KJV 3:Rev. 16:5

I use many different translations. But my memory verse work comes from using the KJV for many decades. What is the "correct" translation according to you?

 

Calvin is wrong in many things. But the first 3 points of Calvinism according to the synod of Dort are true to scripture.

 

You may be bearing false witness by making a false allegations since you do not prove that they are actually attacking Scripture.

If someone supposedly points out an error introduced in a copy or in a translation, that is not actually attacking the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. Instead it would be defending the Scriptures.

Perhaps your posts suggest that at times you don't listen to those who state and defend the truth and who defend the Scriptures. You seem to fear the truth that might show some of your reasoning to be incorrect.

 

How are you not attacking scripture when you discredit any part of it? I contend that you cannot have faith if you undermine its source, scripture. I value my salvation and the scriptures that spawn saving faith.

 

Jesus told the Pharisees in John 10 they could not believe because he did not die for them. It says he purchased the church with his blood. Are the multitudes who perish the church?

 

Pointing out an error or inaccurate rendering introduced by imperfect men would not at all be attacking or discrediting Scripture.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.

These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? According to the Scriptures, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God.

Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption or of error.

 

With all due respect, holding to just certain points sounds good. But those that hold to one holds to them all.
Without derailment, please have a look at what Dr. Loraine Boettner has to share on the subject of Calvinism. (Neither is he Arminian).
Why I disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism - ETERNAL SECURITY (OSAS)

 

You can discredit the words of scripture all day long, and still miss the big picture in what it means. The Pharisees knew what it said but missed the meaning altogether.

 

Calvin was a universalist and the first 3 points of Dordt are Limited. So the 5 points are not consistent. They end up with salvation by works in points 4-5. It's deep but not scriptural.

 

But you undermine your own faith, if you really have any, by carrying a bible you cannot trust.

 

Good. At least you have come to admit, whether knowingly or not, that you believe something about the Scriptures that is not taught in Scripture.

 

“Bruce Metzger approved the method for “the removal of an anomaly” that is “foreign to the author's intention”. The conjectural emendation in Revelation 16:5 is justified because the majority reading in Revelation 16:5, “who is, and who was” followed by “that holy one,” is anomalous in not completing the declaration of God's past, present and future aspects, as is done in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17*. Beza replaced "ο οσιος (that holy one)" with "και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)" to fix the anomaly. He said:

"But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place?

The appropriateness of Beza's conjectural emendation should be assessed in the context that Revelation was corrupted early and extensively, and today there are only 4 existing manuscripts of Revelation 16:5 from before the 10th century.

Conjectural emendations are justified if we know that the text we are dealing with has a history of extensive and early corruption. The book of Revelation is such a text. As a word of assurance, however, there is no need to doubt the integrity of the text of Revelation as we now have in the Textus Receptus. God has promised to preserve his words.”

 

So the errors he admits are the errors of God? More probable, he claims a different version of the KJV is inspired. Thus, absent of error, thus a KJVO who rejects all errors presented as I initially said...

 

Jesus says "all that the Father gives to him will come to him". Most reject him.

 

Finally, something we agree on, lol.

 

Actually you said, “... it does not matter how much ‘evidence’ is furnished, it will all be declared bogus.”
That’s just a pretty arrogant stance to say KJO’s refuse “all” evidence (which now you’ve said errors). It also depends what evidence it is.
I’m simply stating that it goes in the other direction too to a degree, however, I don’t think anyone should make such a broad statement and assume that you/they know everyone and what all they accept and reject.
Waite may believe the “edition” he uses is perfect, but he doesn’t think that about “all” KJB’s that many do. (This has nothing to do with where I stand on the issue, btw.)

 

Perhaps eschatology too, I do.