (p. iii). Then he goes on to strongly accuse the KJVO movement of destroying churches. This (true or not) sets the tone for the first chapter.

After this beginning he gives his taxonomy, from which I quoted in this thread, in Ch. 1, "King James Only." Before listing his taxonomy he writes, "The King James Only movement...defies precise definition. One will find a range of beliefs within the broad category of 'KJV Only.' We run the risk of offending individuals within the movement when we make broad generalizations [Ya think??--JoJ], but such cannot be avoided completely. Hopefully, by defining the various positions found within the movement, we can help to focus attention upon the important issues that are at stake" (p. 1).

He then goes on to list his taxonomy, including "Group #2," which I quoted above. In that section, on p. 2 he refers to "Majority Text' advocates, mentioning in the footnote on pp. 5-6 such genuine scholars of textual criticism such as Hodges, Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont. This means he thinks of these genuine scholars, all of who oppose (or opposed) strongly the KJVO position, as KJVO advocastes.

As one who gladly contributed an essay to the 2014 Festschrift in honor of Dr. Maurice Robinson, Digging for the Truth, I find this very insulting.

They would instead support those translations based upon those 2 texts then? Such as the Web bible?

 

[John of Japan]

Well, looks like he fixed that is the second edition. It is in the body of the book, not the footnote, that he says they reject KJVO, but lays ground work for some moderate KJVO people to use Farstad's and others work and postion to justify the KJVO postion.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I'm glad to hear that. One of these days I'll get the second edition, though I've been told by a textual critic that it has many inaccuracies in that area.

 

[Yeshua1]

He is not saying that those who are Majority text advocates are all KJVO. He is saying that some KJVO are majority text advocates. He states that the TR text is different then MT and different types support one or the other. He also states that "a number of different possible postions fall within this one category."

He is defining the KJVO arguments by postion of defense. He is not defining all of those who advocate for the MT or even the TR. To expect Dr. White to proper define all postions of those who hold to MT or TR property is unfair. That is not the intent of the book.

He says Farstad and Hodges view is "one group that would strongly reject the term KJVO but believe that the texts used by KJV translators are superior to those used my modern translations would be majority text advocates". What is wrong with that? Were they not majority text advocates?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

He would regard Critical text as best, and Majority text as also good, but not so much TR, correct?

 

[McCree79]

He would regard Critical text as best, and Majority text as also good, but not so much TR, correct?

He is a CT guy. He obviously has respect for MT arguments*, but finds the CT argument more convincing. I have never seen Dr. White treat the arguement of TR priority with any respect in regards to viability. My guess he would flat out reject a TR priority as foolishness. He obviously rejects the "TR only" claim.


*I should clarify he has respect for SOME MT arguments

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm glad to hear that. One of these days I'll get the second edition, though I've been told by a textual critic that it has many inaccuracies in that area.

I used the text of the greek NT by Kurt Aland in school, what is MT version for that?

 

[John of Japan]

I just took a look at Ch. 1 of the revision of White's book on Amazon, and he has left the offending section pretty much as is. In a footnote on p. 73 and again in the bibliography, he does list a number of the scholarly sources by Dr. Robinson on the Byzantine Priority position. However, he then jumps to another subject, giving no indication in that section that he has read and understood Dr. Robinson's body of work.

 

[John of Japan]

I used the text of the greek NT by Kurt Aland in school,

That would be the UBS Greek NT, now in its 4th edition. My 3rd ed. lists Matthew Black, Carlo Martini (a Catholic), Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren as editiors.

what is MT version for that?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[McCree79]

I used the text of the greek NT by Kurt Aland in school, what is MT version for that?

The best in probably Robinson- Pierpoint
If you mean a Top quality MT.
Farstad's would be nice to have. I do not like Pickerings claim behind his ....so i would avoid that one.

I also assume your mean the NA 26, 27 or 28 as Aland's?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I just took a look at Ch. 1 of the revision of White's book on Amazon, and he has left the offending section pretty much as is. In a footnote on p. 73 and again in the bibliography, he does list a number of the scholarly sources by Dr. Robinson on the Byzantine Priority position. However, he then jumps to another subject, giving no indication in that section that he has read and understood Dr. Robinson's body of work.

Maybe he understands better the critical text po

He is a CT guy. He obviously has respect for MT arguments*, but finds the CT argument more convincing. I have never seen Dr. White treat the arguement of TR priority with any respect in regards to viability. My guess he would flat out reject a TR priority as foolishness. He obviously rejects the "TR only" claim.


*I should clarify he has respect for SOME MT arguments

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

sition

Where do you stand on this question/discussion?

 

[Yeshua1]

That would be the UBS Greek NT, now in its 4th edition. My 3rd ed. lists Matthew Black, Carlo Martini (a Catholic), Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren as editiors.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I was speaking towards the text book by Kurt Aland that described the process of the Greek nt being pieced together, as regards to the critical text, anything like that fir the MT?

 

[McCree79]

I just took a look at Ch. 1 of the revision of White's book on Amazon, and he has left the offending section pretty much as is. In a footnote on p. 73 and again in the bibliography, he does list a number of the scholarly sources by Dr. Robinson on the Byzantine Priority position. However, he then jumps to another subject, giving no indication in that section that he has read and understood Dr. Robinson's body of work.

Page 73? I believe i got my info from page 23 or 24. 73 Shouldn't be chapter one anymore....but maybe it is. I will check my paper copy at home.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk