Not too far apart.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What Stand Does BJU Take?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
I jjust seen too many times when Christians beat each other up on Greek text/bible versions, while the truth is that we all pretty much are still reading the word of God to us...
Prove it.
Hmm...Robinson, scholar that he is, is notably opposed to the Alexandrian.
Actually he is not. He has great respect for the Alexandrian textform. He just believes the Byzantine is better.
As do I. After all the Alexandrian agrees with the Byzantine most of the time. You just have to respect that.
He's right. James is a good debater, but some of his writings leave something to be desired.
Perhaps this is a reason why he is not known as a great apologist today. I am not saying the man is perfect as no one is but Christ and his Holy Word.
Name his books that you have read in their entirety.
Why should I?
My latest read from James (who I have interacted on another forum with for over 15 years) is What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an.
Prior to that I read The Forgotten Trinity.
But what I was objecting to was some of his statements in The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? He is anti-KJVO, and rightly so, but he also misstates some of what they believe and tends to lump KJV Prefered with KJVO. He also misstates some of the evidence from the available Greek manuscripts.
Drawn By the Father was good.
I especially liked his The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free.
The God Who Justifies was also very good.
And James would be the first to agree with me that his books are not perfect.
Pay attention. I already have done so in posts #50, 55, 66, 87, etc.
Missed those.
Just an FYI
On the first page of chapter 5, "The King James Only Camp', White writes, "...the Byzantine textual tradition cannot honestly be included in the KJV Only camp." It seems, at least in the 2nd edition, he makes clear the MT does not equal KJV, but KJVO can use a MT argument.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Thanks for informing me. That's good to know. I'm sure he was educated by various scholars on that. I know he had a discussion with Dr. Maurice Robinson about Byz. Priority.
But the taxonomy in the first chapter has not been changed. He still talks about a "wide range of beliefs within the broad category of King James Only" (p. 23), then lists the textual argument in Group #2, including Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont. That is simply wrong. This Group #2 is not and has never been KJVO, and really should not have even been discussed in the book. Hodges and Farstad were at Dallas, an NASB stronghold, and Dr. Robinson has never been anywhere near a KJVO position.
For my own part, my position has been Majority or Byz. Priority since the mid 1980s, but I've never been KJVO in any way, shape or form. I preach from the KJV and still read it, but I've read the NASB off and on since the early '70's, and have read through various versions since then. In Japan we used the Shinkaiyaku, the Japanese version of the NASB, there being no version from my preferred texts. Yet there I am, listed as one in a group within the KJVO movement in White's book. He needs a 3rd edition to correct this and all of the other errors.
The footnote occupies about 80% of the page.
You need to know what you are talking about.
He starts off with:
"King James Onlyism is to be distinguished from the scholarly defense of either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Priority Theory. While I do not embrace either theory, I have less problem with some of their arguments than I do with many modern textual theories to engage in mind-reading of the ancient scribes to practice them. Dr. Maurice Robinson, one of the chief proponents of scholarly Byzantine Priority theory, has produced a number of sources in which we can find information on this perspective."
You couldn't be more wrong about your silly "advocastes" charge.
"One group that would strongly reject the term KJV Only but believe that the Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to those used by modern translations would be the Majority Text advocates."(P.24)
Within the footnote below on the same page:
"This position at least attempts to present a meaningful defense of its beliefs, and as with the preceding group (those who simply prefer the KJV), does not require a militant, adamant insistance upon everyone else agreeing and toeing the line. Both Hodges and Farstad have been quite helpful in providing information in support of their own position and have been Christian gentlemen in their demeanor and scholarship in their contacts with me, even though I am not in complete agreement with their particular position on textual matters."
Your ill-informed stance I find insulting.
But have indeed judged, quite poorly throughout this thread.
White offers no quotes of Alford in the book. You'd agree with the Warfield quote, and White demonstrates the inadequacy of Wuest in dealing with the Granville Sharp rule.
What is the difference between "some really good stuff from back in the day" and "some really out of date stuff"?
Do citations from A.T. Robertson, Machen, F.H.A. Scrivener and Burgon meet with your approval?
If so, you are being inconsistent.
Because you had said that "some of his writings leave something to be desired. I wanted specifics on what exactly you had actually read. You know, because JJ wasn't in the loop when making charges against White. He was going on 2nd-hand and 3rd-hand sources. But you are your own person and I appreciate the fact that you have indeed read a number of his books and have even interacted with him over the course of years.
In White's words :"These individuals are only marginally KJV Only, as they would not be militant in their perspective and probably would not insist that everyone agree with them. We have no need to address this particular group, and we have no reason to seek to discourage them from using the KJV as their translation of choice." (p.24)
Such as?
Some day I will get around to that one, but it may be out of print.
It's wonderful --and very clear.
It ranks right up there with the best of modern conservative theology.
Carl P. Cosaert has a chapter Clement of Alexandria's Gospel Citations in the book The Early Text of the New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger. Let me cite part of a footnote on page 404.
"...the presence of some Byzantine readings in early papyri does not point to the existence of an early Byzantine text-type, as Harry Sturz mistakenly concludes...The Byzantine text-type only appears several hundred years later, around the time of Chrysostom [349-407 --Rip], when Byzantine readings are no longer occasional but begin to appear as the dominant readings in MSS."
"...the presence of some Byzantine readings in early papyri does not point to the existence of an early Byzantine text-type, as Harry Sturz mistakenly concludes...The Byzantine text-type only appears several hundred years later, around the time of Chrysostom [349-407 --Rip], when Byzantine readings are no longer occasional but begin to appear as the dominant readings in MSS."
The following is taken from a footnote on page 92 of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts.
"...no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries --certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents."
"...no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries --certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents."
Correct, so is there not room for both position to be held, and not ridiculed by each other?
- Status