The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

robycop3

Well-known member
The KJV's Rev. 16:5 has the words "and shalt be" added to it. They're found in Greek in Beza's revision of the Textus Receptus, the version the AV makers used, but they're NOT found in that verse in ANY known ancient Greek ms. of Revelation. Beza used what's called a "conjectural emendation" to ADD them to the TR. As the AV men were using that version of the TR, they included those words.

While those words are true & DOCTRINALLY correct, do they actually belong in that verse? Not if they're not in any of the oldest copies of that Scripture we have. I believe God preserved every word of Scripture He wants us to have, and if we can't find certain words in what HE has preserved for us, then those words don't belong in the Bible translations we use now. I don't believe He would've placed them in that verse & then hidden them from us !

KJVOs make up many excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all their excuses are in vain if they're not found in the source texts for the Revelation. There's simply no valid excuse for their being there if they're not found in the closest mss. we have to the original.

This is more proof that the KJV is NOT perfect. Even though the translators are innocent of this booboo, it's a booboo nonetheless. I place the blame on BEZA, who ADDED them to the TR of his own volition. I expect the KJVOs here to chime in with a plethora of excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all are worthless without MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT !
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
The KJV's Rev. 16:5 has the words "and shalt be" added to it. They're found in Greek in Beza's revision of the Textus Receptus, the version the AV makers used, but they're NOT found in that verse in ANY known ancient Greek ms. of Revelation. Beza used what's called a "conjectural emendation" to ADD them to the TR. As the AV men were using that version of the TR, they included those words.

While those words are true & DOCTRINALLY correct, do they actually belong in that verse? Not if they're not in any of the oldest copies of that Scripture we have. I believe God preserved every word of Scripture He wants us to have, and if we can't find certain words in what HE has preserved for us, then those words don't belong in the Bible translations we use now. I don't believe He would've placed them in that verse & then hidden them from us !

KJVOs make up many excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all their excuses are in vain if they're not found in the source texts for the Revelation. There's simply no valid excuse for their being there if they're not found in the closest mss. we have to the original.

This is more proof that the KJV is NOT perfect. Even though the translators are innocent of this booboo, it's a booboo nonetheless. I place the blame on BEZA, who ADDED them to the TR of his own volition. I expect the KJVOs here to chime in with a plethora of excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all are worthless without MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT !
Oldest copies as in minority texts with all their corruption and discrepancies amongst themselves. No thanks.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Oldest copies as in minority texts with all their corruption and discrepancies amongst themselves. No thanks.

I see. You only want purity when you decide something it is pure. This a conjectural emendation. The most glaring faults in KJVO thinking
are the blaring use of double standard.

Pathetic! Not you but KJVO who can't read or write in Greek, Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Oldest copies as in minority texts with all their corruption and discrepancies amongst themselves. No thanks.
So you'd rather depend upon texts that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies & may have had material added or subtracted from the originals?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
So you'd rather depend upon texts that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies & may have had material added or subtracted from the originals?
I would rather depend on texts accepted by the early church and reformers who broke away from the control of the RCC, and reject the same minority texts they rejected..
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I would rather depend on texts accepted by the early church and reformers who broke away from the control of the RCC, and reject the same minority texts they rejected..
Regardless of whether they were the most-accurate texts or not?

However, NONE of contain the words in question in the OP.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Regardless of whether they were the most-accurate texts or not?

However, NONE of contain the words in question in the OP.
How can the most accurate texts have the most disagreements within themselves ? You really have NO clue why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts do you ?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
How can the most accurate texts have the most disagreements within themselves ? You really have NO clue why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts do you ?
Do YOU ? Most likely, you're guessing.

Try sticking to the subject-NONE of those ancient texts that we now have had the words in question in them, but yet they're in the KJV. So much for "purity" & "reliable".
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Because they didn't know any better.

Try sticking to the subject-NONE of those ancient texts that we now have had the words in question in them, but yet they're in the KJV. So much for "purity" & "reliable".
Yes, they knew better that is why they rejected the minority texts. They weren’t seduced with the god complex like those who sold out for a few crumbs. Run back to Alexandria and the RCC preferred texts that support their lies and corrupt doctrines. I will stay with the texts the early church and reformers trusted.The minority texts were rejected partially because of so many hand written deletions and additions by so many different scribes.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
Yes, they knew better that is why they rejected the minority texts. They weren’t seduced with the god complex like those who sold out for a few crumbs. Run back to Alexandria and the RCC preferred texts that support their lies and corrupt doctrines. I will stay with the texts the early church and reformers trusted.The minority texts were rejected partially because of so many hand written deletions and additions by so many different scribes.
But you still don't ACTUALLY know which ones were the most-true to the originals. You're just guessing.

And you have NOTHING to say about the OP. Must be because it hits your KJVO myth in the head.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
But you still don't ACTUALLY know which ones were the most-true to the originals. You're just guessing.

And you have NOTHING to say about the OP. Must be because it hits your KJVO myth in the head.
There is no guessing the texts with the numerous corrections , deletions, and additions is the minority texts. That is historical and current fact. In this case the supposed older texts out of Alexandria Egypt translated by Gnostics who never believed what they were translating were and are corrupt. Your loss not mine. Your OP is based on a corrupted source;therefore, your conclusions are corrupt.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
There is no guessing the texts with the numerous corrections , deletions, and additions is the minority texts. That is historical and current fact. In this case the supposed older texts out of Alexandria Egypt translated by Gnostics who never believed what they were translating were and are corrupt. Your loss not mine. Your OP is based on a corrupted source;therefore, your conclusions are corrupt.
Since you did not cite a source, your conclusions are suspect
 

robycop3

Well-known member
There is no guessing the texts with the numerous corrections , deletions, and additions is the minority texts. That is historical and current fact. In this case the supposed older texts out of Alexandria Egypt translated by Gnostics who never believed what they were translating were and are corrupt. Your loss not mine. Your OP is based on a corrupted source;therefore, your conclusions are corrupt.
No, the OP is based on FACTS. To prove it wrong, you must show us an ancient Greel ms. of revelation with the words in Greek "and shalt be" in V. 16:5.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
No, the OP is based on FACTS. To prove it wrong, you must show us an ancient Greel ms. of revelation with the words in Greek "and shalt be" in V. 16:5.
Nope, I don’t have to show you anything . Either you believe God preserved His word as He said He would or you don’t, and obviously you don’t.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
There is no guessing the texts with the numerous corrections , deletions, and additions is the minority texts. That is historical and current fact. In this case the supposed older texts out of Alexandria Egypt translated by Gnostics who never believed what they were translating were and are corrupt. Your loss not mine. Your OP is based on a corrupted source;therefore, your conclusions are corrupt.
What's the problem with Alexandria? Joseph and Mary took Jesus there for fairly long time. If it's good enough for my Savior, it's surely good enough for me.

Surely your Bible should have taught you that.

When you don't know about the history, you would do better, not to engage in speculation. Your credibility is taking another hit.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Nope, I don’t have to show you anything . Either you believe God preserved His word as He said He would or you don’t, and obviously you don’t.
Not entirely accurate. You apparently don't know what the preserved words are, hence not only do you not have to show anything, you are unable to do so.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Nope, I don’t have to show you anything . Either you believe God preserved His word as He said He would or you don’t, and obviously you don’t.
I believe God preserved His word, but men have at times mistranslated it. The KJVO myth has warped your thinking badly. If you can't show us a CREDIBLE SOURCE for the words "and shalt be" in the KJV's Rev. 16:5, they don't belong there. You haven't shown us any such source before Beza's edition of the TR. You haven't shown us nBeza's source for those words. All evidence so far points to Beza himself. And Beza was not an apostle.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I believe God preserved His word, but men have at times mistranslated it. The KJVO myth has warped your thinking badly. If you can't show us a CREDIBLE SOURCE for the words "and shalt be" in the KJV's Rev. 16:5, they don't belong there. You haven't shown us any such source before Beza's edition of the TR. You haven't shown us nBeza's source for those words. All evidence so far points to Beza himself. And Beza was not an apostle.
Got ya, God had nothing to do with getting the Bible into the hands of English speaking folks and out from under the RCC heresies.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Either you believe God preserved His word as He said He would or you don’t, and obviously you don’t.

You are one who fails to demonstrate that you believe God preserved His specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles since you blindly accept minority readings in the KJV and even conjectures found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts in the KJV.
 
Top