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

[kayky]

Note: Many post-1611 English translations of the Bible say that Jesus Christ has origins in this verse- meaning He is a created being and thus cannot be God. But the orthodox view has more manuscript support. Just prior to Constantine’s capture of the entire Roman Empire the Emperor Diocletian launched the most severe persecution the Church had experienced up to that time. Diocletian ordered all Christians to hand over their copies of Scripture so they could be destroyed. Some false Christians complied. Other false Christians made intentionally corrupt copies and turned them in as decoys. Legitimate Christians refused the emperor’s demand and many suffered persecution and martyrdom as a consequence. I would venture that the corrupt manuscripts that go into modern English translations originated with the decoys.

Why do folks put more stock in King James than modern translators?

Isn't a reason covered in the post you are responding to?

You don't believe that, do you??

[kayky]

I didn't say that faith could not be trusted, only that whether or not your faith is true cannot be known this side of eternity- until judgment day you must have faith that your faith is true. You cannot seek proof without negating your faith. People trust in their faith all the time; you cannot claim that your faith is valid if you are unwilling to tell someone else that their variant faith is wrong, and you couldn't claim your faith is valid if you don't trust it.

So you can trust something that could turn out to be false. Seeking proof is bad. Even though you could be wrong, you must tell everyone else that you are right and they are wrong. Interesting system...irrational, but interesting nonetheless.

Faith is the antithesis of doubt. I do not doubt my salvation in Christ because I trust that my faith in Christ is valid. That faith can be tested, but not proven. I couldn’t seek proof without conceding doubt and if I doubt I have no faith. Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

So you trust the validity of your faith, but on Judgment Day you could wind up in hell anyway.

Let me clarify: Do you believe it is possible for God to reveal His Son Jesus Christ to anyone? If you do not believe such a revelation is possible I don’t see what purpose it would serve to explain the process to you. Furthermore, just because God reveals Himself to man does not mean that man will heed that revelation or even acknowledge it.

I believe that God reveals Christ in everyone and throughout creation.

Adam and Eve had direct contact with the Lord God following their creation by Him- but this didn’t stop Adam and Eve from ignoring the Lord God’s commandment to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They doubted that what God said was true even though they received the truth directly from God. God’s revelation of His Son Jesus Christ comes in the Holy Bible, but not everyone chooses to accept it.

Adam and Eve are mythological characters. And human beings wrote the Bible, not God.

Why would you assume that faith needs proof of any kind? Hebrews 11:1 …faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith, however, should not contradict reality.

[Artheos]

Note: Many post-1611 English translations of the Bible say that Jesus Christ has origins in this verse- meaning He is a created being and thus cannot be God. But the orthodox view has more manuscript support. Just prior to Constantine’s capture of the entire Roman Empire the Emperor Diocletian launched the most severe persecution the Church had experienced up to that time. Diocletian ordered all Christians to hand over their copies of Scripture so they could be destroyed. Some false Christians complied. Other false Christians made intentionally corrupt copies and turned them in as decoys. Legitimate Christians refused the emperor’s demand and many suffered persecution and martyrdom as a consequence. I would venture that the corrupt manuscripts that go into modern English translations originated with the decoys.

Why do folks put more stock in King James than modern translators?

Isn't a reason covered in the post you are responding to?

You don't believe that, do you??

I certainly believe that is his reason.

I don't have enough knowledge about the history presented to form an opinion one way or another.

[kayky]

Modern translators use the same Greek texts as the translators of KJV. There is no reason to favor one translation over another unless you just happen to like seventeenth century English.

[jeafl]

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

You obviously do not know anything about this issue if you can make this claim. New Testament manuscripts are classified into categories known as text types. Scholars do not all agree on how many text types there are, but by some counts (I think) there are five. Classification is based mostly on what the various manuscripts say. Manuscripts from the various text types do not always say the same thing. Material included in one or more text types can be totally absent in another.

The King James translation is based on a printed set of NT documents known as the Textus Receptus, i.e., the Received Text. The TR was prepared by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus in the 16th century and they rely mainly on the Byzantine Text Type. Modern English translations usually rely on manuscripts from the Alexandrian text type- represented by just a few manuscripts- namely Codex Sinaiticus named for the monastery located at Mount Sinai where it was rescued by European scholars before the monks could use it as kindling (the monks preferring Byzantine texts), and Codex Vaticanus named after a library in the Vatican where it is kept. Of all of the known NT manuscripts those from the Byzantine text type make up the greatest bulk, thus the TR/Byzantine texts are also known as the majority texts. However, modern translation advocates insist that that the minority manuscripts are older than the TR, but there is evidence, which they ignore, that the manuscripts that lead to the TR are just as old as any of the other text types.

There is no reason to favor one translation over another unless you just happen to like seventeenth century English

More like 15th century English as far as the pronouns in the AKJ are concerned. Hebrew and NT Greek, like some modern languages like German, have separate personal pronouns for singular, plural, formal and informal use. English once was the same way so the older English pronouns were used in the AKJ so as to better indicate the grammar of the Bible’s original languages. Whenever the AKJ uses the pronoun you or ye it is talking about more than one person. Thee and thou are singular. English speakers of the 17th century generally did not use the pronouns thee, thou and ye- using instead the pronoun you for singular and plural, formal and informal antecedents. Also, the verb endings found in the AKJ were still used in printed English, but were rapidly going out of use in spoken English. People would see “readeth� in print and say “reads� when they read the text.

[kayky]

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

You obviously do not know anything about this issue if you can make this claim.

Perhaps I oversimplify, but with all translations, various texts are compared and variant translations are often noted (even in the KJV).

New Testament manuscripts are classified into categories known as text types. Scholars do not all agree on how many text types there are, but by some counts (I think) there are five. Classification is based mostly on what the various manuscripts say. Manuscripts from the various text types do not always say the same thing. Material included in one or more text types can be totally absent in another.

The King James translation is based on a printed set of NT documents known as the Textus Receptus, i.e., the Received Text. The TR was prepared by the Renaissance scholar Erasmus in the 16th century and they rely mainly on the Byzantine Text Type. Modern English translations usually rely on manuscripts from the Alexandrian text type- represented by just a few manuscripts- namely Codex Sinaiticus named for the monastery located at Mount Sinai where it was rescued by European scholars before the monks could use it as kindling (the monks preferring Byzantine texts), and Codex Vaticanus named after a library in the Vatican where it is kept. Of all of the known NT manuscripts those from the Byzantine text type make up the greatest bulk, thus the TR/Byzantine texts are also known as the majority texts. However, modern translation advocates insist that that the minority manuscripts are older than the TR, but there is evidence, which they ignore, that the manuscripts that lead to the TR are just as old as any of the other text types.

I don't know where you're getting your information about Constantine or about Bible translation. The Latin phrase textus receptus was first used in a publisher's blurb in the preface of the second edition of a Greek New Testament published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. It was not used by the translators of KJV because even the first edition was published 13 years after the KJV was in print. The KJV is based on the third edition of the Greek New Testament published in Paris by Stephanus in 1550. The Stephanus version disagrees with the Elzevir version in 287 places. No single Greek manuscript agrees entirely with either the Elzevir or Stephanus versions.

Both Elzevir and Stephanus do rely heavily on the Greek New Testament published by Erasmus in 1516, but Erasmus never referred to his version as the "textus receptus." Erasmus used various Greek manuscripts--none older than the tenth century and most much later. In some places in the New Testament, he had no manuscript at all and simply retranslated from the Latin!

The translators of the KJV recognized the possibility of copyist errors and made margin notes for variant translations 13 times.

Since the King James Version was made, dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus. The manuscripts he used were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

You say there is no evidence that these "minority" manuscripts" are older, but scholars have gotten pretty good at dating ancient documents.

Amazingly, in spite of this convoluted journey, there are no significant differences between the KJV and modern translations. And with most translations, you can get an annotated edition that offers variant translations and explains any omissions or additions.

I can find no evidence for your claim that these older manuscripts are the result of some counterfeiting scheme to avoid Roman persecution. I think the differences among the various texts would be much more significant if that were the case.

There is no reason to favor one translation over another unless you just happen to like seventeenth century English

More like 15th century English as far as the pronouns in the AKJ are concerned. Hebrew and NT Greek, like some modern languages like German, have separate personal pronouns for singular, plural, formal and informal use. English once was the same way so the older English pronouns were used in the AKJ so as to better indicate the grammar of the Bible’s original languages. Whenever the AKJ uses the pronoun you or ye it is talking about more than one person. Thee and thou are singular. English speakers of the 17th century generally did not use the pronouns thee, thou and ye- using instead the pronoun you for singular and plural, formal and informal antecedents. Also, the verb endings found in the AKJ were still used in printed English, but were rapidly going out of use in spoken English. People would see “readeth� in print and say “reads� when they read the text

The KJV was published in 1611, which is the seventeenth century.

[jeafl]

Perhaps I oversimplify, but with all translations, various texts are compared and variant translations are often noted (even in the KJV).

Except that (to my knowledge) none of the manuscripts that have been used for post-1611 English translations were known in Europe when the AKJ was prepared. All existing translations that the AKJ could have been compared to when the AKJ was prepared were based on the same manuscripts that were used for the AKJ.

I don't know where you're getting your information about Constantine

How is my information wrong?

or about Bible translation. The Latin phrase textus receptus was first used in a publisher's blurb in the preface of the second edition of a Greek New Testament published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers.

Apparently it is you who is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
“Textus Receptus (Latin: ‘received text’) is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.�

It was not used by the translators of KJV because even the first edition was published 13 years after the KJV was in print.

Erasmus’s printed Greek NT manuscript was used for both the AKJ and the TR even though the term TR was not used in Erasmus’ day.

The translators of the KJV recognized the possibility of copyist errors and made margin notes for variant translations 13 times.

I am aware of this, but to my knowledge none of the possible copyist errors have any effect on doctrine. This is not the case with new translations where the manuscripts used deviate from the manuscripts used for the AKJ. Only a sinful person would fail to realize this because a sinful person does not want to recognize legitimate Christian doctrine.

Since the King James Version was made, dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus.

And to my knowledge they are all corrupt and would not be used by any Godly translator.

When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

Only if the copyist is not lead by God. I do not see any reason why legitimate Christians would not have taken as much care with their NT documents as Jewish scribes took with their OT documents.

The Hebrew scribes were very meticulous in their work. A Torah scroll cannot be used for public reading: if a single letter is added or deleted; if any letter touches any of the letters surrounding it; if any letter is illegible or resembles any other letter for any reason; or if any word is too close to the words beside it so that one word appears as two or two as one.8

The scribe must be a Jew with special training and certification. He may not write even one letter from memory- he must copy from an existing kosher scroll. He must pronounce every word out loud before copying. And- he must abide by standard line-lengths and paragraph configurations.

A Torah scroll has 304,805 letters, yet every Torah scroll now in use throughout the world (except for nine spelling variations found in Yemen) is identical. Any scroll found to have an error must be fixed, or buried within 30 days.

You say there is no evidence that these "minority" manuscripts" are older, but scholars have gotten pretty good at dating ancient documents.

That is not what I said at all. What I said is the manuscript tradition that lead to the TR are just as old as the tradition behind the manuscripts that are used for modern translations.

Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century. But, Bishop Ellicott, chairman of the committee that prepared The RV of 1881, declared in a pamphlet: "The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part only in small and insignificant details, from the great bulk of the cursive MSS...the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus...That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one of them."

Harry A. Sturz, author of The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, lists 150 Byzantine readings with early papyri support. An estimated 95% of the Uncial manuscripts have a Byzantine text-type. Nearly all Minuscules display Byzantine texts.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus originated from the Alexandrian text-type. The Bible gives no record of apostolic activity in Alexandria. Church history, however, shows Alexandria to be often a center of heresy. The Byzantine text-type originated in Antioch which was a Christian center before the conversion of Paul.

I can find no evidence for your claim that these older manuscripts are the result of some counterfeiting scheme to avoid Roman persecution. I think the differences among the various texts would be much more significant if that were the case.

No evidence? Where have you been looking? What exactly have you been looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian ... ersecution
According to Eusebius’ history of the church Diocletian issued an edict that demanded that Christian Scripture, liturgical books and places of worship be destroyed.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-diocletians ... ipture.htm
“Diocletian also compelled Christians to turn over their sacred books to the authorities to be burned. The Christians tried to salvage as much of their sacred literature as possible by turning over to them less important texts that were not considered sacred. Those who gave in to pressure and handed sacred scripture over to the authorities were called ‘traitors’ (traditores). On the other hand, those who refused and consequently were imprisoned or killed were called confessors and martyrs (homologetai and martyres).�

The KJV was published in 1611, which is the seventeenth century.

I didn’t say otherwise. However, the personal pronouns used in the AKJ had not been in use for standard English for several centuries by the time the AKJ was published.

[kayky]

Except that (to my knowledge) none of the manuscripts that have been used for post-1611 English translations were known in Europe when the AKJ was prepared. All existing translations that the AKJ could have been compared to when the AKJ was prepared were based on the same manuscripts that were used for the AKJ.

And can you name one doctrinal difference these older manuscripts have made?

I don't know where you're getting your information about Constantine

How is my information wrong?

You said that the Church council under Constintine established Arianism, when just the opposite is true.

or about Bible translation. The Latin phrase textus receptus was first used in a publisher's blurb in the preface of the second edition of a Greek New Testament published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers.

Apparently it is you who is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
“Textus Receptus (Latin: ‘received text’) is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.�

I did not get it wrong at all. Notice the use of the word subsequently in the above description. You need to dig a little deeper with your research. What I presented to you is the actual origin of that phrase, which renders it pretty meaningless.

It was not used by the translators of KJV because even the first edition was published 13 years after the KJV was in print.

Erasmus’s printed Greek NT manuscript was used for both the AKJ and the TR even though the term TR was not used in Erasmus’ day.

TR wasn't used in Erasmus' day because the phrase was an invention of a Dutch Bible publisher. You have been duped into thinking it has some special meaning because it was later latched onto as a catchall label.

The translators of the KJV recognized the possibility of copyist errors and made margin notes for variant translations 13 times.

I am aware of this, but to my knowledge none of the possible copyist errors have any effect on doctrine. This is not the case with new translations where the manuscripts used deviate from the manuscripts used for the AKJ. Only a sinful person would fail to realize this because a sinful person does not want to recognize legitimate Christian doctrine.

Deviate to the point of affecting doctrine? Can you please give me an example?

Since the King James Version was made, dozens of manuscripts have been found that were copied many centuries earlier than any manuscript used by Erasmus.

And to my knowledge they are all corrupt and would not be used by any Godly translator.

Please provide evidence of these corruptions and how they change Christian doctrine.

When material is copied a number of times by hand, extra words and phrases generally find their way into the text in the course of copying and occasionally the eye of a copyist may jump from one word of a phrase to a similar one, and thus omit something or perhaps copy it twice.

Only if the copyist is not lead by God.

This is a fallback position and proves nothing.

I do not see any reason why legitimate Christians would not have taken as much care with their NT documents as Jewish scribes took with their OT documents.

The Hebrew scribes were very meticulous in their work. A Torah scroll cannot be used for public reading: if a single letter is added or deleted; if any letter touches any of the letters surrounding it; if any letter is illegible or resembles any other letter for any reason; or if any word is too close to the words beside it so that one word appears as two or two as one.8

The scribe must be a Jew with special training and certification. He may not write even one letter from memory- he must copy from an existing kosher scroll. He must pronounce every word out loud before copying. And- he must abide by standard line-lengths and paragraph configurations.

A Torah scroll has 304,805 letters, yet every Torah scroll now in use throughout the world (except for nine spelling variations found in Yemen) is identical. Any scroll found to have an error must be fixed, or buried within 30 days.

Even you admit that most New Testament manuscripts do not agree with each other.

You say there is no evidence that these "minority" manuscripts" are older, but scholars have gotten pretty good at dating ancient documents.

That is not what I said at all. What I said is the manuscript tradition that lead to the TR are just as old as the tradition behind the manuscripts that are used for modern translations.

Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century. But, Bishop Ellicott, chairman of the committee that prepared The RV of 1881, declared in a pamphlet: "The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part only in small and insignificant details, from the great bulk of the cursive MSS...the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus...That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS, if not older than any one of them."

Harry A. Sturz, author of The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, lists 150 Byzantine readings with early papyri support. An estimated 95% of the Uncial manuscripts have a Byzantine text-type. Nearly all Minuscules display Byzantine texts.

If the manuscripts used by Erasmus (who at times resorted to a Latin translation) were the same age as later found manuscripts, what makes Erasmus' work superior?

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus originated from the Alexandrian text-type. The Bible gives no record of apostolic activity in Alexandria. Church history, however, shows Alexandria to be often a center of heresy. The Byzantine text-type originated in Antioch which was a Christian center before the conversion of Paul.

Church history is often biased as well. But if there are no doctrinal issues at stake, what difference does it make if the manuscript originated in Antioch or Alexandria?

I can find no evidence for your claim that these older manuscripts are the result of some counterfeiting scheme to avoid Roman persecution. I think the differences among the various texts would be much more significant if that were the case.

No evidence? Where have you been looking? What exactly have you been looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian ... ersecution
According to Eusebius’ history of the church Diocletian issued an edict that demanded that Christian Scripture, liturgical books and places of worship be destroyed.

This only says that persecution took place--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-diocletians ... ipture.htm
“Diocletian also compelled Christians to turn over their sacred books to the authorities to be burned. The Christians tried to salvage as much of their sacred literature as possible by turning over to them less important texts that were not considered sacred. Those who gave in to pressure and handed sacred scripture over to the authorities were called ‘traitors’ (traditores). On the other hand, those who refused and consequently were imprisoned or killed were called confessors and martyrs (homologetai and martyres).�

Do you know how many different Christian writings were in circulation at that time? This only says that those considered less important were handed over--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

The KJV was published in 1611, which is the seventeenth century.

I didn’t say otherwise. However, the personal pronouns used in the AKJ had not been in use for standard English for several centuries by the time the AKJ was published.

This simply isn't true. Have you read Shakespeare (who died in 1616)? Have you read early American writings of Puritans well into the 1700's? "Thee's" and "Thou's" and "eth" endings on verbs all were still in full swing.

[jeafl]

And can you name one doctrinal difference these older manuscripts have made?

Assuming that translations are accurate indicators of the content of the manuscripts that were used to prepare the translations:

http://www.klis.com/chegogginbaptist/thirdpage.html
Note the chart that compares the AKJ with the NIV.

Also consult:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/better-manuscripts.html

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vit ... rt1-6.html

BTW: I am not a Baptist or a member of any other denomination or any organized congregation. I am using these websites as a point of reference. I do not endorse any church or congregation; I likely would not agree 100% with the doctrines behind these websites.

You said that the Church council under Constintine established Arianism, when just the opposite is true.

I gather that you are talking about the Council of Nicea- something that I have not discussed. It is true that this council endorsed orthodox doctrine, but Constantine would later personally endorse Arianism. He made it his habit to put Arians in top government posts and he repeated exiled Athanasius, the Arians’ chief earthy opponent. And Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian church official. My information about Constantine is not wrong- only misunderstood by you.

I did not get it wrong at all. Notice the use of the word subsequently in the above description.

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.

Deviate to the point of affecting doctrine? Can you please give me an example?

I just did.

Please provide evidence of these corruptions and how they change Christian doctrine.

I just did.

This is a fallback position and proves nothing.

No it is not. Having an accurate copy of the Bible is a matter of faith- something you would not understand.

Even you admit that most New Testament manuscripts do not agree with each other.

Not in matters of doctrine.

If the manuscripts used by Erasmus (who at times resorted to a Latin translation) were the same age as later found manuscripts, what makes Erasmus' work superior?

Why do you assume that age is an indicator or guarantor of accuracy?

Church history is often biased as well. But if there are no doctrinal issues at stake, what difference does it make if the manuscript originated in Antioch or Alexandria?

But there are doctrinal issues at stake. You cannot declare all translations are equal if you care about doctrine.

This only says that persecution took place--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

It says that decoys were used. I have studied history my entire life, both formally and informally (40 credit hours in history while getting a bachelor’s degree in biology). I have seen it claimed in non-internet sources that people intentionally prepared corrupt copies of Christian Scripture to serve as decoys during Diocletian’s persecution.

Do you know how many different Christian writings were in circulation at that time? This only says that those considered less important were handed over--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

The exact number is not important. But obviously the Christian canon was settled enough that a non-Christian could identify it. If Diocletian ordered the destruction of Christian Scripture he must have known what Christians considered Scripture to be even if he didn’t know anything about the actual content of Scripture.

This simply isn't true. Have you read Shakespeare (who died in 1616)?

Yes I have read Shakespeare, quit a lot in fact, but his plays and his verse do not represent everyday language.

Have you read early American writings of Puritans well into the 1700's? "Thee's" and "Thou's" and "eth" endings on verbs all were still in full swing.

Care to give some examples?

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/ ... ,_etc.html

The pronouns thou, thee, thy, thine and ye are from the Middle English Period, which dates from the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the first use of the printing press in England around 1470. They were not in everyday standard use by the time the AKJ was published in 1611.

[kayky]

And can you name one doctrinal difference these older manuscripts have made?

Assuming that translations are accurate indicators of the content of the manuscripts that were used to prepare the translations:

http://www.klis.com/chegogginbaptist/thirdpage.html
Note the chart that compares the AKJ with the NIV.

Also consult:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/better-manuscripts.html

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vit ... rt1-6.html

BTW: I am not a Baptist or a member of any other denomination or any organized congregation. I am using these websites as a point of reference. I do not endorse any church or congregation; I likely would not agree 100% with the doctrines behind these websites.

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

You said that the Church council under Constintine established Arianism, when just the opposite is true.

I gather that you are talking about the Council of Nicea- something that I have not discussed. It is true that this council endorsed orthodox doctrine, but Constantine would later personally endorse Arianism. He made it his habit to put Arians in top government posts and he repeated exiled Athanasius, the Arians’ chief earthy opponent. And Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian church official. My information about Constantine is not wrong- only misunderstood by you.

I did think you were talking about the Council; so, yes, I did misunderstand your point. But I think Constantine was more influenced by his sister than any religious fervor on his part.

I did not get it wrong at all. Notice the use of the word subsequently in the above description.

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.

Deviate to the point of affecting doctrine? Can you please give me an example?

I just did.

Well, you tried. But I'm not interested in how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Please provide evidence of these corruptions and how they change Christian doctrine.

I just did.

See above.

This is a fallback position and proves nothing.

No it is not. Having an accurate copy of the Bible is a matter of faith- something you would not understand.

Oh, believe me, I do understand. But there is no translation that can be proven to be superior to another. A better approach for you might be to compare translations and decide what makes the most sense to you.

Even you admit that most New Testament manuscripts do not agree with each other.

Not in matters of doctrine.

Even if this were true, how can you be sure you've landed on the best translation?

If the manuscripts used by Erasmus (who at times resorted to a Latin translation) were the same age as later found manuscripts, what makes Erasmus' work superior?

Why do you assume that age is an indicator or guarantor of accuracy?

There is no guarantee of accuracy with any manuscript unless we find the originals, which is quite unlikely. But it is reasonable to think that older manuscripts are closer to the originals than newer copies.

Church history is often biased as well. But if there are no doctrinal issues at stake, what difference does it make if the manuscript originated in Antioch or Alexandria?

But there are doctrinal issues at stake. You cannot declare all translations are equal if you care about doctrine.

Sorry. I just don't see it.

This only says that persecution took place--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

It says that decoys were used.

The quote you provided says no such thing. It says that less important books were handed over. And even if you did provide evidence that decoys were used, they would have to be significantly different from the actual New Testament if they were attempting to hide their teachings from the Romans. We see no evidence of that among the various translations we have today.

I have studied history my entire life, both formally and informally (40 credit hours in history while getting a bachelor’s degree in biology). I have seen it claimed in non-internet sources that people intentionally prepared corrupt copies of Christian Scripture to serve as decoys during Diocletian’s persecution.

Like I said, even if they did, it hasn't affected modern translations.

Do you know how many different Christian writings were in circulation at that time? This only says that those considered less important were handed over--nothing about counterfeit New Testaments.

The exact number is not important. But obviously the Christian canon was settled enough that a non-Christian could identify it. If Diocletian ordered the destruction of Christian Scripture he must have known what Christians considered Scripture to be even if he didn’t know anything about the actual content of Scripture.

The quote you provided says just the opposite. It says that less important books were handed over. Evidently the Romans didn't know the difference.

This simply isn't true. Have you read Shakespeare (who died in 1616)?

Yes I have read Shakespeare, quit a lot in fact, but his plays and his verse do not represent everyday language.

The only difference is that Shakespeare wrote his plays in poetry. He did not change the common usage of pronouns and verbs. I'm a retired English teacher. You might as well concede this point.

Have you read early American writings of Puritans well into the 1700's? "Thee's" and "Thou's" and "eth" endings on verbs all were still in full swing.

Care to give some examples?

Sure. You could start with William Bradford's Plymouth Plantation and the poetry of Anne Bradstreet. I would also recommend the many writings of Cotton Mather. Those are just American authors.

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/ ... ,_etc.html

The pronouns thou, thee, thy, thine and ye are from the Middle English Period, which dates from the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the first use of the printing press in England around 1470. They were not in everyday standard use by the time the AKJ was published in 1611.

Once again, you are absolutely wrong. The KJV and Shakespeare's plays were not written in Middle English (That would be more like Geoffrey Chaucer). They were written in EARLY MODERN ENGLISH. The "thee's" and the "thou's" were still in use in everyday speech.