The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

Steven Avery

Active member
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.
You should read Grantley McDonald's paper on this question. On these points he is fairly good.

And you are jumping around, I just explained to you why his correspondence with Bombasius included the heavenly witnesses.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo1689 said:
What, pray tell, is a "pure Bible edition"?
An idea that does not seem to be on your radar.

So you have no valid answer.
Just as I expected.

And your condescending and dismissive remarks demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about.

Your "handlers" have taught you well.
So your "blah blah" is worthless.

;)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You should read Grantley McDonald's paper on this question. On these points he is fairly good.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.
I prefer to discuss the actual MANUSCRIPT witness.
You simply want to hide behind "scholars".
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
I guess that's the difference between you and me.
I prefer to discuss the actual MANUSCRIPT witness.
You simply want to hide behind "scholars".

He doesn't know how to....... He simply accepts anything that he believes supports his own statements. He doesn't care if they're right or wrong.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You should read Grantley McDonald's paper on this question. On these points he is fairly good.

Why should I read somebody's "paper" when I have access to the manuscripts themselves?

You are simply proving that KJV-Onlyism isn't based on truth, fact, and the manuscripts, but instead the worthless rationalizations of conspiracy theorists.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I know... His "handlers" have trained him well, haven't they?
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Remember, that cat isn't only KJVO; he's a modalist as well, not believing in the Holy Trinity. Any other readers who want to believe anything he says, feel free to do so. Want to see where he gets really lambasted? Go to the "Bible Versions Discussion Board" site.(BVDB)
 

Hark

Well-known member
The KJV's Rev. 16:5 has the words "and shalt be" added to it. They're found in Greek in Beza's revision of the Textus Receptus, the version the AV makers used, but they're NOT found in that verse in ANY known ancient Greek ms. of Revelation. Beza used what's called a "conjectural emendation" to ADD them to the TR. As the AV men were using that version of the TR, they included those words.

While those words are true & DOCTRINALLY correct, do they actually belong in that verse? Not if they're not in any of the oldest copies of that Scripture we have. I believe God preserved every word of Scripture He wants us to have, and if we can't find certain words in what HE has preserved for us, then those words don't belong in the Bible translations we use now. I don't believe He would've placed them in that verse & then hidden them from us !

KJVOs make up many excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all their excuses are in vain if they're not found in the source texts for the Revelation. There's simply no valid excuse for their being there if they're not found in the closest mss. we have to the original.

This is more proof that the KJV is NOT perfect. Even though the translators are innocent of this booboo, it's a booboo nonetheless. I place the blame on BEZA, who ADDED them to the TR of his own volition. I expect the KJVOs here to chime in with a plethora of excuses for why those words are in that verse in the KJV, but all are worthless without MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT !
I agree that the KJV is not perfect but you are making several assumptions;

#1. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscript that testify to the other.

#2. If over 52 KJV translators agree with Beza, then that should be very telling, especially when the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale has it the other way.

#3. In comparison to the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale having Holy One or Holy before testifying to how the Lord judge presently and in the past, we see modern Bibles putting the Holy One or Holy after how the Lord judges presently and in the past.

#4. The accusation of the addition does not change the truth about how God will judge but it does expound on how He judges presently and in the past, will be the same by how He will be righteous in His judgments when given in the future.

So you don't know. Absence of Greek manuscript is not proof of your claim that it is an addition.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I agree that the KJV is not perfect but you are making several assumptions;

#1. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscript that testify to the other.

#1a. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscripts which read, "Gail Riplinger is a big doo doo head", either.

(Raise your hand when/if you see the logical fallacy of their argument.)

#2. If over 52 KJV translators agree with Beza, then that should be very telling, especially when the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale has it the other way.

Why?
You keep forgetting (or perhaps you need understood in the first place) that the KJV translators were NOT "textual critics", they were TRANSLATORS. They did not work with the manuscripts, they only had available a few published (Greek) versions.

#3. In comparison to the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale having Holy One or Holy before testifying to how the Lord judge presently and in the past, we see modern Bibles putting the Holy One or Holy after how the Lord judges presently and in the past.

And if you knew anything about the Greek, you would understand how incredibly irrelevant that is.

#4. The accusation of the addition does not change the truth about how God will judge but it does expound on how He judges presently and in the past, will be the same by how He will be righteous in His judgments when given in the future.

That's apparently not a valid argument, since KJVO's reject it when defending the KJV when the evidence is reversed.

So you don't know.

Yeah, actually we do.

Absence of Greek manuscript is not proof of your claim that it is an addition.

If that were true, then we could have NO IDEA what ANY part of the New Testament said.
This is the destructive nature of the KJVO paradigm.

Can you imagine taking a Math textbook which says, "2+2 = 4", and checking a million copies, all which say, "2+2 = 4", and then saying, "We don't know that it's true, maybe the original said, '2+2 = 839'?"

That is how YOU sound.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
#1a. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscripts which read, "Gail Riplinger is a big doo doo head", either.

(Raise your hand when/if you see the logical fallacy of their argument.)



Why?
You keep forgetting (or perhaps you need understood in the first place) that the KJV translators were NOT "textual critics", they were TRANSLATORS. They did not work with the manuscripts, they only had available a few published (Greek) versions.



And if you knew anything about the Greek, you would understand how incredibly irrelevant that is.



That's apparently not a valid argument, since KJVO's reject it when defending the KJV when the evidence is reversed.



Yeah, actually we do.



If that were true, then we could have NO IDEA what ANY part of the New Testament said.
This is the destructive nature of the KJVO paradigm.

Can you imagine taking a Math textbook which says, "2+2 = 4", and checking a million copies, all which say, "2+2 = 4", and then saying, "We don't know that it's true, maybe the original said, '2+2 = 839'?"

That is how YOU sound.

Update.


I seem to remember that we have stated that KJVO's are prone to conspiracy theories. This one is a doozy. It shows a lack of discrimination
between facts and outright 'looney-toon-ism'.

Notice the abuse of the scriptures to support this.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
I agree that the KJV is not perfect but you are making several assumptions;

#1. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscript that testify to the other.


Do YOU know if there ARE any? No one has shown us one yet.
#2. If over 52 KJV translators agree with Beza, then that should be very telling, especially when the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale has it the other way.
They only translated what was at hand. They didn't VERIFY what they were translating.
#3. In comparison to the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale having Holy One or Holy before testifying to how the Lord judge presently and in the past, we see modern Bibles putting the Holy One or Holy after how the Lord judges presently and in the past.
So?
#4. The accusation of the addition does not change the truth about how God will judge but it does expound on how He judges presently and in the past, will be the same by how He will be righteous in His judgments when given in the future.
There's a lot we could add to John 3:16. We could add "comes to Him in repentance & submission & prays for Him to save them", for example. While DOCTRINALLY correct, is it FACTUALLY correct, so it belongs in a Bible text?

So you don't know. Absence of Greek manuscript is not proof of your claim that it is an addition.

Yes, I DO know.When it's not in any known SOURCE, it has no right to be in a compilation of sources, which is what the TR is..
 

Hark

Well-known member
Hark said:
I agree that the KJV is not perfect but you are making several assumptions;

#1. You do not know if there are not any Greek manuscript that testify to the other.
Do YOU know if there ARE any? No one has shown us one yet.

Answer: absence of earlier manuscript is not evidence to prove one way or another. Plus, not all Greek manuscripts were viewed for the TR.
Hark said:
#2. If over 52 KJV translators agree with Beza, then that should be very telling, especially when the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale has it the other way.
They only translated what was at hand. They didn't VERIFY what they were translating.

Answer; over 52 KJV translators, divided into 8 groups as every one checking each other's work in that group & then having heir work checked over by other groups. They all changed it from what the Geneva Bible had it as and they were all in agreement for how it is in the KJV.
Hark said:
#3. In comparison to the 1599 Geneva Bible & Tyndale having Holy One or Holy before testifying to how the Lord judge presently and in the past, we see modern Bibles putting the Holy One or Holy after how the Lord judges presently and in the past.
So?

Answer: So not all Greek manuscripts has Holy One in the same place.
Hark said:
#4. The accusation of the addition does not change the truth about how God will judge but it does expound on how He judges presently and in the past, will be the same by how He will be righteous in His judgments when given in the future.
You posted in quote below:
There's a lot we could add to John 3:16. We could add "comes to Him in repentance & submission & prays for Him to save them", for example. While DOCTRINALLY correct, is it FACTUALLY correct, so it belongs in a Bible text?
Answer : This is the Book of Revelation. This is quoting the angel about how God judges presently and as in the past, and so it follows that the original scripture had that angel testifying to how righteous He shall be when He judges in the future, righteously. So I agree with the KJV
So you don't know. Absence of Greek manuscript is not proof of your claim that it is an addition.
So you don't know. Absence of Greek manuscript is not proof of your claim that it is an addition.
Yes, I DO know.When it's not in any known SOURCE, it has no right to be in a compilation of sources, which is what the TR is..

Answer: you not knowing the known sources for why over 52 KJV translators had it translated in that way for Revelation 16:5 is key for why you cannot reach any justifiable conclusion. Neither can I, but I believe Jesus is leading me to accept Revelation 16:5 in KJV is scripture.

We shall all know for sure what was originally written when we get to Heaven, but either way, Revelation 16:5 does not change the truth in His words as far as I can see.

However, we do have this warning:

Revelation 21: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If we apply His warning as effective immediately, then if the KJV had added to Revelation 16:5, would there be plagues breaking out at that time? Or is it that this warning only applies to those who hear the actual prophesy of the book and added purposefully to change it that is cursed with the plagues? Since no plague has broken out during the KJV days, or at the very least, no KJV translator died from the plague, then it is likely that God did not punish them if they believed they were doing right by Him and not adding to His words for their own evil purposes.

And those who take away from the book of Revelation? Being left behind is the consequence here for they will have their inheritance in the city of God taken away from them; hence left behind at the rapture event, but Revelation 3:5 testify that their names are still in the Book of Life as tat can never be removed, but such a one makes up the vessels unto dishonor that did not depart from iniquity that are in His House still.

Neither one of us really hears the prophesy of the book to know how it was originally written or not so the warning does not apply to this debate/discussion, but this debate/discussion really is moot to be using as arguing against or for the KJV..
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Hark said:

Do YOU know if there ARE any? No one has shown us one yet.

Answer: absence of earlier manuscript is not evidence to prove one way or another. Plus, not all Greek manuscripts were viewed for the TR.

Well, all known mss. were viewed by someone sometime, and not one has those words in that verse.
Well, all now known were

They only translated what was at hand. They didn't VERIFY what they were translating.

Answer; over 52 KJV translators, divided into 8 groups as every one checking each other's work in that group & then having heir work checked over by other groups. They all changed it from what the Geneva Bible had it as and they were all in agreement for how it is in the KJV.
Since those words were in Beza's revision of the TR, they left them in. They didn't verify if Beza's work was correct or not.
So?

Answer: So not all Greek manuscripts has Holy One in the same place.
So, which one is correct?
You posted in quote below:

Answer : This is the Book of Revelation. This is quoting the angel about how God judges presently and as in the past, and so it follows that the original scripture had that angel testifying to how righteous He shall be when He judges in the future, righteously. So I agree with the KJV
But those words in that verse have NOT been found in any known ancient ms. Until a ms. with those words in that verse is found, we must assume Beza added them, & the AV men translated Beza's work as is, without checking it for booboos. They would've had to have had the ms. Beza used to have done that.
Yes, I DO know.When it's not in any known SOURCE, it has no right to be in a compilation of sources, which is what the TR is..

Answer: you not knowing the known sources for why over 52 KJV translators had it translated in that way for Revelation 16:5 is key for why you cannot reach any justifiable conclusion. Neither can I, but I believe Jesus is leading me to accept Revelation 16:5 in KJV is scripture.
But they translated Beza's revision of the TR; that's why those words are in that verse, as they were in Beza's work, simple as THAT. based upon the evidence at hand, we must assume Beza ADDED those words to God's word as he was copying it, & the AV men, depending upon Beza's work, copied them in their English translation.
We shall all know for sure what was originally written when we get to Heaven, but either way, Revelation 16:5 does not change the truth in His words as far as I can see.
No DOCTRINE is changed, but the evidence is still that those words in that verse are a MAN-MADE ADDITION to God's word.
However, we do have this warning:

Revelation 21: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If we apply His warning as effective immediately, then if the KJV had added to Revelation 16:5, would there be plagues breaking out at that time? Or is it that this warning only applies to those who hear the actual prophesy of the book and added purposefully to change it that is cursed with the plagues? Since no plague has broken out during the KJV days, or at the very least, no KJV translator died from the plague, then it is likely that God did not punish them if they believed they were doing right by Him and not adding to His words for their own evil purposes.

And those who take away from the book of Revelation? Being left behind is the consequence here for they will have their inheritance in the city of God taken away from them; hence left behind at the rapture event, but Revelation 3:5 testify that their names are still in the Book of Life as tat can never be removed, but such a one makes up the vessels unto dishonor that did not depart from iniquity that are in His House still.

Neither one of us really hears the prophesy of the book to know how it was originally written or not so the warning does not apply to this debate/discussion, but this debate/discussion really is moot to be using as arguing against or for the KJV..
The plagues written in this book haven't yet occurred, but we don't know what's been added to the souls of those who died unsaved. But we stand without excuse if we accept something that's almost certainly been added to God's word, or known goofs in a translation, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

Sorry, Sir; your KJVO myth remains as false as ever. It was false on Day One of its existence, & remains 100% false now.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Well, all known mss. were viewed by someone sometime, and not one has those words in that verse.
That you now of. Not all Greek manuscripts that were available were collated.
Since those words were in Beza's revision of the TR, they left them in. They didn't verify if Beza's work was correct or not.
I see no evidence as to why over 52 KJV translators did it.
So, which one is correct?
Neither one of us can tell and you know why. Not all Greek manuscripts are the same, even for the ones that were viewed.
But those words in that verse have NOT been found in any known ancient ms. Until a ms. with those words in that verse is found, we must assume Beza added them, & the AV men translated Beza's work as is, without checking it for booboos. They would've had to have had the ms. Beza used to have done that.
Not all Greek transcripts are the same. Not having the original manuscript is why we cannot conclude the matter.
But they translated Beza's revision of the TR; that's why those words are in that verse, as they were in Beza's work, simple as THAT. based upon the evidence at hand, we must assume Beza ADDED those words to God's word as he was copying it, & the AV men, depending upon Beza's work, copied them in their English translation.

No DOCTRINE is changed, but the evidence is still that those words in that verse are a MAN-MADE ADDITION to God's word.
I disagree.
The plagues written in this book haven't yet occurred, but we don't know what's been added to the souls of those who died unsaved. But we stand without excuse if we accept something that's almost certainly been added to God's word, or known goofs in a translation, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

Sorry, Sir; your KJVO myth remains as false as ever. It was false on Day One of its existence, & remains 100% false now.
I do not agree with all the ideologies that makes up the KJVO, but thanks to Jesus Christ, I still do rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words whereas other modern bibles has changed the truth in His words in one form or fashion that supports false teachings and false spirits.

Keeping the faith is the good fight. Making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the KJV and not the extreme ideology from KJVO is not.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
That you now of. Not all Greek manuscripts that were available were collated.
But no one has shown us an ancient ms. with those words in that verse.
I see no evidence as to why over 52 KJV translators did it.
Because they were using Beza's TR revision to make their English New Testament.
Neither one of us can tell and you know why. Not all Greek manuscripts are the same, even for the ones that were viewed.
But only one can be absolutely correct.
Not all Greek transcripts are the same. Not having the original manuscript is why we cannot conclude the matter.
But we have what GOD wanted us to have. And if Beza or another TR reviser can add or subtract words at his whim, what happens to God's word in the TR?
I disagree.
But you can't prove me wrong.
I do not agree with all the ideologies that makes up the KJVO, but thanks to Jesus Christ, I still do rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words whereas other modern bibles has changed the truth in His words in one form or fashion that supports false teachings and false spirits.
Guesswork, unless you're a Greek, ancient hebrew, & Aramaic expert.
Keeping the faith is the good fight. Making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the KJV and not the extreme ideology from KJVO is not.
KJVOs insist that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation,(as YOU do!) and that it's perfect, despite its proven goofs & booboos. I see you won't touch the KJV's "Easter" goof. (While evidence seems to show "Easter" was added by a prelate or prelates after the actual translation was completed, it's still wrong, no matter who put it in, & thus proves the KJV is not perfect. There are other proofs, of course, but that one is very-obvious.)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Answer: absence of earlier manuscript is not evidence to prove one way or another. Plus, not all Greek manuscripts were viewed for the TR.

... which is ALL THE MORE REASON to base translations on the CT, based on THOUSANDS of Greek manuscripts, rather than to trust Bibles based on the TR, such as the KJV.

They only translated what was at hand. They didn't VERIFY what they were translating.

Answer; over 52 KJV translators, divided into 8 groups as every one checking each other's work in that group & then having heir work checked over by other groups.

But again, they weren't studying manuscripts, or evaluating them.
They were simply translating whatever Greek text was placed in front of them.

I understand you're ignoring me, and that's fine, but you keep bringing up the same fallacious arguments, and they need to be addressed at some point.

They all changed it from what the Geneva Bible had it as and they were all in agreement for how it is in the KJV.

Wrong.
They didn't "change it from what the Geneva Bible had", since they weren't BASING their translation on the Geneva Bible (which is written in English, not Greek). They were basing the KJV on the TR.

So?

Answer: So not all Greek manuscripts has Holy One in the same place.

So what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!
You keep bringing up this irrelevant opint, but you never explain why it's the least bit relevant.

You posted in quote below:

Answer : This is the Book of Revelation. This is quoting the angel about how God judges presently and as in the past, and so it follows that the original scripture had that angel testifying to how righteous He shall be when He judges in the future, righteously. So I agree with the KJV

That's rationalization.
That's NOT how you do textual criticism.
That's how you CHANGE Scripture.
And it's BAD to "change Scripture".

Yes, I DO know.When it's not in any known SOURCE, it has no right to be in a compilation of sources, which is what the TR is..

Answer: you not knowing the known sources for why over 52 KJV translators had it translated in that way for Revelation 16:5 is key for why you cannot reach any justifiable conclusion.

We know EXACTLY why the KJV translators translated it that way. It was a conjectural emendation by Beza, and that's why the KJV translators translated that particular text. Now we have manuscripts with Rev. 16:5, and NONE of them have the TR reading.

Neither can I, but I believe Jesus is leading me to accept Revelation 16:5 in KJV is scripture.

Again, that is NOT how you do textual criticism.
Too bad you weren't available to be part of the "Jesus Seminar", where they "voted" on the validity of each of the sayings of Jesus.

We shall all know for sure what was originally written when we get to Heaven,

Well, we ALREADY know what was originally written.
But if you don't, why do you keep arguing about it?

but either way, Revelation 16:5 does not change the truth in His words as far as I can see.

But KJVO's don't allow that as a valid excuse for when you attack variant readings in the modern translations, so why should it be a valid excuse now?
Double standards much?

However, we do have this warning:

Revelation 21: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Yep, and KJVO's reject this warning when they change the text of Rev. 16:5, John 5:4, and other texts.

Neither one of us really hears the prophesy of the book to know how it was originally written

Actually, we do.
And if you don't, then why do you keep arguing?
 

Hark

Well-known member
But no one has shown us an ancient ms. with those words in that verse.
There are over thousands Greek manuscripts to be collated and so you do not know.
Because they were using Beza's TR revision to make their English New Testament.
There has to be a reason why over 52 KJV translators went with that translation in departing from how the 1599 Geneva Bible had it.
But only one can be absolutely correct.
That will never be determined by you or me, and so it is best to ask Jesus for that discernment.
But we have what GOD wanted us to have. And if Beza or another TR reviser can add or subtract words at his whim, what happens to God's word in the TR?
Can you be sure? I do not see how you can say that.

It's like evolutionists saying the coelacanth are extinct. Until somebody found one still alive.

it's even like archeologists mocking places in the Bibles as if it does not exists, until they found the ruins.

Until somebody actually go through all the thousands Greek manuscripts available rather than just going on the hundreds, we cannot really say one way or another.
But you can't prove me wrong.
That is correct, but you cannot prove yourself right either to any body else. It is an opinion made out of lack of earlier manuscripts.
Guesswork, unless you're a Greek, ancient hebrew, & Aramaic expert.
There is always Jesus to consult with. Being how it is Revelation and the angel showing the future to John, I can see it as scripture.
KJVOs insist that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation,(as YOU do!) and that it's perfect, despite its proven goofs & booboos.
Perfect? It can be translated better in some places in my opinion, but those few places I wish was translated better, the modern Bibles do not address like Luke 17:37 about how they are received/taken with hospitality & Revelation 3:5 as a double negative for how no name can never be removed from the Book of Life, & Romans 8:27 when that "he" is Jesus Christ..
I see you won't touch the KJV's "Easter" goof. (While evidence seems to show "Easter" was added by a prelate or prelates after the actual translation was completed, it's still wrong, no matter who put it in, & thus proves the KJV is not perfect. There are other proofs, of course, but that one is very-obvious.)
Tyndale was the first to translate pascha in O.T. to Passover and pascha as Easter in the N.T. as meaning the same thing.

I can believe that the KJV translators had it as Passover originally in Acts 12:4 before that claim of yours which is unsubstantiated that a priest had changed it back to Easter, because all other reference to Tyndale's Easter in the N.T. was changed to Passover.

So not a goof when Easter means the same thing as the Passover and not how anti-KJVO contenders are having a conniption over it to mean today as if referring to the pagan use of Easter.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
There are over thousands Greek manuscripts to be collated and so you do not know.

What is your evidence for this?
You seem to think that the vast majority of Biblical manuscripts are locked in some vault, "We're too afraid to collate these since they might support the KJV rendering".

Always stupid conspiracy theories with KJVO's.

Perfect? It can be translated better in some places in my opinion, but those few places I wish was translated better, the modern Bibles do not address like Luke 17:37 about how they are received/taken with hospitality & Revelation 3:5 as a double negative for how no name can never be removed from the Book of Life, & Romans 8:27 when that "he" is Jesus Christ..

So you, who has no Greek training, thinks you are better qualified to accurately translate the Greek than trained Geek scholars?
 
Top