Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bro. Curtis, Apr 12, 2002.
it appears to me that Cloud himself, like the authors of From the Mind of God, does NOT lump "all KJV people together with the radical right wing of the KJVO/Ruckmite (sic) position."
thru a series of I am/am not a KJO statements, he carefully tries to distance himself from Ruckie-ism.
That's why I posted it. Not all KJVers are Ruckmanites. While I love and use my KJV more than any other version, I do not subscribe to the mentality I see some folks have, concerning re-inspiration, only KJVersare truly saved, or any other nonsense. I actually heard someone tell me, with a straight face, that all othe languages should have their bibles translated from the KJV. This is nonsense.
i'm not at all surprised at how widespread this "nonsense" is. it's interesting that some KJBOs wld cloak their positions behind a "KJB Superior" banner.
in reality, these guys consider non-KJB Bibles perversions, corruptions, or otherwise Demonically inspired works. they wld then go far and wide n come up w weird publications like the (Burmese) "KJB Falam-Chin New Testament."
some commonalities continue to undermine their attempts to distance themselves fr Dr Ruckman. one is their proclivity to equivocate (can't seem to remember the 3-letter word for this) on Westcott and Hort--there's a fair degree of plagiarism fr their SDA forebear Wilkerson, who fabricated some epistolic evidence against Westcott. the other is, as intimated, their casting of doubt towards the Word of God in versions besides the KJB ("Yea hath God said"), e.g. New KJB, NASB, NIV.
in a way, i think the Ruckies are a bit more honest n upfront w their real sentiments. they don't try to be scholarly n then turn on their "by faith" text criticism when the floodlights come on.
Agreed. Although the line can be blurry at times, I don't think there is as much lumping together of KJVos or KJVps with Ruckmanism as is perceived relative to philosophy. But there are at times common tactics shared by Ruckmanites and the non-Ruckmanite KJVos. To your credit, I don't believe I've ever seen it from you.
From the above link:
If that is what he says best, I'd hate to see what he says worse!
On what basis does he discern that "God guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text" and God did not guide the modern editors and translators in their choice of the Critical Text?
Chris, history. If the Alexandrian texform best represents the original readings then all churches were left without the best examples of the original readings from the 7th century through the 19th century. If, on the other hand, the Byzantine textform best represents the original readings, the churches of Christ have had access to those texts all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.
All except the 2nd through the 9th.
If one is to be KJVO on the basis of the Byzantine text tradition, then he is still at a loss for a complete explanation, since not all texts in the family agree. There must then, be some measure of criticism of the text that took place prior to the KJV 1611.
Your ignorance is showing.
As are all manuscripts from both textual traditions, so your point cuts both ways. But, when the totality of the textual evidence is admited, the Byzantine priority asserts itself. If you reject the Byzantine priority position because Byzantine manuscripts disagee with each other, you will have to reject all manuscript evidence for all manuscipts differ in some way from all others.
Your ignorance is showing.</font>[/QUOTE]You made a statement that was at least unprovable and on the basis of historical evidence, incorrect. Unless you have all of the sudden discovered the byzantine text type that the church was using in all these centuries then my ignorance is not what's showing.
Bro. Cassidy, you missed my point. I wouldn't support a modern version because I think the texts agree 100%. That's the whole point!
Anyone who thinks the Byzantine textform is missing from the textucopia from the 2nd through the 9th centuries is ignorant of manuscript evidence. Period!
I don't think I did miss the point. How can you hold a person who believes in the Byzantine priority postion to a higher standard that you, yourself, hold? All MSS differ, regardless of the texttype. I don't know of any person believing in the Byzantine priority position, the TR priority position, or even a full blown KJVO/Ruckmanite who believes all Greek MSS of their text of choice agree 100%. Personally I think the "agree 100%" issue is a straw man argument.
You made the statement that the Byzantine text type was the text used by the churches all through church history and my point stands unrefuted that that is an unprovable assertion for the 2nd to 9th centuries as those who understand manuscript evidence agree.
The facts are the Byzantine text type is not found in full until at least the fourth century and is in the minority until the 9th century. You assertion that the 2nd to 9th century church used the Byzantine text type is unprovable and against the odds in terms of what we have today. Like it or not, the Alexandrian manuscripts were in the majority until the 9th century.
Fine. Have it your way. Just continue to ignore the facts and live in your fantasy world. Once again you have shown your astounding ability to mischaracterize the facts of history and to misrepresent what I said.