Featured The KJV's Rev. 16:5

You are repeating the words of non-objective translators, not Beza's own words. Beza's claim could be incorrect since he relied upon an incomplete, imperfect book of collations that had errors. A book of collations that listed supposed readings from manuscripts is not a manuscript and does not actually document or identify whether the claimed manuscript is ancient or not. Stephanus' eighteen year old son may have been looking at the wrong passage in Revelation if he wrote in his book of collations a supposedly different reading at Revelation 16:5 since the actual known Greek NT manuscripts that he was collating did not have that reading in them.

 

The partial, varying Old Latin manuscripts are just as unreliable as the varying Latin manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate for emending the Greek New Testament.

 

It is unexcusable for Beza to not record the location of the manuscript. If it was the only one to contain a reading that he chose, and knew none other read like it. Of course Beza is excused, because he would not be that irresponsible. To make Beza into such an evil being, to chose a reading that was in no other manuscript but 1 secret one, that could never be followed, that no other human being knew about, would be totally out of character. He chose the reading by cojectual emendation. If not he would have named the location of the manuscript.

He thought the reading so important that he choose it for his New Testament. And then kept silent about the manuscripts location? No, he was not that evil at all.

 

The Greek is from the 1st century A.D.

 

NT Conjectures - INTF

ID Ref. NA28 Conjecture Author Short Reference Year Operation E A N M Rem. Cit.
cj10561 Rev 16:5 ὁ ὅσιος ὁ ἐσόμενος Theodorus Beza Beza, Annotationes (31582), p. 475 1582 Substitution
Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries
s12154 Theodorus Beza Beza, Annotationes (31582), p. 475 1582 Urheber
s30561 Henricus Stephanus Stephanus, NTG (21587), p. 159r 1587 Pro
s20048 Anonymous Anonymous, KJV (NT) (1611), p. Aa 4r 1611 Pro
s11423 Johannes Piscator Piscator, Commentarii (11613), p. 1556-a 1613 Pro
s30559 David Pareus Pareus, In Apocalypsin (1618), cc. 820–821 1618 Pro
s30563 Anonymous Anonymous, States Translation (11637), p. 161v 1637 Pro
s20052 Erasmus Schmidius Schmidius, Versio (1658), p. 1462 1658 Pro
s30555 Johannes Marckius Marckius, In Apocalypsin (1689), p. 709 1689 Pro
s30560 Campegius Vitringa Vitringa, Ανακρισις (11705), pp. 951–952 1705 Contra
s30553 Gustav Georg Zeltner Zeltner, Evangelium (1712), p. 29 1712 Contra
s21701 Johann Jakob Wettstein Wettstein, Prolegomena (1730), p. 174 1730 Mention
s22415 Johann Albrecht Bengel Bengel, NTG (1734), p. 834 1734 Contra
s20051 Johann Christoph Wolf Wolf, Curae 4 (11735), pp. 566–567 1735 Contra
s31330 Lodewijk Casper Valckenaer Valckenaer, “Schediasma” (1784), p. 334 1784 Mention
s31331 Ernst Gottlob Klose Klose, Examen (1790), p. xciii 1790 Contra
s30566 Francis Huyshe Huyshe, “Vindication (13)” (1834), p. 287 1834 Pro
s24930 Willem Christiaan van Manen van Manen, Conjecturaal-kritiek (1880), p. 350 1880 Mention

These are works discussing Beza conjecture. NT Conjectures - INTF

 

Nice try Rick, but it's Beza's own words.

Here I will make it easy for you. This is Beza’s own words (in picture below) translated from the Latin in his own writings.

“Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript codex of good faith, truly ‘and shalt be’ (Beza).

Double check the Latin yourself and verify it if you need to, but this fact cannot be denied if you can read Latin. You do read some Latin, do you not Rick?

Beza does not say he drew any rational thinking for Rev 16:5 but clearly says he corrected the reading “from a manuscript codex of good faith.” The conjectural emendation speculation theory has already been debunked by Beza himself.

Thus, a multiple question is in order here…

Beza said in his own writings that he adopted Rev 16:5 based upon an ancient manuscript and also that it aligned with the context of four other readings in the book of Revelation. What did Beza mean when he said this?

a) Beza meant what he said and said what he meant.
b) Dr. James White says Beza did not have any manuscript evidence, therefore Beza lied.
c) The Latin meanings of these words is debatable and/or may have been forged.
d) It cannot possible be ‘and shalt be’ for that would make the King James Bible correct,
and that fact does not fit my narrative and presuppositions.
e) Gail Riplinger was divorced twice, so the KJV reading must be wrong.
f) Scholars claim Beza was most likely in the early stages of dementia and forgot he made this conjecture.

Source: Beza's Annotations 1594 Rev 16.5

 

So was the 1st Century sign above our Lord that had ...” a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” Luke 23:38 (KJV), (of which the “letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew” are OMITTED in the NIV, NAS, and others), even with TR, Maj, and wait, ‘but there’s more’ (check your apparatus), for support of the KJV reading.

 

98% of the manuscripts of Luke 23:38 have that reading. Only 0.5% of manuscripts omit it. The others are other variants of the reading.

 

You yourself do not accept that Beza was infallible and perfect in all he asserted so you may choose to believe him blindly in this case because it fits your own subjective KJV-only opinions.

Beza can be mistaken and incorrect in what he assumed and wrote. It is known for a fact that Beza made use of Stephanus' eighteen year old son's book of Collations as the source for many of his manuscript readings. This likely handwritten book of collations was not actually a Greek NT manuscript although it was supposed to list accurately readings from Greek NT manuscripts. Sometimes however it did not list and record readings correctly.

It is known and has been proven that Stephanus' son's collating was incomplete and imperfect. Stephanus' son could have looked at one of the other passages in the book of Revelation instead of at Revelation 16:5 [the handwritten Greek NT manuscripts did not have verse numbers so it would be easy to look at the wrong passage] and to have written a reading from the wrong passage in his book of collations. The few Greek NT manuscripts that Stephanus' son collated are known, and those manuscripts are not known to have the reading suggested by Beza. Therefore, because Beza may assume that a reading listed in that incomplete and imperfect Book of Collations was found in an actual manuscript does not mean and prove that it actually was. Beza could sincerely mean what he said and still be mistaken because he made an incorrect assumption concerning Stephanus's son's imperfect collations.

 

Excellent example. Here, the KJV did not get it from conjectural emendation or even Latin manuscripts, but the Original Greek! I hope you see the great worth of the Greek verses conjectual emendation and Latin manuscripts. The KJV is right here because it has followed the Original Greek. Not something else. (See post #30 above).

 

KJV-only attempts to defend or rationalize the KJV's reading at Revelation 16:5 may contradict some of their own assertions concerning the preservation of the Scriptures.

Some of them would claim to believe in the preservation of the original-language words of Scripture before 1611, and yet they in effect deny that the original-language word given John at Revelation 16:5 was preserved and was readily accessible to most believers before 1594.

Some TR-only advocates and KJV-only advocates will claim that the word of God was preserved in a majority of Greek NT manuscripts, but they in effect contradict that argument with their reasoning concerning Revelation 16:5.

Do some KJV-only advocates suggest that the true reading of Scripture at Revelation 16:5 was lost for many years, was not accessible to most believers for a long period of time, and was not found in a majority of preserved original-language manuscripts?

Do they suggest that most believers for many years could not live by every word of God since what they claim is the true reading of Scripture at Revelation 16:5 had not been available and accessible by them?

 

Riplinger is a qualified home economics teacher, and that is all she ever qualified and holds a degree.

She left two husbands because she has ungodly desiring and allowed her daughter to make unfounded and untrue statements concerning the second husband she left to marry the third.

The foolish embrace her writings as bearing truthful facts, however searching into her work has seen very little worth and a lot of desire to foster division among believers.

 

Beza's note translated

NT Conjectures - INTF

[translation Jan Krans 2019]

And Who will be, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. Commonly καὶ ὁ ὅσιος is read, but the article is against all usage of speech and shows that the reading is corrupt. And the Vulgate, whether it reads the article or not, translates not more correctly “Sanctus” [“holy”], ὅσιος, wrongly omitting the particle καί, which is outright necessary in order to connect δίκαιος and ὅσιος. But as we have said above
at Rev 1:4, at all the other places where he extends the name of Jehova, John used to add a third [element], namely καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; why then would he have left it out here? Therefore I cannot doubt that the original reading is the one I restored from an old and reliable manuscript, namely ὁ ἐσόμενος. The reason that here not ὁ ἐρχόμενος is written, as in the four places above (1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17), is that those places concern Christ as the coming judge, whereas in this vision he is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and delivering judicial decisions

NT Conjectures - INTF