[Will Kinney]

Revelation 17:8 "and they shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS." King James Holy Bible.

All King James Bible critics have a strong tendency to exaggerate, twist and misrepresent the evidence, and to flat out LIE. They unconsciously reveal their underlying hatred towards God’s true Holy Book and final authority. Blinded by their own pride, they make themselves out to be the authoritative voice for what they independently think God may or may not have caused to be written in His inspired and infallible Scriptures.

Not one of them completely agrees with anybody else about what should or should not be in “the Bible” and not one of them actually believes that there EVER was nor IS NOW any such thing as a complete, inspired, inerrant, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible in any language, including their ever changing and undefined “the Hebrew and the Greek”.

Such a Bible critic is Detroit Baptist Seminary Professor names William W. Combs. He has written a booklet called “Errors in the King James Version?

The other day I received an email listing a particular example of what Doctor Combs affirms in no uncertain terms is an undeniable error in our beloved King James Bible. Here are some of the things Mr. Combs mentions in his harangue against the Book of books.

He says:

“In the NT the translators of the KJV used a Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus. Its origins go back to the various editions produced by the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus beginning in 1516. There is no one edition of the TR, but a number of editions with some differences among them. It is generally agreed that the edition used by the translators of the KJV was the fifth edition (1598) of Theodore Beza. All editions of the TR have some readings that are clearly erroneous, but have remained in the KJV. For example, in Revelation 17:8 the KJV reads:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and “yet is”.

Comment on what Mr. Combs has said so far. Notice how he tries to slam and vilify Erasmus as a “Catholic” scholar. Erasmus had strongly criticized many beliefs and practices of the Catholic church of his day and he died with his Protestant friends around him. One might just as accurately describe Martin Luther as “a Catholic monk” when in 1517 he nailed his now famous 99 Theses to that church door.

Mr. Combs berates Erasmus, and yet notes in passing that it was Theodore Beza’s Greek text produced some 82 years later that, in the main, the King James Bible translators used - not that of Erasmus. Helloooo? Is there a disconnect here?


Mr. Combs continues:

The final words in the verse, "and yet is," should actually read "and shall come"—"the beast that was, and is not, and shall come." NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT READS "and yet is"; ALL HAVE "and shall come." ... THIS IS AN UNDISPUTABLE ERROR IN THE KJV and the Greek text (TR) that underlies it.”

(Caps are mine)

Here is where the good Doctor Combs goes completely over the edge of reason and flat out LIES to us. It is NOT true that NO Greek manuscript reads as does the King James Bible, and that ALL have “and shall come”. Neither is it an “undisputable error in the KJV.”

Notice how all these Bible haters always pick on just ONE Bible? It’s always the King James Bible that allegedly has all these “errors” in it. Not Tyndale, nor the Geneva Bible, nor the Bishops’ nor the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV or Holman. No, it’s always the King James Bible. Satan’s vile hatred is directed through these modern day Bible agnostics against only One Book and that Book is the Authorized King James Holy Bible and none other. It is the only Bible believed and defended by hundreds of thousands of blood boutht Christians today as the inspired, inerrant and infallible words of the living God and the Standard by which all others are measured.


James White is another inconsistent Bible Agnostic who criticizes The “book of the LORD” (Isaiah 34:16 - and Yes, I am equating the book of the Lord to the King James Bible!). In his book, The King James Only Controversy, on page 64 he also critices the reading found in the King James Bible in Revelation 17:8, and yet this same James White in this same book recommends by name only three modern versions as being “reliable” - the NASB, NIV and the NKJV. Yet the NKJV reads exactly like the KJB he just criticized in Revelation 17:8! These Bible critics are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Let’s now look more closely at the history and the evidence for the reading found in Revelation 17:8. Mr. Combs tells us that NO Greek manuscript reads like the King James Bible. However the reading “and yet is” is found in several compiled Greek texts, including those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir.

It is also found in the famous Sinaiticus Greek manuscript itself. The Sinaitucus manuscript has actually had three different readings. The first Sinaiticus reading apparently was "and AGAIN shall be", but then another scribe changed this to the absurd "and again YOU ARE" and finally another scribe changed it again to finally read "and IS", which essentially agrees with the KJB reading of "and yet is".

There is a 1918 version called The New Testament Translation from the Sinaitic Manuscript, done by Henry Anderson. It clearly says: “when they see the beast that was, and is not, THOUGH HE IS YET PRESENT.” You can see this translation online here:http://www.lookhigher.net/englishbib...ion/17.html#v7

In his book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, brother Jack Moorman points out that not only does the Sinaiticus third reading give the same sense as that found in the TR, but so also do the Greek readings found in manuscripts 2049, 1854, 2014, 2034 plus 31 other Andreas type manuscripts.

Mr. Moorman points out: "Keep in mind that the context of the reading is the future tribulation, not John's day. It strains the sense to be looking at something that "will come". NASB - "Those who dwell on the earth will wonder...when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come." When the world looks at him, he IS, not "shall be".

Doctors Hodges and Farstad, who put together the so called “Majority” Text, also note on page 777 of their book that there are also several Greek manuscripts that read “and IS” - parestin, the present tense of the verb parestai, instead of the future tense of this verb “and shall be” which is followed by many of the every changing modern versions. This combined evidence shows that when the learned Dr. Combs stated in no uncertain terms that “NO Greek manuscript” reads as does the KJB, and that “ALL read ‘and shall be’” he was lying.


There is a great deal of confusion found in the existing texts of Revelation 17:8 regarding the various readings of “and yet is” or “and is” or “and shall be” or simply omitting the phrase altogether. The Latin Vulgate of 380 and 420 A.D. simply omit the phrase, and so do Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and the Catholic Douay-Rheims.

The 1841 English Hexapla shows the Greek text of Scholz, and the Six English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva Bible, the Douay-Rheims and the Authorized 1611. Scholz’s Greek text is basically the Westcott-Hort text which omits literally thousands of words from the Textus Receptus Greek text that underlies the King James Bible.

However he does footnote the various readings from the Received Text, and he shows clearly that the reading of the Received text in Revelation 17:8 is kaiper estin = “and yet is”, which is the one followed by the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the King James Bible and many other translations as we shall soon see.

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1309.htm Shows in a footnote that the Received Text reading or Revelation 17:8 is “and yet is” kaiper estin.

Earlier versions like Wycliffe 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539 and the Douay-Rheims of 1582 followed yet different texts and just omit the phrase in question. These four versions read: “when they behold the beast that was, and is not.” (nothing about “any yet is” nor the Critical texts “and shall be”.)


Sinaiticus original read “and again shall be”, but Sinaiticus correction says “and is”. Vaticanus omits all of Revelation, so it is of no help in determining the correct reading.

Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV have chosen to follow the codex Alexandrinus manuscript here, but often reject other readings of codex Alexandrinus in the same book of the Revelation. These modern version editors are not in the least bit concerned with what the so called “Majority” texts read because they simply reject outright hundreds of readings found in these majority texts. If they accuse the King James Bible believer of accepting the occassional “minority reading” as being legitimate then they are guilty of being blatant hypocrites. For every one minority reading found in the King James Bible there are at least 20 of them in versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, NET, etc.

The versions translated from the Syriac are also in disagreement, even with each other. Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Aramaic reads: "the beast that was, and is, and NOW WHOSE END HAS COME", while Murdoch's translation reads: "the beast that was, and IS NOT AND APPROACHETH."


The reading of "the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS" is found in the Bishops' Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bibles from 1557 to 1602, the King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Young's ‘literal’, the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, the 1993 Word of Jah version (translated by Jewish Christians), Green's Modern KJV 2000, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Martin Luther’s German bible of 1545, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and the 2005 Reina Valera Gomez translation - “se maravillarán cuando vean la bestia, que era y no es, AUNQUE ES”. Other foreign language bibles that also say “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” are the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991, the French Martin of 1744 and the French Ostervald of 1996. Again, it is the reading found in the printed Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir.

You can either choose to believe “the scholars” who constantly disagree with each other about what should be in “The Bible” or not, or you can choose to believe that the sovereign God of the universe has indeed been faithful to preserve His inspired words through history and that there really does exist a Bible on this earth that IS the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true words of the living God. All the evidence - internal, historical and spiritual - points to this one Book and one Standard of absolute final written authority as being the only true Holy Bible by which all others are to be measured - the King James Holy Bible.

“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” Isaiah 34:16

Will Kinney

[PaulB]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us – they are a source of inspiration.

You made a very good point by highlighting the fact that these people always aim their scorn at the KJB. It is as if the very thought that the English speaking world could possibly possess the very words of God is the most absurd claim that anyone could ever profess.

In the worldly sense it always seems to be the minority groups that are protected more than the norm. Yet when it comes down to the Bible version issue, it is always the one that stands alone by itself that has to be rejected as worthless, erroneous and without any place in today’s church.

I think that in my 20 years as a believer I have heard the KJB come under more attack, opposition and ridicule than I have over any other piece of religious literature including the New world translation, the book of Mormon or the Koran!

It’s like you said Will, it is a spiritual attack (the usual old lie “make one wise”) is the very path that many of these Bible critics have taken, and in doing so they now no longer know what God has said any longer. Everyone that seems to come out of the woods claiming “the reading ought to be….” Don’t seem to hold that conviction when they are asked to produce the Bible translation that Christendom has awaited since the apostles. They only seem to be sure of one thing and that is (i.e. the failings of the KJB). They could write volumes of books telling us how bad a translation it is and yet they never present us with the infallible translation that they all seem to get their confident assertions from.

Do you think that they are afraid of criticising satan’s versions in this way because they may knock the sales of them down and thus be forced to face lawsuits – or is it just a plain old hatred of the sacred text that drives them in this direction?

I know that satan hates the very sword that wounds him and it seems that he is using the church to get it as far away from his midst as possible. It has almost become a seminary curriculum to deface the sacred text of the KJB these days – are they presenting awards for the best possible attack or something?

The good old conviction of the preserved sacred text of Scripture has almost totally been replaced with the puffed up proclamation (on many a church’s statement of faith) that better scholarship has left them clueless!

It is almost as if their only conviction is that the KJB is not what it claims to be – and like you said Will, they never apply the same rule to the modern versions that contain the same wording!

God bless

PaulB

[Will Kinney]

Hi brother Paul. Excellent feed back. You ask a lot of rhetorical questions with the answers implied and I totally agree with what you are saying.

Today's Christians are having their "bibles" disappear right before their eyes. God said He would send a famine of hearing the words of God. What better way to do this than to pile differing versions upon versions where today hardly anybody knows what "the bible" says anymore and they believe less and less what they do say.

It's the old divide and conquer tactics of Satan's warfare, but it is all ultimately under the sovereign control of the God of the universe. Nothing takes Him by surprise. The growing unbelief and falling away from the faith doesn't shock nor worry Him in the least. He told us beforehand that it would happen.

We can just rejoice in His grace of giving us the faith to believe The Book and trust Him for what lies ahead.

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K

Originally Posted by PaulB

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us – they are a source of inspiration.

You made a very good point by highlighting the fact that these people always aim their scorn at the KJB. It is as if the very thought that the English speaking world could possibly possess the very words of God is the most absurd claim that anyone could ever profess.

In the worldly sense it always seems to be the minority groups that are protected more than the norm. Yet when it comes down to the Bible version issue, it is always the one that stands alone by itself that has to be rejected as worthless, erroneous and without any place in today’s church.

I think that in my 20 years as a believer I have heard the KJB come under more attack, opposition and ridicule than I have over any other piece of religious literature including the New world translation, the book of Mormon or the Koran!

It’s like you said Will, it is a spiritual attack (the usual old lie “make one wise”) is the very path that many of these Bible critics have taken, and in doing so they now no longer know what God has said any longer. Everyone that seems to come out of the woods claiming “the reading ought to be….” Don’t seem to hold that conviction when they are asked to produce the Bible translation that Christendom has awaited since the apostles. They only seem to be sure of one thing and that is (i.e. the failings of the KJB). They could write volumes of books telling us how bad a translation it is and yet they never present us with the infallible translation that they all seem to get their confident assertions from.

Do you think that they are afraid of criticising satan’s versions in this way because they may knock the sales of them down and thus be forced to face lawsuits – or is it just a plain old hatred of the sacred text that drives them in this direction?

I know that satan hates the very sword that wounds him and it seems that he is using the church to get it as far away from his midst as possible. It has almost become a seminary curriculum to deface the sacred text of the KJB these days – are they presenting awards for the best possible attack or something?

The good old conviction of the preserved sacred text of Scripture has almost totally been replaced with the puffed up proclamation (on many a church’s statement of faith) that better scholarship has left them clueless!

It is almost as if their only conviction is that the KJB is not what it claims to be – and like you said Will, they never apply the same rule to the modern versions that contain the same wording!

God bless

PaulB

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... Here is where the good Doctor Combs goes completely over the edge of reason and flat out LIES to us. It is NOT true that NO Greek manuscript reads as does the King James Bible, and that ALL have “and shall come”. Neither is it an “undisputable error in the KJV.” ...

This combined evidence shows that when the learned Dr. Combs stated in no uncertain terms that “NO Greek manuscript” reads as does the KJB, and that “ALL read ‘and shall be’” he was lying. ...

Are you are forcing literalness and not being the least bit charitable? Do you really KNOW that it was Dr. Combs' intention to decieve? Or could he have been simply mistaken, using hyperbole, or something else? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to be sure? Can you not just stick to the facts? It'll make your posts much shorter.

Betcha wouldn't like the same treatment. [One would have to be omniscient or VERY resourceful to make absolute statements like these: "All King James Bible critics ..."; and "Not one of them ..."; "Notice how all these ...". Wow, you personally know ALL the critics! Exactly how many are there?]

Here is what seems to be an example of you uncharitably projecting your own bias onto what was actually a quite neutral statement --

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... Notice how he tries to slam and vilify Erasmus as a “Catholic” scholar. Erasmus had strongly criticized many beliefs and practices of the Catholic church of his day and he died with his Protestant friends around him. One might just as accurately describe Martin Luther as “a Catholic monk” when in 1517 he nailed his now famous 99 Theses to that church door.

Mr. Combs berates Erasmus, and yet notes in passing that it was Theodore Beza’s Greek text produced some 82 years later that, in the main, the King James Bible translators used - not that of Erasmus. Helloooo? Is there a disconnect here? ...

All of that comes out of Mr. Combs' single benign factual statement about Erasmus: "Its origins go back to the various editions produced by the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus beginning in 1516." I don't believe you could get one person out of a 100 objective readers to claim that Mr. Combs slammed or berated Erasmus in the quote you provided.

No, there isn't a "disconnect" here. The paragraph cited was about how the KJV's New Testament translators used the Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus. It began by explaining the "origins" of the TR (with Erasmus) and concluded with Beza. You know it dimishes your credibility to imply a problem where one does not exist. Being deliberately misleading is dishonest.

Drop the hate. Please stop wasting our time.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... Let’s now look more closely at the history and the evidence for the reading found in Revelation 17:8. Mr. Combs tells us that NO Greek manuscript reads like the King James Bible. However the reading “and yet is” is found in several compiled Greek texts, including those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir. ...

Anybody else notice that Will never provides proof that Dr. Combs was wrong? Why mention that "and yet is" is found in some printed Greek texts when Dr. Combs clearly specifies "manuscript"?

Next, Will mentions Sinaiticus (an actual manuscript), but it merely "essentially" agrees with the KJB reading. Then, Will adds that other a few other manuscripts give the "same sense" as Sinaiticus. Finally, there is a parade of printed Bible editions but they aren't manuscripts either. I know Will wouldn't accept this as 'evidence' if it were being presented to him in support of an opposing opinion.

Bottom line: you got no proof?

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1309.htm Shows in a footnote that the Received Text reading or Revelation 17:8 is “and yet is” kaiper estin. ...

Hey, I looked at the link and the Greek I saw transliterates as kai paresai not kaiper estin.

[Will Kinney]

[QUOTE=Critical Thinking;23293]Are you are forcing literalness and not being the least bit charitable? Do you really KNOW that it was Dr. Combs' intention to decieve? Or could he have been simply mistaken, using hyperbole, or something else? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to be sure? Can you not just stick to the facts? It'll make your posts much shorter.


Hi CT. I notice you avoided my last question to you about the KJB versus the other versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Now, you wouldn't be trying fool us into thinking your are actually a Bible believer, would you?

As for your displeasure at calling Mr. Combs a liar, here are some facts about him from his own site. "Dr. William W. Combs has been teaching at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1983. He is currently Professor of New Testament and Chairman of the New Testament department. Dr. Combs also serves as the seminary's Academic Dean. Previously, he was the seminary's Registrar. He graduated from Tennessee Temple University with his B.A. degree and from Temple Baptist Theological Seminary with his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees. His Th.D. degree is from Grace Theological Seminary in the field of New Testament Text and Interpretation. Before coming to DBTS, Dr. Combs taught at Tennessee Temple University for four years. "

Now for a man like this who touts himself as an expert in the New Testament to come out and say that NO Greek texts read like the KJB and that ALL read "and shall be", then the guy is either a liar or he is an idiot and has no business at all teaching in a nursery sunday school class, much less at some seminary.

HE IS WRONG, and so are you, as I will gladly point out in your other post.

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Anybody else notice that Will never provides proof that Dr. Combs was wrong? Why mention that "and yet is" is found in some printed Greek texts when Dr. Combs clearly specifies "manuscript"?

Next, Will mentions Sinaiticus (an actual manuscript), but it merely "essentially" agrees with the KJB reading. Then, Will adds that other a few other manuscripts give the "same sense" as Sinaiticus. Finally, there is a parade of printed Bible editions but they aren't manuscripts either. I know Will wouldn't accept this as 'evidence' if it were being presented to him in support of an opposing opinion.

Bottom line: you got no proof?

CT. I see you are still avoiding the question I asked.

It also appears you have some reading comprehension problems. I listed some specific manuscripts that Jack Moorman names. Those are manuscripts. By the way, individual manuscripts are used to make up a Greek text. We have four printed Greek texts that read kaiper estin- Erasmus, Beza, Stephanos and Elziever. We also have the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek text.

Now if you really believe that the KJB IS the inspired and 100% true Bible like YOU SAID, then why are you trying to find fault with it. You wouldn't by any chance also be a liar, would you? Nah, perish the thought.

Will

[Will Kinney]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney View Post
http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1309.htm Shows in a footnote that the Received Text reading or Revelation 17:8 is “and yet is” kaiper estin. ...
Hey, I looked at the link and the Greek I saw transliterates as kai paresai not kaiper estin.
Reply With Quote

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Hey, I looked at the link and the Greek I saw transliterates as kai paresai not kaiper estin.

Hey Critical, you really are not following directions very well. Maybe you should take some remedial classes so you can catch up with the rest of the class. Try reading reeeaaaallll ssslllloooowww. I clearly said that the Greek text Scholz or whatever his name is used is the CRITICAL text (you know, the one you seem to be favoring over your inspired KJV). I clearly said that IN THE FOOTNOTE you will see that he says the Received Text reads kaiper estin = and yet is.

Take a look again.

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Hi CT. Here is your chance to show us just how honest and forthright you really are. Here are the questions I asked that you keep avoiding. Maybe the reason my referring to the good Dr. Combs as a liar resonated with you is because you and he might be kindred spirits.

Here is your initial statement, followed by my specific question. Care to give it a shot?



Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

But let this be sufficient for now: I think the KJV which exists right now is the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible!

Forgive me if I am assuming something that is not true, but as a result of discussions on many other forums and with lots of different Christians, I have often found that people cloak what they really believe by using ambiguous or unclear phrases. If you really think the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible, then are you equally prepared to state the only logical alternative in regard to versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc? Because these multi-choice versions differ from the 100% true KJB by literally thousand of words omitted (anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the N.T. alone) and often reject the Hebrew texts and have completely different meanings in hundreds of verses, are you then willing to take the stand that these other versions are NOT the complete, inspired and 100% Holy Bible?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like for you to give us a straight up and honest answer to it.

Thank you,

Will K