KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

[robycop3]

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

The proof, so far, is self-evident. No one has presented such a ms. Showing us one is the ONLY way to prove my assertion wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

The proof, so far, is self-evident. No one has presented such a ms. Showing us one is the ONLY way to prove my assertion wrong.

You remind me of the Russians who didn't see God when orbiting the Earth for the first time. They said God didn't exist because they didn't see him. How can you prove something doesn't exist without perfect knowledge?

 

[Michael Hollner]

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!

Would it matter if Revelation 16:5 had Greek witnesses? I don’t think it would matter in the inconsistent craft of textual criticism, for I John 5:7 has Greek support and the critics reject that verse in the KJV also.

The same is true in Matthew 17:21, a complete verse that is OMITTED in the modern versions even with massive Greek support in Codex GA-04, Codex Bezae, Codex Washingtonianus, Byzantine, Greek Majority support (95%+), and the Textus Receptus Greek.

A detailed list of manuscript support for Matthew 17:21 is as follows….

ℵ2 C D E F G H K L O W X Y Δ Π Σ f1 f13 22 28 118 157 180 205 209 565 597 700 892c 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174; Byz (ca. 1650 mss); Lect (l-184 l-514 l-1074); Old Latin (a aur b c d f ff2 g1 l n q r1); Vulgate; Syriac (p h); Coptic (mae bo-pt); Armenian; Ethiopic; Georgian (B); Slavonic. Church father quotes it from Diatessaron; Origen; Asterius; Hilary; Basil; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; Augustine

The following is Nick’s clip on Revelation 16:5 in response to James White on Rev 16:5.

Only 4 manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 exist from before the 10th century and the 3 earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree! The earliest witnesses to Revelation 16:5 read:

ο ων και ος ην και οσιος (Papyrus 47 3rd Century)
ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος (Sinaiticus fourth century)
ο ων και ο ην οσιος (Alexandrinus fifth-century)

It seems the phrase got shorter with the passage of time. There is definitely not an agreement as White claims since Alexandrinus has only οσιος. We can see from these three early witnesses that modifications set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in the Textus Receptus. This is reflected in modern versions, but none seem to follow the “and” of Papyrus 47

The oldest Greek text of Revelation is P47, which is from the 3rd century contains this passage, but it has a textual variant. It contains the “καὶ” (and) in Beza’s phrase “καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος”. Modern textual scholars had rejected the καὶ of other manuscripts so prevalent in English bibles of the reformation such as the Geneva Bible with “and holy”. But P 47 was revealed in the 1930’s. So they have reject the so called “oldest and best” reading of καὶ

Several people have asked, “and…” what? What was P47 going on to read? Many reformation bibles, being more honest to the reading, had, “and holy” whereas White concludes the reading is indisputably “O Holy One” as if there are no variants. Beza has pointed out that in the manuscript for the Latin Vulgate, the text was “foolish and divisional” because of the “and” but the same issue occurs here in P47, but modern textual critics reject the early papyrus reading of “καὶ” here as it caused the sentence to be foolish and divisional. James White feels that because those who defend the Ecclesiastical Text, or hold to a Textus Receptus position, can effortlessly provide a mountain of textual evidence to prove their Textus Receptus readings have a vast majority, that when on the rare occasion this is not the case, we are being inconsistent. But why then does the NA28 text reject the “καὶ” here? Why doesn't White follow the older Papyrus like he tells us to? δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, (omitted καὶ) ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας.

Nick continues on……” Jerome has “shalt be”

I am not going to copy and paste his work, just this portion to bring up a point. His book link is already in this thread.

In the scientific craft of textual criticism, manuscript evidence does not always matter, there are no set of rules, and inconsistencies are everywhere. My book at www.kjvdebate.com exhibits over 50 examples of this with ‘manuscript evidence’ and even examples of Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus having the KJV reading, yet it is still omitted.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Would it matter if Revelation 16:5 had Greek witnesses?

how about ANY textual evidence?

 

[Michael Hollner]

how about ANY textual evidence?

Here is one. But like I said, it would not matter if there were a dozen of them.

Textus Receptus: Beza Vindicated (textusreceptusbibles.blogspot.com)

 

[SavedByGrace]

Here is one. But like I said, it would not matter if there were a dozen of them.

Textus Receptus: Beza Vindicated (textusreceptusbibles.blogspot.com)

if you are blinded by the KJV, then you will NOT see anything that clearly shows any errors in this translation!

 

[Van]

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.

Is D. A Waite a "KJVO" advocate, or is his position KJVP? He seems to be a TR only advocate. He seems not to claim the KJV is inspired, and thus without error.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Here is one. But like I said, it would not matter if there were a dozen of them.

Textus Receptus: Beza Vindicated (textusreceptusbibles.blogspot.com)

if you are blinded by the KJV, then you will NOT see anything that clearly shows any errors in this translation!

You just proved my point. You asked, is there ANY manuscript evidence? I said it will not matter. I sent you manuscript evidence, and I was right, it does not matter, for you responded with "I am just blinded by the KJV" rather than, "wow, there actually is manuscript evidence for Rev 16:5 after all."

So much for honest dialogue.

 

[Logos1560]

Would it matter if Revelation 16:5 had Greek witnesses?

In the scientific craft of textual criticism, manuscript evidence does not always matter, there are no set of rules, and inconsistencies are everywhere.

It would matter if a certain reading had majority Greek manuscript support for a Greek text claimed to be a majority text.
In the non-scriptural craft of human KJV-only reasoning and criticism, original-language manuscript evidence does not always matter, there are no set of rules, measures, standards applied justly, and inconsistencies are everywhere.

It is hypocritical for inconsistent KJV-only advocates to complain of inconsistencies.

 

[Logos1560]

You asked, is there ANY manuscript evidence? I said it will not matter. I sent you manuscript evidence, and I was right, it does not matter, for you responded with "I am just blinded by the KJV" rather than, "wow, there actually is manuscript evidence for Rev 16:5 after all."

So much for honest dialogue.

You are wrong to try to suggest or imply that others are supposedly being dishonest.

It would be dishonest to claim that Latin manuscript evidence is original-language manuscript evidence.

You prove the truth that there are many major inconsistencies in human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You just proved my point. You asked, is there ANY manuscript evidence? I said it will not matter. I sent you manuscript evidence, and I was right, it does not matter, for you responded with "I am just blinded by the KJV" rather than, "wow, there actually is manuscript evidence for Rev 16:5 after all."

So much for honest dialogue.

WHERE is this "evidence"? Beza? you gotta be KIDDING!!!

 

[Logos1560]

Is D. A Waite a "KJVO" advocate, or is his position KJVP? He seems to be a TR only advocate. He seems not to claim the KJV is inspired, and thus without error.

While Waite will claim that he is not KJV-only, he tries to have it both ways as he has made several exclusive only claims for the KJV.

D. A. Waite claimed: "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 129). Waite asserted: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (p. 47). Waite declared: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible is the only one that English speaking Christians ought to use” (p. 5). Waite wrote: "The only valid Bible is the King James Bible" (p. 131). Waite asserted: “I believe that one translation should be set up as a standard. The translation of the King James Bible is a standard” (p. 23). Waite claimed: “Loyalty to Christ and His Words are measured by what version you use” (p. 133). Waite declared: “It is my firm conviction that anyone who does not use the King James Bible to preach from, teach from, or study from has something defective in that individual’s knowledge of the Scriptures” (p. 144). In another book, Waite stated: “I am one of the Christians who contend that only the King James Bible gives us the Words of God in English” (Fundamental Deception, p. 33). Waite maintained that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (Fuzzy Facts, pp. 8-9). Waite asserted that the KJV “is the only accurate translation” or “the only accurate, faithful, and true translation” (Critical Answer to James Price’s, pp. 5, 41, 131). Waite asserted: "I do not say that the King James Bible is 'fallible' or 'errant.' I don't believe that there are any translation errors in the King James Bible” (Fuzzy Facts, p. 44). When Waite himself contended that the KJV “is ’God’s Word kept intact’” and that that means “nothing harms or defiles it,” he would seem to be in effect trying to claim or imply perfection for the KJV (Defending the KJB, p. 1).

Glenn Conjurske (1947-2001) observed: “Most of the King James Only men have of late been shy of the word ‘perfect,’ but if they ascribe to the King James Version what practically amounts to perfection, their scruples about the word ‘perfect’ signify nothing” (Bible Version, p. 127).

 

[Stratton7]

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.

You say exact words, but can you share which Bible has those exact words?

 

[Stratton7]

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.

I also have a copy of the Defined KJB. Where are you coming up with over 1000 changes? It’s the same text of the Cambridge with certain words in bold but not changing the text in anyway. Unless perhaps you already think the KJB has that many errors which I would disagree that there are any.

 

[Michael Hollner]

You say exact words, but can you share which Bible has those exact words?

He cannot, for no such Bible exists (except the KJV). He is promoting an infomercial scam without a product. In fact, Will Kinney did a review on his book of which I picked up on and added to in my blog at....

https://kjvdebate.com/blog/f/infomercial-the-bound-and-unfound-original-scriptures

I thought it was due time to address this "OO" doctrine of the 'originals only' being inspired for the scam that it is.

 

[Stratton7]

Is D. A Waite a "KJVO" advocate, or is his position KJVP? He seems to be a TR only advocate. He seems not to claim the KJV is inspired, and thus without error.

I know he only defends the KJB and the manuscripts that brought it to be. In the Defined KJB he says that it’s inspired and infallible (in short). His claim is that there’s not double inspiration as that of Ruckman would hold to.

 

[rockytopva]

My first bible was presented to me by the Freewill Baptist church...

I wore this one out and bought another. The KJV Open bible is the only one I read and carry with me so I consider myself KJVO. I did buy a Strong Exhaustive Concordance with Hebrew and Greek dictionary and think that an Exhaustive Concordance is a great companion for any bible as interpretation of Hebrew and Greek words can be debatable.

 

[Logos1560]

I also have a copy of the Defined KJB. Where are you coming up with over 1000 changes? It’s the same text of the Cambridge with certain words in bold but not changing the text in anyway. .

I am referring to a comparison of an actual Cambridge edition printed in 1769 and the KJV text in Waite's Defined KJB, which Waite claimed was unaltered from the 1769. Likely Waite has never seen an actual 1769 Cambridge edition of the KJV. I have a copy of a Cambridge edition printed in 1769 so I have examined one and I have compared its 1769 Cambridge text to that in the Defined KJB. The 1000 changes are including spelling changes. All the changes or alterations between the 1769 Cambridge and the Defined KJB are listed in the book Today's KJV and the 1769 Compared.

One reason for that correct observation is because of the fact that a 1769 Cambridge did not have all the changes or alterations that were introduced in the 1769 Oxford, and most of those are still found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions. The 1769 Cambridge did not have all the apostrophes that are found in the 1769 Oxford. Another reason is the fact that a 1769 Cambridge still had some of the typical characteristic renderings found in the 1743 and 1762 standard Cambridge editions, and those are not found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions. A few example characteristic renderings in the 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge editions could include “all lost things” (Deut. 22:3), “in the judgement” (Matt. 12:41), “afterwards” (Luke 4:2), “and he cried out” (Luke 4:33), “lifted” (Luke 16:23), “number of the names” (Acts 1:15), “killedst” (Acts 7:28), “from things strangled” (Acts 21:25), “and have gained” (Acts 27:21), “in utterance” (2 Cor. 8:7), “in knowledge” (2 Cor. 8:7), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “and I beseech” (Phil. 4:2), and “be ye warmed and be ye filled” (James 2:18). A distinctive rendering of the 1762 and 1769 Cambridge is “sent messengers” at Genesis 50:16 although that rendering is from the 1638 Cambridge. Cambridge editions in the 1700’s including the 1769 made a greater use of hyphens than is found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions. Waite’s DKJB does not have hyphens in several proper names where both the 1769 Cambridge and post-1900 Cambridge do have them. In addition, Waite’s DKJB is one of a rare few KJV editions that does not capitalize “anathema maranatha” at 1 Corinthians 16:22, and it differs from post-1900 Cambridge editions in so doing. Thirdly, the 1769 Cambridge edition also had a few different or distinctive renderings whether intentional editing corrections or unintentional printing errors [see Gen. 2:14, Gen. 31:38, Gen. 44:10, Exod. 12:30, Deut. 2:22, Judges 8:27, 1 Sam. 7:10, 2 Sam. 19:18, 2 Sam. 23:3, 2 Kings 9:16, Job 9:30, Matt. 28:12, Acts 27:40, Rom. 10:7]. The 1769 Cambridge would apparently have an intentional editing change at Genesis 31:38 [“These twenty years”] since “these” is a demonstrative used as an adjective that grammatically would be used with a noun plural in number while “this” would be used as an adjective with a noun singular in number. This alteration or grammatical correction in the 1769 at Genesis 31:38 would be in agreement with “these forty years” (Deut. 2:7, 8:2, 8:4), “these two times” (Gen. 27:36), and “these many years” (Luke 15:29, Rom. 15:23). This alteration is not unique to the 1769 Cambridge since it was also in several earlier Oxford editions (1709, 1713, 1722, 1737, 1743, 1749, 1753, 1756, 1760, 1762) and is found in over thirty KJV editions. Another deliberate alteration at Matthew 28:12 [“large sums of money” for “large money”] could be regarded as a distinctive mark of the 1769 Cambridge. KJV-only advocates seem to be uninformed concerning which renderings could be regarded to characterize the text of the 1769 Cambridge.

Does Waite’s DKJB follow the 1769 Cambridge as a standard at Genesis 31:38, Genesis 50:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 28:12, Luke 4:33, John 14:6, Acts 7:28, and other of its characteristic renderings? Does Waite’s DKJB follow the 1769 Cambridge as a standard for its spelling and in its use of italics? In its distinctive renderings, an example of an error introduced by a text-setters or printer in the 1769 Cambridge would be at Romans 10:7 [“ascend” put instead of “descend”]. These verifiable facts from the 1769 Cambridge edition have proven that the claim that the text of Waite’s DKJB is the 1769 Cambridge unaltered is factually incorrect and not true.

 

[Logos1560]

I thought it was due time to address this "OO" doctrine of the 'originals only' being inspired for the scam that it is.

Your opinion is wrong. You have not proven your claim to be true. Accepting what the Scriptures actually state and teach is not a scam. Your allegation of a scam bears false witness. You have not demonstrated that I believe anything concerning the Scriptures that is not taught by the Scriptures.

On the other hand, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching could be considered a scam since it has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that they teach it.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Your opinion is wrong. You have not proven your claim to be true. Accepting what the Scriptures actually state and teach is not a scam. Your allegation of a scam bears false witness. You have not demonstrated that I believe anything concerning the Scriptures that is not taught by the Scriptures.

On the other hand, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching could be considered a scam since it has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that they teach it.

Whatever you say Rick. In due time everything will be wide open and revealed.

Meanwhile, we should all pray for each other. Can you at least agree with that?