James White refuses to even look at refutation

So after being told by James White that I was basically wasting my time with an Urdu Bible version, and labeled as someone to stay away from for pointing out that the 1549 Ethiopic has Beza's reading,  I wrote an 80 page response here.

So I went up to see Mr White last night in Brisbane and asked him to take the printed form of the text,  and he refused it saying that they would not allow it on the flight! But only moments before he was holding up a football Jersey that he was taking with him. Hmm. He looked at me like he had trod in dog poo.  I am guessing he hopes this issue will be easy to ignore. 

James White and the Dividing Line

I am aware that James White from Alpha and Omega ministries has mentioned this blog and the contents of it on his Dividing Line program. (see the YouTube clip here at about the 24 minute mark.)

I expected White to be vitriolic and mocking. I have encountered White before in his forum a few years back when I politely asked him if I could present a view about Easter that he may not have seen before. He said it was fine for me to do so. After I posted some material concerning Easter (see my website here), he asked me some questions about my position, as did others in the chat group. As I was answering them, White became very annoyed and irrational and then called me a Ruckmanite (as I mention in my latest Easter Video here) and banned me from his forum. So to see White mock those who translate the Textus Receptus / Reformation Text and scorn at the evidence revealing that "shalt be" is indeed in bibles older than Beza's, was not a shock. In stark contrast concerning Easter, world leading expert on the English language David Crystal read the first article and said it was correct and gave some pointers on it. 

Anyway, I thought I would put all of my information about Revelation 16:5 into a large study/small book which should be finished within a month, and I guarantee that White and many others who reject the reading of "shalt be" will have their boat rocked, perhaps even tipped over.

I also challenge White to a debate on the issue, Either here in Pakistan or in Australia. I also challenge him to a debate concerning Easter and the claims that it is a mistranslation in the King James Version. White and his team claim it is mistranslated here.

Stay tuned for my study on Revelation 16:5...

Nick Sayers.

Donate

King James Version 2016 Edition New Testament

The King James Version 2016 Edition New Testament has been an ongoing project for about ten years now.

To examine verses with earlier KJV editions you can go to the 

textusreceptusbibles.com website. In the preface I wrote:

The King James Version 2016 Copyright 2016 by Textus Receptus PTY. LTD.

All Rights Reserved 

Textus Receptus PTY. LTD. is the owner of the copyright concerning The King James Version 2016 (KJV 2016). The KJV 2016 is copyrighted for the sole purpose of protecting the text from alteration. The KJV 2016 text may be freely referenced and/or quoted in spoken, written, visual, or electronic formats of any kind such as, but not limited to, cassettes, Compact Disks, television, church bulletins and liturgies, or any other form of media without requesting for permission. As copyright owner, Textus Receptus PTY. LTD. grants permission for the printing and publishing of this text in any format and in any country, on the condition that the text is not altered in any way and the name King James Version 2016 or its abbreviation (KJV 2016) is supplied by way of reference or footnote in accordance with internationally recognized referencing standards.

www.tr.org.au

The Translators of the King James Version 2016 believe that the King James Version of 1611-1900 is an accurate translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and is thus by default, the words of God in English. Unfortunately for the KJV, the English language is constantly developing and many word meanings today vastly differ from the English of the reformation era. Many people have preferred a more readable substitute, oftentimes at the expense of quality. This version should not be recognised as a translational attempt to improve on the work of the original 1611 translators, but rather classified as a reluctant update to make more understandable the archaic and obsolete words and grammar; so that today’s reader can understand and enjoy the word of God clearly and accurately in the English tongue, just as our forefathers once did. We believe the KJV is the most superior of all English versions based upon the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text, and vastly advanced in comparison to corrupted versions based upon Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland/UBS, or Majority type texts. We believe the New King James Version, Modern English Version, and other MT/TR bibles contain a mixture of good and bad readings. This version has been designed especially to address those concerns. Unlike most other modern versions, this text is based upon the same Hebrew Masoretic Text, and Greek Textus Receptus, of the King James Version of 1611. We have endeavored to keep the words as close to the 1611 as possible, but with corresponding modern words and grammar. Many hours have gone into this version in an attempt to achieve the greatest possible accuracy. If you feel in any way this version has compromised the original meaning of the text of the 1611-1900 KJV, please feel free to contact us, and we will seriously and prayerfully acknowledge any concerns. 

The primary translator of this work is Nick Sayers of Byron Bay Australia. 

Nick Sayers. 

Donate

Urdu Bible

We are working on the Urdu Textus Receptus Version, which is a version based upon the 1525 Hebrew Masoretic Text and Beza's 1598 Greek Textus Receptus with respect to the King James Version.

We appreciate any feedback - textusreceptusbibles@gmail.com 

• Gospel of Matthew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

• Gospel of Mark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• Gospel of Luke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

• Gospel of John 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

• Acts of the Apostles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

• Romans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• 1 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

• 2 Corinthians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• Galatians 1 2 3 4 5 6

• Ephesians 1 2 3 4 5 6

• Philippians 1 2 3 4

• Colossians 1 2 3 4

• 1 Thessalonians 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 Thessalonians 1 2 3

• 1 Timothy 1 2 3 4 5 6

• 2 Timothy 1 2 3 4

• Titus 1 2 3

• Philemon 1

• Hebrews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

• James 1 2 3 4 5

• 1 Peter 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 Peter 1 2 3

• 1 John 1 2 3 4 5

• 2 John 1

• 3 John 1

• Jude 1

• Revelation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

The Urdu Bible is copyright 2016, only to protect it from being stolen and resold for profit. All Rights reserved.
The above is a draft.

Donate here

Other scholars who reject ὅσιος

In 2002, on the Ankerberg show James White said:

“But to Dr. Strouse, what about places where those King James translators followed conjectural emendations? Theodore Beza, for example, in Revelation 16:5 looked at the Greek text and all the Greek texts say the same thing, but he didn’t like the way it went. And so he changed the word “holy” to the future form of the verb “to be,” sort of, to make it nice and poetic and rhythmic. And your King James this day reads that way, even though there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads. Why should I take Theodore Beza’s conjectural emendation where he decides a reading on the basis of what he likes and say that the mass of Christians believe this when nobody before Theodore Beza ever had the idea that Revelation 16:5 read that way? Why should I believe that?”

(The King James Controversy Revisited - 2002, on the Ankerberg show, with Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Dr. James White, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dr. Joseph Chambers.)

James White said that Theodore Beza had “changed the word...to make it nice and poetic and rhythmic” and “there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads”. Obviously this verse is one of the rare verses in Beza and the KJV where the majority reading in the manuscripts is at odds with what was printed (which is rare for KJV/TR readings, but not for CT readings). But is it true that nobody before Theodore Beza ever had the idea that Revelation 16:5 read that way?

Besides the Ethiopic mentioned in the previous blog, if we go back, it seems the seeds sown for Beza’s intervention against ὅσιος and for ἐσόμενος also included the scholarship of Erasmus. Erasmus said concerning Revelation 16:5 in his 1535 Annotations:

Qui es, & qui eras.) Quanquam interpres mutauit perfonam, tamen to tidem syllabis dictu est, quibus superius, qui est, qui erat, qui uenturus est, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Translated as:

Thou, who art, and who wast.) Although the interpreter changed form, however to flow with the list mentioned above, who is, who was, who is to come, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Erasmus’ 1535 Annotations

Although Erasmus used ἐρχόμενος and not ἐσόμενος, the meaning is very similar, and both usurp the awkward reading of ὅσιος. This is challenging and discursive to those who have claimed Beza grabbed his “conjectural emendation” out of thin air. 

Isaac Newton in 1693 saw that Erasmus had ἐρχόμενος in his notes on Revelation 16:5:

καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος Erasm. \Syr. Primas/ At in Notis Erasmus pro ὅσιος legit ἐρχόμενος 

καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος Bezæ codex antiquus.

The underlined translates as:

“At the Notes Erasmus for ὅσιος read ἐρχόμενος”

('Variantes Lectiones Apocalypticae' [version 1])

The very learned King James translators disagree with White on this issue. They left no note or italic as they did on other verses revealing their certainty of this reading. But many other notable scholars and translators of the reformation also nominated the reading. The fact remains that White is not simply attacking the scholarship of the 57 - 60 KJV translators, or Beza, but an entire generation of scholarship.

Theodore Beza was a world class expert in the Greek language. Having provided so much material on the bible, from translating the French bible, Geneva Bible, Geneva French, including many Greek editions, commentaries, dictionaries, and so much literature on the Greek and Hebrew biblical text for so many years, I would suggest that Beza’s familiarity with the text and with similar issues, demonstrated to him that this was an error and to reject his reading one should firstly show that they are on the same level of scholarship as Beza, or the KJV translators to provide an adequate refutation.

The 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling which is renown to be an equivalent of the King James Version in the Dutch language, has the same reading of Beza and the KJV in Revelation 16:5:

En ik hoorde den engel der wateren zeggen: Gij zijt rechtvaardig, Heere! Die is, en Die was, en Die zijn zal, dat Gij dit geoordeeld hebt;

Translated to read:

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord! Who is and who was and who will be, because thou hast judged;

Renown linguist Elias Hutter's also used ἐρχόμενος in Revelation 16:5. The Nuremberg Polyglot a New Testament Polyglot in twelve languages of 1599, which has a similar reading to Beza & Erasmus in the Greek, which differs from Beza in many other places:

Kαὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος, δίκαιος, κύριε, εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας· 

 καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Hutter's 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot. 

Hutter has ἐρχόμενος while Beza has ἐσόμενος. Hutter’s ἐρχόμενος translates as is to come (see Revelation 1:4) while ἐσόμενος means shalt be, or will be. 

(Novum Testamentum Domini: nostri: Iesu. Christi. Syriacè, Ebraicè, Graecè, Latinè, Germanicè, Bohemicè, Italicè, Hispanicè, Gallicè, Anglicè, Danicè, Polonicè. 2 vols. Edited by Elias Hutter and Jacob Coler.)

So we can see that Beza is certainly not alone in rejecting the awkward reading “and holy one”. It seems that the top echelon of biblical scholarship agree with Beza. Esrasmus, the translators of the 1549 Ethiopic bible, the King James Version translators, the Dutch Statenvertaling translators, Elias Hutter, the list is rather impressive. Even the Elzevir family in their 1633 Textus Receptus has ἐσόμενος.  So James White’s claim that “there’s not a question about it on anyone’s part as to what that passage actually reads” is historically wrong. There were, and are, many very credible people who question such places where grammatical errors and awkward readings exist in biblical mss. 

For more information see the Textus Receptus website on Revelation 16:5.


Donate here

The Modern English Version

The Modern English Version (MEV) is a great disappointment. They claim on their website that it has been translated by 47 men "produced in the King James tradition". I will show you how this is a fabrication. The 47 number is used because some old figures thrown about concerning the King James Version's history has 47 as the official number of translators; more recent figures are somewhere between 57 - 60. The '47 translators' sales pitch is merely to create a nostalgic association with the KJV so that people would assume that it went through the same cross checking filtration processes the 1611 did, which was at least 14 times according to Bancroft's translation rules. I doubt it even went through two cross checks in this verse below...

In Isaiah 58:8 they change the KJV's "rereward (pronounced rear-ward)," which is often modernized as "rear guard," into "reward," revealing that the MEV's 47 translators totally misunderstood the correct meaning of the archaic rereward, and also that they really didn't do real checks and balances like the men in 1611.

It is clearly an error and reveals their incompetence. It appears that they just saw the KJV's rereward and assumed it was reward not even checking the NKJV. It also reveals that they didn't go into the Hebrew at all.

Think about it. Did all 47 get it wrong here? Did they even read the final draft?

With all the glowing endorsements by religious leaders across the globe, this version demonstrates the lack of decent scholarship within popular Christianity. It is far worse than the NKJV in many places.

There are many hundreds of errors in the MEV of which I will continue to document here, but lets look at just one more verse:

Hebrews 3:16

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. KJV

for who were they who heard and rebelled? Was it not all of those who came out of Egypt, led by MEV Moses?

The MEV changes the wording of the KJV from a statement to a question. They changed the KJV and made an untruth, because we know from the Old Testament that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and came out with Moses. The KJV clearly says that "some" i.e. most of the older generation of Israel, "howbeit not all" meaning Joshua and Caleb, "did provoke." The MEV says that everyone who came out of Egypt rebelled. This is clearly mistranslated and ruins the basic Old Testament historical narrative. This error is also in the NKJV.

These two examples alone reveal the MEV is just another modern trash version designed to fill the shelves of bookshops and the pockets of publishers. But what do we expect? The ecumenical Committee on Bible Translation (Committee) is composed of 47 American and English scholars from the three major branches of Christendom: Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic. hmmm

Compare the King James Version 2016 Edition at Hebrews 3:16 below (also here)

For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.(KJV)
Because some, having heard, did provoke. However not all who came out of Egypt by Moses. (KJV 2016)

Donate here

Welcome to Textus Receptus

Welcome to Textus Receptus

Textus Receptus is a Christian apologetics organisation, based in Byron Bay, Australia. I am Nick Sayers, director of Textus Receptus PTY LTD, and run the website Textus Receptus. I am currently living in Pakistan working on an Urdu bible translation from the Textus Receptus. I am the primary translator of the King James Version 2016 Edition New Testament and am presently working on the Old Testament. In this blog I will examine various topics in the field of apologetics particularly biblical textual criticism, translations, manuscripts, preservation, inspiration, history, insights, and also errors in the critical text. 

Donate here