The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

robycop3

Well-known member
You only know what you have been indoctrinated into. You and I know it isn’t about the translation but what manu scripts the translation was translated from. You cannot prove anything but that you have been duped into accepting corrupt manu scripts. Ever wonder why the minority texts support Roman Catholic errors I don’t ?
GOD preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. HE wants us to have. The stories behind the preservations of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus clearly show God's hand in it.

And the KJV differs from its sources in more than one place. And far as we know, Beza's revision of the TR differs from its sources in at least one place.

You actually have no valid excuses for being KJVO except believing some material from some quack.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
GOD preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. HE wants us to have. The stories behind the preservations of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus clearly show God's hand in it.

And the KJV differs from its sources in more than one place. And far as we know, Beza's revision of the TR differs from its sources in at least one place.

You actually have no valid excuses for being KJVO except believing some material from some quack.
I will stay where God led me, thanks. God is not the author of confusion and the minority texts disagreements among the texts creates confusion.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I will stay where God led me, thanks. God is not the author of confusion and the minority texts disagreements among the texts creates confusion.
I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's colored red & can go fast.
A car I have is painted red & is capable of going fast.
Does the above make me an author of confusion?
Jesus read from a vorlage scroll of the Book of Isaiah, which didn't closely match the wording of the old copy of that book, in several verses that He read aloud. Does that make Jesus the speaker of confusion?
And none of us Freedom Readers believe GOD led you into the KJVO myth. (Not to mention the KJV and the mss. you DO accept differ in many places.)
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
I have a car that's colored red & can go fast.
A car I have is painted red & is capable of going fast.
Does the above make me an author of confusion?
Jesus read from a vorlage scroll of the Book of Isaiah, which didn't closely match the wording of the old copy of that book, in several verses that He read aloud. Does that make Jesus the speaker of confusion?
And none of us Freedom Readers believe GOD led you into the KJVO myth. (Not to mention the KJV and the mss. you DO accept differ in many places.)
Seems the “freedom readers” does n’t mind the goal post and markers being moved to me. Since I follow God and not you I will stay where He led me, which is the KJV. I have heard that the TR and majority texts disagreeing but no one posts where they disagree they just make the claim. You do understand the TR means the accepted texts right ?
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
Seems the “freedom readers” does n’t mind the goal post and markers being moved to me. Since I follow God and not you I will stay where He led me, which is the KJV. I have heard that the TR and majority texts disagreeing but no one posts where they disagree they just make the claim. You do understand the TR means the accepted texts right ?
Ducking the question, as usual.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Seems the “freedom readers” does n’t mind the goal post and markers being moved to me. Since I follow God and not you I will stay where He led me, which is the KJV. I have heard that the TR and majority texts disagreeing but no one posts where they disagree they just make the claim. You do understand the TR means the accepted texts right ?
It is Latin for "Received Text".
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Seems the “freedom readers” does n’t mind the goal post and markers being moved to me. Since I follow God and not you I will stay where He led me, which is the KJV. I have heard that the TR and majority texts disagreeing but no one posts where they disagree they just make the claim. You do understand the TR means the accepted texts right ?
God didn't lead you to JUST the KJV. YOU did that on your own, after listening to or reading some gargage from a quack or quacks.

Now-Either present some PROOF that "and shalt be" belongs in Rev. 16:5 in Beza's TR revision, or admit he made it up.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
God is not the author of confusion and the minority texts disagreements among the texts creates confusion.
There are many disagreements, including some significant ones, among the Greek NT manuscripts on which the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions were made. Furthermore, the TR editions have some readings added from the minority text Latin Vulgate.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
God didn't lead you to JUST the KJV. YOU did that on your own, after listening to or reading some gargage from a quack or quacks.

Now-Either present some PROOF that "and shalt be" belongs in Rev. 16:5 in Beza's TR revision, or admit he made it up.
So you now know what God leads folks to ? I don’t think so. I believe and shalt be is right because it isn’t the only place in Revelation it is used and it fits. Now answer why are saved in MV’s was changed to being saved, which is a Roman Catholic doctrine, or why sodomite was wrongly changed to temple prostitute, or why through the blood of Jesus was removed in certain places in MV’s ? I believe you have boarded the wrong train.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
So you now know what God leads folks to ? I don’t think so. I believe and shalt be is right because it isn’t the only place in Revelation it is used and it fits.
But if it's NOT IN THE SOURCE OF THE VERSE, it doesn't belong in it, no matter what other verses have those words!


Now answer why are saved in MV’s was changed to being saved,
Grammar. Many a revival has a sign similar to "Hewa Bro. Doe preach tonight ! Scores ARE BEING SAVED nightly during this revival!" Not everyone is saved at the same time.
which is a Roman Catholic doctrine, or why sodomite was wrongly changed to temple prostitute,
Because that's the correct translation of the Hebrew. These particular temple prosties were gay men.
or why through the blood of Jesus was removed in certain places in MV’s ?
Because it didn't belong in certain verses.

Now, can you tell me...
Why the KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 when the CORRECT rendering of the Greek word 'pascha' here is clearly PASSOVER?
...Why the KJV's Ex. 20:13 says "Thou shalt not KILL" when the CORRECT rendering is "MURDER"?
...why the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10 reads "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" when the CORRECT rendering is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil"?
And that's a very-short list of the KJV's goofs, booboos, & poor renderings. But shoot, YOU can't even get past the obvious Rev. 16:5's ADDED words, let alone any others!


I believe you have boarded the wrong train.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
But if it's NOT IN THE SOURCE OF THE VERSE, it doesn't belong in it, no matter what other verses have those words!



Grammar. Many a revival has a sign similar to "Hewa Bro. Doe preach tonight ! Scores ARE BEING SAVED nightly during this revival!" Not everyone is saved at the same time.

Because that's the correct translation of the Hebrew. These particular temple prosties were gay men.

Because it didn't belong in certain verses.

Now, can you tell me...
Why the KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 when the CORRECT rendering of the Greek word 'pascha' here is clearly PASSOVER?
...Why the KJV's Ex. 20:13 says "Thou shalt not KILL" when the CORRECT rendering is "MURDER"?
...why the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10 reads "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" when the CORRECT rendering is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil"?
And that's a very-short list of the KJV's goofs, booboos, & poor renderings. But shoot, YOU can't even get past the obvious Rev. 16:5's ADDED words, let alone any others!
Got ya, someone sees where the words are worn off and adds what is already in that book is bad but removing verses , the name Jesus, Godhead, propitiation, sodomite ( to appease the homosexual agenda) is OK based on corrupt manu scripts and that is OK with you.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Got ya, someone sees where the words are worn off and adds what is already in that book is bad but removing verses , the name Jesus, Godhead, propitiation, sodomite ( to appease the homosexual agenda) is OK based on corrupt manu scripts and that is OK with you.
You're no more an authority about what mss. are corrupt than I am. You must realize that GOD preserved ALL the ones we have.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You're no more an authority about what mss. are corrupt than I am. You must realize that GOD preserved ALL the ones we have.
Don’t have to be to agree with the early church and reformers who both rejected the minority texts as corrupt. Who are you following God or those that agree with the RCC and the sodomite agenda ?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
But if it's NOT IN THE SOURCE OF THE VERSE, it doesn't belong in it, no matter what other verses have those words!



Grammar. Many a revival has a sign similar to "Hewa Bro. Doe preach tonight ! Scores ARE BEING SAVED nightly during this revival!" Not everyone is saved at the same time.

Because that's the correct translation of the Hebrew. These particular temple prosties were gay men.

Because it didn't belong in certain verses.

Now, can you tell me...
Why the KJV has "Easter" in Acts 12:4 when the CORRECT rendering of the Greek word 'pascha' here is clearly PASSOVER?
...Why the KJV's Ex. 20:13 says "Thou shalt not KILL" when the CORRECT rendering is "MURDER"?
...why the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10 reads "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" when the CORRECT rendering is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil"?
And that's a very-short list of the KJV's goofs, booboos, & poor renderings. But shoot, YOU can't even get past the obvious Rev. 16:5's ADDED words, let alone any others!
Asked and answered.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Nick Sayers has written and spoken about Revelation 16:5:

Revelation 16:5 (AV)
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.


Revelation 16:5
Beza's Expansion of the Rare Nomen Sacrum Form of Jehovah, and I AM in the Final Triadic Declaration (2019)
https://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Pages/Authors/Sayers.htm
https://www.theoldpathspublications.com/PDFs/Samples/Sample Pages Sayers Rev 16_5.pdf

And a 2016 version seems to be here:

Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration
A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Authorized Version (2016)
http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation 16.5 and the Triadic Declaration.pdf
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Nick Sayers has written and spoken about Revelation 16:5:

Revelation 16:5 (AV)
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.


Revelation 16:5
Beza's Expansion of the Rare Nomen Sacrum Form of Jehovah, and I AM in the Final Triadic Declaration (2019)
https://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Pages/Authors/Sayers.htm
https://www.theoldpathspublications.com/PDFs/Samples/Sample Pages Sayers Rev 16_5.pdf

And a 2016 version seems to be here:

Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration
A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Authorized Version (2016)
http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation 16.5 and the Triadic Declaration.pdf
Far as KJVO stuff goes, Mr. Sayers , IMO, is a quack. Same ole 50-yr. old, long-refuted garbage.

There's somply NO EXCUSE for the words being ADDED to a later text, such as the TR, if they're not in any of the oldest mss. we have.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Don’t have to be to agree with the early church and reformers who both rejected the minority texts as corrupt. Who are you following God or those that agree with the RCC and the sodomite agenda ?
GOD. He preserved all the old Scriptural mss. we have now, no matter who rejected them 1800 years ago.
 
Top