Revelation 17:8

[robycop3]

Mr. Correa:Just like you said All Scripture [Smile] 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!

Sir, we are just asking ONE simple little question on this thread and not grading anyone. That question is...(drum roll)...

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR HOW 'KAIPER ESTI' GOT INTO THE TR'S REV.17:8 WHEN NO KNOWN SOURCE MANUSCRIPT HAS THAT READING AT THAT VERSE?

I have said that either Erasmus goofed (Remembwer, eyeglasses were primitive at best in his day) or he deliberately added it, which is much less likely. Both explanations are guesswork, of course, but in the absence of any SOLID EVIDENCE, their likelihood of being correct remains. That likelihood is based upon the fact that every one of us has made similar goofs when copying something, even with modern eyeglasses.

However, I am open to any other VALID explanation(s), not based upon wishful thinking or pie-in-the-sky.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
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!

Why do you keep lying, william? Don't you know lying is a terrible sin? I have NEVER defended the gender neutral versions nor have I ever put the NASB first. I despise the gender neutral versions and consider the NASB to be a badly flawed, wooden, graceless translation of an inferior text. Shame on you for lying!

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!

And once more you lie by claiming that Roby is a Modernist! He's not! And I preach only from the KJV. Lies seem to roll out of your mouth more often than the truth! Doesn't that bother you at all? Remember what the bible says, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." If lies keep coming out of your mouth the bible says it is because your heart is full of lies.

 

[Hope of Glory]

quote: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.

It is impossible to prove a negative. (In other words, you cannot prove that there aren't purple aliens with yellow polka-dots hiding in NYC in an underground apartment.)

But, you have made a positive claim ("there is a manuscript"), which is easy to prove.

The burden of proof lies with you.

 

[william s. correa]

To this most modest and most friendly request Erasmus answered in a voluminous epistle, sweeping away Dorp’s timid rill of appeal in a veritable torrent of eloquent and victorious reply, where metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, irony, and hyperbole vied with each other in hurrying the daring objector to the ocean of utter annihilation.3030. Mangan, Life, vol. 1 p. 382.
From Erasmuse himself it is self evident that he wanted the Bible for everyone! Rich or Poor Doctor or lawyer, farmer or cook, teacher or A/C Tech!The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8
The text of Revelation 17:8 Is Inspired By God and found in
"verbal plenary preserved" translation applies to the Vulgate and LXX. Their lawyers also held to their inerrancy.
Jesus spoke Aramaic (Mark 7:34; Mark 14:36; Matt.5:22; Matt. 6:24, etc.)
Scripture supports that COPIES preserve the inspiration that the original autographs were preserved until 1611!Every verse appears in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek before it appears in English. Right?Could you correct the Bible "out of the original tongues" with the finished product? Even though the KJV was copied from the "original tongues?"
You cannot say with any truth that the King James reading of Revelation 17:8 EVER disappeared. You don't have the information to judge . You need to prove that it disappeared!
Don't assume some of this information came just from commentaries and "codices" . God Spoke to Erasmus's heart and was moved by the text so he left it as is! it is Scipture!It DOES EXIST in Erasmus' TR and the King James Version.Just because YOU say it aint there doesent mean its not there and its trace of existence before 1516 does not mean it didn't exist! Can you say that about the Modernists versions? No cause 1/2 of it is "MISSING" and a Brick short of a Load!
I believe the KJB is the inspired, preserved Word of God. Is the Reading Authentic? Yes it is! Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors! I do not believe that ANY English version is the preserved, pure,and perfect word for word the Word of God.Can You find a 100 % true Holy Bible? I beleive you can in the AV 1611! "is not, and will come" agrees with the KJB, saying: "and again is". Sinaiticus gives some similarity, as that found in the TR, but so also do manuscripts 2049, 1854, 2014, 2034 and 31 other Andreas type manuscripts.
You don't have a tangible, inerrant Bible, many don't . I do!With the modernists, anything goes!If you want an alexandrian reading or omisison,there it is!you want a Bible versions and or translations, debate it , you chose your version, I have chosen mine; you want the historic Byzantine Textor a TR reading, well maybe, if we are all singing off of the same page.
There is not a single case of a verse that is in Greek and not in the KJB, or vise versa. And not one verse or phrase has been touched in the King James Bible for over 400 years. Keiper estin is ifact the same meaning and all of you have just bee acting like little chldren! NEXT !

[ May 16, 2006, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: william s. correa ]

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
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!

Why do you keep lying, william? Don't you know lying is a terrible sin? I have NEVER defended the gender neutral versions nor have I ever put the NASB first. I despise the gender neutral versions and consider the NASB to be a badly flawed, wooden, graceless translation of an inferior text. Shame on you for lying!

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!

And once more you lie by claiming that Roby is a Modernist! He's not! And I preach only from the KJV. Lies seem to roll out of your mouth more often than the truth! Doesn't that bother you at all? Remember what the bible says, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." If lies keep coming out of your mouth the bible says it is because your heart is full of lies. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you defend the MV's or not?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

I am beginning to think that William simply isnt serious.

I find it impossible that any human born again of Christ is this devoid of anything resembling common sense.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> quote: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.

It is impossible to prove a negative. (In other words, you cannot prove that there aren't purple aliens with yellow polka-dots hiding in NYC in an underground apartment.)

But, you have made a positive claim ("there is a manuscript"), which is easy to prove.

The burden of proof lies with you. </font>[/QUOTE]thank you !Next

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]I expect TCassidy to Repent and Quit calling me a Liar and a Blasphemer which makes him a Liar and a Blasphemer!

 

[Scott J]

William, When you boldly and consistently claim to have proof but refuse to show it then Doc Cass is making a very reasonable inference.

You aren't showing it because you don't have it... but for some reason (pride maybe) can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
I am beginning to think that William simply isnt serious.

I find it impossible that any human born again of Christ is this devoid of anything resembling common sense.

You thought Wrong!Next!

 

[Bro Tony]

I believe the KJB is the inspired, preserved Word of God. Is the Reading Authentic? Yes it is! Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors! I do not believe that ANY English version is the preserved, pure,and perfect word for word the Word of God.Can You find a 100 % true Holy Bible? I beleive you can in the AV 1611!

I may need help here, but let me try to understand this. You said no English version is the preserved, pure, and perfect word for word the Word of God. But you believe the KJB and the AV 1611 are? Are you serious, what double speak. What do you think the 1611 AV and the KJB are? It would surprize the "translators" of the 1611 that they were not involved in translating the Scripture into English. William you have really gone beyond the pale and have lost any hope of anyone taking you seriously. You need to let it go--you are not helping your cause.

Bro Tony

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
I believe the KJB is the inspired, preserved Word of God. Is the Reading Authentic? Yes it is! Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors! I do not believe that ANY English version is the preserved, pure,and perfect word for word the Word of God.Can You find a 100 % true Holy Bible? I beleive you can in the AV 1611!

I may need help here, but let me try to understand this. You said no English version is the preserved, pure, and perfect word for word the Word of God. But you believe the KJB and the AV 1611 are? Are you serious, what double speak. What do you think the 1611 AV and the KJB are? It would surprize the "translators" of the 1611 that they were not involved in translating the Scripture into English. William you have really gone beyond the pale and have lost any hope of anyone taking you seriously. You need to let it go--you are not helping your cause.

Bro Tony

At least I can make that statement! I cant about the MV's!

 

[Scott J]

I wonder if William isn't a pretender trying to make KJVO's look bad. I mean look at this statement:

Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors!

By definition whether right or wrong, every reading by the original authors must be authentic. That is the definition of authentic.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I wonder if William isn't a pretender trying to make KJVO's look bad. I mean look at this statement:

Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors!

By definition whether right or wrong, every reading by the original authors must be authentic. That is the definition of authentic.

What a Retorical statement!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro Tony:
I believe the KJB is the inspired, preserved Word of God. Is the Reading Authentic? Yes it is! Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors! I do not believe that ANY English version is the preserved, pure,and perfect word for word the Word of God.Can You find a 100 % true Holy Bible? I beleive you can in the AV 1611!

I may need help here, but let me try to understand this. You said no English version is the preserved, pure, and perfect word for word the Word of God. But you believe the KJB and the AV 1611 are? Are you serious, what double speak. What do you think the 1611 AV and the KJB are? It would surprize the "translators" of the 1611 that they were not involved in translating the Scripture into English. William you have really gone beyond the pale and have lost any hope of anyone taking you seriously. You need to let it go--you are not helping your cause.

Bro Tony

At least I can make that statement! I cant about the MV's! </font>[/QUOTE]In light of the fact that you made a self-contradicting statement... I think you've finally gotten something right.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro Tony:
I believe the KJB is the inspired, preserved Word of God. Is the Reading Authentic? Yes it is! Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors! I do not believe that ANY English version is the preserved, pure,and perfect word for word the Word of God.Can You find a 100 % true Holy Bible? I beleive you can in the AV 1611!

I may need help here, but let me try to understand this. You said no English version is the preserved, pure, and perfect word for word the Word of God. But you believe the KJB and the AV 1611 are? Are you serious, what double speak. What do you think the 1611 AV and the KJB are? It would surprize the "translators" of the 1611 that they were not involved in translating the Scripture into English. William you have really gone beyond the pale and have lost any hope of anyone taking you seriously. You need to let it go--you are not helping your cause.

Bro Tony

At least I can make that statement! I cant about the MV's! </font>[/QUOTE]In light of the fact that you made a self-contradicting statement... I think you've finally gotten something right. </font>[/QUOTE]I have

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
I wonder if William isn't a pretender trying to make KJVO's look bad. I mean look at this statement:

Not Every reading is Authentic by the original authors!

By definition whether right or wrong, every reading by the original authors must be authentic. That is the definition of authentic.

What a Retorical statement! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. And one apparently completely lost on you.

BTW, it is spelled "rhetorical" and should not be capitalized.

 

[william s. correa]

"rhetorical"

 

[Scott J]

William, Are you really an anti-KJVO intentionally trying to make the position look ridiculous?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Scott J:
William, Are you really an anti-KJVO intentionally trying to make the position look ridiculous?

I'm No KJVO But only in the English Language