Supposedly "KJV Only" Refuted At This Link

Strong's Concordance is listing a number for a Greek word that Beza inserted into his Greek NT text, but it is not the Greek in all known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463). James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). James White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be” at this verse. Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that put in doubt the eternal future of the Lord Jesus Christ according to a consistent application of Waite‘s claim? Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.” Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326). In his 1776 Exposition of this book, John Gill wrote: “The Alexandrian copy, and most others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read holy instead of shalt be; for the purity and holiness of Christ will be seen in the judgments which he will exercise” (p. 183).

KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote: "How Bible-believing Christians can allow guesswork and conjecture to determine their Bible is beyond me, but they do" (Defending the KJB, p. 30). Waite wrote: “Conjecture or guess is completely out of place in any treating of the New Testament” (Foes, p. 125). Do Waite's own statements apply to this verse? Is Waite in effect defending a conjecture as being “theologically superior?” Does Waite accept the textual conjecture as found in the KJV as his final authority or does he accept the Greek word or words in the preserved manuscripts as his final authority? David Cloud asserted: “To think that we are left to conjecture the original text of the Scripture is a blatant denial of divine preservation” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 276). John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller indicated that “the determination of the text of Holy Scripture” should not be “handed over” . . . “to the uncertain sands of conjecture” (Traditional Text, p. 229). Maurice Robinson maintained that “the quantity of preserved evidence for the text of the NT precludes conjectural emendation” (New Testament, p. 554). Emanuel Tov asserted that “whoever suggests an emendation by definition rejects the preserved evidence and, instead, resorts to his imagination” (Textual Criticism, p. 294).

At Revelation 16:5, do holders of various KJV-only views seem to deny or undermine their own view of preservation as they defend a conjecture? Is there any sound evidence that every generation of believers had access to the reading found in the KJV at Revelation 16:5 or that it was used by all the churches throughout the centuries? Is there a multiplicity of textual witnesses that support the new reading introduced by Beza at Revelation 16:5? Does Beza’s reading faithfully reflect the majority reading of the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts?

 

Sir, the HOLY SPIRIT has given modern translators tools to work with that their forebears never had, such as these computers & easy worldwide communications, plus many more manuscripts & other Scriptural materials found between 1600 & now. Plus, they have all the knowledge of their forebears & everything else that became known between 1600 & now. So, if your supposition were correct, it'd be in every newer Bible translation.

 

Not sure if it were Beza's or not, but it was definitely someones.

 

Just seems that some see the Lord as basically freezing all textual criticism and tools and technology to be used to discern the Bibler at 1611!

 

was not part of the original text!

 

Just for fun.

WilliamTyndale was not the first to use ester/easter in an English Bible -- at least Anglo-Saxon is Old English, even if it is quite unlike our modern dialect. The West Saxon Gospels use “Easter” (ēasterdaeges, ēastro, ēastron). I found modern (circa 1900) printings of these Gospels on Archive.org. I looked at a random verse in each Gospel and here is what I found. As posted below in three lines are three Bible versions: West Saxon, Wycliffe, and King James (in that order).

Matthew 26:2
Wite gē þæt æfter twām dagum bēod ēastro, and mannes Bearn byþ geseald þæt hē sī on rōde āhangen.
Ye witen, that aftir twei daies pask schal be maad, and mannus sone schal be bitakun to be crucified.
Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mark 14:16
Pā fērdon his leorningcnihtas, and cōmon on þā ceastre, and fundon hit eall swā hē sǣde, and gegearwodon þā ēastron.
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
And hise disciplis wenten forth, and camen in to the citee, and founden as he hadde seid to hem; and thei maden redy the pask.

Luke 2:41
And his māgas fērdon ǣlce gēre tō Hierusalem on ēasterdaeges frēolstīde [i.e. Easterday feast-tide].
And his fadir and modir wenten ech yeer in to Jerusalem, in the solempne dai of pask.
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

John 2:13
And hit wæs nēah Iudea ēastron, and sē Hǣlend fōr tō Ierusalem.
And the pask of Jewis was nyy, and Jhesus wente vp to Jerusalem.
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

James Wilson Bright, an English professor at Johns Hopkins University, who edited these four editions, wrote, “The first English version of the Gospel [preceded] the Wiclifite Bible by four hundred years...” He also says that “the Latin manuscript used by the translator of this Gospel has not yet [1904] been identified...” This comment shows they believe it was translated from Latin rather than Greek, but that it was not translated from the Vulgate.

For any who wish to go beyond “fun,” the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Online can be found HERE.

 

Interesting, as Logos does not agree with the Greek critical text, as he is Kjvp, as also likes the Geneva and Nkjv!

 

I will put the scholarship of those who did the Nas and Nkjv up against the 1611 Kjv team!

 

Now, Hark, please be so kind as to address Logos' post above.

No, the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil, as the CORRECT translation of 1 Tim. 6:10 says. And copyrights mean nothing. Remember, the KJV is copyrighted in England, the holders being the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, the Ayers & Spottiswoode Co., & Harper Collins. (Owned by Ruppert Murdoch) The words are usually different from the KJV's(not counting language changes) because the newer translations are often more-accurate.

The marginal notes were placed there by the same people who wrote the text. They show an alternate translation of the same word or phrase. The AV 1611 is chock-full of them. For instance, there's the one for the Hebrew helel in Isaiah 14:14-"Or, O day starre."

And Jesus didn't speak, nor Paul write, in English. But Jesus knew English would exist later.

Antioch was also a great center of idolatry.

God preserved ALL the Scriptural mss. we have, including Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, much-maligned by the KJVO bunch. The stories of their respective preservations shows God's power at work.
Most MVs are made from an eclectic mix of most known mss.

Just face it-GOD IS NOT LIMITED to the KJV in His presenting His word in English. As the language changed, He caused His word to be rendered in the most-modern English of its day, from Wycliffe's 1384 edition, to Tyndale's, to the KJV, to now.(NKJV, NASV, ESV, etc.) And there were many other translations contemporary with those I named.
Your KJVO myth is entirely man-made & phony as a Ford Corvette. I have posted the origin of its current edition elsewhere in this forum.

Now, are you going to try to counter Logos' post about Rev. 16:5 more ? So far, you're not doing too well.

 

Did the Kjv translate it as the great God and Savior as meaning same person, Jesus, or not?