No major doctrines changed?

There is an ongoing debate over the KJV only issue. One issue that always comes up is, "There are no major doctrinal changes from one version to the next, so what does it matter?" First of all, truth matters no matter how small of a truth you may think. Truth matters to God. He never wants his people to be persuaded out of the whole truth. See Adam and Eve. I'll post some passages found in the KJV and how those same passages differ in the new versions.

1. The doctrine of condemnation to those who walk after the flesh. There is condemnation to those believers who walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The bible speaks of temporal condemnation. Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no condemnation, two things are required: We have to be in Christ Jesus, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that there is no condemnation for not following the word of God.

Here is an example of temporal condemnation from not walking after the Spirit. The one who is condemned in the following has sinned against God.

Romans 14
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Um.. quite a number, actually. Thousands. It really depends on the text under discussion. Some mss only contain sections of Paul, or may only contain the first few chapters of John. You'll need to be a lot more specific, because as I continue to say, text critics go word-by-word to make a determination. And sometimes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is included in the data they used to help make that determination. But the idea is to cross reference various witnesses as it pertains to a specific text.

It's not like they just default to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus simply on the basis of them being earlier. For example, in 1 Peter 3:15, UBS cites p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement in support of κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν. While Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are amongst those cited, there are other witnesses that are cited as well. But if you go to another text, different witnesses may be cited, because some papyri may only contain portions of a specific book.

For example, 1 Corinthians. There are numerous amount of mss for this Pauline epistle, but each mss may (due to age) only contain part or section of the book. So everything is done on a word-by-word basis. Cross referencing the textual data one word at a time with the witnesses that have withstood the test of time.

That is not accurate at all. See The Revision Revised.

Thank you for this information; there are more manuscripts involved than I imagined. But when you compare these to the almost 6,000 manuscripts and fragments that exists, this is just a tiny drop in the bucket. And no one can deny that textual critics strongly favor Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; these are the gold standards to which everything is compared.

And there are still serious problems with textual criticism. For example, in some cases the reading is made up out of thin air. A word is taken from here, a phrase from there; then conjecture is made as to what a scribe "should have done"; then a verse that doesn't exist in any manuscript comes out the other end.

The Majority Text is by far the most promising.

And there are still serious problems with textual criticism. For example, in some cases the reading is made up out of thin air. A word is taken from here, a phrase from there; then conjecture is made as to what a scribe "should have done"; then a verse that doesn't exist in any manuscript comes out the other end.

Wow. Serious implications here in the NIV rendition.

KJV
1) Mat 23:14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
2) Mar 12:40
Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
3) Luk 20:47
Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

NIV
1)- VOID-
2) Mar 12:40
They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
3) Luk 20:47
They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

While there are approx. 6,000 mss, that does not mean that every chapter, verse, and word of the NT is contained in those 6,000 mss. A portion of those 6,000 mss may only contain the first few chapters of John. Others may only contain the last few chapters of Matthew. So you can’t say that “it’s a tiny drop in the bucket,” as if all 6,000 mss contain the full NT, when in fact only very few (in the grand scheme) actually do. One example I can think of off the top my head is in the Gospel of Matthew. Here is a small sampling of early papyri that witness to the Gospel of Matthew, but as you will see, they only contain portions of Matthew, due to the test of time,

• p7 (4th c.) – Matthew 26
• p53 (3rd c.) - Matthew 26
• p64 (3rd c.) – Matthew 3; 5; 26
• p70 (3rd c.) – Matthew 2; 3; 11; 12; 24
• p77 (3rd c.) – Matthew 23
• p101 (3rd c.) – Matthew 3; 4
• p102 (4th c.) – Matthew 4
• p103 (3rd c.) – Matthew 13; 14
• p104 (2nd c.) – Matthew 21:34-37; 21:43, 21:45
• p110 (4th c.) – Matthew 10:13-15; 25; 27

So it is not fair to say (as you did), “when you compare these to the almost 6,000 manuscripts and fragments that exists, this is just a tiny drop in the bucket.” Textual critics apply data from all textual streams throughout the NT’s entire history, not just “a tiny drop in the bucket.” In the case of 1 Peter 3:15, all mss are compared together that contain the passage in question (not all mss do) and then the following questions are asked:

• Early attestation
• Geographic distribution
• Internal data
• Which variant is most difficult, and thereby can best explains the rise of other variants?
• Geographic scribal practices

The ironic thing is, that the data used for the Majority Text is what’s “just a tiny drop in the bucket,” because proponents of the Majority Text position do not consider all the data to come to a final conclusion, but rely on just a portion of the overall data. They are primarily focused on the Byzantine text, but ignore other textual traditions that also existed before and during (such as the Western, and Alexandrian). You have to consider all of them, not one or the other. All of them must be used to come to a final conclusion. So your appraisal of the situation is quite the opposite. NA28, NA27, and UBS take into consideration all the data, which is why if you were to open up an NA28, you would see more than just Vaticanus or Sinaiticus being cross referenced (as if it were the only two mss they use in their determination). And every time the textual critic runs into a variant, they ask the same set of questions, over and over again. Whichever variant checks the most boxes, that is the one they go with.

As I have said time and again, there are times the NA28 disagrees with the NA27. There are times where Vaticanus agrees/disagrees with Sinaiticus (or vice versa). There are times NA28 agrees with Vaticanus over Sinaiticus (or vice versa). There are times where NA28 disagrees with both, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but the method they use for doing so is consistent.

You made this comment,



But I am curious just as to what example you can cite in support of this. I won’t say it doesn’t exist, or hasn’t happened, but I may be able to shed some light on the example(s) you give. The only known example I can think of is what’s found in the TR. For example, if you go one post back and review my comments on 2 Peter 1:1, Beza’s text (of which the TR relied on) has no manuscript support whatsoever. There are several other examples that I can think of off the top my head where the readings found in the TR are not even found in the Majority Text, but are unique to the TR alone.

It may be impossible to know the answer to this question, but I thought I would ask anyways:

In reality, how many early Church congregations actually possessed the entirety of the full complement OT and NT manuscripts?
Just guessing.....but it must have been miniscule.

Today we speak about missing this and adding that. They must have suffered gaps so enormous it would cause us today to have a nervous breakdown.

I wasn't referring to the apocrypha but to the other gospel accounts of Christ. It's a good read.

While there are approx. 6,000 mss, that does not mean that every chapter, verse, and word of the NT is contained in those 6,000 mss. A portion of those 6,000 mss may only contain the first few chapters of John. Others may only contain the last few chapters of Matthew. So you can’t say that “it’s a tiny drop in the bucket,” as if all 6,000 mss contain the full NT, when in fact only very few (in the grand scheme) actually do.

Good question, and I think my answer (Post #6) over on this thread will help put things into perspective: "The apocryphal gospels"

I will repost what I said there, here. Keep in mind that my answer was a response to a remark that JonathanBentley had made, so read it in that light. Here it is:

-----------------------------



I was just about to say that, but you took the words right out of my mouth. You are referring to the "lost gospels." To answer your question (of which Nehemiah already answered): No, the Catholics do not receive them. They are gnostic in character. If you want a good idea of what early Christians believed about the contents of the "lost gospels," then you should try reading the Early Church Fathers, such as Ireneaus (who wrote heavily against gnosticsism). Also, Tertullian is another who wrote against gnosticism. Further, there is no evidence that the“lost gospels” were ever in the Bible to begin with. There is no textual data available that would support that. What evidence can one offer that suggests that the “lost gospels” were even widespread, and well attested (geophraphically) throughout the Christian world?

One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. And it is this concept I believe can be borrowed to illustrate which books were the more “commonly accepted” throughout the Christian world — and may I even suggest, the more “commonly accepted” in a given era.

Take for example, the letter of 1 Corinthians. This letter is attested in quite a number of manuscripts throughout the Christian world (in whole or in part) from the 2nd c. onward and was being translated into other languages as early as the 3rd c. Already by the 3rd c., this letter managed to make its way throughout the entire Christian world. p46 is an mss from the late 2nd or early 3rd c. period and is characteristic of the Alexandrian text-type. p15 is also an mss from the 3rd c. period and is characterisitic of the Alexandrian text-type. p129 is another mss, and has been dated to the mid to late 2nd century; it is a relatively new archeological discovery and information on it is limited. p123 is from the 4th c. and is likely representative of the Alexandrian text-type. The letter is found in a number of majuscules (from Alexdandrian, Byzantine, and Western traditions), including א, A, B, C, D, F, G, P, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). The “lost gospels” do not have this sort of attestation; thus, they were not as widely circulated among the Christian community.

p46, for example, is a 2nd c. collation of the Pauline letters, and it doesn't contain any book outside of what we have in the Canon today. On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas (one of the “lost gospels”) is attested only in a single Coptic mss out of Egypt. If it had the prominence that books such as 1 Corinthians had, it would have been recopied by scribes from other locales and would have been broadly distributed and redistributed by Christians.

Marcion, an early gnostic, rejected the OT, and advanced eleven of the books of the NT that he found suitable: portions of the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul’s letters, plus a supposed letter from Paul to the Alexandrians—the Marcion Canon.

It’s interesting to look back at history and see heretical figures such as Marcion confirming portions of the established NT. But what’s even more thought provoking is the fact that he doesn’t acknowledge any other books outside those I’ve mentioned — including the Book of Thomas.

Good question, and I think my answer (Post #6) over on this thread will help put things into perspective: "The apocryphal gospels"

I will repost what I said there, here. Keep in mind that my answer was a response to a remark that JonathanBentley had made, so read it in that light. Here it is:

-----------------------------



I was just about to say that, but you took the words right out of my mouth. You are referring to the "lost gospels." To answer your question (of which Nehemiah already answered): No, the Catholics do not receive them. They are gnostic in character. If you want a good idea of what early Christians believed about the contents of the "lost gospels," then you should try reading the Early Church Fathers, such as Ireneaus (who wrote heavily against gnosticsism). Also, Tertullian is another who wrote against gnosticism. Further, there is no evidence that the“lost gospels” were ever in the Bible to begin with. There is no textual data available that would support that. What evidence can one offer that suggests that the “lost gospels” were even widespread, and well attested (geophraphically) throughout the Christian world?

One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. And it is this concept I believe can be borrowed to illustrate which books were the more “commonly accepted” throughout the Christian world — and may I even suggest, the more “commonly accepted” in a given era.

Take for example, the letter of 1 Corinthians. This letter is attested in quite a number of manuscripts throughout the Christian world (in whole or in part) from the 2nd c. onward and was being translated into other languages as early as the 3rd c. Already by the 3rd c., this letter managed to make its way throughout the entire Christian world. p46 is an mss from the late 2nd or early 3rd c. period and is characteristic of the Alexandrian text-type. p15 is also an mss from the 3rd c. period and is characterisitic of the Alexandrian text-type. p129 is another mss, and has been dated to the mid to late 2nd century; it is a relatively new archeological discovery and information on it is limited. p123 is from the 4th c. and is likely representative of the Alexandrian text-type. The letter is found in a number of majuscules (from Alexdandrian, Byzantine, and Western traditions), including א, A, B, C, D, F, G, P, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). The “lost gospels” do not have this sort of attestation; thus, they were not as widely circulated among the Christian community.

p46, for example, is a 2nd c. collation of the Pauline letters, and it doesn't contain any book outside of what we have in the Canon today. On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas (one of the “lost gospels”) is attested only in a single Coptic mss out of Egypt. If it had the prominence that books such as 1 Corinthians had, it would have been recopied by scribes from other locales and would have been broadly distributed and redistributed by Christians.

Marcion, an early gnostic, rejected the OT, and advanced eleven of the books of the NT that he found suitable: portions of the Gospel of Luke, and ten of Paul’s letters, plus a supposed letter from Paul to the Alexandrians—the Marcion Canon.

It’s interesting to look back at history and see heretical figures such as Marcion confirming portions of the established NT. But what’s even more thought provoking is the fact that he doesn’t acknowledge any other books outside those I’ve mentioned — including the Book of Thomas.

More in the same vein....

Using this formula (which I am convinced is correct) the creation now stands at about 10,000BC.
But even this is too brief a span of time IMO (based on my rather thorough understanding of geology).
There is every reason to believe that the early Genesis genealogies had "gaps". Maybe around 20%-40% complete.
This casts the creation further back time. An estimate of 20K-50K is within reason. But definitely much further back in time, which has be the case as there is irrefutable geological evidence that requires a longer span of time to complete than even 10,000BC would allow. Not forever mind you.....even 20K would get the job done.

https://christianchat.com/threads/how-old-is-our-creation-really.194803/post-4609719

Levi 77 years in Egypt
Kohath 133 years in Egypt
Amram 137 years in Egypt
Aaron 83 years in Egypt
==========================
430 years total time (FOUR GENERATIONS!)

"God gives additional evidence to support this reasoning. In Exodus 6 God gives genealogical information concerning some of the descendants of Jacob. The information given does not appear very meaningful to our present day and age, but hidden among these verses are three numbers. The first is found in verse 16 where it is stated that Levi's three sons were Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the years of Levi's life were 137. The second is in verse 18, where it says Kohath's four sons were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, and the years of Kohath's life were 133. The third is in verse 20, where it says Amram was married to Jochebed, and she bore him Moses and Aaron, and the years of Amram's life were 137. At first reading, it appears that Levi was the great-grandfather, Kohath the grandfather, Amram the father, and Moses and Aaron the sons. But is this so? There is no other Biblical evidence that indicates this is the case, and there is no use anywhere in the Bible of the phrase "called his name" in reference to these men that would point to an immediate father-son relationship. Why would God give the life spans of only three individuals among so many?

To solve this puzzle, let us assume that God is giving us the calendar for the Israelitish sojourn in Egypt. One might recall that Jacob came to Egypt with his sons including Levi, and that the Israelites went out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Both Levi and Aaron are mentioned in Exodus 6 and the age of Aaron at the time of Israel's departure from Egypt is given as 83 (Exodus 7:7). It can be shown from the Biblical references that when Levi entered Egypt he was 60 to 63 years of age, with the burden of the evidence pointing to 60 years.5 Since he died at the age of 137, he lived 77 years in Egypt. If this is a calendar giving the names of the reference patriarchs or generations, we would expect that Kohath was a descendant of Levi and was born the year of Levi's death; and that Amram was a descendant of Kohath, and that he was born the year of Kohath's death. Aaron in turn was born the year of Amram's death, and was descended from Amram."

Romans 15:16 (KJV)
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Greek word here rendered “ministering” is hierourgeo and it means “to work as a priest.” The KJV translators, however, have suppressed this meaning, in order to avoid giving credence to the idea that ministers of Jesus Christ have priestly duties (something that would undermine the Protestant idea of eliminating the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Christian age). The RSV renders the verse much better: “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

I don't think the idea to suppress the meaning of 'minister' is quite correct. Simple, a Minister is to do his job well that is to serve or minister. Here Paul addresses this matter to the Gentile believer as a minister of the gospel. The idea of 'to work as a priest' in the bible refers to the O.T. hebrew priesthood in the temple and mainly to God's people. The gospel on the other hand is so done mostly outside the temple especially of the Gentiles. Doing a priestly service to the Gentile believers is somewhat proselyting and as Paul is against Judaizers. Kjb does so well and the translators were not influenced by their belief. They translated what they know as best in this passage.

There is an absolutely enormous amount of quite irrefutable evidence of massive catastrophism about 12,800 years ago.

This "Carolina Bays" formation is only a part of the story. There is tons of evidence for a cataclysmic electromagnetic excursion event near the same time period. See the "squatter man" petroglyphs, which are of exactly the same type globally.

This topic is far too expansive to even begin to address it here on CC. So I won't unless someone asks. But it is compelling.
BTW....this 10,000BC catastrophe was not connected to the Noachian flood. The flood occurred EARLIER. It may have been (and probably was for several reasons) the Babel judgement catastrophe.

That is not accurate at all. See The Revision Revised.

This to add 3 pieces which would give us 6016 or approximately 6000 yrs. Please have this check. Encyclopedia Britannica has 2000 bce as the birthdate of Abraham.

Hi Cv5


"Abraham was born in 2322 B.C.

"Why, then, are our modern Bibles today giving us an age of about 6000 years since Creation for our time? "
Here a simple data for a simple Math
1. Abrahams date OF birth- 2000 BCE
2. Jesus birth - 4BC (2000bc-4bc=1997)
3. Jesus to us- 2019 (2023-3)

This to add 3 pieces which would give us 6016 or approximately 6000 yrs. Please have this check. Encyclopedia Britannica has 2000 bce as the birthdate of Abraham.