Rev. 16:5

Theo1689

Well-known member
Rev. 16:5 ... Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, ... (KJV)

Rev. 16:5 ... “You are just —the one who is and who was, the Holy One— (NET)
Rev. 16:5 ... Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, (NASB)
Rev. 16:5 ... You are righteous, who is and who was, the Holy One, (HCSB)
Rev. 16:5 ... “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were; (NIV)
Rev. 16:5 ... “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, (ESV)


There are ZERO Greek manuscripts which have "και ο εσομενος" ("and shalt be") at Rev. 16:5.

So how can the KJV POSSIBLY be "inerrant" and "perfect", when it has a reading found NOWHERE in ANY Greek manuscript?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
So how can the KJV POSSIBLY be "inerrant" and "perfect", when it has a reading found NOWHERE in ANY Greek manuscript?

Easily.
If the book was originally written in Greek (unsure) then there was corruption in the first 200 years.

The critical text has 100 verses and more that have no Greek exemplar.
That alone does not prove those verses are corrupt.

The paper by Nick Sayers goes over this verse in depth.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Easily.
If the book was originally written in Greek (unsure) then there was corruption in the first 200 years.

So you're claiming that it was an original reading, but it was corrupted so that we no longer have that reading, but it's in the KJV?

That's really quite arbitrary, self-serving, and "conVEEEEEEEEEEEEnient", isn't it?

You've just thrown out every valid standard of evidence.
Congratulations!

The critical text has 100 verses and more that have no Greek exemplar.

Examples, please?

The paper by Nick Sayers goes over this verse in depth.

Would that be the same Nick Sayers who believes the 1611 KJV is inaccurate?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Easily.
If the book was originally written in Greek (unsure) then there was corruption in the first 200 years.

The critical text has 100 verses and more that have no Greek exemplar.
That alone does not prove those verses are corrupt.

The paper by Nick Sayers goes over this verse in depth.
IMO, Nick Sayers is a quack, same as Edit per mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Active member
So you're claiming that it was an original reading, but it was corrupted so that we no longer have that reading, but it's in the KJV?
That's really quite arbitrary, self-serving, and "conVEEEEEEEEEEEEnient", isn't it?
You've just thrown out every valid standard of evidence.
Congratulations!
Examples, please?
Would that be the same Nick Sayers who believes the 1611 KJV is inaccurate?

The reading is generally in all the Reformation Bible editions.

Revelation 16:5 (KJV)
And I heard the angel of the waters say,
Thou art righteous, O Lord,
which art, and wast, and shalt be,
because thou hast judged thus.

Within regular textual criticism (of the corrupt versions) it is definitely allowable that a reading can be lost in the extant mss. Thus there is I belive two emendations in the NA28. They are wrong, but it shows you that theoretically it is possible for the original reading to be missing in the extant mss. Hort had many more.

And they have over 100 full verses that have no textual exemplar in any language.
"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective"
by Maurice Robinson

And I agree with Nick Sayers on many things. He did a good job on the Revelation 16:5 studies.

You are not very well informed on textual theories.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
The reading is generally in all the Reformation Bible editions.

Revelation 16:5 (KJV)
And I heard the angel of the waters say,
Thou art righteous, O Lord,
which art, and wast, and shalt be,
because thou hast judged thus.

Within regular textual criticism (of the corrupt versions) it is definitely allowable that a reading can be lost in the extant mss. Thus there is I belive two emendations in the NA28. They are wrong, but it shows you that theoretically it is possible for the original reading to be missing in the extant mss. Hort had many more.

And they have over 100 full verses that have no textual exemplar in any language.
"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective"
by Maurice Robinson

And I agree with Nick Sayers on many things. He did a good job on the Revelation 16:5 studies.

You are not very well informed on textual theories.
A "theoretical" reading is not an ACTUAL reading.

it appears Beza GUESSED that "and shalt be" should be in his TR revision's Rev. 16:5 because it was in other similar verses, so he took it upon himself to ADD to God's word.

And I think Theo is 'WAY more-knowledgeable of the actual readings of many ancient Koine Greek Scriptural mss. & of textual theories than you'll admit.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The reading is generally in all the Reformation Bible editions.

If a reading is in a Bible based on the errant TR, that's not a valid argument.
Sorry.

Here are the translations "Reformed" Christians use today:

Rev. 16:5 ... “You are just —the one who is and who was, the Holy One— (NET)
Rev. 16:5 ... Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, (NASB)
Rev. 16:5 ... You are righteous, who is and who was, the Holy One, (HCSB)
Rev. 16:5 ... “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were; (NIV)
Rev. 16:5 ... “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, (ESV)

Revelation 16:5 (KJV)
And I heard the angel of the waters say,
Thou art righteous, O Lord,
which art, and wast, and shalt be,
because thou hast judged thus.

Correct.
The KJV reading is in error, having ZERO manuscript support.
That is what we're supposed to be discussing.

Within regular textual criticism (of the corrupt versions)

... begging the question.

it is definitely allowable that a reading can be lost in the extant mss.

So you do NOT believe that God can preserve His words.
Got it.

Thus there is I belive two emendations in the NA28. They are wrong, but it shows you that theoretically it is possible for the original reading to be missing in the extant mss. Hort had many more.

Yet you continue to REFUSE to provide examples.
You make bogus claims, but you provide ZERO examples.

And they have over 100 full verses that have no textual exemplar in any language.

I already asked you to provide examples.

"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective"
by Maurice Robinson

Sorry, I don't have that resource.

Simply give the citations, and the alleged "emendations" text, and we will see whether there is any manuscript support for them.

Why are you so afraid to give examples?

And I agree with Nick Sayers on many things. He did a good job on the Revelation 16:5 studies.

Yet he believes the KJV has errors in it.
That's why he has to replace it with a "revised" text.

You are not very well informed on textual theories.

Okay, I see... You can't provide evidence for your bogus accusations, so you have to insist on particular "philosophies" and engage in ad hominem to cover up that you have no evidence for your bogus claims.

Got it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You do not know the term Reformation Bible?

Nope. Never heard of it.

Look it up in:

The Reformation of the Bible/The Bible of the Reformation - (1996) by Professor Jaroslav Pelikan -

The appears to be a book ABOUT the Bible, not a Bible translation itself, so it appears to be completely irrelevant.

Further, since I've asked you THREE times now to support your bogus claim that there were "100" (or later, "2") emendations in the Bible, and since you are unable to provide any examples, we can rightly conclude you're simply making things up out of whole cloth.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
The appears to be a book ABOUT the Bible, not a Bible translation itself, so it appears to be completely irrelevant.

Further, since I've asked you THREE times now to support your bogus claim that there were "100" (or later, "2") emendations in the Bible, and since you are unable to provide any examples, we can rightly conclude you're simply making things up out of whole cloth.

See if you can read the Pelikan book instead of coming to conclusions from the vapor. He gives wonderful examples of Reformation Bible editions in many languages.

And I gave you the Maurice Robinson paper name above. By your noxious response above, I do not think you understand the issue or the paper. I'll see if I can get you a pic of the 100 plus verses that have no matching exemplars in any manuscript.

100 Variants.jpg
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
See if you can read the book instead of coming to conclusions from the vapor.

I gave you the paper name above.

So I can only conclude two things:

1) You have no clue about Koine Greek, church history, textual criticism, or the readings of the manuscripts, which is why you depend on blindly believing whatever irrational KJVO's tell you in their "books".

2) I'm not going to reward a edit by purchasing his book, when I don't need his book. If there are "emendations" in the critical text, according to your BOGUS claim, then you'd simply be able to quote the verse(s) and text(s), without trying to "fund raise" to get people to purchase worthless books.

So what verses contain these imaginary "emendations"?

Chapters and verses, please?

Otherwise, you prove that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Active member
You were so quick to post. Why not go back and respond again. I took about five minutes to complete the post and put in the list of verses.

To help you out, remember, we are talking about verses as a whole that have no exemplar that matches the modern critical text. These verses will have two or more variant units and the modern CT uses a slice-and-dice methodology. Maurice Robinson gave us a superb paper.

You are embarrassing yourself with your hostile comments on issues where you are uninformed. Maurice Robinson is not a KJB supporter, he is a gentleman and a scholar.

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

Pelikan would teach you that the Reformation Bibles are the Bibles in many languages translated in the period from the 1500s to c. 1650, translated from the Received Text editions. If you were teachable. Again, he is not a KJB supporter, your myopic obsession.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
You were so quick to post. Why not go back and respond again. I took about five minutes to complete the post and put in the list of verses.

Great!
You should've done that the first time!

So what you are saying is that no particular (singular) manuscript has the same exact reading as an entire "verse". Okay, so your argument is fallacious on a number of levels. Let me explain them to you, and I'll try to use small words so hopefully you'll understand.

1) You are engaging in a standard that the KJV would fail miserably at. So you are being a hypocrite.

2) You are perhaps unaware that "verse numbers" are not inspired, but were a 16th century addition to the Biblical text by Stephanus (Robert Estienne). So to use "verses" as a standard for measurement is incredibly arbitrary.

3) ALL handwritten "manuscripts" (which is basically what "manuscript" means) are going to have variants, or copyist errors. In point of fact, ZERO Greek manuscripts exist which perfectly match the TR, which the KJV is based upon, so again, you are being hypocritical in your standard. The modern "Critical Text" is based on the WHOLE of the manuscript evidence, PRECISELY THE SAME WAY that the "Textus Receptus" was a collation based on the WHOLE of the New Testament manuscript evidence available at the time.

You are embarrassing yourself with your hostile comments on issues where you are uninformed. Maurice Robinson is not a KJB supporter, he is a gentleman and a scholar.

Um, you have this annoying habit of falsely accusing others based on your OWN negative traits (eg. YOUR "hostile comments").

You also have an annoying habit of making false accusations about people based on things they've never claimed. I NEVER claimed that Robinson was a "KJB supporter", although thank you for your lack of charity in ASSUMING ignorance on my part.

Let me educate you, by informing you that Robinson and Pierpont is a "Majority text" guy, which supports a different text than either the TR or the Critical text. It is IMO a very ARBITRARILY and irrational view, but that's beside the point.

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

Pelikan would teach you that the Reformation Bibles are the Bibles in many languages translated in the period from the 1500s to c. 1650, translated from the Received Text editions. If you were teachable.

<Chuckle>

And of course, any translation that is based on the errant TR, is going to contain the errors contained in the TR. And all this is incredibly irrelevant, since very FEW Reformed Christians today use 400+ year-old translations. You keep bringing up these worthless red herrings, demonstrating YOUR ignorance in the subject matter.

Again, he is not a KJB supporter, your myopic obsession.

Again, never claimed that he WAS, so if you were a true Christian, an apology would be in order for your false and uncharitable accusation.


Now, as for your assertion, let's look at the first verse in your list:

Luke 24:50 Ἐξήγαγεν δὲ αὐτοὺς [ἔξω] ἕως⸃ πρὸς Βηθανίαν, (NA28/UBS4)
Luke 24:50 ⲉⲝⲏⲅⲁⲅⲉⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩⲥ ⲉⲝⲱ ⲉⲱⲥ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲃⲏⲑⲁⲛⲓⲁ̅ (Codex Alexandrinus)

καὶ ἐπάρας τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς. (NA28/UBS4)
ⲕⲁⲓ ⲉⲡⲁⲣⲁⲥ ⲧⲁⲥ ⲭⲉⲓⲣⲁⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲗⲟⲅⲏⲥⲉⲛ ⲁⲩⲧⲟⲩⲥ (Codex Alexandrinus)


So, a cursory comparison between the CT and our first manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus, results in two minor variants:
1) "προς" vs. "εις";
2) accusative vs. dative of "βηθανια"


So let's see if there is manuscript evidence for any of these variant readings....

1) "προς" vs. "εις";

The reading of "προς" (supporting NA28/UBS4) is found in p75, Sinaitcus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and others.

2) accusative vs. dative of "βηθανια"

The reading of "βηθανιαν" (supporting NA28/UBS4) is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, Bezae, etc. etc.

So we see, every single letter in this verse has manuscript support, UNLIKE the Textus Receptus.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
KJVOs forget that there's NO PERFECT MATCH between the KJV, any of the over-30 revisions of the Textus Receptus, and any one ancient Koine greek Scriptural manuscript. Of those three entities, NO TWO ARE A PERFECT MATCH!

But anyone who made any changes in his revision of the TR that didn't exactly match an ancient Scriptural ms. was ADDING to God's word. And that included Beza in Rev. 16:5.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
Easily.
If the book was originally written in Greek (unsure) then there was corruption in the first 200 years.

The critical text has 100 verses and more that have no Greek exemplar.
That alone does not prove those verses are corrupt.

The paper by Nick Sayers goes over this verse in depth.

1) So you don't believe in preservation, you believe in restoration.
2) Your statement regarding the CT having 100 verses with no exemplar is irrelevant given they're not arguing the same thing you are (continuous preservation).
3) I've read Nick Sayers's paper, which can be summarized as, "it's in the KJV, therefore, it's right."
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
The reading is generally in all the Reformation Bible editions.

Irrelevant to the point.

Within regular textual criticism (of the corrupt versions) it is definitely allowable that a reading can be lost in the extant mss.

Also irrelevant because unlike your position, theirs does not advocate preservation of every jot and tittle.

Thus there is I belive two emendations in the NA28.

Also irrelevant

They are wrong, but it shows you that theoretically it is possible for the original reading to be missing in the extant mss.

If by your own standard a reading can vanish completely in the first 200 years, how can you possibly know whether they're wrong when you're taking the same position?

Hort had many more.

Also irrelevant.

It appears so far that your defense is little more than "whataboutism" regarding another.

Do you have ANY evidence at all other than your assertion?

And they have over 100 full verses that have no textual exemplar in any language.
"Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective"
by Maurice Robinson

One, one hundred, how can you be criticizing someone for something you're saying is not even wrong?

And I agree with Nick Sayers on many things.

This, too, is irrelevant, particularly since his evidence was no better than what I've seen so far.

He did a good job on the Revelation 16:5 studies.

In your opinion, yes.

You are not very well informed on textual theories.

So your entire evidence is:
a) a bunch of theories
b) a personal attack
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
And I gave you the Maurice Robinson paper name above. By your noxious response above, I do not think you understand the issue or the paper. I'll see if I can get you a pic of the 100 plus verses that have no matching exemplars in any manuscript.

Once again, this is completely irrelevant.

Maurice Robinson isn't advocating this for HIS text.
He also does not agree with you regarding Rev. 16:5, so this, too, is beyond the pale.


Let me explain this to you in very simple to understand terms: you have lost this argument whichever method you're using.

1) If a matching exemplar DOES MATTER then Rev 16:5 is toast.
2) If it does NOT matter, your pointing the finger in the opposite direction to make an accusation doesn't change the fact that that accusation by your own standards doesn't matter. If one is okay, one hundred is okay.

You need to first decide whether having an exemplar even matters. If it doesn't, fine, but preservation and accessbility go out the window from the standpoint of preserved Words. If it DOES matter, you're advocating an unpreserved text...JUST LIKE THE CT FOLKS you're criticizing.
 

Steven Avery

Active member

1) So you don't believe in preservation, you believe in restoration.
2) Your statement regarding the CT having 100 verses with no exemplar is irrelevant given they're not arguing the same thing you are (continuous preservation).
3) I've read Nick Sayers's paper, which can be summarized as, "it's in the KJV, therefore, it's right."

1) fallacy of composition, or hasty generalization.
2) fallacy of demanding absolute equality, and not understanding the context
3) nonsense
 
Top