Am I A Christian?

[MaxPower]

What is a Christian, how do I join this elite club? I believe in Christ and accept Him as my personal Savior and know that only through Him can I be saved; yet my friend said that his pastor said that I wasn't a Christian.

Can someone define for me what a Christian is so that (a) I can know if I fit in this group and (b) if I want to fit in this group

[Artheos]

And this means what? You are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The printed text that Erasmus prepared eventually was used for the printed text that is now known as the Textus Receptus. Get over it.

The reason I will not "get over it" in the context of this debate is that you seem to think that the phrase "textus receptus" has some relevance as to the authority of the KJV. As a matter of fact, that seems to be the crux of your argument. Since the origins of this phrase seem to be more of an advertising slant than anything else, to claim that it gives special authority to the KJV is a crock.

8 links down at http://www.google.com/search?q=textus+r ... king+james

Next, what is meant by the term, "Received Text"? This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond. Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). (3) These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations.

In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598

[Artheos]

Modern translators use the same Greek texts as the translators of KJV.

I keep reading this statement and it seems incorrect.

The 1611 King James Version of the English New Testament was translated from what came to be known as the Textus Receptus, a text derived from the later editions of Erasmus' printed Greek New Testament. That in turn was based on a handful of manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type.

Most modern English versions of the New Testament are based on critical reconstructions of the Greek text, such as the Nestle-Alands' Novum Testamentum Graece Greek New Testament or the United Bible Societies' (sometimes referred to collectively as the NU-Text), which have a pronounced Alexandrian character.

[kayky]

Next, what is meant by the term, "Received Text"? This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond. Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). (3) These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations.

This is very similar to the information I have already provided. Since you do not comment on it, I do not know what point you are trying to make.

In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598

Once again, with no comment from you, I do not know what point you are trying to make.

[kayky]

Modern translators use the same Greek texts as the translators of KJV.

I keep reading this statement and it seems incorrect.

As worded, it is incorrect.

[Artheos]

Next, what is meant by the term, "Received Text"? This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond. Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). (3) These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations.

This is very similar to the information I have already provided. Since you do not comment on it, I do not know what point you are trying to make.

In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598

Once again, with no comment from you, I do not know what point you are trying to make.

Just affirming that Textus Receptus was apparently used by the KJV translators, it was just named so after the fact.

[kayky]

Well, yes, but jeafl seems to think it has some kind of special significance granting special authority to the KJV. Since it started as an "advertising blurb," that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Artheos]

Well, yes, but jeafl seems to think it has some kind of special significance granting special authority to the KJV. Since it started as an "advertising blurb," that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think you're confusing the title with the content. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe the name Textus Receptus has any bearing on jeafl's points.

[jeafl]

I looked at these sites and saw nothing but nitpicking. And no evidence whatsoever that the KJV was the superior translation.

You did not see anything of importance because you reject sound doctrine.

[kayky]

I think you're confusing the title with the content. Though I could be wrong, I don't believe the name Textus Receptus has any bearing on jeafl's points.

I went back to reread his posts, and I think you are right. The real crux of his argument seems to be a preference for younger manuscripts from Antioch rather than older manuscripts from Alexandria.

[kayky]

I looked at these sites and saw nothing but nitpicking. And no evidence whatsoever that the KJV was the superior translation.

You did not see anything of importance because you reject sound doctrine.

Well, instead of sending me digging through a mass of weblinks, why don't you tell me which "sound doctrines" you find especially important that are threatened by modern translations? A couple examples will do. Pick the ones you think are most important.