tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post3884111206786671417..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: WM 114: James White, the TR, and Revelation 16:5Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-5920731938492251822022-07-09T13:35:38.057-04:002022-07-09T13:35:38.057-04:00Brother Andrej,
Thanks so much for your very enco...Brother Andrej,<br /><br />Thanks so much for your very encouraging note. Soli Deo Gloria!<br /><br />Glad to hear that you have profited from the ministry. I had not heard of the Schlachter Bible but just read the wikipedia article on it. Very interesting. I wonder how it compares to Luther's Bible.<br /><br />Rich blessings through Christ to you and the brethren in Bremen.Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-238728921167633392022-07-03T10:03:26.197-04:002022-07-03T10:03:26.197-04:00Dear Mr. Riddle
esteemed and beloved brother in Ch...Dear Mr. Riddle<br />esteemed and beloved brother in Christ Jesus.<br /><br />I would like to thank you very much. Thank the Lord for using you as a wonderful tool.<br /><br />I came to faith in May 2012 and at that time I had bought the German Bible Schlachter 2000, which is based on the Textus Receptus.<br /><br />Just before Corona started, I had been looking into the question of the original Greek text. <br /><br />At that time I appreciated the Textus Receptus very much and also BELIEVED that GOD has preserved his word.<br /><br />However, I have moved then in the "wrong" direction and have searched more and more this modern text research, have read and have believed also then sometime.<br /><br />I believed that it is so right and true. But I realized that I was rather confused and branched out.<br /><br />During the two years, that is March 2020 to about June 2022, I found that I was very very unsettled and had NEVER read and lived the WORD OF GOD.<br /><br />I was so confused that I could not believe already any more, WHETHER at all GOD can preserve his word.<br /><br />I often prayed to God, what is right now. And somehow I never had the feeling and thinking that I now have an answer.<br /><br />But, the last prayer what I had, led me in "miraculous" way to you. I honestly don't know how that happens exactly.<br /><br />I have translated many of your articles into German and with each reading of these articles came more faith and LOVE for the Word of God. <br /><br />I am really infinitely grateful to the Lord for their SERVICE.<br />I am very happy when your book "Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers" finally comes out and I can read it!<br /><br />It is a lot of text, but I really want to thank you from the bottom of my heart!<br />May our Lord, Jesus Christ, bless you and your ministry abundantly!<br /><br />Best greetings and blessings from Bremen, Germany<br />AndrejAndrejnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-68660215150218775002022-05-03T15:38:10.438-04:002022-05-03T15:38:10.438-04:00Also, Dr. Riddle, are you aware if TR editions aft...Also, Dr. Riddle, are you aware if TR editions after Beza reverted to ho hosios? The 1624 Elzevir and 1550 Stephanus I have with Logos both have ho hosios, but I have read that the 1633 Elzevir, from which the Dutch came, had Beza's ho esomenos. Is there somewhere that has all the readings of the TR editions easily accessible so that they can be compared? If the TRs reverted to ho hosios again that would seem to be significant.<br /><br />Thank you.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-43033349814099309812022-04-09T17:11:49.296-04:002022-04-09T17:11:49.296-04:00Dear Dr. Riddle,
Thank you very much for your hel...Dear Dr. Riddle,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your helpful post here.<br /><br />In the Beza quotation here:<br /><br />"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "holy," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "and," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "righteous" and "holy one." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be."<br /><br />Is Beza stating that the MS of Revelation he was using was in general "genuine," but he restored by conjecture the reading esomenos which was not in there, or is he stating that he "restored" in his printed edition of the TR what was the "genuine writing" of an ancient Greek MS, namely, esomenos, so that esomenos actually was in a Greek MS in Beza's possession, according to his own testimony? Thank you.<br /><br />My Latin is slowly improving, but I don't trust it at this juncture to get an appropriate sense of Beza in context.<br /><br />Thanks again.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-84156233611058569302019-01-11T16:17:32.246-05:002019-01-11T16:17:32.246-05:00And my second here... https://youtu.be/jGVWkS3RNeM...And my second here... https://youtu.be/jGVWkS3RNeMTextus Receptushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12234478878705152524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-40769442793557151862019-01-10T19:08:17.437-05:002019-01-10T19:08:17.437-05:00The author of the KJV Today site usually desires t...The author of the KJV Today site usually desires to remain anonymous, but I can pass onto him your email.<br /><br />No offense taken. I do advocate for the TR and also for the accuracy of the KJV, which does get me pidgeon holed into some KJV camps, but having worked on a KJV update, the KJV 2016 Edition, it makes most KJV only's reject me... <br /><br />My first video in response to White appears here...<br /><br />https://youtu.be/rqNWlMGclK0<br /><br /><br />Textus Receptushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12234478878705152524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-49171207198906216562019-01-10T11:16:11.097-05:002019-01-10T11:16:11.097-05:00Nick,
Thanks for your kind note and for the "...Nick,<br /><br />Thanks for your kind note and for the "revelation" of your identity. Good to know. I did not know of your booklet on Rev 16:5 till this week. I plan to read it as time allows, and I'd like perhaps to do a follow up WM with a review of your work.<br /><br />I am sorry if my comments in the second observation of WM 114 were offensive to you. I did not mean to compare you to Gail Riplinger or to disparage your twitter exchange with JW. My point was more to criticize JW's method (i.e., in this case, rather than provide an academic presentation on the TR he reviewed his twitter exchange with you). I will try to make amends on this point when I read and offer a review of your article.<br /><br />BTW, I know the article on "Beza and Rev 16:5" from KJVtoday.com was also much circulated over the past week. Do you know who the author of this is?<br /><br />Thanks again for the contact and blessings, JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-16216002290082071232019-01-10T11:07:08.767-05:002019-01-10T11:07:08.767-05:00Bill,
Thanks for the input. Yes, I am interested ...Bill,<br /><br />Thanks for the input. Yes, I am interested in thinking through the issues related to this verse and in the evidence surrounding it. I'll consider these things. There are also many questions about method when a preserved reading is not one easily reconstructed by modern means.<br /><br />Still pondering, JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-36692180249006006512019-01-10T05:55:10.697-05:002019-01-10T05:55:10.697-05:00Hi Jeff.
Firstly, thanks for you sound logic on ...Hi Jeff. <br /><br />Firstly, thanks for you sound logic on many issues concerning the text of the bible. I have listened to most of your audios concerning bibliology on Sermon Audio and am glad for your insights. I am putting links to your audios on my website here... http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Jeff_Riddle<br /><br />I was the "Textus Receptus" guy whom White is rebuking. I wrote an 80+ booklet for White in 2016 while I was living in Pakistan called Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration. It is available here. http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation%2016.5%20and%20the%20Triadic%20Declaration.pdf I actually mention you in the acknowledgements. <br /><br />I am currently uploading 2 facebook live responses to youtube that you may also find interesting. I will link them to the external links section of my page here... http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Revelation_16:5 Also, Beza's information is translated on my site and in my article, to save you reinventing that wheel.<br /><br />I hope this info gives you some further insight into some of the issues White raised. <br /><br />Nick Sayers.Textus Receptushttp://www.tr.org.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-31686507422628770912019-01-09T22:49:08.151-05:002019-01-09T22:49:08.151-05:001. Jerome's (ca. 347-420) early Latin translat...1. Jerome's (ca. 347-420) early Latin translation has the "shall be" reading in it. FWIW.<br /><br />2. Tyconius (an African Donatist witter, ca. 370-390) in his 380 A.D. commentary on Revelation indicate the "shall be" reading. His commentary was translated by Beatus of Liebana in 789 A.D.).<br /><br />3. Brian Walton's 1654-1657 polyglot and Herman Hoskier indicate the early Ethiopic version mention the "shall be" or "will be" in the Latin.<br /><br />Does the Latin come to rescue here in a way that it does for 1 John 5:7? Bill Hardeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15552819877860565186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-59617151937885891292019-01-07T17:06:04.462-05:002019-01-07T17:06:04.462-05:00VLB,
Thanks for the encouragement. I'd like t...VLB,<br /><br />Thanks for the encouragement. I'd like to see a good translation of Beza's notes here to determine for sure if it was a conjecture. I agree that it is always best if there is at least some Greek ms. evidence to support a reading. On the other hand, I can see allowance in some situations for this not to be the case. As I note, it would likely be very odd that both Beza and the KJV translators would depart from Erasmus, Tyndale, Stephanus, Geneva, etc. unless they had some good reason.... Was this, as Hills sees it, merely the "humanism" of Beza peeking through? Any decision to depart from the KJV at Rev. 16:5 would certainly distinguish the TR position from KJV-Onlyism (for everyone that is except, JW). Smiles. Study continues....<br /><br />JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-16387866746289840372019-01-07T16:38:32.504-05:002019-01-07T16:38:32.504-05:00This post is the best treatment that I have alread...This post is the best treatment that I have already read so far about Rev. 16.5. many good information, but I have some concerns about the defense made by others confessional brothers over this verse. Despite the straw man arguments from JW concerning the TR,in my opinion, the reading found in the KJV is a Conjectural emendation made by Beza, something that I strong disagree with him. The correct reading is found in other TR editions, like Erasmus' or Stephanus'. The translations of Tyndale, Geneva and the Spanish Reina-Valera also have the correct reading. <br /><br />I think that If we defend Rev. 16.5 in the KJV undoubtedly as the true reading, we are risking to adopt a view that makes Beza's TR sacrosanct and puts the King James Version not only as the supreme Bible translation in English but of the whole world, which is not, in my opinion, a good way to defend the TR.<br /><br />Blessings, Jeff!Victor Leonardo Barbosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17375083645018833817noreply@blogger.com