The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

What are the "oldest mss" that need to support a reading?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
However, a copy in 200 AD could be full of omissions and corruptions, while another at 500 AD or 700 AD can have a far superior text.

What happens your Axiom then?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
However, Nick has actually studied the Revelation 16:5 history.
You have not.

So that makes you less than a quack.
So how come he can't show us a ms. with those words in that verse? That's the ONLY thing that'd make them legitimate?

And YOU have no room to call anyone else a quack. You've posted more quackery across the internet, under more secret identities than a room full of comicbook superheroes. ("Praxean", for example.) You've been proven wrong umpteen times. But still you cling to the proven-false KJVO myth. And Sayers is in tha same boat with you. I've corresponded with him on Facebook, & he can't begin to defend the KJVO myth there, either..
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Modern translations say being saved ( Roman Catholic doctrine) minority texts rendering KJV says are saved which is a majority text rendering. If you want to do a quick comparison of translations go to BlueletterBible.com and flip through the different translations.

The above is a worthless logical fallacy called "guilt by association".
Just because the RCC taught something, doesn't mean it's wrong.
The RCC teaches monotheism.
The RCC teaches the Trinity.
The RCC teaches the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Are any of THESE teachings wrong?

Now, the passages I found which have "are saved" in the KJV and "being saved" in the modern translations are 1 Cor. 1:18, 1 Cor. 15:2, and 2 Cor. 2:15.

Let's look at 1 Cor. 1:18 as an example:

1Cor. 1:18 Ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστί, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ ἐστι. (TR)

The critical text reads identically to the TR, except for the moveable nu ("εστιν" instead of "εστι"), which doesn't change the meaning one whit.

The key term in question is σωζομένοις, ("sOzomenois"), which is the continuous passive participle of "sOzO" (to be saved).

Since it is a CONTINUOUS participle, the modern rendering of "being saved", showing a continuous aspect, is clearly correct, and the KJV rendering of "are saved" is an inferior rendering. However, we have the benefit of 400 more years of study of the Koine Greek, so there is no reason to project malice on the KJV translators, only some level of understandable ignorance.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You do understand that the name, "Textus Receptus" was nothing but a MARKETING ploy ....

You will find "Textus Receptus" used in the late 1500s to mean the Received Text. The "marketing ploy" idea is a myth, a canard. Grantley McDonald touched on this in his paper, and I have added additional references.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
However, a copy in 200 AD could be full of omissions and corruptions, while another at 500 AD or 700 AD can have a far superior text.

What happens your Axiom then?

A copy made at 500 or 700 A. D. could be copied from a copy in 200-400 A. D. that could have many additions, omissions, or corruptions. The more times something is copied would give more chances or opportunities for the introduction of copying errors.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
A copy made at 500 or 700 A. D. could be copied from a copy in 200-400 A. D. that could have many additions, omissions, or corruptions. The more times something is copied would give more chances or opportunities for the introduction of copying errors.

However, if it is copied from a pure Bible edition, it will be far better than if it is copied from an edition from Gnostic Egypt known to be full of omissions and corruptions. Logic 101.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Naah, this early corruption even in the 2nd century was pointed out by Scrivener and many other writers. It is not my problem that you are not up on textual theories and history. Your handlers do not keep you informed.

<Chuckle>

Nothing but childish personal attacks and insults.
How "Christian" of you.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Nothing but childish personal attacks and insults. How "Christian" of you.

Your writing is so weak that I have to point out that you do not know the material.

You write silly, childish stuff that is totally false like:

Oh, goodie... Self-serving unrealistic hypotheticals designed to support KJV-onlyism.

The scholars who point out corruptions in the 2nd century were not AV defenders.
Why not try to write with intelligence and accuracy and fairness?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Your writing is so weak that I have to point out that you do not know the material.

You write silly, childish stuff that is totally false like:



The scholars who point out corruptions in the 2nd century were not AV defenders.
Why not try to write with intelligence and accuracy and fairness?

Why not try to act like a Christian and refrain from the childish insults?
 
Top