The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Beloved Daughter

Super 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

We keep reminding you, to check your facts before you post. You choose not to. What minority texts were rejected? It's a known fact that Father Desiderious Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill in the blanks in many places.

Steven Avery

Well-known member
We keep reminding you, to check your facts before you post. You choose not to. What minority texts were rejected? It's a known fact that Father Desiderious Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill in the blanks in many places.

And I gave a couple of examples.

Erasmus wrote negatively of Vaticanus.
Theodore Beza wrote negatively of Codex Bezae.

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
You were not up on the info, and you repeated the standard clap-trap, from your deficient sources/handlers.

It was an accurate term then, and continued totally accurate for hundreds of years, until the corruption text gained some usage.

And I supplied facts above.

Wow, I can see that gentleness and respect are missing. It's possible to disagree and still remain gracious!

1 Peter 3:15

English Standard Version

15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

I must admit that I have been guilty of this. But there is nothing to be gained from this kind of interchange. Lurkers see that Christians are no more gracious than unbelievers. What kind of light are we to shine?

Beloved Daughter

Super 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 and flip through the different translations.

I use BLB all the time. Bible Gateway will do the same. Since you cannot read Greek or Koine Greek, Aramaic, you don't really know what it says. It is not the fault of the translators that you don't understand 'present participles'. You should have learned this in your grammar lessons. I understand that some teachers are lazy and don't want to teach the finer points of English. You can still learn how to do this.

Beloved Daughter

Super 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 means no such thing. How many TR's did Erasmus produce, how about Luther? People used to have only one choice, and it wasn't the KJV.

Learn first then post.

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
It's not wrong. It's a fact you cannot legitimately deny. God could have destroyed the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the earliest manuscripts, but He didn't.

I can't speculate upon why God preserved them, but the minority texts were preserved. We have no business trying to limit the work of Almighty God.

It's fine to be a zealot for God, but consider where your beliefs are taking you.

The rub: If God preserved them, then He meant for us to have them, and you or I cannot challenge the actions of God.

Think it over.

Beloved Daughter

Super 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 ?

You talk about the reformers often. Yet you reject reformed theology?

The KJV translators were reformed, Martin Luther was reformed though less Calvinistic.

Modern Day
Charles Spurgeon
Voddie Baucham
Justin Peters
John MacArthur
Matt Chandler
John Piper
Phil Johnson
R.C. Sproul
Al Mohler
James R. White - My Pastor
Jeff Durbin - My Pastor
John Newton - the author of 'Amazing Grace'

As you can see, the word 'reformed' has more than one definition. So when you throw that word 'reformers' around, know what it means.


Well-known member
On the heavenly witnesses, Erasmus was simply doing some due diligence at the time. If Vaticanus had the verse, it would make it easier for him to include the verse in future editions.

The point was that the Comma was not in ANY Greek manuscript, not even Vaticanus.
Erasmus refused to insert it into his TR without Greek manuscript support. That's why Erasmus' opponents had to dishonestly create a counterfeit manuscript, "Codex Montfortianus", just to present a Greek manuscript that allegedly had the Comma. Of course, Erasmus knew that it was a fake, but he kept his word and added the Common to his TR based on the bogus manuscript.

And yes, I know KJV-Only's are going to claim these are "false facts", because they HAVE to.


Well-known member
However, if it is copied from a pure Bible edition,

What, pray tell, is a "pure Bible edition"?

You do realize, I hope, that ALL Greek manuscripts have copyist errors, correct?
Any time you have a hand-written manuscript, human errors are inevitable.

They didn't have eyeglasses.
They didn't have electric lighting.
They didn't have coffee.
They didn't have ball-point pens.
They didn't have erasers.
They didn't have word processors (to insert text they initially missed).
They copying conditions were very primitive.

(And as if to prove the point, the above was an UNintentional error. So because of the subject, I left it in and highlighted it, rather than correct it.)

Fortunately, about 99% of copyist errors are so insignificant that they result in no change in the translation (eg. word order, misspelling of names, presence or absence of the article, moveable-nu, etc. etc.)

And of course, neither Erasmus nor the KJV translators would make ANY claim about a "pure Bible edition".