KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

These will be my only replies in this thread.

I think it's "risen again" because you do not agree with it,
which is your prerogative to do so.

Roby,
It boils down to one opinion versus another...
One set of Greek collated texts versus another, and what one side calls "variant readings" versus what the other side does.

If you don't agree with the way the "King James" phrases things, then you don't agree.
Those of us who trust it ( and it's underlying texts even more so ) to be the word of God in English, also trust those words to be correct and that they do indeed belong there...

Not the italicized words, but all the rest

 

That's a good question.

Respectfully,
Not being a KJVO ( but rather a KJVB/P ) and a TR-O,
I'll do exactly what you seem to think that none of them will do:
​

Here it is in the "Critical Text" ( Westcott and Hort, NA / UBS ):
NA 28:
" Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος·δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος,ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας "

UBS 5:
" καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος,ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας"

Source:
Revelation 16:5.


Here it is in the "Textus Receptus" ( base text Beza 1598 / Scrivener 1894 ) Greek":
"και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος οτι ταυτα εκρινας "

and in the Stephanus 1550 / Elzevir 1624:
"και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας "


Sources:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev16.pdf
Verse Analysis: Revelation 16:5 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Variant readings to the Beza 1598 / Scrivener 1894 read " and the holy one / sacred one" instead of "and shalt be".

But the more important thing that I think the reader should take note of,
is the word " κύριε" ( "Lord / Master") which is missing from the NA / UBS Greek above,
while "εσομενος" ( "one-that-shall-be" ) replaces "οσιος" ( "holy one" ) from Stephanus 1550, Elzevir 1624 and most other collated Greek texts.

Beza's inclusion of "εσομενος" instead of "οσιος " is said to have been attributed to two Latin sources ( and, as far as I know, not any existing Greek manuscript ):

8th century Bietus of Liebana's commentary of the verse in his "Commentaria In Apocalypsin" , which relied on 4th century Tyconius's materials,
and 9th century German bishop Haimo Halberstadensis, who also wrote a commentary entitled " "Commentaria in Apocalypsin".

Also of note is the fact that this reading agrees, scripturally, with the words, "is to come" ( and the entire phrase, "which is, which was, and which is to come" ) in Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8, and Revelation 11:17.

Source:
Beza and Revelation 16:5

 

However, "successfully justifying" the words of the AV ( and its underlying Greek text ) is the main point of this thread...

And since the OP, in my opinion, is not about presenting textual evidence ( or even early "lateral witnesses" outside of existing Greek manuscripts ) and letting the readers decide for themselves which words should or should not be there ( but which point is rather that the owner of this thread is convinced of it ),
then I see no reason in trying to do so beyond what I've presented above.

I also imagine that this ground has been well-covered in the past,
and I predict that it will not be profitable to take part in an entire thread that results in a bitter back-and-forth....

Since arguing for argument's sake is not what the Lord would have His people to do.


I will therefore refrain from any further comments or discussion regarding this,
as the OP has made it clear that he is against this position.



May God bless you all as you consider the above,
and may you grow in both grace and knowledge in the days and years to come.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you read Nick Sayer's book on Rev 16:5?
https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-16-Final-Triadic-Declaration/dp/1733331581

 

You error (as always) lies in your presumptuous position. In other words, you limited the scope to 'ancient Greek manuscript' and refuse to accept anything outside of that self-defined scope and then sit on your pre-rendered high-horse. Why? There are plenty of lateral translations in other languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Germanic, etc), which are even older, better preserved and more consistent than many of the existing ancient Greek manuscripts that are currently available. There are also artifacts, lectionary's and so called 'ecf' (easily confused fellows) that come into play for evaluation in 'critical textual' analysis.

I constantly hear it argued that 'older is better', and even sometimes the 'Latin' being praised above that of the Greek in modern translation circles. The scales of judgment are unbalanced, for the judgment used against the King James Bible, is not the same scales used for those moderns (post 1800's), nor their sources for them.

What is this false straw man ideology that God had to preserve his word only in Hebrew (and Syriac), or only in koine Greek? Where is that ever stated, or even taught in scripture? No King James Bible believer even teaches that.

If you limit the 'pool' to just 'ancient Greek manuscripts', then why not do the same for your own translations that you use (because they simply don't do that, and are very eclectic)?

 

An all around agreeable fellow (except for his erroneous position on Calvinsim, OSAS) with some nice material on the King James Bible, and as such, why bother to mention him? (I am surprised you didn't mention the late Peter Ruckman or the still living Gail Riplinger, etc). Are you leaning towards an Ad hominem here?, or seeking to goad?

 

Do you ignore the errors of your own very presumptuous position?

Perhaps you assume and presume some of your assertions based on use of fallacies such as begging the question.

You make no sound scriptural case for trying to suggest that God would not preserve some of the exact specific original-language words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. There are more textual variants and differences in the imperfect Latin translations than there are in the preserved Greek NT manuscripts so you do not demonstrate that the Latin translation is more trustworthy than the preserved Greek NT text.

There is sound scriptural support that preservation would concern the original-language words of Scripture.

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language. Concerning Matthew 5:18, D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93). Steve Combs asserted: “When God made the promises of preservation, the words He promised to preserve were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words,” and he noted: “This is evident by the Scriptures themselves,” citing Matthew 5:18 (Practical Theology, p. 43).

That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? Do KJV-only advocates avoid or ignore these internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and written by the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate this scripturally-based point that Bible preservation would concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations? These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

 

Do you even know my position? I see you didn't ask?

 

It is not a straw man at all. It is in agreement with what the Scriptures teach concerning preservation of what God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

King James Bible believer D. A. Waite asserted: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 98). D. A. Waite maintained “that God’s promise to preserve His Words of the Bible involves His Hebrew and Greek words” (Foes of the KJB, p. 46). Waite noted: “You cannot ‘preserve’ what has not already been in existence. His Words that He promised to preserve and has preserved are His Hebrew and Greek Words from the Old and New Testament” (p. 34). Concerning Matthew 5:18, D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93).

 

You were encouraged or challenged to present a sound, scriptural case for your position.

Are you suggesting that you were making presumptuous assertions without presenting any clear position?

 

D. A. Waite is simply in error at that point.

Where do I find in any place, the Hebrew words of Jesus in Acts 26:14 (and like contexts)? Where are those "Hebrew" words preserved?

 

Why are you saying that those "words" are "one of it's goofs"?

 

You do not prove Waite in error at that point. Waite's point is in agreement with scriptural truth.
Perhaps you do not like the fact that Waite's statements proved the statement that you posted was not true.

The words of the New Testament in its original language proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the apostles and NT prophets. God gave Luke by inspiration the Greek words in Acts 26:14 so that translating was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration.

Do you incorrectly try to assume or suggest that translating by the Holy Spirit that was part of the giving of the New Testament by the process of inspiration of God is the same thing as post-NT translating without any miracle of direct inspiration?

 

As you are always asking of others, "Do you have any Scripture support for those positions?"