Legit questions for all

I predict that the above question will be ignored by ASKJO just like the OP has been for about 1902385023 pages now.

 

Even if I were to bet, I certainly wouldn't put a wager against your statement, unless I was REALLY stupid.

 

Hey, even Okies have SOME sense......

 

Nevermind. It appears you see have vastly different standards than the rest of us on several levels.
You havent proved the the text was a typo!

William, we have on record about 5300 manuscripts of the NT. If memory severs me right, I think we have about 500 or so of Revelation. There has never been one single claim in history that this reading was in ANY of them. On topic of that, we have thousands of manuscripts from other languages, such as Latin, Syrica, Coptic, Armenian and others, there are virtually thousands of quotations by early church fathers, lexionaries, and a myriad of other witnesses to this verse. This reading has never been claimed to have been found in any of those witnesses BEFORE YOU. Which witness is it that you claim contains this reading?

OK, are you claiming that you did not say God inspired Erasmus to write these words down for us? If so, I will cut and paste YOUR WORDS stating otherwise. If not, then you once again contradict yourself. Whats new, though?

The CANON of scripture is that which is accepted as INSPIRED Scripture of God. If Erasmus is adding to the book of Revelation words that have never existed before his typo, then the canon was open until at least 1516. Canon has nothing to do with "church law".

Your wisest comment to date.....

So, even if there is an error, you wont admit it? Why are you here? To defend a lie at all costs? Do you know the easiest way to not have to admit something that is true? REFUSE to answer questions, just make claims. This way, you can fake your way through the whole ordeal.

Now, do you wish to try again?

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

You havent proved the the text was a typo!

 

OK, of the 5300-plus NT mss & fragments known to us, NONE have kaiper esti in Rev. 17:8, but those Greek words ARE found in the TR. If it wasn't a typo or deliberate addition, how did those words get into the TR?

And, about your evidence you say you have, that supports the KJVO myth...Are you still working on that. Doc Cassidy said he would give honest consideration to any such evidence, and so will I, or any other Freedom Reader on this board. But we gotta SEE it first.

 

OK, of the 5300-plus NT mss & fragments known to us, NONE have kaiper esti in Rev. 17:8, but those Greek words ARE found in the TR. If it wasn't a typo or deliberate addition, how did those words get into the TR?

And, about your evidence you say you have, that supports the KJVO myth...Are you still working on that. Doc Cassidy said he would give honest consideration to any such evidence, and so will I, or any other Freedom Reader on this board. But we gotta SEE it first. </font>[/QUOTE]That still dosent prove that it isnt there! and therefore it is not a typo! Havent you seen the proof! We have to preach the whole council of God and we cannot do it with out mark 16:16 There thats your proof and I will Stand on that verse until the day of CHRIST!AMEN! Brotha!

 

99% of MSS supported the KJV; 1% of them supported modern versions according to a W/H scholar who refused to admit the FACT. </font>[/QUOTE]Could you please support this with facts? Are you talking about the verse that is being discussed? If so, WHAT MSS are 99% supported by the KJV? </font>[/QUOTE]I posted same answers before. Did you forget?