Rev. 16:5

Hark

Well-known member
I believe you, but NEITHER had any ancient manuscript, that we know of, backing his work. Without such a ms, the phrase can't be correct.
The not knowing is the part where we have to take pause in reaching any conclusion on the matter. I am sure we will know for sure in Heaven.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Paul is testifying to himself as well as those who had already believed in the preaching of the cross as unto us which are saved.

So I do not see how you can apply what you said from your quote as being towards readers that were unsaved. Scripture was not available to unsaved for personal readers or even to pass around among unbelievers. Such epistles would be guarded and kept in the churches or for reading to new assemblies of believers and any unbelievers visiting the assembly, but I do not believe it is a practice for sharing it with unbelievers to read in outward ministry in the early church days. Too much danger of it being torn up when in the hands of unbelievers, I would think.
Not everyone who attended such a church was saved, same as now. But more were being saved over time.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
The not knowing is the part where we have to take pause in reaching any conclusion on the matter. I am sure we will know for sure in Heaven.

But you do realize, I'm sure, the rather obvious problem here - there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" or at a minimum "I don't know for sure." Such intellectual integrity separates the crusader from the credible. There are obvious passages where the evidence divides.

But this one isn't even close. I mean, the gentleman who just days ago was so defiantly insisting that the Critical Text had bigger problems never really bothered to explain his objection in any detail or with any sort of analogous comparison, either. Even granting every concession to the article he cited, some of those readings without an EXTANT exemplar have at least sections or words in different manuscripts.

This one, though, doesn't even compare. There's NOTHING for it, so we're told that it must be a corrupted reading everywhere.

This shaky level of inconsistency on the part of a number of people more interested in certainty than in reality doesn't help things.

Just say, "The KJV here is in error" and leave it at that.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Not everyone who attended such a church was saved, same as now. But more were being saved over time.
That is understandable to a point when the letter/epistle representing Paul and saved believers has to direct the unbelievers to know that Paul & believers are saved having believing the reaching of the cross in verse 18 as it is the power of God to save those that believe in verse 21 as directing to those listening that may be unsaved so they can be saved by believing the preaching of the cross..

Verse 18 is a testimony from Paul by the use of the pronoun "us" that He and other saved believers are saved.

Verse 21 can be applied as you say to readers and hearers of this epistle/letter that they too can be saved when they believe the preaching of the cross as Paul deferred from himself & other saved believers to "them that believe".

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 

Hark

Well-known member
We must assume the reading is bogus until proven otherwise, simple as THAT.
Just as we must assume that because of the lack of availability of all manuscripts, including the ones testifying to how it was originally written, we must believe that neither side of this issue can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Referring to people that have historically seen the manuscripts yet dismissing others that speak to the contrary leaves us to "we have to go and see for ourselves on both sides of the issues" but since the original manuscripts are not available and evidence of tampering of manuscripts are obvious as claimed by both sides of the issue, again, no one can prove anything.

What we can prove is how we apply or when we misapply scripture to mean when it goes against the truths in other parts of scripture in that Bible version being addressed. When the wrong message is written for false teachings to expound from out of context, then God has to come to the rescue regardless of showing the correct message in the KJV.
 

Hark

Well-known member
But you do realize, I'm sure, the rather obvious problem here - there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" or at a minimum "I don't know for sure." Such intellectual integrity separates the crusader from the credible. There are obvious passages where the evidence divides.

But this one isn't even close. I mean, the gentleman who just days ago was so defiantly insisting that the Critical Text had bigger problems never really bothered to explain his objection in any detail or with any sort of analogous comparison, either. Even granting every concession to the article he cited, some of those readings without an EXTANT exemplar have at least sections or words in different manuscripts.

This one, though, doesn't even compare. There's NOTHING for it, so we're told that it must be a corrupted reading everywhere.

This shaky level of inconsistency on the part of a number of people more interested in certainty than in reality doesn't help things.

Just say, "The KJV here is in error" and leave it at that.
If we leave out the unavailability of how it was originally written that would prove either side of how Revelation 16:5 was originally written, what is the error in the KJV to call it an error or for that matter, or for how it is written in modern Bibles? Both are saying the truth, are they not?

As it is, the case is unresolved, but there is no error as far as calling that error a lie in either version.
 

Conan

Active member
The Reformation Bibles do not support the KJV. The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible which was a revision of Matthews Bible which was a revision of William Tyndale's translations.

Tyndale (1525) 1535
And I herde an angell say: Lorde which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Great Bible (1539) 1540
And I herde an Angell saye: lorde, which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Geneva Bible (1560) 1562
And I heard the Aungell of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, Whiche art, and Whiche wast, and Holie, because thou hast judged these things.

Bishops Bible (1568) 1602
And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art righteous and that holy one, because thou hast given such judgements:

King James (1611) 1873
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.
 

Hark

Well-known member
The Reformation Bibles do not support the KJV. The KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible which was a revision of Matthews Bible which was a revision of William Tyndale's translations.

Tyndale (1525) 1535
And I herde an angell say: Lorde which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Great Bible (1539) 1540
And I herde an Angell saye: lorde, which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Geneva Bible (1560) 1562
And I heard the Aungell of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, Whiche art, and Whiche wast, and Holie, because thou hast judged these things.

Bishops Bible (1568) 1602
And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art righteous and that holy one, because thou hast given such judgements:

King James (1611) 1873
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.
That is a good comparison. Since those earlier Bibles came from the TR, right, then that should prove without a doubt what Revelation 16:5 was written as, but it does question why the KJV translators, over 52 of them, would go with what they did in the KJV? Research?

Testing the Textus Receptus: Rev. 16:5

Seems this researcher found this;

"There’s a variant regarding “Lord” earlier in the verse, but the one we will focus on is “Holy One” versus “and shalt be”. Beza’s 1598 edition of the TR supports the KJV here, but several other key printed TR Greek texts have “Holy One”.

Testing that Claim: History of the TR

The other major editions (Erasmus’, Stephanus’ and Elzevirs’) of the TR, besides Beza’s, do not contain the “and shalt be” reading. Scrivener’s 1894 TR does have the reading, but like its Oxford 1825 ed. forebear, Scrivener’s text was created based off of the English readings of the KJV and any available printed Greek texts that the KJV 1611 translators would have had. So really we’re down to Beza’s as the only TR text which includes this reading, with one exception. The 1633 Elzevir’s text, which earned the title “textus receptus“, actually sided with Beza, but the 1624 edition of Elzevir’s text and the 1641 and all following editions of Elzevir’s text go back to Stephanus/Erasmus reading of ó????. That reading is nearly equal to the reading of the Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, and Robinson-Pierpont (majority) texts. The TR reading keeps the “and (???)”, however." end of quote

3 major editions of the TR?

Then he came to the reason why Beza did the change.


Quoting from Beza;

“And shall be”: The usual publication is “holy one,” which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to “holy,” since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after “and,” which would be absolutely necessary in connecting “righteous” and “holy one.” But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly “and shall be,” for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, “shall be.” So why not truthfully, with good reason, write “which is to come” as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. ~~~ end of quote

.The researcher concludes that Beza was guessing but offered something else.

"This is clearly a guess by Beza. He is looking at some Vulgate copy which is worn in the text at hand, and so based on his understanding of John’s other uses of the phrase, he concludes “shall be” is the proper reading. Now, after fixing the Vulgate reading, he then concludes he should fix the Greek reading to “which is to come”, to match the other four places in Revelation where “which are and which were” is found.

The problem is, of the more than 5700 Greek manuscripts we have, and of the more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts we have, we have not a single copy supporting this reading. What’s more we have no other old language translations supporting it either. The only possible evidence for it is detailed by Thomas Holland here (that link is broken, try this one or this one and scroll down). It is a Latin commentary on Revelation compiled in 786 AD, but the commentary in question was from 380 AD. The Latin phrase “qui fuisti et futures es” is used for this passage. Beza, however, is ignorant of this support as he does not cite it as a reason for his changes to the text. ~~~ end of quote

Note the bold. Even though the researcher cited this and proved that Beza had no knowledge of this to give it as a reason for the change, the researcher conclude at the end of his research that "thou shalt be" was not originally scripture anyway.

I can agree up to a point since we can only know for sure when we are in Heaven. I do not believe "thou shalt be" changes anything in the scripture as far as the message goes, but there it is.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
With many different Bible versions and they are not all saying the same thing,

It's amazing the ridiculous and bogus claims I hear from people who have no clue what they're talking about.

I've heard people claim, "Every Christian denomination has their own translation." Funny thing, I've never come across a "Baptist Bible", or "Presbyterian Bible", or "Lutheran Bible".

I've heard people claim, "modern Bibles are not all saying the same thing". But again, the same beliefs are taught, regardless of whether I use a KJV (my mom's Bible), an RSV (the Bible I received in Sunday school), an NIV (the Bible we used at my first church), or the ESV or NET that I use today.

KJVO's generally don't USE modern versions, so they are usually ignorant of their contents.

& Jesus warning us in John 14:23-24 from the Father & warning about how men will do the same thing towards the sayings of His disciples ( John 15:20 ), and the fact that at that forum, not all Baptists believes the same for how some are speaking & behaving as Pentecostal/ Charismatic & it does not bother any one there that are Baptist... you should be wary.

.... but it is NOT based on "which Bible they use".

The supposed reason for that is to have an easier to read Bible versions if you believe the hype against the KJV.

Um, in 1611, the KJV *WAS* the "easier to read Bible". That's the POINT.
And that's precisely why the KJV translators wrote that the Bible would need to be revised over time.

For any new Bible versions to have its own copy right, they have to change a lot of words, add, or drop words, to get that copy right.

You demonstrate that you don't have any idea how Bibles are made.
Modern Bibles aren't based on the KJV, they are based on translations from the Hebrew and Greek.

Let me give you an example of the extent of "difference" in translations:

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, (KJV)
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son (NKJV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (NIV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (ESV)
For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, (CSB)
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son (NASB)
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son (NET)
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (RSV)


They basically ALL contain the same message, and they are basically two minor differences in wording:

1) The CSB and NET render "ουτω" as "in this way", rather than "so", which IMO is a better translation, as it is unambiguous and more precisely conveys the meaning.

2) The modern translations translate "μονογενης" as "only", "unique", or "one of a kind", which is the correct meaning. Arguably, the KJV is inaccurate and misleading here, since Jesus was not "begotten" or "created".

So looking at all of those modern Bibles now, brother, if you apply the hype against using the KJV, & now this new one, it doesn't look to me that they have finally made that easier to read Bible yet.

You would be mistaken.

Putting aside my sarcasm against that particular hype, who can say that the love of money is the cause for new Bible versions being put out today?

Are you simply ASSUMING a derogatory motive?
Do you have any, I don't know.... EVIDENCE for your accusation?

I am still using the KJV and have no trouble understanding it nor applying His words to reprove false teachings supported by changed messages in modern Bibles.

You keep making this false claim about "changed messages in modern Bibles", but you can never provide any EVIDENCE for your false claim. And that's beside the fact that in order to recognize which Bibles have the "changed message", we first need a way to find out what the Bible ORIGINALLY said.

And considering I can read Greek, and you apparently can't, I don't see how you are in any position to know.

By that analogy, I'd say the reality is that the Model T is still driving straight down the road compared to the latest model in the ditch, because of it supporting false teachings

You keep making bogus claims for which you have ZERO evidence.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The author stated "The debate stems from the fact that the Comma Johanneum is completely absent in every Greek manuscript..."

So did the author cited that he speak, read or write Greek?

Did the author say that he checked all those Greek manuscripts to say that it is a fact or was he just repeating a general consensus which is really still only an opinion from what all those who argue against 1 John 5:7 as being original scripture

You don't seem to understand anything about textual criticism and study of the manuscripts. Ever since the time of Westcott and Hort, the extant manuscripts have been collated, and their differences catalogued. This continues today in the Critical text (UBS4/NA28), where each edition has what's called an "Apparatus", which displays the more meaningful variant readings significant for Bible translation or Bible study and preaching.

The vast, vast majority of textual variants are insignificant, things like differing word order, something called "moveable-nu" (similar to "a" vs. "an" in English), variant spellings of names, etc., which make ZERO different in translation.

So no, it is not merely "opinion", it is undeniable fact. The Comma Johanneum has not appeared in the main text of a Greek manuscript prior to 1520, when Codex Montfortianus was "made to order", to pressure Erasmus into adding it into his 3rd edition.

only because of only hundreds was viewed over the thousands Greek manuscripts available for comparing?

Again, you have no clue about textual criticism. We have about 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Not all of them contain the entire Bible, or even the entire New Testament. Some are as small as a credit card. Some contain only the gospels an Acts. Others only include some of Paul's epistles. So no, we don't have "thousands of Greek manuscripts" of 1 John.

We see today believers have trouble with 1 John 5:7 in the KJV because they deny Christ as God as well as the 3 Witnesses within the One God.

That is simply false.
We take issue with 1 John 5:7, not because we take issue with the message it contains, but because it wasn't what God originally revealed. The vast majority of those who take issue with 1 John 5:7 BELIEVE the Trinity.

Jesus warned us from the Father that those who do not love Jesus will not keep His words per John 14:23-24.

Then that must mean that KJVO's hate Jesus, since you have ADDED to God's word when you added 1 John 5:7.

Hmmmm......

Well, this prophesy had happened, and removing 1 John 5:7 from original scripture is proof of it, because it obviously & plainly reproves those in error.

1 John 5:7 was never PART of "original scripture", to be allegedly "removed".

Now in regards to Revelation 16:5 ask yourself why the debate? Can we find this message about Jesus Christ in other scripture as found in Revelation 16:5?

Um, that's NOT how you do textual criticism.

As it is, KJVO nor anti-KJVO should not be striving over that message because neither one is false. Jesus is forever & holy.

I see...
So KJVO's are allowed to (unfairly) attack modern versions.
But we're not allowed to point out the errors in the KJV?
Double standards much?

There is a warning in Revelation about adding or removing His words in that book, but as it is, only God knows.

And KJVO's are guilty of failing to heed that warning regarding 1 John 5:7 and Rev. 16:5.
 

Hark

Well-known member
And KJVO's are guilty of failing to heed that warning regarding 1 John 5:7 and Rev. 16:5.
Those who lobed Him will keep His words while those who do not lobe Him will not keep His words.

So where does 1 John 5:7 & Revelation 16:5 in the KJV is a lie that proves they did not love Him?

Whereas 1 John 5:7 would be dismissed because there were believers back then that denied the deity of Christ & the existence of the Triune God. 1 John 5:7 boldly and plainly attests to that truth. One may see with Him the warning from the Father here for why it was dropped since we still have believers today that deny the deity of Christ & the existence of the Triune God..

In the case of Revelation 16:5, neither one denies Christ in any shape or form. Jesus's warning does not apply.. I can agree with Revelation 16:5 may not be originally scripture as the KJV has it, but I will know for sure in Heaven. That is all the conclusion I can come to. If that does not make me KJVO, so be it, but I have been saying I do not agree with everything that makes up the KJVO.

However, not sure of the warning in Revelation about adding a word or removing a word will be applied by Him for how He will issue judgment when it comes to translation from the Greek in regards to the words in the Book of Revelation even though the message is the same, or it seems to me.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Those who lobed Him will keep His words while those who do not lobe Him will not keep His words.

So then you should "lobe" Him, I guess?

So where does 1 John 5:7 & Revelation 16:5 in the KJV is a lie that proves they did not love Him?

You've CHANGED God's word.

Whereas 1 John 5:7 would be dismissed because there were believers back then that denied the deity of Christ & the existence of the Triune God.

That's nothing but worthless and self-serving speculation and rationalization.

1 John 5:7 boldly and plainly attests to that truth.

Too bad it's not Scripture.
"Pilgrim's Progress" attests to God's truth as well, but that doesn't make it Scripture, either.

In the case of Revelation 16:5, neither one denies Christ in any shape or form.

You've CHANGED Scripture.
And as you've pointed out yourself, that's a BIG "no-no".

Jesus's warning does not apply..

<Chuckle>
More double standards by you.
 

Hark

Well-known member
So then you should "lobe" Him, I guess?

You've CHANGED God's word.

That's nothing but worthless and self-serving speculation and rationalization.

Too bad it's not Scripture.
"Pilgrim's Progress" attests to God's truth as well, but that doesn't make it Scripture, either.

You've CHANGED Scripture.
And as you've pointed out yourself, that's a BIG "no-no".

<Chuckle>
More double standards by you.
Antagonize people much? I forgive you. Do not be surprise if I do not discussed anything with you from now on, brother.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Where I am at now on Revelation 16:5 in the KJV; we may have Beza's notes on why he guessed in the way that he did, but not why over 52 KJV translators did what they did when the Geneva Bible and even Tyndale had it the way modern Bibles have it. It would be nice to see quotes from them for why they went that route.

Now for comparison; modern Bibles with the TR Bibles before the KJV. Notice the placement of the Holy One in scripture.

Revelation 16:5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were; NIV

Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel in charge of the waters[a] say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. ESV

Notice how Holy One is before Who are and was in the first 2 above and after who are & was after the last 2 modern Bibles below.

Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous are You, the One who is and who was, O Holy One, because You judged these things; NASB

Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous and just are You, Who are and Who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; AMP

It seems the Bibles before the KJV had it consistently afterwards.

Tyndale (1525) 1535
And I herde an angell say: Lorde which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Great Bible (1539) 1540
And I herde an Angell saye: lorde, which arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes,

Geneva Bible (1560) 1562
And I heard the Aungell of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, Whiche art, and Whiche wast, and Holie, because thou hast judged these things.

Bishops Bible (1568) 1602
And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art righteous and that holy one, because thou hast given such judgements:

No message changed but wonder why if they were translating directly from the Greek how some modern bibles have it before.

My problem is when I read it in the KJV, I read a hiccup.

Revelation 16:5 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. KJV

When I look at all the Bibles, it bothers me that the testimony did not begin with He was, and then is. It seems rather off putting to say He is and then was. It bothers me that it reads in the KJV as He is, and then He was, and compound the confusion with thou shall be as if He is not presently, nulling & voiding the earlier testimony that He is, but when coming after was, it makes one wonder.

Leaning on His wisdom, it goes to His judgment as standing forever as He is righteous in how He will judge everything in the present, past, & future. So This is not about His existence but how He judges as God presently, in the past, and in the future as it will stand forever..

So can other believers have trouble with that verse? Could that be the reason for dropping "thou shalt be"?

I can see why believers that err would drop 1 John 5:7 from scripture when they deny the deity of Christ and the Triune God.. So I believe 1 John 5:7 is originally scripture.

Can I prove how Revelation 16:5 was originally written? No. So that is where I am at & I know I will find out when I get to Heaven for sure.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Where I am at now on Revelation 16:5 in the KJV; we may have Beza's notes on why he guessed in the way that he did, but not why over 52 KJV translators did what they did when the Geneva Bible and even Tyndale had it the way modern Bibles have it. It would be nice to see quotes from them for why they went that route.

Because the KJV translators translated the NT from the Textus Receptus (ie. the collated Greek text, which included Beza's conjectural emendation). It's really not difficult.

Now for comparison; modern Bibles with the TR Bibles before the KJV. Notice the placement of the Holy One in scripture.

Why is that the least bit relevant?
Greek is an inflected language, so you can't expect to always see the exact same word order between Greek and English.

No message changed but wonder why if they were translating directly from the Greek how some modern bibles have it before.

Why would you expect them to always have the exact same word order in English, if they translated from the Greek? Do you know something about Greek that I don't?

Again, how many years of Koine Greek study have you had? Who were your professors? What were your grammars?

My problem is when I read it in the KJV, I read a hiccup.

Completely irrelevant to anything.

When I look at all the Bibles, it bothers me that the testimony did not begin with He was, and then is.

The correct rendering of the Bible is INDEPENDENT of what "bothers" you.
This is completely irrelevant.

Leaning on His wisdom,

What does this even mean?
How do you know you are "Leaning on His wisdom"?
Does He tell you things audibly, or do you simply ASSUME that any opinion that pops into your head is "His wisdom"?

So can other believers have trouble with that verse? Could that be the reason for dropping "thou shalt be"?

Since "thou shalt be" was NEVER in the text to begin with, it was never "dropped".

I can see why believers that err would drop 1 John 5:7 from scripture when they deny the deity of Christ and the Triune God.. So I believe 1 John 5:7 is originally scripture.

Regardless of what you "believe", it is an undeniable fact that 1 John 5:7 (as rendered in the KJV) was NEVER originally Scripture.

And why do you keep making the false claim about people "denying the deity of Christ" as the reason 1 John 5:7 is absent? The vast majority of people who acknowledge that the Comma as never Scripture are TRINITARIANS. We simply want God's pure word, and not something added by man later, even if what was added supports our theology.

Can I prove how Revelation 16:5 was originally written? No. So that is where I am at & I know I will find out when I get to Heaven for sure.

Well, if you don't know what Rev. 16:5 originally said, maybe you should stop trying to argue about it and leave it to those of us who DO know.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Well, if you don't know what Rev. 16:5 originally said, maybe you should stop trying to argue about it and leave it to those of us who DO know.
Because what you all have shared has not convinced me at all that you really know when you do not have the original manuscript to prove how it was originally written.

If KJVO wants to share any pertinent information from the KJV translators why they did what they did when the Geneva Bible & Tyndale has it another way, that will be fine by me, even though I hope in the Lord that He will help me discern this as proving that information for me that this actually came from the KJV translators. and whether or not their reason or reasons are justified.

If anti-KJVO wants to share some relative information about how some priest over ruled the KJV translators on that issue, fine by me. I am still leaning on Jesus Christ to be my Good Shepherd to prove everything to me. Nobody else. And you shouldn't either. I can't do it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Because what you all have shared has not convinced me at all that you really know when you do not have the original manuscript to prove how it was originally written.

Let me see if I have this straight....
I've studied the Biblical manuscripts, first hand, and you know nothing about textual criticism.
I can read Koine Greek, and you know nothing about the language.
But you think you have a better understanding that I do?

All you do is quote from a collection of pro-KJVO resources, which you blindly TRUST to be true.

I hate to break it to you, but if we can't know what Rev. 16:5 originally said, then we have no basis for knowing what ANY of the Bible said.


But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for Christians, textual criticism is an INCREDIBLY reliable discipline, and thanks to the "embarrassment of riches" that we have, we can (and do) know what the Bible originally said. Even Bart Ehrman admits this.


So once again, if you admittedly don't know what the original reading of Rev. 16:5 was, then why are you even arguing?


If KJVO wants to share any pertinent information from the KJV translators ....

You are INCREDIBLY biased about the sources you're willing to accept.

If anti-KJVO wants to share some relative information about how some priest over ruled the KJV translators on that issue, fine by me.

"some priest"?!
Is this more conspiracy theory nonsense from you?!

I am still leaning on Jesus Christ to be my Good Shepherd to prove everything to me.

He speaks to you directly, does he?
Well, you're in good company.... Charles Manson claimed the same thing.

Nobody else. And you shouldn't either. I can't do it.

You don't get to tell me what to do.
 
Top