KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

[robycop3]

It seems the nature of your responses deal more with personal attacks and personalities rather than civil discussion as one responder replied to you and mentioned "Ad hominem," such as 'maybe I am seeking $$.'

I don't agree with everything Sayers or Riplinger has to say, but sometimes you need to eat the meat off of the chicken before you throw away the bone. But any meat I have sent to you is just discarded, and I highly doubt your open to any further evidence based on the nature of your responses.

I say this because I just asked you an honest question which you never responded to. All I asked is if you ever read Nick's book on Rev 16:5? I am not wanting to argue, just trying to have an honest dialogue and just wondering if you ever read it.

I've read a little of it, & it seems to be an attempt to defend Beza's conjectural emendation without presenting anything empirical to defend it. And I've had discussions with NS on a couple of Facebook pages, & he's definitely eaten up with the KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

My post had nothing to do with the KJB, but rather the claim that "older is better".

No such thing as a "KJB".

However, GOD preserved the older mss. for a reason. In fact, He's preserved ALL the Scriptural mss. we have, older or newer. They wouldn't be available to us without His actions.

And I TRUST GOD to have preserved His word from the day it was written, from the writings of Moses to those of John at the Revelation. So, the "older is better" theory has some weight.

 

[George Antonios]

And I TRUST GOD to have preserved His word from the day it was written, from the writings of Moses to those of John at the Revelation.

You suddenly "TRUST" now, eh, once faced with actual manuscript evidence.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LOOK WHO SUDDENLY TURNS TO FAITH IN REPLY TO MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE.
See post #29.

My, my, my, how the tables have turned!

Welcome to the faith-in-God's-power-over-manuscript-"evidence" club, @robycop3.

 

[Logos1560]

while the "oldest is best" advocate resorts to the analogy of a stream, wherein the water is purer the nearer it is to the source, .

KJV-only advocates also resort to an analogy of a stream as seen in the KJV-only view's claimed pure stream of Bibles that includes Bible with many significant textual differences and even textual corruptions.

 

[Logos1560]

You suddenly "TRUST" now, eh, once faced with actual manuscript evidence.
.

Did you present any original-language manuscript evidence?

The Bible doctrine of preservation concerns the actual specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, not the words in post-NT translations.

Evidence from an imperfect Latin translation is not original-language manuscript evidence. Was your claimed evidence only from an imperfect Latin translation translated from Greek NT manuscripts during a period when you suggest that the Greek manuscripts already had corruptions? Perhaps your claimed Latin source was translated from one of the imperfect Greek manuscripts. That Old Latin Bible translation had an Old Testament translated from the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Van]

That highly goes in the other direction too. (Not a Calvinist) Nor can you say “all” and be correct. It seems just as difficult when evidence is has been shown to the majority of Bible critics in the past who support modern versions.

Dear friend, since I cannot say "all" please let me know what evidence that the KJV contains error or that points of the TULIP are bogus has been accepted?

 

[Stratton7]

Dear friend, since I cannot say "all" please let me know what evidence that the KJV contains error or that points of the TULIP are bogus has been accepted?

D. A. Waite claims to have found 3 slight errors in the Oxford. (Which is why he uses Cambridge).
I’m not sure how to address the one on TULIP. I’m aware many only believe in certain points and would think that the points they don’t accept are bogus.
Like I said, I’m not a Calvinist so I really can’t speak for that. I was referring more to your KJO claim.
The point is that it goes both ways.

 

[rlvaughn]

Would your question be suggesting that ancient preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts are not Scripture since the poster had appealed to those manuscript copies of Scripture?

No, my question suggests that the poster fails to pony up in a similar way he expects of others.

 

[rlvaughn]

The oldest-known New Testament Scriptural mss. are in Koine Greek.

In other words, as you are prone to say, you have failed to provide one quark of Scripture that says the oldest manuscripts are best and most accurate, or that the original authors wrote their manuscripts in Greek.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Did you present any original-language manuscript evidence?

The Bible doctrine of preservation concerns the actual specific words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, not the words in post-NT translations.

Evidence from an imperfect Latin translation is not original-language manuscript evidence. Was your claimed evidence only from an imperfect Latin translation translated from Greek NT manuscripts during a period when you suggest that the Greek manuscripts already had corruptions? Perhaps your claimed Latin source was translated from one of the imperfect Greek manuscripts. That Old Latin Bible translation had an Old Testament translated from the Greek Septuagint.

we don't have any "original" manuscripts for either the Old or New Testaments, only copies!

 

[SavedByGrace]

In other words, as you are prone to say, you have failed to provide one quark of Scripture that says the oldest manuscripts are best and most accurate, or that the original authors wrote their manuscripts in Greek.

so what language was the New Testament written in, if not Greek?

 

[1689Dave]

OK, PROVE it exists. Til then, we must assume it doesn't.

You need to prove it doesn't exist. And saying it does without proof might be considered lying.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Greek Papyri P47 (3rd century), “και ηκουσα του αγʼγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ος ην και οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Latin Vulgate (4th century), “Et audivi Angelum aquarum dicentem: Iustus es Domine qui es, et qui eras; Sanctus, qui hæc iudicasti”

Egyptian Coptic (4th century. Oxford), “I heard the angel of the waters saying, Thou art righteous, he who is being, he who was being, he who is holy, because thou judgedst these”

Syriac Peshitta (5th century. G. Lasma), “Then I heard the angel who has charge over waters say, Thou art righteous, O Holy One, who is and wast, because thou hast condemned them”

Wycliffe (1382), “Just art thou, Lord, that art, and that were hooli, that demest these thingis”

Tyndale (1534), “And I herde an angell saye: lorde which arte and wast thou arte ryghteous and holy because thou hast geve soche iudgmentes”

Coverdale (1535), “And I herde an angel saye: LORDE which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy, because thou hast geue soche iudgmentes”

Matthews (1537), “And I heard an angel say: Lord which art & wast, thou art rightuous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes”

Great (1539), “And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen soche iudgementes”

Geneva (1557), “And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things”

Bishops (1568), “And I hearde the angell of the waters say: Lorde, which art, and wast, thou art ryghteous & holy, because thou hast geuen such iudgementes”

Douay-Rheims (1582), “And I heard the angel of the waters saying: Thou art just, O Lord, who art and who wast, the Holy One, because thou hast judged these things”

Beza (1599), “And I heard the Angel of the waters fay Lord, Thou art iuft, which art and Which waft and Holy becaufe thou haft iudged thefe things”

King James (1611), “And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus”

King James (1769), “And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus”

Erasmus (1519), ““και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Stephanus (1550), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Beza (1598), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Elziver (1624), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Griesbach (1774-5), “Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας”

Westcott & Hort (1881), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ο ην [ο] οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Scrivener (1894), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”.

Tischendorf (1894), “και ηκουσα του αγγελου των υδατων λεγοντος δικαιος ει ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος οτι ταυτα εκρινας”

Nestle-Aland (1993), “Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας”

Hodges & Farstad, (Majority Text. 1985), “Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, “Δίκαιος10 εἶ, Ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὅσιος,Ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας.”

Robinson & Pierpont (Byzantine Textform. 2016), “Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, Δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας”

Apart from the Geneva Bible and the 2 editions of the King James, and Beza and Scrivener. No other Version has this reading, which has NO textual support!

 

[Logos1560]

we don't have any "original" manuscripts for either the Old or New Testaments, only copies!

I have not claimed that the original autographs still exist on earth. Copies of the original-language Scriptures would be what preserves the specific, exact words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have not claimed that the original autographs still exist on earth. Copies of the original-language Scriptures would be what preserves the specific, exact words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

check out # 53 for the actual evidence

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite claims to have found 3 slight errors in the Oxford. (Which is why he uses Cambridge).

D. A. Waite is misinformed about editions of the KJV. He claims that the edition of the KJV printed in his Defined KJB is the 1769 Cambridge unaltered, but it is not. The 1769 Cambridge edition has what he claimed were the three Oxford errors along with over 1000 differences with the KJV text in his Defined KJB. The so-called Oxford errors were introduced into Cambridge KJV editions before they were followed in Oxford editions. At least two of them may have also been found in London KJV editions before they were in later Oxford editions.

 

[Logos1560]

check out # 53 for the actual evidence

Printed editions do not always preserve solely the actual original-language manuscript evidence since the textual critics who made them sometimes introduced readings by translating from the Latin Vulgate and sometimes introduced conjectures.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Printed editions do not always preserve solely the actual original-language manuscript evidence since the textual critics who made them sometimes introduced readings by translating from the Latin Vulgate and sometimes introduced conjectures.

So are you for retaining the words? If so what is your evidence

 

[robycop3]

You suddenly "TRUST" now, eh, once faced with actual manuscript evidence.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LOOK WHO SUDDENLY TURNS TO FAITH IN REPLY TO MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE.
See post #29.

My, my, my, how the tables have turned!

Welcome to the faith-in-God's-power-over-manuscript-"evidence" club, @robycop3.

I have never said I didn't trust GOD.

Now, can YOU presentany ancient Greek ms. evidence to prove me wrong, or not?

 

[robycop3]

In other words, as you are prone to say, you have failed to provide one quark of Scripture that says the oldest manuscripts are best and most accurate, or that the original authors wrote their manuscripts in Greek.

OF COURSE the original mss. didn't talk about themselves. Few of those writers knew their writings would become Scripture. The only reference to such is when Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture".

And, of course, most of Paul's letters were written to churches in Greece, so, naturally, they would've been written in Greek. (Remember, he knew Greek, & usually employed a scribe.)