The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Still not on the subject of this thread. if you don't quit trying to derail this thread, I'm gonna report your posts to the Admin.
This thread is about discrediting the KJV is it not ? That is what I have been responding to. If you feel like I have violated the TOS then report me don’t threaten me.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
This thread is about discrediting the KJV is it not ? That is what I have been responding to. If you feel like I have violated the TOS then report me don’t threaten me.
This thread is about what I wrote in the OP, & you haven't responded to that so far. While it's part of the proof the KJV isn't perfect, it's about a specific subject.

The facts are simple-If those words aren't found in some ancient Scriptural ms. of Revelation, they don't belong in any Bible translation of those mss.

The farthest we can trace those words back in in Beza's revision of the TR, which certainly isn't an "ancient" text.

Now, the ball's in your court to say something about the above facts in this thread, or turn the page. These facts aren't going away unless/until someone can show us an ancient ms. of Revelation with those words in that verse.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
This thread is about what I wrote in the OP, & you haven't responded to that so far. While it's part of the proof the KJV isn't perfect, it's about a specific subject.

The facts are simple-If those words aren't found in some ancient Scriptural ms. of Revelation, they don't belong in any Bible translation of those mss.

The farthest we can trace those words back in in Beza's revision of the TR, which certainly isn't an "ancient" text.

Now, the ball's in your court to say something about the above facts in this thread, or turn the page. These facts aren't going away unless/until someone can show us an ancient ms. of Revelation with those words in that verse.
By ancient you do mean minority texts correct ?
Tim,

As I referenced above in post 9, this is what I said to James White on the verse:

Among us there are two schools of thought concerning this text. One of them is that of E.F. Hills, who opined that it is a “conjectural emendation” and ought not be recognized as original; this would agree with the methodology of John Owen (noted above), although I do not know Owen’s view of this particular verse. According to Hills, and in principle by Owen, this is the proper domain of discerning the true text – within the parameters of the TR editions and mss, and not elsewhere. So there is no inconsistency when this camp of the AV / TR advocates select other TR readings and deny this one.

The other school, represented by Will Kinney, Dr. Thomas Holland, and others, have a presuppositional view that holds the providential preservation of God is to be seen in the fait accompli of the King James Bible deriving from the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying it – and that this divine accomplishment by its very existence overrides evidentiary considerations to the contrary....

To sum on Rev 16:5: Whether one takes the Hills / Owen position that there may be minute variations within the narrow precincts of the TR manuscripts, or the Kinney / Holland view that God was able to and actually did restore the readings He had preserved elsewhere than the Byz to the text editions available to the 1611 translators, these two AV / TR options are, to my view (and many others) certainly at least as plausible as the hypotheses you formulate. https://www.puritanboard.com/?_pwa=1 I hold personally to the view that God preserved His word as He said He would.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-known member
By ancient you do mean minority texts correct ?
Tim,

As I referenced above in post 9, this is what I said to James White on the verse:

Among us there are two schools of thought concerning this text. One of them is that of E.F. Hills, who opined that it is a “conjectural emendation” and ought not be recognized as original; this would agree with the methodology of John Owen (noted above), although I do not know Owen’s view of this particular verse. According to Hills, and in principle by Owen, this is the proper domain of discerning the true text – within the parameters of the TR editions and mss, and not elsewhere. So there is no inconsistency when this camp of the AV / TR advocates select other TR readings and deny this one.

The other school, represented by Will Kinney, Dr. Thomas Holland, and others, have a presuppositional view that holds the providential preservation of God is to be seen in the fait accompli of the King James Bible deriving from the Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying it – and that this divine accomplishment by its very existence overrides evidentiary considerations to the contrary....

To sum on Rev 16:5: Whether one takes the Hills / Owen position that there may be minute variations within the narrow precincts of the TR manuscripts, or the Kinney / Holland view that God was able to and actually did restore the readings He had preserved elsewhere than the Byz to the text editions available to the 1611 translators, these two AV / TR options are, to my view (and many others) certainly at least as plausible as the hypotheses you formulate. https://www.puritanboard.com/?_pwa=1 I hold personally to the view that God preserved His word as He said He would.
I, too, believe God preserved His word, but not perfectly in the KJV.

To accept the conjectural emendation Beza made is to say that beza wrote Scripture. You don't believe that any more than I do, I hope.

To accept the Kinney/Holland view is to accept that of Ruckman, who called the KJV's differences between it & its sources "advanced revelation". That view is equally-ridiculous. Ruckman was a quack, so is Kinney, & Holland should've known better.

I believe God gave us His word in the ancient mss. He preserved, & that we have what HE wanted us to have. Thus, if words or phrases not found in the verses indicated in those ancient mss. appear in a Bible translation, those words or phrases are incorrect. So it is with "and shalt be" in the KJV's Rev. 16:5 until an ancient ms. of Rev is found with those words in that verse. SIMPLE AS THAT !

BTW, the NKJV, a version I use a good deal, also has those words in that verse. (But overall, it doesn't have most of the KJV's goofs & booboos.)

Let's say there was a Scripture whose original writing said, in Hebrew, "Jehu had a fast red chariot."
An old English translation read" "Jehu had a chariot that was red and fast."
While worded slightly-differently from the original, not one fact of the original writing was changed.

But suppose another translator rendered that verse "Jehu had a fast red chariot that was pulled by 2 horses".
That reading was NOT found in any known ancient Hebrew rendering of that verse.
While TECHNICALLY-correct, it was an ADDITION to that Scripture & shouldn't be in a Bible translation.
Same for "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I, too, believe God preserved His word, but not perfectly in the KJV.

To accept the conjectural emendation Beza made is to say that beza wrote Scripture. You don't believe that any more than I do, I hope.

To accept the Kinney/Holland view is to accept that of Ruckman, who called the KJV's differences between it & its sources "advanced revelation". That view is equally-ridiculous. Ruckman was a quack, so is Kinney, & Holland should've known better.

I believe God gave us His word in the ancient mss. He preserved, & that we have what HE wanted us to have. Thus, if words or phrases not found in the verses indicated in those ancient mss. appear in a Bible translation, those words or phrases are incorrect. So it is with "and shalt be" in the KJV's Rev. 16:5 until an ancient ms. of Rev is found with those words in that verse. SIMPLE AS THAT !

BTW, the NKJV, a version I use a good deal, also has those words in that verse. (But overall, it doesn't have most of the KJV's goofs & booboos.)

Let's say there was a Scripture whose original writing said, in Hebrew, "Jehu had a fast red chariot."
An old English translation read" "Jehu had a chariot that was red and fast."
While worded slightly-differently from the original, not one fact of the original writing was changed.

But suppose another translator rendered that verse "Jehu had a fast red chariot that was pulled by 2 horses".
That reading was NOT found in any known ancient Hebrew rendering of that verse.
While TECHNICALLY-correct, it was an ADDITION to that Scripture & shouldn't be in a Bible translation.
Same for "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.
We agree to disagree ! I believe God’s hand was in the translation of the KJV, and the supposed mistakes are no where near the corruption in the minority texts. and shalt be was a continuation of verses that say the exact same thing in earlier chapters of Revelation.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
We agree to disagree ! I believe God’s hand was in the translation of the KJV, and the supposed mistakes are no where near the corruption in the minority texts. and shalt be was a continuation of verses that say the exact same thing in earlier chapters of Revelation.
God's hand is in ALL valid bible translations. not any one of them.

And because something is in ONE verse doesn't make it belong in another if the basis isn't there.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
God's hand is in ALL valid bible translations. not any one of them.

And because something is in ONE verse doesn't make it belong in another if the basis isn't there.
Have you ever read why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts ? God is not the author of confusion. Like I said we agree to disagree.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Have you ever read why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts ? God is not the author of confusion.
You provide no clear, direct quotations that demonstrate what you claim.

Many of the reformers had read and studied editions of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (one of the minority texts) for many years, and thus they did not reject it as being a translation of the word of God. They rejected a one-perfect-translation-only claim for the Latin Vulgate, but they did not totally reject it as they followed some of its readings and renderings. Even the KJV translators made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often gave the renderings of Jereome's Latin Vulgate as its definitions of original-language words of Scripture. One of the KJV translators sometimes or often take a text for his sermon from the Latin Vulgate, and also sometimes appealed to it in the sermon. Another KJV translator wrote a book defending the Latin Vulgate's NT, which proves that he did not reject the minority text of the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus borrowed some readings from the Latin Vulgate that he translated into Greek for his edited Greek NT text, which may have as many as 1800 minority readings. The KJV translators borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate. You show that you close your eyes to many facts.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Have you ever read why the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts ? God is not the author of confusion. Like I said we agree to disagree.
Yes, we do. I shall never...EVER...subscribe to the KJVO myth, as I KNOW-not GUESS-that it's completely-false.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Yes, we do. I shall never...EVER...subscribe to the KJVO myth, as I KNOW-not GUESS-that it's completely-false.
Doesn’t change the fact that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt and not worthy to be translated as God’s preserved word because of their errors and contradictions among their manu scripts
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Doesn’t change the fact that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt and not worthy to be translated as God’s preserved word because of their errors and contradictions among their manu scripts

You demonstrate that you are somewhat uninformed and have been misinformed by unreliable KJV-only sources. You claim things to be facts which you do not prove to be facts.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Doesn’t change the fact that the early church and reformers rejected the minority texts as corrupt and not worthy to be translated as God’s preserved word because of their errors and contradictions among their manu scripts
Not related to the subject of this thread !
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Amazingly you will strain at a gnat when trashing the KJV ,and ignore glaring and obvious corruptions in the MV’s.
Never said they didn't have any, but there's no "NIVO myth", etc. The KJV is the only version men have tried to make into an idol & started a whole genre of literature about.

ALL "One-Version-Only" myths are false.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Never said they didn't have any, but there's no "NIVO myth", etc. The KJV is the only version men have tried to make into an idol & started a whole genre of literature about.

ALL "One-Version-Only" myths are false.
What you call an idol others call confidence in God to keep His word, and in His word.
 
Top