The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Hark

Well-known member
It was a conjectual emendation by Beza. He made a scholarly guess. All other handwritten manuscripts disagree with him. All Greek and ancient versions left record that he was wrong.
Guess we will have to wait & see when we come face to face with the Lord, but the evidence of 1 John 5:7 from extra biblical sources proving it was originally scripture is why we cannot say for sure in the case of Revelation 16:5 so we shall wait & see when we get to Heaven & ask Jesus Christ.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Guess we will have to wait & see when we come face to face with the Lord,

Yet you keep responding....
I guess you don't want to "wait & see" after all...

but the evidence of 1 John 5:7 from extra biblical sources proving it was originally scripture

1) Why do you prefer "extra Biblical sources", to actual BIBLICAL sources?
(Oh, that's right... The "Biblical sources" don't SUPPORT your view, so you have to CHERRY-PICK).

2) I'm not really sure yo understand the meaning of the word, "prove". If some sources include the text, and other sources omit the text, how does cherry-picking the sources that agree with you "prove" anything?!

is why we cannot say for sure in the case of Revelation 16:5 so we shall wait & see when we get to Heaven & ask Jesus Christ.

Let's see...
ALL available manuscripts DISAGREE with the KJV rendering of Rev. 16:5.
Therefore, they must all be WRONG, and the KJV alone is correct.

With that kind of "logic", NOBODY can know what ANY of the Bible originally said.
 

Conan

Active member
Guess we will have to wait & see when we come face to face with the Lord, but the evidence of 1 John 5:7 from extra biblical sources proving it was originally scripture is why we cannot say for sure in the case of Revelation 16:5 so we shall wait & see when we get to Heaven & ask Jesus Christ.
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?
Closet Catholic? 🤣🤪
Another fact the KJVO-ists kinda skip over is that the TR was done by the Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus, who was the illegitimate son of another Roman Catholic priest. 😳

--Rich
 

Hark

Well-known member
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?
Thanks to Jesus Christ, I accept the KJV for how it is written in the Book of 1 John about the 3 Witnesses in Heaven for how God's witness is greater then men's witness in the earth.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Closet Catholic? 🤣🤪
Another fact the KJVO-ists kinda skip over is that the TR was done by the Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus, who was the illegitimate son of another Roman Catholic priest. 😳

--Rich
Then why would he be so objectionable to the Latin Vulgate of 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven if he was as you say, a loyal Catholic?

Anyway, the point of 1 John 5:7 is that extra biblical sources had the 3 Witnesses in Heaven as original scripture going far back as 250 A.D. and so the same could be said for how Revelation 16:5 is. That is the only reason I cited that point was to explain that we do not know for sure about Revelation 16:5 even though there are no extra biblical sources that I know of that can say how it was originally written in scripture.

So each of us has to go to Jesus Christ for wisdom & discernment about Revelation 16:5 in scripture & I believe the KJV is correct. No one else can prove it to you. Ask Jesus today and hope He will confirm His words to you regarding Revelation 16:5.

As it is, either way, I see no changed in the message but I see the message clearer in the KJV.
 

Conan

Active member
Then why would he be so objectionable to the Latin Vulgate of 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven if he was as you say, a loyal Catholic?
Because he did not find the words in the Greek Manuscripts. The additions from The Latin Vulgate were not in his first or second edition of his printed Greek New Testament (the foundation of all the Textus Receptuses) . He did not put the unoriginal words in until his third edition after being bullied by Roman Catholic athorities.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Because he did not find the words in the Greek Manuscripts.
IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?

QUOTNG ~~~~It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

  1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
  2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
  3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts. ~~~~~End of quote
The additions from The Latin Vulgate were not in his first or second edition of his printed Greek New Testament (the foundation of all the Textus Receptuses) . He did not put the unoriginal words in until his third edition after being bullied by Roman Catholic athorities.
Still, the comment of Erasmus being a loyal Catholic to suspect the KJV as corrupted is moot. He did it under objection and he noted it saying so. When you put in knowledge of what Erasmus did not have, the restoring of 1 John 5:7 about the 3 Witnesses in Heaven as original scripture has been done by God's hand.
 

Conan

Active member
IS 1 JOHN 5:7 NOT IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE 1600S? IF IT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT IN THE KJV?

QUOTNG ~~~~It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

  1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
  2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
  3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts. ~~~~~End of quote
Not true. There are test passages where all mauscripts are sampled. If they are Byzantine they are put in that catagory. If not Byzantine then they are checked out in full.
Still, the comment of Erasmus being a loyal Catholic to suspect the KJV as corrupted is moot. He did it under objection and he noted it saying so. When you put in knowledge of what Erasmus did not have, the restoring of 1 John 5:7 about the 3 Witnesses in Heaven as original scripture has been done by God's hand.

Or as what really happened, Roman Catholic Church leadership, who were opposed to the reformation and the original Greek New Testament, powered their reading into the word of God. In other words the original meaning of John the Apostles message was marred by a Latin intrusion. They loved their Latin Vulgate so much they prefered that to God's original word.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Not true. There are test passages where all mauscripts are sampled. If they are Byzantine they are put in that catagory. If not Byzantine then they are checked out in full.
Source link? How can you verify that? If only hundreds were collated from the thousands, then they ought to know how they did it from the Majority Texts.
Or as what really happened, Roman Catholic Church leadership, who were opposed to the reformation and the original Greek New Testament, powered their reading into the word of God. In other words the original meaning of John the Apostles message was marred by a Latin intrusion. They loved their Latin Vulgate so much they prefered that to God's original word.
You assume that the Latin Vulgate benefited the Catholics for them to change the scripture.

If that was true, they would be changing the scripture to rename the bread the Eucharist and such like that, but they did not. Scripture remains to judge Catholics & Orthodox & Protestants for treating the bread & wine at communion in the same way sinners treat idols; as if God's Presence is in them.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Communion means symbolic. Just as we are symbolic of that one bread and one body. Otherwise it is idolatry, but the Catholics & everybody else that believes Christ's Presence is in the bread & wine at communion are overlooking.

So we have His words as kept in the KJV but it is how they apply His words that can be exposed as misapplied when it does not line up with all of scripture.

Ad modern bibles has changed the truth in His words enough for why I see KJV keeping them all to reprove false teachings by with His help.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Then why would he be so objectionable to the Latin Vulgate of 1 John 5:7 regarding the 3 Witnesses in Heaven if he was as you say, a loyal Catholic?
1. I really and truly doubt that 1Jn 5:7 - as written words - "objects" to anything.
2. Did I say that Erasmus was a "loyal" anything?
So each of us has to go to Jesus Christ for wisdom & discernment about Revelation 16:5 in scripture & I believe the KJV is correct. No one else can prove it to you. Ask Jesus today and hope He will confirm His words to you regarding Revelation 16:5.
OK, how do I - or anyone else, for that matter - know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is Jesus who is revealing this to me? Honestly, how does one test the spirit in matters like these?

--Rich
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
1. I really and truly doubt that 1Jn 5:7 - as written words - "objects" to anything.
2. Did I say that Erasmus was a "loyal" anything?

OK, how do I - or anyone else, for that matter - know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is Jesus who is revealing this to me? Honestly, how does one test the spirit in matters like these?

--Rich

Yep.... He refuses to trust the objectivity of written text, but wants the "determiner" to be some subjective feeling he has, which he ATTRIBUTES to being from Christ.
 

Conan

Active member
Source link? How can you verify that? If only hundreds were collated from the thousands, then they ought to know how they did it from the Majority Texts.

The Alands. Their book on Textual Criticism. That's where the test passages come from. As far as Von Soden others after him have checked and found him to be extreamly accurate. Collations happen all the time. People have been doing that well after Von Soden and before.
 

Hark

Well-known member
1. I really and truly doubt that 1Jn 5:7 - as written words - "objects" to anything.
Yet those who deny the deity of Christ were defeated back then for why those who deny His deity now would be denying the 3 Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture. If you say we have scripture testifying to that elsewhere but yet 1 John 5:7 in the KJV plainly reproves them for denying the deity of Jesus Christ & for reproving denying the existence of the Three Witnesses within the One God.
2. Did I say that Erasmus was a "loyal" anything?
No, but it was implied below from post # 185;

Conan said:
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?
Closet Catholic? 🤣🤪
Another fact the KJVO-ists kinda skip over is that the TR was done by the Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus, who was the illegitimate son of another Roman Catholic priest. 😳

--Rich

I realize you did it in humor but sometimes when people say stuff like that, they do it with implying that they are "half" serious about it which usually means they were serious about it when humor is set aside.
OK, how do I - or anyone else, for that matter - know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is Jesus who is revealing this to me? Honestly, how does one test the spirit in matters like these?

--Rich
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your personal Good Shepherd to help you to understand His words as well as confirm His words to you?

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Then believe Him today to be your personal Good Shepherd and ask Him. Trust Him to be your Friend to help you abide in Him as His friend.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Yet those who deny the deity of Christ were defeated back then for why those who deny His deity now would be denying the 3 Witnesses in Heaven was originally scripture. If you say we have scripture testifying to that elsewhere but yet 1 John 5:7 in the KJV plainly reproves them for denying the deity of Jesus Christ & for reproving denying the existence of the Three Witnesses within the One God.

No, but it was implied below from post # 185;


Closet Catholic? 🤣🤪
Another fact the KJVO-ists kinda skip over is that the TR was done by the Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus, who was the illegitimate son of another Roman Catholic priest. 😳

--Rich

I realize you did it in humor but sometimes when people say stuff like that, they do it with implying that they are "half" serious about it which usually means they were serious about it when humor is set aside.
I was humorously replying to:
Conan said:
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?

So, should I be half-serious about you being a "Closet Catholic"?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your personal Good Shepherd to help you to understand His words as well as confirm His words to you?
[good scriptures]
Then believe Him today to be your personal Good Shepherd and ask Him. Trust Him to be your Friend to help you abide in Him as His friend.
I've been saved since 1971. I am trying to figure out how you - or anyone else for that matter - know beyond the shadow of a doubt - that Jesus communicated with you. After all, J. Smith said he spoke with "Jesus", as did Hagin and others of his ilk.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Interesting information on Erasmus's Revelation Greek Manuscript.

Touching on those verses spoken of in that link for why the KJV is correct:

On Revelation 22 nd chapter; verse 14 is about those unrepentant saints & former believers who got left behind and then with new believers being killed during the great tribulation, and so that when those saints that got left behind and went through the great tribulation, are all resurrected after the great tribulation.

If you consider what that firstfruits of the resurrection is at the rapture event.

Matthew 22:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Those left behind are only protected from the second death at their resurrection. Verse 5 below is how to apply first resurrection to mean by saying this resurrection was to happen first before the rest of the dead later on. This was not meaning it was the only resurrection as if discounting the rapture of the firstfruits.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

So we can see the difference between the firstfruits from those at His coming as those at His coming are the ones resurrected after the great tribulation to serve the King of kings from all over the world for why they would have permission to come into the city and have access to the tree of life. The firstfruits would have no need for that access to the tree of life when they were changed at the rapture event, they were made like the angels that will never die and they LIVE in that city of God in their own mansions.


Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 22:19 is about the warning to firstfruits that they can lose their inheritance in the city of God and be left behind at the rapture.

Revelation 22:12 is about how He will reward the saints is how I am applying those 2 verses to mean.
 

Hark

Well-known member
I was humorously replying to:
Conan said:
I would ask why you reject the Greek of the Protestant Reformation for the Latin Vulgate/Old Latin?

So, should I be half-serious about you being a "Closet Catholic"?
I actually had thought you were referring to Erasmus as he was by implying Erasmus lacking conviction in spite of his objection because he was a closet Catholic.. Thanks for clearing that up.
[good scriptures]
Yep.
I've been saved since 1971. I am trying to figure out how you - or anyone else for that matter - know beyond the shadow of a doubt - that Jesus communicated with you. After all, J. Smith said he spoke with "Jesus", as did Hagin and others of his ilk.
1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.....26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

You may ask Him to show you that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is not a lie but yet you can discern that as Jesus shared that warning from the Father that those who did not love Him , will not keep His words per John 14:23-24 & John 15:20. So it did happen, otherwise, you need to ask Jesus what that warning from the Father was for?.

Another way to discern, all those extra biblical sources had also refer to the witness in the earth which was also dropped in modern Bibles and thus most of the Greek manuscripts that were collated & viewed., but kept the words about the Spirit, the water, and the blood.. Verse 7 in modern Bibles reads as if cut off and it was. Then verse 9 comes short of how the witness of God was greater than the witness of men. When you remove the witness in the earth and & the 3 Witnesses in the Heaven, verse 9 is a discordant reading.

The fact that they had believers back then denying His deity & the existence of the 3 Witnesses in Heaven as we have them still today, shows cause for why people who did not love Jesus as their God would drop those words. But again, only He can confirm His words to you.

This is a fine example for discerning Revelation 16:5. Only thing is, there is no need to refer to that verse for any defense of the faith. It is a matter of discerning what was written and Beza made an educated guess while others avoided it. Holy was in the 1599 Geneva Bible & other Bibles from the TR before the verses about how He judges presently and in the past whereas modern bibles seem to have holy afterwards. Does that read like someone winging that verse for one reason or another? So regardless of the assumed "assurance" of how many Greek manuscripts have it, there is room for doubt as if it wasn't always so, and it may very well be they had worked from a questionable wearing portion of the manuscript as well.

Since no truth is missing from the verse as far as I can see, the question is moot and rather pointless to charge the KJV for being wrong when not all modern Bibles are consistent either.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
Since no truth is missing from the verse as far as I can see, the question is moot and rather pointless to charge the KJV for being wrong when not all modern Bibles are consistent either.

Truth or not, if it doesn't belong in a translation of Scripture, it's wrong. And only KJVOs claim their pet version is perfect. I've never seen/heard anyone say "The NASV is perfect", etc. Thus, part of proving the KJVO myth is false is to prove the KJV is NOT perfect.
 
Top