solite3:
dolphins heart d runaway!

For your information,The authorise version is regarded as the most trusted version.

Also, most of the older manuscripts have been lost and considering the amount of manuscript available today can we Judge the authorise version?

I think you should do a little research in that aspect and stop making dumb claims you don't know about, there are evidences that shows those so-called older versions available today might have been corrupted.

brocab:
I agree but I will let you on a little secret, {The Jehovah witnesses lie against the word of God all the time}

brocab:
KJV {Isiah 14:12} How you have falling from heaven O lucifer son of the morning, how you are cut down to the ground, you who weaken the nations.
{Luke 10:18} Jesus said: I saw Satan fall like lighting from heaven.
{Ezekiel 28:13-14} You were in Eden, the garden of God, Every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topus, diamond, Beryl, onyx and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and Emerald with Gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for on the day you were created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Lucifer was created by God like all the other angels.
{Ephesians 3:9} And to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things through Jesus Christ.
Even after reading the scriptures, Do you still believe Lucifer doesn't exist?
The bible did say Jesus is the first born of all creation, but which of the angels did God ever say, you are My Son, and which of the angels did God ever say, you sit here on My right side. God made angels spirits.

brocab:
Now I am not expecting you to read or understand this page-but their are to types of Christians in this world No 1-Christians believe, No 2-Christians that don't believe.
The word of God is the truth, no man will deny the truth.
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since He is our saviour. God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man, In other words Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the word who was God, and was with God, and was made flesh {John 1:1,14} This means in a single person of Jesus He has both the human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the word became flesh {John 1:1, 14} Instead the word was joined with humanity {Colossians 2:9} Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man, who had God within Him, nor is He a man who "manifested the God principle. "He is God in flesh. Second person of the trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word {Hebrews 1:3} Jesus's two natures are not mixed together. Look up the word {Eutychianism} nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. look up {Monophysitism} They are separated yet act as a unit in the One person of Jesus. this is called the {Hypostatic Union}

johnw74:


the 1cent I do know, I don't change




I tell you, you won't be telling me anything





Not all are to be assisted, including the self righteous pharisees

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

BY WHOM? add this proof.
does this mean that it did not translate from currupted texts ?

but their copies are still with us, and the oldest and most reliable of thsee do not have the words " Alpha and omega and" in rev 1:11

yes, we can use it to judge the authorised Version, I just said that a sentence found in this translation is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts.

haha! you that have done research, you can only defend your translation through allegation, with no fact included.
www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm

part of my research done so far :

The errors in both Rev. 1:11 and Rev 22:13 are due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus , the Greek text upon which the KJV 's New Testament was based.
(According to Bruce Metzger (in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Second Edition , Oxford University Press, 1968), the Textus Receptus was hastily and haphazardly prepared and was based mostly upon unreliable 12th century manuscripts. It was the work of a Dutchman by the name of Desiderius Erasmus and was first published in 1516. Though what became known as the Textus Receptus was inferior in accuracy to the very first complete Greek New Testament, the so-called Complutensian New Testament that was published only two years earlier in 1514, Erasmus' text was marketed much more effectively and was used as the basis for all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the English Revised Version [RV ] was first published. For a complete explanation of the basis for the errors in the King James Version and its impact on biblical studies, browse
http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm .)
www.bibletexts.com/versecom/rev01v11.htm

[b]There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title "Alpha and Omega" is used: Rev. 1:8 ; Rev. 21:6 ;Rev. 22:13. "Alpha and Omega" as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most modern Bible scholars:
"Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:
"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:and,
"This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994"

----------------------------------------


"There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev.1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."


----------------------------------------

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and-- The oldest manuscripts, omit all this clause. -[/b]

to be continued....

Sarang:


Ana akogheri!!

solite3:
dolphins heart d runaway! For your information, [size=26] The authorise version is regarded as the most trusted version [/size] . Also, most of the older manuscripts have been lost and considering the amount of manuscript available today can we Judge the authorise version? I think you should do a little research in that aspect and stop making dumb claims you don't know about, there are evidences that shows those so-called older versions available today might have been corrupted.

Sarang:


Ana akogheri!!

Sarang:


Ana akogheri!!

dolphinheart:


good to note that you have agreed that anytime they quote the scriptures for you, you remember that you dnt discuss with them!

Barristter07:
Sarang




LOL , call him "lie lie john" , he has been shown as a liar on this thread .

johnw74:



ha ha, every word I said is true, and look how pharacee jw tries to trap me in my words
like their forefathers tried to trap Jesus

Matthew 22:15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words

Luke 11:53 When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions,
54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.

Mark 12:15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”




I said from my memory "look out Jesus, said a disciple, they are trying to trap you"

I never said it's from the bible although at the time I thought it would have been


barristter jumped in with provide the scripture
I told him he could look for it


I remembered later that I saw and heard it in one of the Jesus movies,
no lie said by me at all
but plenty of false jw lies have been exposed in this thread alone



ha ha they tried so hard to trap me in my words, and look at the many many false jw lies that have been exposed
just in these few pages











they are a queer lot

Barristter07:
Sarang




LOL , call him "lie lie john" , he has been shown as a liar on this thread .

Sarang:



Satan filled the king of Babylon with the ambition to have complete domination over the earth, even over “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23) and “the stars of God,” the kings of the line of David sitting on the throne at Mount Moriah (by extension, Zion). This “king,” that is, the dynasty of Babylon, ‘lifted himself up’ in his own heart and was in his own eyes and in the eyes of his admirers a “shining one,” a “son of the dawn.” (In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lelʹ, “shining one.” Heh·lelʹ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.) (Isa 14:4-21)

Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its “king” reflected Satan’s own ambitious desire. Again, Jehovah came to the salvation of his people by restoring them to their land, until the real Seed of promise should come.


So lets assume that Lucifer is Satan,then are you telling me that God called Satan his son?

It was Jesus,the one he called Son and asked to sit on his right hand.

dolphinheart:


nice try, but pls dnt( once again) try to change the issue at hand

issues at hand:
[b]And yet no response from you on the issue you yourself raised?
also up till now , you have not answered these questions

you have also refused to respond to these questions and scripture:

[b]Just tell us the name of the church you associate with, that you are a member of!. If possible you can include its official website, at least you surpport using technology in Gods work. 

Tell us, do you know that Jesus Christ told someone that he has a God? And that statement was recorded in the kjv.? Can you tell us where this can be found?
If you can't answer this question brocab, then you dnt know the truth about Christ!. 
Expecially. The one spoken by Jesus himself.

Examine this questions brocab 1. If you say one body, one spirit, was Jesus a spirit before he came to earth? 
2. When Jesus was on earth, was the spirit in him his, the father or the holy spirit.?
3. After Jesus left the earth, did he remain in the body or became a spirit? 
4. What does Jesus mean by " the father is greater than I am" 
5. Why does Jesus say he is going to the father when you are trying to say he is spirit. 
6. You asked a question, the answer is yes, but ill like to ask you, what about the soul, why did you remove the soul when fomulating your question.

You cannot answer if Jesus is the same person as the father.

brocab , readers will note(again) that you have NOT quoted and explained ANY of the following scriptures :

1.rev 1:1,6
2. Rev 3, 2,13
3. John 17:1-3
4. Heb 1:1 -9 
5. John 20:17
6. 1 cor 11:3 
7 . 1 ti 2 :5,6
8.Acts 4:10
9. Acts 2:36
10. Acts 2:24
11. Acts 5:30
12.Acts 10:38,40,43
11. Phil 2:9,11 
12. john 14:6 
13. Acts 4 : 26,27, 30
14. 1 john 4:14
15. Heb 5:7 
16. ps 28:18

And a host of others

Brocab , examine these scripture 
Acts 5: 31.
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
John 3:16.
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.

Jesus is Gods only begotten son, Jesus is not God almighty!


YOU HAVE AGAIN ADDED LIES TO YOUR VIEWS.
Lets see if jesus was recognizable to those who knew him:

King James Version
Joh 20:14And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and KNEW NOT THAT IT WAS JESUS!

King James Version
Joh 20:15Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? SHE SUPPOSING HIM TO BE THE GARGENER, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

I dnt think the disciples would have been able to recognize Jesus more than Mary, she probably would have known jesus from birth, and the picture of jesus in her memory would have been sharper than a 100 mega pixel camera!

but here you are , lying again that Jesus was recognizable to those who knew him!
dnt you think Mary should have been able to recognise jesus instantly if he had been raise in the same body he died in?
* this is a question ill hope you can give us answer to .

Do you notice how jesus appeared to his disciples who had locked the doors, his actions transcends the physical realm, he appeared to them gram!, in a locked rooM!. yet until he showed them death dealing wound marks, that was when they believed they where swing the Lord.

brocab pls tell us
1. DOES SOME ONE FACE CHANGE WHEN HE OR SHE IS RESSURRECTED WITH THE SAME BODY HE OR SHE DIED IN?

2.DOES SOME ONE GETS RESSURRECTED WITH THE WOUND'S OR INJURIES THAT KILLED HIM?
If your assumptions are true, I bet during the ressurection, we will know those whose throut where slit, cus there will still be a gapping hole in there necks. and those whose brains where blown out will have a hole in their head, cus they will be resurrected with that same body!

before, I digress, let's further examine ya lie.
King James Version
Joh 21:4But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: BUT THE DISCIPLES KNEW NOT THAT IT WAS JESUS.

john 21: 12 New International Version
Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord.
even after seing jesus after his resurrecting, after being with jesus for years, they still do not recognize Jesus at first glance. If jesus had been resurrected with the same body he had died in, the disciples will have no doubt, they wunt need to even bother to ask the question that dared not to ask, "who are you".
Jesus had just showed them who he is, it is left for us to understand that they still had issues with jesus physical features, despite knowing that the person inviting theM to a meal is actually jesus.

I for one believe that only spirits do appear and dissappear at will!

spirits can manifest physical bodies of any liking for any particular purpose, the scriptures is awash with such occurrences, they can even use it to have sex sef!


sir do you ever read the scriptures at all.
It says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God!
human body is flesh and blood!
how then do you espect the king of gods kingdom to have flesh and blood while his Co rulers do not!
how do you expect the physical to rule in the spiritual realm.

brocab, Jesus was a spirit before he came to earth, was he not?
how come , you refuse him his spirit nature when he had accomplished the work he was sent to do here on earth?

dolphinheart:



WHAT DID JESUS OUR SAVIOR SAY ABOUT GAINING EVALASTING LIFE?
King James Version
Joh 17:1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joun 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

SOME CLAIM JESUS IS FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN BUT CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW JESUS BEING FULLY GOD WAS :
1. Giving authority by someone else
King James Version
[b]Joh 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
imagine, claiming someone is fully God yet he being given authority by someone else!

2. giving power by someone else
King James Version
Joh 3:35The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

English Standard Version
On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.

Guys, check out the only true god!
Jer 27:4Give them this command for their masters: “‘“This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says; this is what you should say to your masters,
Jer 27:5‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please.
can you guys see the difference!, yet they claim jesus is fully God.


3. Is not able to take any initiative by himself except what he sees another doing.

King James Version
Joh 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
imagine fully God can do nothing of himself.

4. will be shown greater works
King James Version
Joh 5:20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

5. calls someone else his God.
[b]King James Version
Joh 20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


6.cannot give certain things
King James Version
Mt 20:23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

7. does not know certain things
matt 24:36 English Standard Version
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

8. fully God and yet said this.
King James Version
Mt 27:46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


SOME PREFER TO USE UNSCRIPTURAL WORDS AND TERMS TO DESCRIBE JESUS, BUT WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURES SAY WHEN JESUS CAME TO EARTH.

john 1:14
English Standard Version
And the Word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the ONLY SON FROM THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.

King James Bible
And the Word was MADE FLESH , and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

did that verse say Jesus added flesh to his divine nature? no
did it say Jesus had two natures? no
what glory did it say we beheld , God ? no , son of God !
JESUS WAS MADE FLESH, JESUS BECAME FLESH!

WHEN JESUS BECAME FLESH, DID HE RETAIN PART OF HIS DIVINE NATURE , TALK LESS OF ALL OF HIS DIVINE NATURE?

phil 2:7
English Standard Version
color=red]BUT EMPTIED HIMSELF[/color]but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men

International Standard Version
Instead, poured out in emptiness, a servant's form did he possess, A MORTAL MAN BECOMING. In human form he chose to be,

Isa 53:2, 3He will come up like a twig before him, like a root out of parched land. No stately form does he have, nor any splendor; And when we see him, his appearance does not draw us to him.3He was despised and was avoided by men, A man who was meant for pains and was familiar with sickness. It was as if his face were hidden from us. He was despised, and we held him as of no account.


brocab, you know I like asking you questions, telling you to explain the scriptures to me and expecially to thousands of people reading this thread. so pls brocab can you explain this two scriptures?

King James Version
Da 7:13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Da 7:14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.


who is the Lamb and who is the ancient of days?

*READERS SHOULD NOTE IF HE WILL EXPLAIN

brocab:
You did demand to find out where I fellowship so who's changing the issue

Jozzy4:


Why cant u answer that scriptural question? Because u are not sincere, and u know answering will expose you

WHO IS THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ? EPHESIANS 1:17

brocab:
Jesus said one must be born again before He could enter into Heaven; that leaves you out dolpohinheart, you are born into the JW's organization, that has nothing to do with Christ.

brocab:
How many times do we answer your questions and still none of you understand them.
Jesus has a God, I have a God, the angels have a God, we are all called sons of God.

goodnews201668:



Do you even know Christ? Of course not, because if you do you won't say Christ is the father. Jehovah's witnesses unlike you have the true knowledge of Christ, who he is, what he stands for and his relationship with the father.

goodnews201668:


Was that the only thing you saw in that post?

goodnews201668:


Good you agreed Jesus have a God, can he still be his God as you have been arguing?

brocab:
How many times do we answer your questions and still none of you understand them.
Jesus has a God , I have a God, the angels have a God, we are all called sons of God.

brocab:
Yes, do you have a spirit?

johnw74:



Here are more false jw lies for you barristter to add to yours
score so far, trillions to none:


the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When
a prophet
speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow
not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath
not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:
thou shall not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18: 21, 22). Notice:
There are only two points to consider to “know”
a false
prophet: (1) Does he speak in the name of the LORD? (2)
Did the thing predicted fail to come to pass?

Point 1. The Watchtower Society’s claim to be Jehovah’s
Prophet.
“More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah
would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as
a
‘prophet’ in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel back
there in 613 B.C.E.? (The Watchtower, 3-15-72, p. 189). “It
is of importance to every individual on earth to identify the
group that Jehovah has commissioned as his ‘servant’ or
messenger.... For this reason forthcoming issues of The
Watchtower will further discuss the identity and work of
Jehovah’s commissioned messenger as revealed in His vision
to Ezekiel (The Watchtower, 3-15-72, p. 190). “So, does
Jehovah have
a prophet to help them, to warn them of
dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can
be answered in the affirmative
. Who is this prophet? ...This
‘prophet’ was not one man, but was
a body of men and
women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus
Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students.
Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses... Of
course, it is easy to say that this group acts as
a ‘prophet’ of
God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this
can be done is to review the record. What does it show? (The
Watchtower, 4-1-72, p. 197). “The scroll was doubtless
delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the
vision. This would indicate that Jehovah’s witnesses today
make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom
under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt.
25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail,
for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of
what these witnesses say as directed from heaven. Yes, the
time must come shortly that the nations will have to know
that really
a ‘prophet’ of Jehovah was among them.” (The
Watchtower, 4-1-72, p. 200).

Point 2. Thingsthe Watchtower said that “followed not.”
“Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present,since October
1874, A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to
those who have ears to hear it.” (The Battle of Armageddon,
Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 4, 1897 ed., p. 621)
“...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev.
16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete
overthrow of earth’s present rulership is already commenced.”
(The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures,
Vol. 2, 1908 ed., p. 101)
“Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark
the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets
of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews
chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection.” (Millions
Now Living Will Never Die, pp. 89,90)
“The year 1925 is
a date definitely and clearly marked in the
Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914.” (The Watchtower,
7-15-24, p. 211)
“Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures
.... As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon
which to base his faith than Noah had....” (The Watchtower,
4-1-23, p. 106) [Question: Was the Society wrong here about
what is “definitely settled” by the Scriptures and what is not?
Also, could they be wrong in other areas too, regarding what
the Scriptures teach?]
“It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the
minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an
end of the work .... Diligence now and to the end seems absolutely
essential to victory.” (The Watchtower, 9-1-25, p.
262)
“Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the
Lord did not so state.” (The Watchtower, 8-1-26, p. 232)
“There was
a measure of disappointment on the part of
Jehovah’sfaithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914,
1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for
a time ....
they also learned to quit fixing dates...” (Vindication, Book I,
1931 ed., pp. 338, 339)
“Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them,
not
a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord’s
provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining
months before Armageddon.” (The Watchtower, 9-15-41, p.
288)
“True, there have been those in times past who predicted an
‘end to the world,’ even announcing
a specific date.... Yet,
nothing happened. The ‘end’ did not come. They were guilty
of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.... Missing
from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he
was guiding and using them.” (Awake, 10-8-68, p. 23)



http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/jehovahs-witnesses-answered.htm

to be continued tomorrow



more truth on the sect that is called jehovahs' witnesses at these sites:

http://jwfacts.com/

https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses

solite3:
[url]www.kjvtoday.com/home/revelation[/Book of Revelation in the.....

Minority Readings in the Book of Revelation

(1)The Textus Receptus departs from both the Nestle-Aland Text and the Byzantine Majority Text considerably in the Book of Revelation. In these instances the Textus Receptus often follows Erasmus' Reuchlin manuscript (2814). At times Erasmus departed from 2814 and followed the Vulgate (vg), other Andreas texts (MA), Church fathers and/or other authorities. The following are examples of the more notable divergent readings with their earliest authorities:
Revelation 1:6: "kings and" (2814, 025, 2015, 2019, 2036)
Revelation 1:8: "the beginning and the ending" (2814, Aleph*, 1854, 2050, 2329, 2351, vg)
(2)Revelation 1:11: "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and" (2814, 314, 2019, 2020, 2023)
Revelation 2:17: "to eat of" (2814, 025, 69, 104, 1611, 1854, 1957, 2015, 2023, 2036, 2050, 2344, 2351, Beatus)
Revelation 2:22: "their deeds" (2814, A, 1854, 2329, 2344, vgcl, Cyprian, Primasius)
Revelation 2:24: "will" (2814, Aleph, 046, 1611, 2050, 2329, 2351, vg, Tyconius, Primasius)
Revelation 3:11: "Behold" (2015, 2019, 2036, vgcl, Bede)
Revelation 5:5: "to loose" (Aleph, 2344, vgcl, Haymo)
Revelation 5:6: "and lo" (A, 2018, 172, vg)
Revelation 5:14: "four and twenty . . . him that lives forever and ever" (vgcl, Primasius, Haymo)
Revelation 6:1: TR omits "seven" (2814, 314, 2015, 2016, 2036)
Revelation 6:3: "and see" (vgcl, Primasius, Beatus) ["και ιδε" (Aleph, 2344)]
Revelation 6:12: TR omits "whole" before "moon" (025, 2814, 2018, 2023, 172, 1957, 1611, 2329, 2344, Primasius)
Revelation 8:7: TR omits "and the third part of the earth was burnt up" (2814, 2018, 1854)
Revelation 8:13: "angel" (2814, 025, 104, 2015, 2019, 241, 2036, Victorinus)
Revelation 11:1: "and the angel stood" (60, 61, 69, 172, 424, 432, 1957, 2018, 2019, 2023) [with varying word order] (Aleph2, 046, 1854, 2329, 2351, Tyconius, Beatus)
Revelation 11:17: "and art to come" ( 1841, 051, 1006)
Revelation 14:1: TR omits "his name and" (2814, 025)
Revelation 14:5: "before the throne of God" (vgcl)
Revelation 15:2: "over his mark" (051, 2814, 2018, 2019, 2036)
Revelation 15:3: "saints" (Victorinus-Pettau, Tyconius, Apringius, and Cassiodorus)
Revelation 16:5: "and shalt be" instead of "thou Holy One" (Beza)
Revelation 16:7: "another out of" (vgcl)
Revelation 16:14: "of the earth and" (2814)
Revelation 17:4: "filthiness of her fornication" [vg: "inmunditia fornicationis"]
Revelation 17:8: "and yet is" instead of "and shall come" (Erasmus)
Revelation 18:20: "holy" (adjective) instead of "saints" (noun) (2018, C, 051, 2329, 2059, 2081, vgcl, Haymo)
Revelation 19:17: "great God" instead of "great supper" (2814, 051, 2019, 2023, 2036)
Revelation 20:12: "God" instead of "throne" (2814, 2059, 2081, 2186, 296)
Revelation 21:3: "and be their God" (025, 2036) [with varying word order] (A, 2030, 2050, 2053, 2062, 2329, vg)
Revelation 21:10: "that great city" instead of "the holy city Jerusalem" (2814, 2016, 2017, 2023, 2036, 1957, [*]: 051, 1854, 2030, 2377)
Revelation 21:24: "of them which are saved" (254, 2186, 2814, MA commentary)
Revelation 22:19: "book of life" (vg, 1075, 1957, Abrose, Primasius, Haymo)
Revelation 22:21: "be with you all" (vg, Pseudo-Ambrose)
(3)There are several categories of these instances when the Textus Receptus departs from the Nestle-Aland and Byzantine Majority texts. They are:
Readings based on late minority Byzantine readings.
Readings based on the Vulgate.
Readings that are supported by early uncials.
Readings based on Church fathers.
Readings based on Erasmus' supposed errors.
Beza's conjectural emendation.
The remainder of this article makes a case for the Textus Receptus despite these supposed flaws.

1. Late Minority Byzantine Readings

There Are Relatively Few Early Manuscripts for Revelation

Before brushing aside those so-called "late minority" readings, one must realize that Revelation is unlike the rest of the books of the Bible. There are only 287 extant Greek manuscripts of Revelation in comparison with 2361 of the Gospels, 662 of Acts and General Epistles, and 792 of Paul's letters (Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 78-79, 83.). Of these, only the following 16 are from before the 10th century:

Name Century Verses included
P18 III/IV 1:4-7
P24 IV 5:5-8; 6:5-8
P43 VI/VII 2:12-13; 15:8-16:2
P47 III 9:10-11:3; 11:5-16:15; 16:17-17:2
P85 IV/V 9:19-10:1.5-9
P98 II(?) 1:13-20
P115 III/IV 2:1-3, 13-15, 27-29; 3:10-12; 5:8-9; 6:4-6; 8:3-8, 11-13; 9:1-5, 7-16, 18-21; 10:1-4, 8; 11:5, 8-15, 18-19; 12:1-6, 9-10, 12-17; 13:1-3, 6-12, 13-16, 17-18; 14:1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-16, 18-20; 15:1, 5-7.
Aleph IV All
A V All
C V All except 1:1-2; 3:20-5:14; 7:14-17; 8:5-:16; 10:10-11:3; 16:13-18:2; 19:5-22:21
025 IX All except 16:12-17:1; 19:21-20:9; 22:6-22:21
0163 V 16:17-20
0169 IV 3:19-4:3
0207 IV 9:2-15
0229 VIII 18:16-17; 19:4-6
0308 IV 11:15-16; 17-18

Most of these 16 early manuscripts ("early", being used generously here) do not even have the complete text of Revelation. Thus for any given passage there may only be about 4 or 5 manuscripts from before the 10th century. Revelation is an extremely difficult text to reconstruct if we were to use only the evidence that remains today. With only 4 or 5 early manuscripts for a given passage, it is difficult to ascertain whether these mere few provide the most reliable form of any given passage. No modern statistical study would be based on a sample size as small as 4 or 5. The minority Byzantine text-type termed the Andreas text-type, which agrees with Erasmus' Reuchlin manuscript, ought to be given fair weight in these circumstances. The assumption that late manuscripts contain late readings is refuted in the following page: Aren't older manuscripts more reliable? The Reuchlin manuscript which dates to the 12th century is not that late in comparison with the majority of manuscripts of Revelation. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the majority of manuscripts of Revelation may be corrupt due to the unique canonical and textual history of Revelation. The following section which justifies the use of the Vulgate for Revelation also applies to the use of minority Greek readings.

2. Readings Based on the Vulgate

Most Versions Often Follow Translations Over The Inspired Texts

The Textus Receptus is often criticized for having some readings based on the Vulgate rather than on Greek manuscripts. God inspired the words in Greek, so in Greek should God preserve his words - so the thinking goes. Other translations such as the NASB, ESV and NIV, however, often depart from Hebrew readings for the Old Testament in preference for readings found in Greek or Latin translations of the Old Testament. Critics often bash the Textus Receptus for following the Vulgate, yet these critics are often found promoting translations such as the NASB, ESV and NIV which follow the same Vulgate for some passages in the Old Testament. This double-standard is even more illogical when we consider that the preservation methods for the Old Testament were arguably more robust than the preservation methods for the New Testament. This hypocrisy with respect to the use of translations in textual criticism is addressed at the page: Aren't some Textus Receptus readings based on weak Greek manuscript evidence? The page lists the Old Testament passages where the NASB, ESV and NIV choose translation readings over Hebrew readings.

The Book of Revelation Was Thoroughly Corrupted Very Early

Within respect to the Book of Revelation, Vulgate readings should be considered on par with Greek readings in terms of reliability because there is no indication that Greek manuscripts were copied and preserved any better. Despite there only being 287 extant manuscripts of Revelation (compared with 2361 for the Gospels), the number of variants among Greek manuscripts is relatively large. Various factors contributed to this early and extensive corruption. Revelation received limited circulation in the early centuries because it was canonized very late among the Greek churches that produced the majority of both the earliest and later manuscripts of Revelation. The Syrian Church rejected Revelation in the 2nd century, the Alexandrian scribe of Codex Vaticanus omitted Revelation, and the Greek Church canonized Revelation as late as in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. Perhaps because of its non-canonical status, the Greek text became corrupt in many copies in very early times. Daniel B. Wallace says, "Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted—within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse" (Online article: Did the Original New Testament Manuscripts still exist in the Second Century?). The limited circulation coupled with the great extent of corruptions gave the book of Revelation the highest variant to manuscript ratio of all the books of the Bible.

Professor Bruce Terry at the Ohio Valley University has prepared a helpful reference of many of the major textual variants in the books of the New Testament. He identifies variants in the following Revelation verses on his web pages, Revelation 1:5-14:3 [LINK], and Revelation 14:13-22:21 [LINK]. His list of variants show the extent to which the Book of Revelation was corrupted at an early stage.

There are in fact reasons to believe that Latin witnesses of Revelation could be more accurate than Greek witnesses. The book of Revelation was canonized first by the Latin Church whereas the Greek Church took until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. While influential Greek fathers in the 4th century such as Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus were still hesitant to canonize Revelation, Christians ministering in the Latin West in the 2nd century - Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian - recognized its canonicity early on. The Muratorian Canon, the oldest known canon that includes Revelation, is a Latin canon. Codex Vaticanus, a Greek codex, does not even have Revelation. Latin commentaries on Revelation by Victorinus and Tyconius existed by the fourth century, but the earliest known Greek commentary on Revelation is by Andreas of Caesarea in the seventh century. There is indeed an illogical prejudice against translations. Translations did not appear out of thin air. They were based on Greek exemplars at one point in time. Once a Latin translation made from the Greek got in the hands of faithful Latin Christians such as Victorinus or Tyconius, these faithful Christians would have been no more or no less tempted to alter God's word than those true Christians preserving God's word in Greek.

3. Readings That Are Supported By Early Uncials

Just because the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Nestle-Aland and Majority texts, it does not always mean the Textus Receptus reading is late. The following notable readings depart from the Nestle-Aland and Majority texts but are nonetheless supported by earlier uncials:
Revelation 1:6: "kings and" (025 - 9th century)
Revelation 1:8: "the beginning and the ending" (Aleph* - 4th century)
Revelation 2:17: "to eat of" (025 - 9th century)
Revelation 2:22: "their deeds" (A - 5th century)
Revelation 2:24: "will" (Aleph - 4th century)
Revelation 5:5: "to loose" (Aleph - 4th century)
Revelation 5:6: "and lo" (A - 5th century)
Revelation 6:3: "and see" ["και ιδε"] (Aleph - 4th century)
Revelation 6:12: TR omits "whole" before "moon" (025 - 9th century)
Revelation 8:13: "angel" (025 - 9th century)
Revelation 11:1: "and the angel stood" [with varying word order] (Aleph2 - 7th century)
Revelation 14:1: omission of "his name and" (025 - 9th century)
Revelation 18:20: "holy" (adjective) instead of "saints" (noun) (C - 5th century)
Revelation 21:3: "and be their God" (025 - 9th century) [with varying word order] (A - 5th century)[/color]
This shows not only that these particular readings are earlier than the Greek and Vulgate manuscripts used by Erasmus, but they also support the theory that Erasmus' manuscripts were capable of carrying over early readings that were lost in the majority of later Greek manuscripts. If even just one manuscript, e.g. Codex A, were to have disappeared, textual critics today would be dismissing the Textus Receptus readings of Revelation 2:22, 5:6, and 21:3 as suspicious late readings. One could reasonably theorize that there were once many more such early uncials which agreed with the Textus Receptus.

4. Readings Based on Church Fathers

Revelation 15:3 is a place where Erasmus is believed to have followed Church fathers over any extant Greek or Latin manuscript. The commentaries of Church fathers such as Andreas, Tyconius, Victorinus, Primasius, Apringius and Beatus follow the early Greek uncials in many places. Hence it is evident that these fathers had before them actual copies of the Book of Revelation. In the few instances where their readings depart from those in extant Greek or Latin manuscripts, we can reasonably accept that such readings of the fathers were available in whatever texts that existed in their times. As the quotes by many of these fathers are from their commentaries on the Book of Revelation, we can be even more certain that they were careful to cite the text accurately from their copies of the Book. Sometimes Church fathers may have paraphrased scriptures freely in discourses or epistles, but that is not the case with these commentators who set out to provide careful analyses of the text. The following links to a page on this website which explains Erasmus' decision to follow the Church fathers at Revelation 15:3:

"Saints" or ""Nations" or "Ages" in Revelation 15:3?

5. Readings Based on Erasmus' Supposed Errors

There are a few places in Revelation where Erasmus is alleged to have created his own unique readings due to mistranscription (e.g. "ο και αδελφος" at Revelation 1:9 and "καιπερ εστιν" at Revelation 17:. The most well-known instance of Erasmus' alleged error is where he back-translated the Vulgate for the last 6 verses of Revelation. The following are links to pages on this website which explain these more notable instances of Erasmus' alleged errors:

"Also (και)" in Revelation 1:9?

“And yet is” or “And shall come” in Revelation 17:8?

“Book of life” or “Tree of life” in Revelation 22:19?

6. Beza's Conjectural Emendation

There is a reading in the Textus Receptus edition underlying the KJV that is based on a conjectural emendation. This is Revelation 16:5 where it says, "which art, and wast, and shalt be". The following link goes to a page on this website which justifies Beza's conjectural emendation:

“Shalt be” or “Holy one” in Revelation 16:5?

The remainder of this article makes a case for the Textus Receptus despite these supposed flaws.

johnw74:


third time you replied with the same thing

hey I already know you have nothing true to say

brocab:
You did demand to find out where I fellowship so who's changing the issue

brocab:
Jesus said one must be born again before He could enter into Heaven; that leaves you out dolpohinheart, you are born into the JW's organization, that has nothing to do with Christ.

brocab:
Now I am not expecting you to read or understand this page-but their are to types of Christians in this world No 1-Christians believe, No 2-Christians that don't believe.
The word of God is the truth, no man will deny the truth.
Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since He is our saviour. God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man, In other words Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the word who was God, and was with God, and was made flesh {John 1:1,14} This means in a single person of Jesus He has both the human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the word became flesh {John 1:1, 14} Instead the word was joined with humanity {Colossians 2:9} Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man, who had God within Him, nor is He a man who "manifested the God principle. "He is God in flesh. Second person of the trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word {Hebrews 1:3} Jesus's two natures are not mixed together. Look up the word {Eutychianism} nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. look up {Monophysitism} They are separated yet act as a unit in the One person of Jesus. this is called the {Hypostatic Union}