Poster | Thread |
philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| |
2010/8/10 5:57 | Profile |
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 10:23 | Profile |
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 12:05 | Profile |
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 14:09 | Profile |
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 14:23 | Profile |
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 14:30 | Profile |
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 14:32 | Profile |
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 15:13 | Profile |
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 17:06 | Profile |
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 17:58 | Profile |