Nonsense. NowASaint calls the "Original autographs" corrupt? Amazing how far KJV onlyists will go.

The King James Only movement will not be tolerated in this discussion. This discussion presupposes the facts of textual criticism that counter the King James Onlyists emotionalist appeals of faith.

Erasmus used the Vulgate for the Textus Receptus in Revelation. Your KJV STILL uses that translation. Therefore your KJV is in "the line of corrupt manuscripts." You cannot win your position regardless of HOW you try to slice it. It is either a corrupt or not. "these few Latin Vulgate readings which were incorporated into the Textus Receptus were genuine readings which had been preserved in the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. Erasmus" Wrong. You cannot have a manuscript in "a line of corrupt manuscripts" used in your KJV and claim that your KJV hasn't been corrupted. You literally have nothing to stand on for you position. Take this debate elsewhere. Last warning.

AGAIN, it is a FACT that the KJV used the Latin Vulgate for parts of revelation. Deny the FACTS as you want. They don't disagree fundamentally, you're drawing straws. It is your lack of understanding in textual criticism that allows you to hold a false understanding of how the critical text works. They do not disagree in the manner you believe them to. The evidence that the KJV variants are ADDITIONS is unparalleled. The Alexandrian tradition is FAR more accurate regarding the epistles than the KJV. AMAZING, that you don't address any of the facts I presented. Why are there 1800 variants between the textus receptus and it's source material? What about the formation of that tradition? Again, there is NO one who understands how it works who holds your view. Your view basically says that God couldn't preserve his word until 1000 C.E. Again, take this debate elsewhere, especially if you are not going to address the FACTS.

It's not a means to feel superior. Its a means to save people from your idolatrous movement. The KJV isn't even a translation, it is a revision of the Bishops bible, and pulled most of its material from the Bishops bible and Geneva Bible. Most of the pilgrims, and church refused to use the KJV for years, and instead used the Geneva Bible, which was the motivation for King James to make his translation.

Right, and being like Jesus is saying that a translation he didn't have is the only one that is faithful. Do you know why the quotations of the Old Testament don't match up with the texts in your Old Testament? Because your Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew and the New Testament authors used the Septuagint. Jesus was well aware of both the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament and most likely used both, however, you don't see him making the claims you do.

Seriously, stop thinking there is some conspiracy and conduct the research. The King James is a great revision, however, we have more accurate greek texts, much like the ESV where it translates Jude 1:5 according to the earliest manuscripts. I don't have a "need" to feel superior, we are called to preach and teach truth. Textual Criticism is the reason you still HAVE a King James Version as the committee who revised the Bishops bible surly used textual Criticism to determine the text of the KJV. As well as those who put out the new editions of the KJV. As well as the oxford edition, and the Cambridge edition.

I don't have to operate on your blind faith to know that God preserved his word. I have evidence. Your only appeal has been to your lack of understanding and emotionalism, which is a simple ignoring of the facts to hold your view. Like I said, the Byzantine only view makes MORE sense than the KJV view as there are, again, 1800 VARIANTS from the KJV and the Byzantine Tradition, and the KJV used the Vulgate for the translation in Revelation. Those are the facts. Period.

I disputed your claim of KJV onlyism. That was my point. I didn't argue translations, but rather, what the earliest manuscripts themselves say. Those aren't translations. I know how to present the gospel.

Nowasaint is exactly right. The Jews had a tendency of observing their tradition over scripture, just as they do today through the Talmud. There are many instances of this tradition changing in accordance with their desired beliefs. For example, Isaiah 53 always referred to the messiah according to the Talmud, however, after the second century, the Talmud said that Isaiah 53 referred to the nation of Israel. They changed their interpretation for the sake of maintaining that Jesus Christ wasn't the messiah. Jesus himself made this point to the jews several times over including in Mark 7:8 regarding worship, "You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

Right...When Erasmus formed his greek text, what the Textus Receptus (received text) is based on, he didn't have all of Revelation and had to use the Latin Vulgate. He translated the Greek from the Latin for parts of Revelation... " the story of Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation from the Vulgate into Greek is well-known and discussed in every textbook on New Testament textual criticism. e basic elements or facts are the following. the first edition of the New Testament with a Greek text was prepared by Erasmus and published in 1516. For Revelation, he based his Greek text on a single manuscript, minuscule 1r (now numbered 2814 according to the new Gregory-Aland number).2 this manuscript, however, lacks the final verses of the book, and in order to have a complete text, Erasmus retranslated these verses into Greek from the Latin. Elements of his retranslation survive in every edition of the so-called Textus Receptus, the standard text of the printed Greek New Testament until the nineteenth century.3" http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Krans2011.pdf

There isn't a single scholar of textual criticism who holds to KJV onlyism. Some are Majority Text "Only", As I stated in the OP MOST manuscripts contain the rendering "Jesus" including the second century P72 (Christ God).

This isn't a KJV only debate, but, aside from the Vulgate, and your ignoring of history, lets consider the KJV only movement. The greek text that the KJV is based on has 1800 variants from the source material (the byzantine tradition). Variants happen. The Textus Receptus has 1800 variants from the material it is based on. When considering the KJV, which edition?

Now here is where the discussion gets interesting. Your appeal against the Vulgate is that it is a Roman Catholic Version, which has been corrupted. Answer me this; when was the Roman Catholic Church most corrupt before the Reformation? You would answer, if you know history, sometime in between 700 C.E. or 1500 C.E. (the reformation being 1517). If that is when the church was most corrupt as a political institution, and the manuscripts your text is based on comes from between 1000 C.E. and 1500 C.E. (right before the reformation), how do you reckon those manuscripts not corrupted? They were produced under the Roman Catholic Church. Not only this, but consider that Erasmus, the source of your greek text, the received text, was a humanist Roman Catholic. You have a Catholic, creating a greek text that is based off of manuscripts formed within the time frame of a corrupted Roman Catholic Church, which were used for your King James Version. How would it be that those manuscripts be more "preserved" than the manuscripts of the critical text that date as early as 200 C.E.? Two hundred years from Christ himself vs a thousand. If ANY manuscripts were corrupted (which I don't believe any have been, which is the benefit of having variants), it would have been the manuscripts of the KJV given the dating of the manuscripts.

Lets talk more about the "changes". Your manuscripts are later, and it logically follows that If I wrote you a note and it was copied a thousand times, the first copy would be closer to the autograph. Furthermore, if there were changes from that first copy, the 1000 copy would have made additions. Consider John 5:4, This passage is not only omitted by P66, P75, a, B and others, but even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text, and some even mark the passage with asterisks or obeli. Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text.

The cool thing about being one who studied textual criticism, and believes God preserved his word, is that I can look at all manuscripts to have something closer to the autographs. While you're in a tradition written during the corruption of the catholic church. The critical text confirms that God's word was preserved, you cannot make that claim, but rather sit on blind faith and an idol of an English translation. I believe in inerrancy of the autographs, which means that I want to know what the autographs said, not just the byzantine tradition formed in 1000 C.E.

If you want to make this a debate, do so. I'll gladly enter there. My point was that Amarel made a claim about the vulgate, and I said if you use the vulgate than the vulgate witnesses to Jude 1:5. Do I hold to the vulgate? No, because I'm interested in the autographs, which is why I don't hold to the Byzantine tradition only.

The Latin Vulgate isn't nearly as accurate as the texts we have today, however, the Vulgate was popularized prior to Pope Gregorie's many corruptions to Constantine's establishment of the political institution of the Catholic Church. The Vulgate is still considered when translating difficult passages in terms of the eclectic text and the received text also has renderings (namely from Revelation) from the Vulgate. To say the vulgate is corrupted implies that the Received text translations are corrupted as well as translations based on the critical text where they may consider the Vulgate's rendering. However, to accept the historical formation of the Vulgate does not lead one to this conclusion. Latin was just the primary language at the time of its formation, and was used by the Catholic church despite the language dying out. The translation isn't corrupt, but rather the Church that used it.

I'm sorry, that is a postmodern myth that has been propagated by fictional works similar to the Da Vinci Code. In the original post, I mention early manuscripts for the citation of Jude 1:5 dating 300 years prior to Constantine. P72 itself dates from the second century. Next you'll say that the Council of Nicaea was about the bible, canonization, forming of Christian doctrine, blah, blah, blah, but the dispute was whether or not Jesus was a created being because Arius made a claim contrary to YEARS of teaching. It is simple historical fact that counters your myth.

There are many people and groups who dispute this, one example being Jehovah's Witnesses.