Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[bibleprotector]

Yes, my point is that the leaven of Infidelity has come into what you are calling Fundamentalism.

Yes, it has. It is called KJVOism.

Please explain how KJBOism is Infidelity as based on the Enlightenment/Rationalism/German Theologians/etc.?

I can explain and show very clearly how modern textual criticism, modern translation methods and modern interpretation rules and practice finds its origins in the well of Infidelity.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

My question is, why does anyone waste his/her time on this tard? 

 

[Izdaari]

My question is, why does anyone waste his/her time on this tard?

Or any KJVO? I don't. I can't take their central thesis seriously enough to make the effort to debate it.

 

[Steven Avery]

Or any KJVO? I don't. I can't take their central thesis seriously enough to make the effort to debate it.

If a person has not seen the corruption of the Westcott-Hort recension and the modern versions that came from the recension, and how that was an attack on the pure Received text, there really is no need for them to consider the issue of the purity and perfection of the AV.

======================

btw, the theme of the thread is similar to the atheists and skeptics who ask questions like:

"Is christianity a form of mental illness?"

This is a psycho-babble way of attempting to keep the perfection of Jesus Christ, and the holy Bible, and true Christianity, at a distance.  There is nothing new about the tactic.

Steven Avery

 

[prophet]

Or any KJVO? I don't. I can't take their central thesis seriously enough to make the effort to debate it.

If a person has not seen the corruption of the Westcott-Hort recension and the modern versions that came from the recension, and how that was an attack on the pure Received text, there really is no need for them to consider the issue of the purity and perfection of the AV.

======================

btw, the theme of the thread is similar to the atheists and skeptics who ask questions like:

"Is christianity a form of mental illness?"

This is a psycho-babble way of attempting to keep the perfection of Jesus Christ, and the holy Bible, and true Christianity, at a distance.  There is nothing new about the tactic.

Steven Avery

This begs the reciprocal question : is the acceptance of Wescott and Hort's subterfuge as legitimate scholarship a mental disorder?

I prefer "willingly ignorant", to any actual dysfunction of the brain, since most seem reasonably intelligent but weirdly biased.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Or any KJVO? I don't. I can't take their central thesis seriously enough to make the effort to debate it.

If a person has not seen the corruption of the Westcott-Hort recension and the modern versions that came from the recension, and how that was an attack on the pure Received text, there really is no need for them to consider the issue of the purity and perfection of the AV.

======================

btw, the theme of the thread is similar to the atheists and skeptics who ask questions like:

"Is christianity a form of mental illness?"

This is a psycho-babble way of attempting to keep the perfection of Jesus Christ, and the holy Bible, and true Christianity, at a distance.  There is nothing new about the tactic.

Steven Avery

You keep bringing up Westcott and Hort, here is what Maurice Robinson has to say,


"The real issue facing NT textual criticism is the need to offer a transmissional explanation of the history of the text which includes an accurate view of scribal habits and normal transmissional considerations. Such must accord with the facts and must not prejudge the case against the Byzantine Textform. That this is not a new procedure or a departure from a previous consensus can be seen by the expression of an essential Byzantine-priority hypothesis in the theory of Westcott and Hort (quite differently applied, of course). The resultant methodology of the Byzantine-priority school is in fact more closely aligned with that of Westcott and Hort than any other. Despite his myriad of qualifying remarks, Hort stated quite clearly in his Introduction the principles which, if applied directly, would legitimately support the Byzantine-priority position:

  As soon as the numbers of a minority exceed what can be explained by accidental coincidence, … their agreement … can only be explained on genealogical grounds[. W]e have thereby passed beyond purely numerical relations, and the necessity of examining the genealogy of both minority and majority has become apparent. A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa."


The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. Maurice A. Robinson (2006). (p. 539)

What is it about the Westcott and Hort method that you find disagreeable?

Do you disagree with Byzantine priority?

Do you hold to TR priority only?

 

[Ransom]

Whenever a KJV-onlyist brings up Westcott and Hort, there's about a 98% certainty he is lying to you.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You keep bringing up Westcott and Hort, here is what Murice Robinson has to say,

Maurice

"The real issue facing NT textual criticism is the need to offer a transmissional explanation of the history of the text which includes an accurate view of scribal habits and normal transmissional considerations. Such must accord with the facts and must not prejudge the case against the Byzantine Textform.

So far, reasonable.

That this is not a new procedure or a departure from a previous consensus can be seen by the expression of an essential Byzantine-priority hypothesis in the theory of Westcott and Hort (quite differently applied, of course).

This makes no sense.  Clearly there is a Greek textual priority in the theories of W&H, but there is no Byzantine-priority hypothesis overt or covert.

The resultant methodology of the Byzantine-priority school is in fact more closely aligned with that of Westcott and Hort than any other.

The only way this might make sense is if you theorized a new W&H theory where they discarded the Syrian recension, presuppositional bias against the Received Text (read Colwell's comment), bogus genealogical theory with a phantom neutral textline, Vaticanus-primacy, conflation theory, abuse of lectio difficilior, disproven lectio brevior, etc.  This sentence continues the same problem as above.

Despite his myriad of qualifying remarks,

Those qualifying remarks are his theory.

Hort stated quite clearly in his Introduction the principles which, if applied directly, would legitimately support the Byzantine-priority position:
As soon as the numbers of a minority exceed what can be explained by accidental coincidence, … their agreement … can only be explained on genealogical grounds[. W]e have thereby passed beyond purely numerical relations, and the necessity of examining the genealogy of both minority and majority has become apparent. A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa."

Rather a milquetoast statement that comes down to saying that if it weren't for the hortian theory, you would have to seriously consider the mass of Greek manuscripts as significant on each individual variants, while hortian theory discards the mass of Greek mss as insigniificant. 

What is it about the Wescott

Westcott

and Hort method that you find disagreeable?

I've written on this many times, usually though on individual points above.  If you are asking for a specific new essay, I will consider the possibility, its not a bad idea.

Possibly the single best overview of hortian theory weaknesses to date is from a gentleman named Andrew Wilson. The theories of textual transmission of Maurice Robinson are helpful in unravelling hortian errors.

Do you disagree with Byzantine priority?

Yes. Clearly I disagree., viewing it as a deficient, nose-counting one-dimensional text.

Do you hold to TR priority only?

The Reformation Bible text, the Received text, I believe is God's inspired and preserved word. And I agree with Edward Freer Hills that the AV is one edition of the TR text. And the singular most excellent edition.

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Ironically, if you go to Hort's quote and include the ... part, you find out that he was offering an apologetic for considering an ultra-minority variant by filtering the analysis through his warped genealogical system.

The "minority exceed..." part is a way to allow full participation to variants that have Vaticanus and a smidgen more, like scattered Coptic or Sinaitic ms support.  Maybe Origen or a few mss, it can be a tiny ultra-minority of the evidences. Hort wants that then to be not seen as simply a scribal faux pas but a full part of his genealogical system. The system was rigged to virtually always point to the Vaticanus supposed neutral text, outside of the places where Vaticanus has lacuna or a totally absurd or indefensible corruption. The other Hortian exception was the group of "western non-interpolations".

There is no relationship between that quote and some supposed Byzantine-priority undercurrent acknowledgment.

The OP question is good, though, I started a thread on the NT Textual Criticism forum on the topic and plan to write an article on the topic.  By focusing in on that paragraph from Maurice Robinson, we are able to help fill in some of the gaps involving the triangular relationship of Received Text, Byzantine and Hortian theories.

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

You keep bringing up Westcott and Hort, here is what Maurice Robinson has to say,

So, does that help explain why the gross deficiencies of the Westcott-Hort recension, and the resultant corrupt text, is the first key issue in the battle of the Bible?

 

[bgwilkinson]

You keep bringing up Westcott and Hort, here is what Maurice Robinson has to say,

So, does that help explain why the gross deficiencies of the Westcott-Hort recension, and the resultant corrupt text, is the first key issue in the battle of the Bible?

I only brought up W-H because you write about it. I have no interest in W-H or their theories, as they fixated far to much on the older manuscripts to the exclusion of those more recent.

What do you mean by corrupt text? Please give a definitive definition of what you mean.

 

[Steven Avery]

I only brought up W-H because you write about it. I have no interest in W-H or their theories, as they fixated far to much on the older manuscripts to the exclusion of those more recent.

So what text interests you?  What Bible do you defend as the pure word of God?

Do you agree that the "older manuscripts" text has thousands of errors?

And do understand that 1000s of errors == corrupt?
Is that really difficult?

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Yes. Please define "corrupt" and "pure."

 

[prophet]

Yes. Please define "corrupt" and "pure."

Give me 2 glasses of water, and let me piss in one of them, just a little.
Now, which one will you lable which?

 

[FSSL]

A simple request for a definition of terms makes for interesting banter!

 

[Ransom]

Give me 2 glasses of water, and let me piss in one of them, just a little.
Now, which one will you lable which?

The one with piss in it is obviously the KJV.

 

[prophet]

Give me 2 glasses of water, and let me piss in one of them, just a little.
Now, which one will you lable which?

The one with piss in it is obviously the KJV.

You have a great sarcastic sense of humor.
That was a good one.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Give me 2 glasses of water, and let me piss in one of them, just a little.
Now, which one will you lable which?

The one with piss in it is obviously the KJV.

You have a great sarcastic sense of humor.
That was a good one.

Zooooommmm! Right over his head!

Isaiah 36:12 (KJV) But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Isaiah 36:12 (KJV) But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

So.... not exactly a Thanksgiving dinner menu...

 

[logos1560]

Yes. Please define "corrupt" and "pure."

Yes, it would be interesting to see which definition of "pure" that he would give. 

Sometimes he indicates that some Reformation Bibles with some readings or renderings that he would consider "corrupt" are "pure," revealing that he is not using "pure" in an absolute 100% pure sense.  Perhaps he uses the terms in his own subjective, undefined, comparative sense or uses them with the fallacy of composition.