The "Rev. 16:5 thingie"

robycop3

Well-known member
There are over thousands Greek manuscripts to be collated and so you do not know.
Not just KJVOs, but many others, have tried to find those words in that verse, unsuccessfully. And I doubt if there are any known mss. that haven't at least been perfunctorily scanned for them.
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.
And you've been told that reason is the AV men used Beza's TR revision to make their New Testament.
That will never be determined by you or me, and so it is best to ask Jesus for that discernment.
I believe God has presented His word as HE wants us to have it, and that HE preserved it, so one MUST be right.
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.
...Which is why I said "until PROVEN otherwise".
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.
But it's correct til proven wrong.
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.
Even if it's not recorded?
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..
This isn't really the thread to prove in-depth that the KJV's not perfect, but it only takes one goof, which I pointed out.
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.
No, BEFORE Tyndale, the British used to use easter & pask/pascha interchangeably. But Tyndale, knowing they were different observances, couned 'passover' for the paschal observance.
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.
But no matter how easter got in the KJV, it's incorrect.
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.
It does NOT mean the same thing as passover. The AV men knew that. They placed an "Easter-Finder" in their work, not a "passover-finder".
 

Hark

Well-known member
Not just KJVOs, but many others, have tried to find those words in that verse, unsuccessfully. And I doubt if there are any known mss. that haven't at least been perfunctorily scanned for them.
Seeing how newer copies are used by those who loved Him & His words, I can understand why there are not very many available for viewing today.
And you've been told that reason is the AV men used Beza's TR revision to make their New Testament.
but no one provided a source link to show that so...
I believe God has presented His word as HE wants us to have it, and that HE preserved it, so one MUST be right.
I believe His words are preserved either way in Revelation 16:5.
...Which is why I said "until PROVEN otherwise".
The message has not changed regarding testifying of Him which is to His glory.
But it's correct til proven wrong.

Even if it's not recorded?

This isn't really the thread to prove in-depth that the KJV's not perfect, but it only takes one goof, which I pointed out.

No, BEFORE Tyndale, the British used to use easter & pask/pascha interchangeably. But Tyndale, knowing they were different observances, couned 'passover' for the paschal observance.

But no matter how easter got in the KJV, it's incorrect.

It does NOT mean the same thing as passover. The AV men knew that. They placed an "Easter-Finder" in their work, not a "passover-finder".
We agree to disagree, brother.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Seeing how newer copies are used by those who loved Him & His words, I can understand why there are not very many available for viewing today.

Because you think early Christians were morons, who never thought, "Hey, this copy is falling apart, maybe we should make a copy"?
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Seeing how newer copies are used by those who loved Him & His words, I can understand why there are not very many available for viewing today.

but no one provided a source link to show that so...

I believe His words are preserved either way in Revelation 16:5.

The message has not changed regarding testifying of Him which is to His glory.

We agree to disagree, brother.
Yes, we'll disagree long as you're wrong. And you'll be wrong til you or someone else shows us manuscript evidence for those words in that verse.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Yes, we'll disagree long as you're wrong. And you'll be wrong til you or someone else shows us manuscript evidence for those words in that verse.
Do you know how you can prove me wrong? By showing the original manuscript that it was written on. You can't. I can't. So it is moot.

It leaves every one up to asking Jesus Himself for the wisdom they need to confirm His words in the KJV or not.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Do you know how you can prove me wrong? By showing the original manuscript that it was written on. You can't. I can't. So it is moot.

If you truly believe that, then you have absolutely NO basis for thinking we can have ANY reliable verse of Scripture.

You're just annoyed since in this particular case, the truth, evidence, and facts go against what you WANT the text to say.

The fact of the matter is that textual criticism is a VER

Y reliable way of determining the truth. That's why KJVO's have to CHANGE the standards every time they change the citation they want to support.

- in one instance, it's the older Greek.
- in another instance, you have to look to the newer Greek.
- in another instance, you have to go to the Latin.
- in another instance, you have to go all the way to the Ethiopic.

There is no constant standard for your position, because your goal is NOT to learn the original reading of the Bible, it's simply to support the KJV rendering AT ALL COSTS.

The principles of textual criticism have been proven time and time again.
They simply don't support the KJV.
And so that's the reason you have to go to, "show me the original!", since you know we don't have it, and so you know it can't be used to prove you wrong.

It leaves every one up to asking Jesus Himself for the wisdom they need to confirm His words in the KJV or not.

Yeah, and when that happens, everyone gets a different answer.
So how do YOU know your answer is from Jesus, and the answer of others isn't?
It's nothing but a cop-out to hold to a false view you don't want to let go of.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Do you know how you can prove me wrong? By showing the original manuscript that it was written on. You can't. I can't. So it is moot.

Isn't it funny?
If the Greek, or the Latin, or the Ethiopic, even ONE single source in 10,000, supports the KJV, then that is "proof" that the KJV rendering is correct.

But if the manuscript evidence shows the KJV to be wrong, then "no amount of evidence is enough", and we need to see the "original".

Proof positive there's no standard for the KJVO position.
 

Conan

Active member
Yes we can. You are without excuse. God left the true reading in all manuscripts in the Greek. They all agree, no matter what Text type or group of Manuscripts, they all agree against the intrusion from the Latin. The same Greek manuscripts behind the KJV GO against the Latin here. Stick with the original Greek. Not the unoriginal latin, and the few Greek manuscripts that came under the influence of The unoriginal Latin.
 

Hark

Well-known member
Yes we can. You are without excuse. God left the true reading in all manuscripts in the Greek. They all agree, no matter what Text type or group of Manuscripts, they all agree against the intrusion from the Latin. The same Greek manuscripts behind the KJV GO against the Latin here. Stick with the original Greek. Not the unoriginal latin, and the few Greek manuscripts that came under the influence of The unoriginal Latin.
Seeing how the truth has not been altered when you read it either way, I disagree since evidence in regards to the keeping of the truth in His words can be read either way regarding Revelation 16:5.

But look at 2 Corinthians 3;6 & John 6:63. Answer the question at this link to that thread and tell me if the modern bibles have been loyal in keeping the message in His words per the Greek use of penuma in scripture which does not always refer to the Person as the Holy Spirit..

Who Is The Giver of Life? Jesus Christ Or the Holy Spirit?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes we can. You are without excuse. God left the true reading in all manuscripts in the Greek. They all agree, no matter what Text type or group of Manuscripts, they all agree against the intrusion from the Latin.

Yep... Like I believe Dan Wallace and James White have both said, it's not like we have 90-95% of the text of the New Testament, it's more like we have 105% of the New Testament. We have all the original readings, and more, and we just have to prune off the unoriginal readings, and we'll have the whole New Testament.

For instance, in Mark 1:41 (one of Bart's Ehrman's favourite verses), Jesus was either "angry" or "compassionate". We know one of those was the original rendering. Textual criticism is basically a set of principles designed to figure out which one it is. In 1 Thess. 2:7, the text either said:
"we were gentle among you",
"we were infants among you", or
"we were horses among you."
We know one of those is the true reading, we just have to figure out which one it is (and most critics agree it wasn't, "horses").

In point of fact, the New Testament has grown over time, as words and passages were added. And this agrees perfectly with our understanding that marginal notes frequently got incorporated into the main text when a manuscript was next copied, because most scribes were conservative and didn't want to lose anything that could possibly be Scripture.

OTOH, the KJVO movement is based on conspiracy theories of "evil" scribes removing texts for doctrinal reasons, which is unnecessarily complicated and uncharitable, and also doesn't agree with the evidence that the text grew (not shrank) over time. It's also important to note that they have to posit MORONIC conspiracy scribes, since no matter what doctrine they wanted to "remove", they always messed up and left it in, in other passages.

The same Greek manuscripts behind the KJV GO against the Latin here. Stick with the original Greek. Not the unoriginal latin, and the few Greek manuscripts that came under the influence of The unoriginal Latin.

Exactly.
If one wants to determine the original reading of the GREEK, the most important witnesses are the GREEK manuscripts.
Not Latin.
Not Coptic.
Not Ethiopic.
Not Pig-Latin.

The Greek.

/me <sings>

"It's all about the Greek, 'bout the Greek (no Latin!)"
"It's all about the Greek, 'bout the Greek (no Latin...)"
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Seeing how the truth has not been altered when you read it either way, I disagree since evidence in regards to the keeping of the truth in His words can be read either way regarding Revelation 16:5.

But you never allow that as a factor when the modern versions are being attacked.
Why the double standard?

But look at 2 Corinthians 3;6 & John 6:63. Answer the question at this link to that thread and tell me if the modern bibles have been loyal in keeping the message in His words per the Greek use of penuma in scripture which does not always refer to the Person as the Holy Spirit..

Who Is The Giver of Life? Jesus Christ Or the Holy Spirit?

Well, you present a lot of information here, and so IMO it would be better for you to explain your view (you clearly have something in mind), and then we can go from there. There are a number of factors in play, which you may or may not be aware of:

1) The TR is identical to the CT in both verses, so this ISN'T a matter of "keeping the truth", but a matter of interpretation;
2) In both verses, one instance of "pneuma" is anarthrous, while another instance is arthrous, the latter being more suggestive of the Person of the Spirit.
3) The scribe of p46 wrote the first instance of "spirit" in 2 Cor. 3:6 in nomen sacrum form, denoting the person, while writing out the second instance in long form.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
It leaves every one up to asking Jesus Himself for the wisdom they need to confirm His words in the KJV or not.
You're starting to sound rather Charismatic there, Hark! (I won't tell, promise!) How often have the Charismatic "prophets" said, "The Lord told me..." — and were absolutely sure that they had heard from Him?

--Rich
 

robycop3

Well-known member
Do you know how you can prove me wrong? By showing the original manuscript that it was written on. You can't. I can't. So it is moot.

It leaves every one up to asking Jesus Himself for the wisdom they need to confirm His words in the KJV or not.
We can't prove a negative, but we can't call it a positive, either. As we haven't found an earlier source for Beza's addition of the words in wuestion, we must assume he added them to the TR on his own.
 

Hark

Well-known member
You're starting to sound rather Charismatic there, Hark! (I won't tell, promise!) How often have the Charismatic "prophets" said, "The Lord told me..." — and were absolutely sure that they had heard from Him?

--Rich
The difference here is I do not expect them to take my word for it when by example, they are to go to the Lord for that wisdom & discernment too. If they understand where I am coming from and the Lord gives them wisdom & discernment by the scripture to reprove me, then I rely on the Lord to help me receive the truth as found in His words. No one is perfect, and so we each should go to Jesus Christ Whom is perfect.

Charismatic seek attention as if others cannot go to the Lord for anything and so they have to go to them, that special person or couple or church.

And it doesn't matter who it is; even if it is your favorite that you believe can do no wrong; each of us has to rely on Jesus to point out falsehood so we can correct even our favorite Christian preacher, teacher, or leader, because they are not perfect yet and no one should be following any one or any church the same way we should be following Jesus, because He is the Good Shepherd as He alone is Perfect; no on else nor a church
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
And it doesn't matter who it is; even if it is your favorite that you believe can do no wrong;
We agree that there is only One Who can do no wrong! A Pentecostal pastor - long gone to his reward - was fond of saying, "The only people who don't make mistakes are in the graveyard."

each of us has to rely on Jesus to point out falsehood so we can correct even our favorite Christian preacher, teacher, or leader, because they are not perfect yet and no one should be following any one or any church the same way we should be following Jesus, because He is the Good Shepherd as He alone is Perfect; no on else nor a church
Right. We see the results of sola ecclesia in the RCC forum. 😕

--Rich
 

Hark

Well-known member
We can't prove a negative, but we can't call it a positive, either. As we haven't found an earlier source for Beza's addition of the words in wuestion, we must assume he added them to the TR on his own.
When there is no evidence, then no, we do not have to assume. It is unresolved as far as this issue goes ...

But I believe it is originally scripture because it went from the present and then the past for how God judges and just ends there? It doesn't sound nor read right when this is the Book of Revelations and so talking about how God is righteous in how He judges presently & in the past, so shall He be righteous when He judges in the future. There is no lie in that verse to mislead anyone, but it does interrupt the flow of the message by dropping off how He will judge presently and then in the past, but no reference towards how He will judge in the future?

Of course, one can assume this to be true without it being written but I would believe that if the future in how He would judge is not original scripture, would not John had written the past first in how God has judged and then move to the present in how He is still righteous when He judges thus the verse would carry on as time goes on for the future without needing to refer to that future? Yet in all scripture, we have the present cited first and then the past.... which is why I see the reference to how He will judge in the future is original scripture.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
When there is no evidence, then no, we do not have to assume. It is unresolved as far as this issue goes ...

But I believe it is originally scripture because it went from the present and then the past for how God judges and just ends there? It doesn't sound nor read right when this is the Book of Revelations and so talking about how God is righteous in how He judges presently & in the past, so shall He be righteous when He judges in the future. There is no lie in that verse to mislead anyone, but it does interrupt the flow of the message by dropping off how He will judge presently and then in the past, but no reference towards how He will judge in the future?

Of course, one can assume this to be true without it being written but I would believe that if the future in how He would judge is not original scripture, would not John had written the past first in how God has judged and then move to the present in how He is still righteous when He judges thus the verse would carry on as time goes on for the future without needing to refer to that future? Yet in all scripture, we have the present cited first and then the past.... which is why I see the reference to how He will judge in the future is original scripture.

You can use this type of "rationalization" to try to justify ANY rewriting of ANY verse of Scripture.

That's why it's unreliable and worthless.
 

robycop3

Well-known member
When there is no evidence, then no, we do not have to assume. It is unresolved as far as this issue goes ...

But I believe it is originally scripture because it went from the present and then the past for how God judges and just ends there? It doesn't sound nor read right when this is the Book of Revelations and so talking about how God is righteous in how He judges presently & in the past, so shall He be righteous when He judges in the future. There is no lie in that verse to mislead anyone, but it does interrupt the flow of the message by dropping off how He will judge presently and then in the past, but no reference towards how He will judge in the future?

Of course, one can assume this to be true without it being written but I would believe that if the future in how He would judge is not original scripture, would not John had written the past first in how God has judged and then move to the present in how He is still righteous when He judges thus the verse would carry on as time goes on for the future without needing to refer to that future? Yet in all scripture, we have the present cited first and then the past.... which is why I see the reference to how He will judge in the future is original scripture.
No argument from me or any other Christian that the words are true, but that does NOT make them genuine Scripture. I showed you how one can embellish John 3:16 or any other verse with true statements that are not found ion any ancient sources for those verses, but that being true wouldn't make those additions Scripture. And that's the case for "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. Until those words can be shown us in that verse in an ancient manuscript of Revelation, we must conside them an ADDITION added by Beza, and NOT genuine Scripture.

That case would hold up in any human court of law.
 

Conan

Active member
It was a conjectual emendation by Beza. He made a scholarly guess. All other handwritten manuscripts disagree with him. All Greek and ancient versions left record that he was wrong.
 

Hark

Well-known member
No argument from me or any other Christian that the words are true, but that does NOT make them genuine Scripture. I showed you how one can embellish John 3:16 or any other verse with true statements that are not found ion any ancient sources for those verses, but that being true wouldn't make those additions Scripture. And that's the case for "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. Until those words can be shown us in that verse in an ancient manuscript of Revelation, we must conside them an ADDITION added by Beza, and NOT genuine Scripture.

That case would hold up in any human court of law.
Human courts of law are so fallible.

Reckon we will have to wait for God's court then. His Court is the One that counts.
 
Top