Revelation 17:8

[william s. correa]

More proof!Only Reuchlin’s text contained the book of Revelation, and he was "forced" to utilize it at that point.
The TR is the “sacred text,” inspired by God Himself in its every Writ. It’s basis is found in ten not-very-ancient minuscule texts, the two best ones . The TR became the basis of the King James Version, Erasmus’s text are important!

 

[Keith M]

William, William, William...

Your "evidence" amounts to what it usually amounts to...straws you grasp at to try to support an unsupportable theory. The entire KJVO concept is nothing but theory. The only true support for the KJVO myth is in the minds of those who fall victim to the destructive KJVO myth. There is no Scriptural support and there is no logical support for the KJVO myth - it is entirely bunk.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Yes it is!WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS A READING IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS THAT CAN BE FOUND IN A KNOWN MS USED TO MAKE THE TR!

OK, let's SEE it.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Yes it is!WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS A READING IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS THAT CAN BE FOUND IN A KNOWN MS USED TO MAKE THE TR!

What manuscript? Erasmus used 1r to "make" his TR and it does NOT read as the KJV. NO ms reads as does the KJV. NONE. NOT ONE.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
You have decided to follow yourself!

You know, william, I really feel sorry for you. You can't answer questions. You can't give us any facts. You can't defend your position. You can't spell. You can't write a coherent sentence. You can't be civil. You can't obey the bible. You can't love other Christians. You can't live peaceably with all men. You can't seem to do any of the things Christians should be able to do. I pity you.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

Please forgive me for jumping in late on this. I will be honest and say that you must be better men than I am if you are able to even understand what william is writing. It reads like a new language.

My question is this...

Please explain the difference between the two readings in question from an English perspective.

My knowledge of Greek is limited, (only one year)
but it seems to me that the translation in English in the KJ is not unacceptable even though it is dervied from the "wrong" Greek. It seems that in both varying readings we end up with a verb that is a "state of being."

Thanks for the help.

Max

 

[robycop3]

The point is, Max, that the TR, and hence the KJV, has a phrase not found in any known Greek Scriptural manuscript. If we accept this, then we must accept every anomaly found in every Scriptural writing, or else be using a double standard.

All we are asking is for justification for the different phrase found in the Textus Receptus, a phrase not found in any known source manuscript. We simply wonder why Erasmus used such a phrase. You DO want an accurate a Bible as possible, don't you, same as us? That's why this question MUST be addressed & we will not accept a guesswork answer, nor a compromising one.

We have an opinion given that this phrase was found in a manuscript copied by Johann Reuchlin, that Erasmus mighta possibly used. However, we have no confirmation that Reuchlin wrote the phrase in question, that Erasmus used Reuchlin's work, or what ms that Reuchlin copied. All we know at this point is that Reuchlin useta copy Greek writings(not necessarily Scriptural mss) to improve his written Greek.

 

[PASTOR MHG]

roby,

I understand that side of it.

I am asking about the English result. Even though the underlying Greek may be wrong, is this an error in the KJ if it is an acceptable translation of the "correct Greek?"

I believe that the pre-KJ English bibles (obviously based on the TR) all translate this the same way.

The Reina Valera as well. (TR based)

Max

 

[PASTOR MHG]

You understand I am not justifying the anomoly...I am concerned with only the true reading in English.

As I have checked a number of English versions and found the "state of being" verb phrase to be very similar.

Max

PS - please don't think I am supporting anything that william is proposing.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by robycop3:
We have an opinion given that this phrase was found in a manuscript copied by Johann Reuchlin, that Erasmus mighta possibly used.

Roby, if you go by what william says you can be assured it will be wrong. William has no idea what he is talking about. When he claims Erasmus had a manuscript copied by Johann Reuchlin he is ignorant of the fact that the Reuchlin manuscript is very well known and can be seen in the University Library in Augsburg, Germany. The Reuchlin manuscript being referred to is also know as Codex I. It was called "1r" in earlier catalogs but is now known as 2814 in the Aland listing. It was the only manuscript of Revelation Erasmus had. It also contains a commentary by Andreas but quite often the text cannot be distinguished from the commentary. Erasmus borrowed the manuscript from Reuchlin but it disappeared for a couple hundred years until it was found in 1861 by Franz Delitzsch. It reads και ουκ εστιν και παρεσται in Revelation 17:8 once again proving that william is either lying or massively ignorant of the facts (or both).

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
More proof!Only Reuchlin’s text contained the book of Revelation, and he was "forced" to utilize it at that point.
The TR is the “sacred text,” inspired by God Himself in its every Writ. It’s basis is found in ten not-very-ancient minuscule texts, the two best ones . The TR became the basis of the King James Version, Erasmus’s text are important!

ACTUALLY, the TR was not the complete text used by the KJV translators, even the Vulgate was used for a portion.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
More proof!Only Reuchlin’s text contained the book of Revelation, and he was "forced" to utilize it at that point.
The TR is the “sacred text,” inspired by God Himself in its every Writ. It’s basis is found in ten not-very-ancient minuscule texts, the two best ones . The TR became the basis of the King James Version, Erasmus’s text are important!

ACTUALLY, the TR was not the complete text used by the KJV translators, even the Vulgate was used for a portion. </font>[/QUOTE]

Good point! but erasmus did not trust either text!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Keith M:
William, William, William...

Your "evidence" amounts to what it usually amounts to...straws you grasp at to try to support an unsupportable theory. The entire KJVO concept is nothing but theory. The only true support for the KJVO myth is in the minds of those who fall victim to the destructive KJVO myth. There is no Scriptural support and there is no logical support for the KJVO myth - it is entirely bunk.

Amen I never claimed to be KJVO: But in English Yes! The Sciptural support is Revelation 17 :8! You have to Separate yourselves from a Corrupted Church which wants you to have every version out there Except the KJB! There is an Eye opening truth! Cause that corrupted church offers a corrupted offering Spoken Ironacly in the book of Revelation !

 

[robycop3]

Actually, DC, I was giving Wm. a chance to justify his statements. Unlike the KJVOs, I'm open to other views in some subjects, and if Wm. were able to PROVE what he was saying, hallelujah. But it seems he was just wishing & guessing.

I am allowing for the fact that he has said he has a prob within his family, & I thought it was being fair to give him the chance tp prove his allegation, but I refuse to compromise the truth, regardless.

I thank you for the info on the Reuchlin ms, as I have neither the knowledge nor the resources outside the net or the local libraries to use. I'd heard of it for years, but till now, had very little knowledge of it.

I do NOT chalk this up as a mistake in the KJV. Its translators used what they had to work with.

However, William's "faith" in the KJVO myth is a prime example of BLIND FAITH, a premise not given in Scripture whatsoever, lacking in the Biblical qualities of SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.

BTW, does 2814 lack the last six verses of Revelation?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
You have decided to follow yourself!

You know, william, I really feel sorry for you. You can't answer questions. You can't give us any facts. You can't defend your position. You can't spell. You can't write a coherent sentence. You can't be civil. You can't obey the bible. You can't love other Christians. You can't live peaceably with all men. You can't seem to do any of the things Christians should be able to do. I pity you. </font>[/QUOTE]Just like you said All Scripture

When Paul said I can Do "All" things thru Christ who strenghthenth me! If he would have just said All and stopped there that wouldn't have made any sense! Just like you are saying All Scripture! Taking Texts out of context is not the way to prove yourself ! I do have Faults But you take the cake! You have yet to Apologize and recant your words so it is easy for me to forgive. I'm not the one with the burden of proof here that is for the Modernist to do and you have joined that band of cohorts! So you have to prove that the MSS are not there!Not for me to prove that there are ! Cause they are! P.S. I Know how to proof read my Stuff Now, so I don't expect you to Grade my Work From now on!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by robycop3:
BTW, does 2814 lack the last six verses of Revelation?

Yes. 2814, 1r, and the Reuchlin Manuscript are all the same thing. It was called "Reuchlin" until von Soden did his collation of the Greek manuscripts at which time he assigned it the designation "1r." Then Aland renumbered the manuscripts and gave it the designation 2814. But all the designations refer to the same manuscript.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
You have decided to follow yourself!

You know, william, I really feel sorry for you. You can't answer questions. You can't give us any facts. You can't defend your position. You can't spell. You can't write a coherent sentence. You can't be civil. You can't obey the bible. You can't love other Christians. You can't live peaceably with all men. You can't seem to do any of the things Christians should be able to do. I pity you. </font>[/QUOTE]Just like you said All Scripture

When Paul said I can Do "All" things thru Christ who strenghthenth me! If he would have just said All and stopped there that wouldn't have made any sense! Just like you are saying All Scripture! Taking Texts out of context is not the way to prove yourself ! I do have Faults But you take the cake! You have yet to Apologize and recant your words so it is easy for me to forgive. I'm not the one with the burden of proof here that is for the Modernist to do and you have joined that band of cohorts! So you have to prove that the MSS are not there!Not for me to prove that there are ! Cause they are! P.S. I Know how to proof read my Stuff Now, so I don't expect you to Grade my Work From now on! </font>[/QUOTE]Astounding logic. So you expect Doc to scan and post 5000+ MSS which do not contain the phrase where you could just post one that does to prove your point.

It is very hard to debate with one who ignores all logic and reason and who sets his own rules.

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Correa:Amen I never claimed to be KJVO: But in English Yes!

Why? What evidence?

The Sciptural support is Revelation 17 :8!

Doc Cassidy just showed your Reuchlin theory to be wrong. How, now, do you explain the changed phrase in the Textus Receptus?

You have to Separate yourselves from a Corrupted Church which wants you to have every version out there Except the KJB!

To date, the only version I've seen churches REQUIRE one to use is the KJV. I have never seen any "NIV Only" church, or any other "Version Only" church outside the "KJV Only" ones. Most true Protestant churches are neutral on which Bible version(s) to use.


There is an Eye opening truth! Cause that corrupted church offers a corrupted offering Spoken Ironacly in the book of Revelation !

If you cannot point out a source from where Erasmus got "kaiper esti" in Rev. 17:8, there can be only two possibilities: that Erasmus goofed( He DID write the 1st edition of the TR in a hurry, ya know!) or that it was a deliberate goof, based upon Erasmus' own judgment.

Seems the corruption began in the 1st edition of the Textus Receptus, with a phrase found in NONE of its sources.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Actually, DC, I was giving Wm. a chance to justify his statements. Unlike the KJVOs, I'm open to other views in some subjects, and if Wm. were able to PROVE what he was saying, hallelujah. But it seems he was just wishing & guessing.

I am allowing for the fact that he has said he has a prob within his family, & I thought it was being fair to give him the chance tp prove his allegation, but I refuse to compromise the truth, regardless.

I thank you for the info on the Reuchlin ms, as I have neither the knowledge nor the resources outside the net or the local libraries to use. I'd heard of it for years, but till now, had very little knowledge of it.

I do NOT chalk this up as a mistake in the KJV. Its translators used what they had to work with.

However, William's "faith" in the KJVO myth is a prime example of BLIND FAITH, a premise not given in Scripture whatsoever, lacking in the Biblical qualities of SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.

BTW, does 2814 lack the last six verses of Revelation?

You Know that I really Appreciate you and you prayers that is why i havent tried to dis you and I Know I shoulden't dis anybody but that does not mean we cant have an intelligent discusion! I do have the proof for Keipr esti and will show it when it is ready to be shown I have given some pretty good evidence toward the truth and Like I said the burden is not mine to prove but i will do the christian thing and Prove all things! I have no hard feeligs toward You or DD or Tcassidy I have tried to make peace but I dont see how! unless I trust his defense or apologia in why he defends Versions like the Gender friedly and NASB first! Now I Know that you are a Modernist and I cannot change you or Tcassidy but I cant for the life of me preach out of a KJB and compromise my position by selling out to what the world would have you preaching out of!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
Just like you said All[sic] Scripture [sic]

When Paul said I can Do "All" things thru Christ who strenghthenth me! If he would have just said All [sic] and stopped there that wouldn't have made any sense! Just like you are saying All [sic] Scripture!

And yet another meaningless, incoherent response from william that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Taking Texts [sic] out of context is not the way to prove yourself ![sic]

I haven't taken any texts out of context.

I do have Faults [sic] But you take the cake! You have yet to Apologize [sic] and recant your words so it is easy for me to forgive.

You want me to apologize for telling the truth while you fail to apologize for lying? You really are warped, aren't you!?

I'm not the one with the burden of proof here that is for the Modernist to do and you have joined that band of cohorts!

You made the claim there is a manuscript that reads as does the KJV in Revelation 17:8. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. If you cannot back up your claim, then, if you are an honest man, you will withdraw your claim and admit you know of no manuscript that reads as does the KJV.

So you have to prove that the MSS are not there!

No, william, it was you who claimed they exist so it is up to you to back up your claim or withdraw it.

Not for me to prove that there [sic] are ![sic] Cause [sic] they are!

Where? Show me one. Give me a catalog number. You make the claim the manuscripts exist but you refuse to back up your claim with facts. And the reason you refuse to give us those facts is that they don't exist! You are lying and you know you are lying!

P.S. I Know [sic] how to proof read my Stuff [sic] Now [sic], so I don't expect you to Grade [sic] my Work [sic] From [sic] now on!

Sorry, but you got another "F.'