SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Textform

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Textform

This is the first part of an interview with Maurice Robinson.

http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/08/09/kjvodb-interviews-dr-maurice-robinson-pt-1/

If you really want to know what the KJV Only debate is really all about and are willing to give this a little careful consideration you will greatly profit from it.

Robinson distinguishes between the Byzantine Textform and the Received Text and shows my he believes the Byzantine Textform is more reliable than other Greek Texts of the New Testament.

Robinson is a well regarded academic and this reasoned approach has much to commend it.

Robinson has just published the Greek New Testament Reader for Beginners.

http://www.amazon.com/Greek-New-Testament-Beginning-Readers/dp/3941750240/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281434526&sr=1-1

If you want a closer look here is the dust jacket and details of the layout.
http://www.bingo-ev.de/~ps2866/GNT_REd_Presentation_D.pdf


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/10 5:57Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re: Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Textform

An interesting read. It's not too often I come across folks who prefer the majority text v. alexandrian, and not using an eclectic method of doing textual criticism... who also isn't at the same time KJV.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/8/10 10:23Profile
sojourner7
Member



Joined: 2007/6/27
Posts: 1573
Omaha, NE

 Re: Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Textform

GOD'S Word was, is, and always will be
GOD'S Word!! It does not matter what
textform is used; only that it remains
truth!!


_________________
Martin G. Smith

 2010/8/10 12:05Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Interesting stuff. I sympathize with this MT view myself.

I would be interested to see a discussion on canon. If certain Biblical books are considered Christian canon, which I believe all of us agree the 66 books in our Bibles are canon, wouldn't that imply that the actual content of those books must be what is canonized?

For instance, we state that the book of John is canon, but isn't that really meaningless unless we are speaking of specific content and verses within John as being canon?

I guess my question is, is it desirable to canonize the content of the books themselves? For instance, the church recognizing the Byzantine (MT) text of John as canon.

I feel like that was as clear as mud. Do y'all know what I'm trying to ask?


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2010/8/10 14:09Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

by KingJimmy on 2010/8/10 12:23:54 writes:
An interesting read. It's not too often I come across folks who prefer the majority text v. alexandrian, and not using an eclectic method of doing textual criticism... who also isn't at the same time KJV.

Well. I note that Robinson uses a NKJV in his lecturing career but feels free to correct 'on the fly' if any difference is significant to his point. My version of choice is still the KJV which I read in my Newberry Bible. For preaching I use the NKJV. The NKJV is unique in the way that it will not only follow the MT but will put NA variants into the footnotes. It will even show you where the NKJV deviates from the MT. This is an unusually generous attitude for a translation.

In one sense I am still "KJV" but I have never been "KJV Only" which I think is an unjustifiable position to hold. Sometimes I wink and say one of the great advantages of the NKJV is that is provides such a good introduction to the KJV. ;-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/10 14:23Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

TaylorOtwell on 2010/8/10 16:09:54 writes:
"For instance, we state that the book of John is canon, but isn't that really meaningless unless we are speaking of specific content and verses within John as being canon?"

Taylor, I think you may be comparing apples with pears. ;-) The development of the canon and the development of an edited text are really quite different stories. We can have each discussion separately but if we insist on putting them together life will become very complicated.

If we take an arbitrary date of Nicea in C325 for acknowledgment, not creation of, the canon that is where the trail ends for the canon. (broadly speaking) But the 3rd and 4th centuries are pretty much where the trail began for the Westcott and Hort hypothesis.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/10 14:30Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

by sojourner7 on 2010/8/10 14:05:46
writes:
"GOD'S Word was, is, and always will be GOD'S Word!! It does not matter what
textform is used; only that it remains truth!!

the textforms are 94% in agreement but if it is possible, and we believe in the 'verbal inspiration of the original text' ,we have a duty to try to get as close to that original as we can.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/10 14:32Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

In one sense I am still "KJV" but I have never been "KJV Only" which I think is an unjustifiable position to hold. Sometimes I wink and say one of the great advantages of the NKJV is that is provides such a good introduction to the KJV. ;-)



Ooops. I meant to say KJV-O in my initial comment.

The KJV-O position, in my opinion, is out right heresy. Well meaning perhaps. But heresy just the same. I find it odd that those in the KJV-O camp, as dogmatically as they assert their point of view, cannot defend the KJV-O on a Scriptural basis... not even from the KJV Bible... including the original one with the apocrphya :-)

It is a statement of faith, nothing more, and nothing less. It's one thing to assert that the MT is a better text, or even the TR. But it's another to assert what those in the KJV-O camp assert.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/8/10 15:13Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

KingJimmy on 2010/8/10 17:13:58 writes:
"The KJV-O position, in my opinion, is out right heresy. Well meaning perhaps. But heresy just the same."

Jimmy
heresy?!? I think it shows a serious misunderstanding of verbal inspiration and inerrancy, but heresy? It transfers the miracle of inspiration from the apostles and puts it into the hands of a English committee of bishops and scholars chosen by a control freak known as King James but heresy?

I think the problem is that there is an enormous amount of plain superstition within the evangelical movement and by superstition I mean faith that is not based on a revelation from God. I think for many they have taken refuge and hidden behind a concept that has neither revelation nor logic.... but heresy?!?
;-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/10 17:06Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

LOL Ron, you almost make the case for me.

Well, it is heresy in the technical Biblical sense of the word. Those who are KJV-O often are divisive with those who are not. So much so those who are not KJV-O are often considered anathema in their book. And logically speaking, they must be. Any doctrine that creates such a division, especially in an area where no division is necessary, is the NT definition of heresy. When you are going to say "only," that puts you in a rather seperatist and factitious group, meeting the standard of the word, "heresy."


_________________
Jimmy H

 2010/8/10 17:58Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy