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?
