-
Responding to Nick Sayers' Interview with AVBibleThumperMinistries on the alleged significance of the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3:14
Approximately from 1:54:31 to 1:56:50 in “Interviewing Nick Sayers @RevolutionDebates on The Perfection of The KJV!!!” Nick Sayers states: They claim to us, “oh you’re you’re following no manuscripts in this place.” Like, say, one example: Revelation 16:5. They always bring this up. Oh, Revelation 16:5 – when it has “shall be – “Oh, that’s…
-
Seven Sages and Revelation 16:5
The Precepts of the Seven Sages (or “Sentences of the Seven Sages” or “Injunctions of the Seven Sages“) is a collection of concise wisdom. There are nearly 150 statements in list, and seems to cover various moral and ethical rules in the form of maxims or gnomic commands. They are thought to originate around the…
-
Preparing for the Revelation 16:5 Debate – Responses to Howe, Jones, Daniels, and McElroy
In preparing for a planned debate on Revelation 16:5, I checked out the following KJV advocacy books: “The KJV is for Me: Why I use the King James Bible,” by Christopher E. Howe. While this book from 2021 has a little structure to it, it reads much more like a manifesto than like a piece…
-
Jonathan Edwards (mis-?)quoting Revelation 16:5
One of my favorite Christian philosophers is Jonathan Edwards. In this instance, however, Edwards seems to have made a slight error that is significant primarily to someone like myself, with an intense interest in the text of Revelation 16:5. The misquotation is found in one of Edwards’ sermons, the short title of which is shown…
-
Christianus Fridericus Matthaei on Revelation 16:5
From 1782 to 1788, Christianus Fridericus Matthaei (1744-1811) published a critical text based (I’m told) on a collation of about 70 relatively late manuscripts. The Apocalypsis (Revelation) section was published in 1785. His text of Revelation 16:5, naturally, does not include Beza’s false correction to the text. What follows are Matthaei’s main text, his apparatus, and…
-
Jan Krans on Beza's Emendation of Revelation 16:5
Dr. Jan Krans, who has provided the definitive treatment of conjectural emendation by Erasmus and Beza, provided an article on conjectural emendation as it relates to Revelation in the Editio Critica Maior of Revelation (VI/3.1, pp. 419-20). In this article, Dr. Krans addresses Beza and Revelation 16:5. The following is my own English translation of…
-
Responding to "KJV Today" regarding Revelation 16:5
The anonymous author of the KJV Today is not, I assume, any of the other authors I’ve already responded to when it comes to Revelation 16:5. This author has an article on Revelation 16:5 (link to article). The article was titled “Beza and Revelation 16:5.” I have tried to preserve the substance of the article,…
-
Response to Will Kinney on Revelation 16:5
Will Kinney has an article on Revelation 16:5 (link to article). I thought it might be worthwhile to review the arguments and evidence provided by Will Kinney in his article hosted by Nick Sayers: Article: Revelation 16:5 “and shalt be” by Will Kinney Revelation 16:5 “Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND…
-
Responding to Thomas Holland's "Manuscript Evidences" regarding Revelation 16:5
Dr. Thomas Holland wrote the following regarding Revelation 16:5 (source)(cited by Khoo and from there by Moorman): *** Start of Thomas Holland *** Revelation 16:5: And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. The question arises concerning…
-
Dr. Edward F. Hills on Beza's "Conjectural Emendation" at Revelation 16:5
In “The King James Version Defended,” (electronically available here) Dr. Edward F. Hills makes a number of references to conjectural emendation, and includes Beza’s revision of the text as one such emendation. From chapter 8, “The Textus Receptus and the King James Version,” Section 2, “How Erasmus and His Successors were Guided by the Common…