Revelation 17:8

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Kai Palin Pareste (Aleph) is out of discussion.

The main issue is :
Kai Parestai and Kaiper Estin
και παρεσται καιπερ εστιν

Και Παρεσται is taken by NA and supported by majority ( not the absolute majority, but major part) plus Alexandrinus.

Vaticanus doesn't have the entire Revelation.

In the context, Kai Parestai makes much more sense than the other.

I told you, A Broken Clock can hit the exact time once or twice a day!

Amen to that! We can't be Right and WRONG at the same time! When God gave His Son the Eternal Word from heaven Jesus put it Plainly into Aramaic He Didnt Struggle with the Spirit as modernists do He Gave the Word and it was written down; passed down from generation to Generation to the AV 1611 So then I like Keiper esti!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Amen to that!

william I am glad to see you have changed your mind and now agree with Eliyahu that the reading found in the TR is wrong, and thus the reading found in the KJV is also wrong! Praise the Lord! You have finally seen the light!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

LOLOLOLOL.......William, as I said, the longer you post, the closer KJVO comes to dying.

That was funny.....

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Correa: Amen to that! We can't be Right and WRONG at the same time!

The KJVO myth is always wrong, never right, so I agree with ya on THIS'n.

When God gave His Son the Eternal Word from heaven Jesus put it Plainly into Aramaic

But the oldest writings of His words are written in GREEK, including the sources for the KJV's NT.


He Didnt Struggle with the Spirit as modernists do He Gave the Word and it was written down; passed down from generation to Generation to the AV 1611

And many other versions as well.

So then I like Keiper esti!

Why? Shoot, ya can't even prove it's the correct Greek phrase.

The Textus Receptus is a compilation made from several manuscripts, & it's my understanding that not one of those mss has καιπερ εστιν in Revelation, but have και παρεσται instead. Now, I know about enuff Greek to go into a Greek restaurant, order in Greek, & be served a land mine, but it doesn't take a Greek rocket scientist to see the difference and wonder how kaiper estin got into the TR & hence the KJV.

Dean John Burgon said the TR could stand a thorough revision. Now, if the KJVOs believe his criticism of W&H, they should also believe his criticism of the TR. Now, if ANYONE woulda liked to have seen a nigh-well perfect TR, it woulda been Dean Burgon. But he was honest enough to point out it was far from perfect.

And we STILL, after 5 pages, see no adequate explanation from any KJVO why kaiper estin is not an error in the TR. All I've seen is opinion and GUESSWORK.I CERTAINLY do NOT accept any "second inspiration" codwallop, and I don't think any other non-KJVO does, either.

 

[william s. correa]

Wow man! I really am learning from this! I havent seen so many japanese Nikles at a Chinese Bazzar! really not profitable Uh? Keiper esti is what is in the KJB what is your Question?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

If you dont know what the question is by now, why not just type the words "I dont have the first clue" then hit "reply".

It would be the most honest thing you would have typed to date.

PS: You already admitted the KJV is in error. Why are you still here?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
If you dont know what the question is by now, why not just type the words "I dont have the first clue" then hit "reply".

It would be the most honest thing you would have typed to date.

PS: You already admitted the KJV is in error. Why are you still here?

What? I did no such thing ! The KJB is Errorless and infallible! It is the MV's that have ERRORS! Pal

 

[DesiderioDomini]

You said that the Word was "passed down from generation to Generation to the AV 1611 So then I like Keiper esti!"

William, read carefully, and answer honestly.

1. What evidence do you have that this reading was passed down from ANYTHING other than a typo in Erasmus' text?

2. Is there ANY manuscript or church father quotation or lexicon or anything else which contains this reading?

You already stated that you believe God inspired Erasmus to write this portion of scripture. However, we know that Erasmus made several editions of his greek NT and made many minor (and some major, such as including the comma) in the latter editions. What's more, if Erasmus was inspired, then the KJV cannot be God's word as you define it, because it rejects Erasmus DOZENS of times and takes on other readings.

3. How can BOTH the KJV be God's word, and ERASMUS write inspired Scripture, if they disagree?

I numbered the questions to make sure you dont get confused. Now, since you seem to have a problem making yourself understood, do me a favor. Type whatever response you want, but please set the answers to these questions aside by putting a space above and below them, and marking them with the number.

Like this:

1. This is my answer.............

2. This is my answer..............

and so on. That way, we can have an honest intelligent discussion. Will you agree to this, or do you even care about an honest discussion?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

by the way, Do you realize that Eliyahu was DISAGREEING with you, and then you said "amen to that"?

Wait, no, you wouldnt, unless of course you know something about what you are posting

 

[william s. correa]

1. This is my answer! That is for you to prove that it wasnt there before 1516 not me! just because you say it isnt there dosent make it true that it isnt! We are dealing with over 1500
years of Scipture here I know it is there some where and even if it is not I will never bow to your god!
2. This is my answer! In the Santa BiBlia of 1569 Cipriano de Valera in Apocalipses 17:8 the Word used there is (Y sera')which I can translate into english to yet is, or, and is or and will be. So I choose in that verse 8yet is! It is the correct choice in translation I have faith in Erasmuse's Translation!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
by the way, Do you realize that Eliyahu was DISAGREEING with you, and then you said "amen to that"?

Wait, no, you wouldnt, unless of course you know something about what you are posting

"Amen to that" was refering to the fact that one cant be right and wrong at the same time! I beleive you are hearing what you want to hear " Having itchy ears" try not so hard to think I am un educated I have My Dad doing research on this one and I'm sure he will find your answer! He is a reserch proffessor of Education at th National University of Colombia in S.A. He can help me since you and TCassidy have ganged up on me!

 

[william s. correa]

"because it rejects Erasmus DOZENS of times and takes on other readings" Prove it!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

What? Prove that the KJV rejects Erasmus dozens of times? Are you serious?

Is there anyone alive who contests this fact, or are you just making up everything as you go?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
What? Prove that the KJV rejects Erasmus dozens of times? Are you serious?

Is there anyone alive who contests this fact, or are you just making up everything as you go?

Was Erasmus God? Or did God Inspire Erasmus to Write by the Holy Spirit? to get the Coma in the right place a small but powerful piece on the chess board! is the Coma, with out it I wonder what Rev. 17 :8 would sound like? No Prove that there are errors in the KJB not in Erasmus! It is up to you to prove that the text isnt found any where. Why not go to the Vatican and take a tour and join W?H in your ghost hunt!

 

[Eliyahu]

My view about the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Preservation of His Words as in Psalm 12:6-7 are to understand them in a little broader sense, while KJV has proven its outstanding stance (at least difference from others) in thousands of spots.
As I told you Broken Clocks can hit the exact time once or twice a day, while the most accurate Clock may be delayed or too fast one second a millenium.

Limiting the God's way of preservation to any human work( though the work was done under the guidance of Holy Spirit) is quite vulnerable to errancy as we are limiting His Sovereignty.

In any case God wants us to be vigilant with His Words.

As for Rev 17:8, in oder for Kaiper Estin to be correct, if it can be interpretted as
"that was, it is not, it is (even though it is not shown or appears but actually exist in reality)" then it could be OK in the context.

Actually Kaiper has been used many times as " though, although" as in Phil 3:4, Heb 5:8, 7:5, 12:17, 2 Pet 1:12.

In that case, "that was, is not, though it (actually) exist"

Often I have noticed in Revelation TR is superior to or over Majority despite its minority. I personally need some more thoughts on this issue.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Wow man! I really am learning from this! I havent seen so many japanese Nikles at a Chinese Bazzar! really not profitable Uh? Keiper esti is what is in the KJB what is your Question?

The question is a simple one, asked at the beginning of this thread: Kaiper esti is not in any known manuscript. How, then, did it get into the TR?

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Correa:What? I did no such thing ! The KJB is Errorless No, it isn't. We have proven several errors, or at the least, poor translations, right here on this board.

and infallible!

The men who wrote it were quite fallible. The KJV is no more infallible than any other valid version is.

It is the MV's that have ERRORS! Pal

So far, your "errors" have consisted of "It aint the KJV". No go.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
Wow man! I really am learning from this! I havent seen so many japanese Nikles at a Chinese Bazzar! really not profitable Uh? Keiper esti is what is in the KJB what is your Question?

The question is a simple one, asked at the beginning of this thread: Kaiper esti is not in any known manuscript. How, then, did it get into the TR? </font>[/QUOTE]There it is! It was there Before ther was Time!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Mr. Correa:What? I did no such thing ! The KJB is Errorless No, it isn't. We have proven several errors, or at the least, poor translations, right here on this board.

and infallible!

The men who wrote it were quite fallible. The KJV is no more infallible than any other valid version is.

It is the MV's that have ERRORS! Pal

So far, your "errors" have consisted of "It aint the KJV". No go.

That is Jesus!! That is Jesus!! That is why we are all here! Thank God for the KJB

 

[Scott J]

So the proof is that you think it should be there and that proof is only bolstered by the fact that it isn't?

Didn't the gnostics use a formula similar to that?