Rev. 16:5

5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; 6 for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it." (NAS)

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. 6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.(KJV)

The Greek text has verses five and six as one sentence. Like the Greek text the NAS has verses five and six as one sentence. The KJV makes verse five a sentence and verse six another sentence.

 

I think that a question about a published work is free game on these forums. I have engaged in many discussions about Ruckman, Ripplinger, James White, Westcott, Hort, etc.

These are some of the major players in the debate so why not discus their views.

Lacy

 

Very good question IMO. The answer should be based on whether the reading is accurate or not, and as such has nothing to do with the one making the claim. Either it is what God has to say, or it is not.

 

Are these KJV-only claims valid and accurate?

__________________________________________________

THAT one is!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

THAT one is!
============

Agreed.

 

Logos: "KJV-only author D. A. Waite claimed that modern English versions are "theologically deficient" at Revelation 16:5 for the removal of "and shalt be" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 170). Waite claimed that "the removal of 'and shalt be' puts in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 170). He added: "This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology" (p. 170). Are these KJV-only claims valid and accurate?"

DocC: "If you have a question regarding the accuracy of his statements those questions should be directed to him."

BobK: "The answer should be based on whether the reading is accurate or not, and as such has nothing to do with the one making the claim. Either it is what God has to say, or it is not."

BobK is of course correct, since the matter deals with a specific reading.

Further, it should be assumed that one’s published comments, whether those of Waite or anyone else, when stated precisely and dogmatically, should have been considered by the author as sufficiently perspicuous so as to stand on their own merits, especially in light of any investigation of the factual data. If such is not the case, then we should *always* assume that “we don’t know” what *any* writer may have meant by what he wrote, and that the *only* solution is continually to “write, and ask him” (assuming such a writer is still alive; and if not, then we should not attempt to impugn motives which may not be correct).

But on the contrary: I have spoken to Waite face to face on more than one occasion, and I have asked him directly regarding this and certain other of his more extreme claims. While the statement quoted above certainly reflects precisely what he has both said and written, when asked about how to establish the "accuracy" of such in view of strongly adverse manuscript data, Waite *continually* retreats to the position that "we accept these conclusions by faith" [!]; thus, no further evidence should be expected or deemed necessary.

In the case of Revelation 16:5 the issue revolves around whether ESOMENOS (“the one who will be” = TBS Gk NT reading, so also Beza 1598 TR and Elzevir 1633 TR) was the original reading. The remaining TR editions and Reformation-era translations prior to the KJV read hOSIOS (“holy one” or “sanctified one”), along with all other MSS predating the KJV. E.g., the Latin Vulgate has _eras sanctus_ which also reflects hOSIOS, and which underlies both Wycliffe and the Rheims NTs; Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Bishops all have “holy”; the Lutherbibel has “heilig” -- all of which also reflects hOSIOS). The reading ESOMENOS clearly appears to be an invention of Beza, and this reading was followed by the KJV translators simply because they used Beza 1598 as their primary base text.

Even KJVO defender Jack Moorman seems to have a slight problem with this passage, since he attempts to link the KJV rendering of 16:5 with the supposed parallels in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17 -- yet in each of those other cases, the KJV’s underlying Greek is hO ERCOMENOS (“the one coming”) and *not* hO ESOMENOS (“the one who will be”). After this point, Moorman simply states (without further evidence), “the translators must have felt [?!] there was good reason to insert these words though it ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously [?] did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of ‘conjectural emendation’. They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith [!] should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this.”

Given the imputation of motives on Moorman’s part, I would suggest that Moorman needs to research Beza’s writings to see whether he indeed had some “real” evidence or simply made a conjecture at this point. Likewise, research the writings of the KJV translators to see whether they simply followed Beza without worrying overmuch about the quality of his text as regards a specific word.

Too bad we can’t email Beza or the KJV translators to find out any clearer perspective; but the actual *evidence* available seems incontrovertible, unless one retreats into Waite’s and Moorman’s “by faith” perspective. But this raises the further question as to how *every* English translation of Rev 16:5 prior to the KJV “got it wrong” -- was God so unconcerned in the providential preservation of his word prior to 1611 as to permit what Waite called a "theologically deficient" reading not only to exist but to be maintained without alteration for nearly 230 years? " as Waite stated, "This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology".

I speak as a fool.

 

I met Dr. D. A. Waite at DBS/BFT conferences in my hometown before. I had his some books and read them.

 

Say, you're alright.

 

Logos:In which of Jack Moorman's books does he make these comments and on what page?

Jack A. Moorman, _When the KJV departs from the 'Majority Text'_, 2nd ed. (published by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today, 1988, p. 102.

 

No.
In this case it was a judgment concerning the translation of the koine words.

I disagree also that one isolated verse (although I have used that method in a rhetorical way in a debate) to be taken and used to promote a doctrine or condemnation of the translation if there are other verses which clearly add factual content.

Look what the JW's do with ...for my Father is greater than I.

Does anyone really doubt the future of the Lord Jesus Christ in Revalation 16:5 after having read this verse?

NIV Revelation 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.


HankD

 

Logos: "Yet Waite claimed that a conjecture by Beza at Revelation 16:5 that is kept in the KJV is "theologically superior"

That's because Beza's conjecture was "advanced revelation".

HankD: I disagree also that one isolated verse ...

Nor would I make an issue over single isolated verses (e.g. 1 Jn 5:7; Ac 8:37, etc.), although obviously such do become an issue once a KJVO gets hold of it.

But in Revelation the issue of conjectural readings is not limited to "one isolated verse" such as 16:5, but involves a number of verses in which one finds (admitted) conjectural reconstructions by Erasmus which differ from the entire body of Greek MSS except for those copied from printed TR editions. In such cases, it becomes as difficult to hold to the TBS TR that Scriverner reconstructed to agree with the KJV as it is to hold to Beza's conjecture in 16:5 (where Erasmus did *not* err, but still differed from the KJV).

 

So then things which are different, while they may be not the same, are possibly NOT in error?

HankD