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 the Trinitarian phrase, "which art, and wast, and shalt be." Modern versions read, "which is, and was, the Holy One." Dr. Edward Hills has correctly cited passage as a conjectural emendation (Hills, 208). Bruce Metzger defines this term as,

The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention. (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 182.)

From this, we learn the following.

1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

Such is the case here. First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."

Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenoV" (who is, and was, and shall be). It should be pointed out that among the Greek manuscripts the reading is different. Most of them read, "o wn, kai o hn, o osioV" (who is, and was, the Holy one). The oldest Greek text of Revelation containing this passage, which is P47, has a textual variant. This Greek text reads, "o wn kai, o hn, kai osioV" (who is, and was, and Holy one). It is interesting to note that while the actual manuscript itself uses both kai and osioV, and that only the word osioV will fit, the text is rather worn here leaving the other words in the passage mostly unscathed.

Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:

"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." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (Theodore Beza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)

In addition to the Greek manuscript witnesses (which in this passage are few, as we have already noted), early translations should be considered. Again, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of "holy" and not "and shall be." Most translations, such as the Latin, omit the "and" using only "holy" (the Latin word is "sanctus"). Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus." They mean the same, but it does reveal yet another variance in the text. This, of course, brings us to yet another group of witnesses: Patristic citations.

Two things should be stated before continuing. One, as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.

It should be noted that none of the early English versions, nor the foreign translations, read as does the Authorized Version. However, they do not read as most modern versions do either. Instead they read somewhere in between using both the "and" with "holy." The New King James Version follows the reading of the Authorized Version.

New American Standard Version:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things.

The Great Bible:

And I herde an Angell saye: Lorde, whych arte and wast, thou arte ryghteous and holy, because thou hast geven soche judgementes.

Bishops' Bible:

And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lorde, which art, and was, thou art righteous and that holy one, because thou hast given such judgements:

Luther's German Bible:

Und ich horte den Angel der Wasser sagen: herr, du bist gerecht, der da ist und der da war, und heilig, dab du solches geurteilt hast

Italian Bible:

Ed io udii L'angelo delle acque, che diceva: Tu sei giusto, O Signore, che sei, e che eri, che sei il Santo, d'aver fatti questi giudicii.

New King James Version:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying: 'You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.

*** End of Thomas Holland  ***  

This article (the same substance) was posted as early as March 6, 2001 (by Jody Adair, apparently on behalf of Dr. Thomas Holland, ThD) at the now-defunct (or perhaps re-homed to a different URL?) pure words website.  I assume that Dr. Holland is actually the contributor's name (not that it matters), but it is interesting to note that it is also the name of one of the King James translators (link to wiki bio).

1. Trinitarian Phrase

Holland's assertion that the phrase in Revelation 16:5 is a "Trinitarian phrase" is a mistake.  There is no argument to support the assertion, and treating the phrase as "Trinitarian" seems problematic.  If all that was meant is that "the Being" and the "Having Been" and the "Coming" are names or titles of God, who is Triune.   

2. Conjectural Emendation

Holland adopts and approves of Edward Hills identification of the reading "and shalt be" as a conjectural emendation (as discussed here).  Indeed, Holland offers a translation (apparently his own - at least I could not track it down to any earlier source than his of 2001) that suggests that Beza saw a manuscript with part of the text worn away and filled in the gap himself.

3. The Metzger quotation

The full quotation from p. 182 of Metzger's second edition of The Text of the New Testament, has:

The classical method of textual criticism regularly involves, as was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the exercise of conjectural emendation. If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been.

A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. (FN1) Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.

FN1: For a discussion of the paradoxical possibility of a textual critic's 'improving' on the original, see G. Zuntz's article on I Cor. vi. 5 entitled 'The Critic Correcting the Author', Philologus, xcix (1955), pp. 295-303.

I provide the full statement just to avoid any concern about the ellipses presented in the article, not to suggest a misquotation.  However, let's consider each of the lessons drawn therefrom, namely:

1). Conjectural emendation is a classical method of textual criticism often used in every translation or Greek text when there is question about the authenticity of a particular passage of scripture.

Textual criticism is not a translational technique and it is not limited to Greek (or other foreign language) texts.  It is not limited to Scripture.  In fact, on p. 183, Metzger provides an example of conjectural emendation with respect to an odd line in Shakespeare's play, Henry V.  

Moreover, the issue is less one of authenticity (as such) and more about originality.  Moreover, it is not applied in "every" case that such a question arises.  However, it can arise in many cases.  It's particularly common when a text is represented only by a single copy.  In such a case there are seldom variants (although there could be, via corrections of the text itself).  However, there may be passages that appear to be wrong, and in need of correction.

2). There should be more than one variant in the passage in question.

Actually, no.  The number of variants is not the standard.  Note that Metzger first mentions the case of "the only reading" before mentioning "each of the several variants."

3). The variant in question contextually should fit and should be in agreement with the style of the writer.

It's unclear what Holland means here.  Rather than "variant in question," Holland probably meant "conjecture in question."  If so, he would be correct.  Metzger is saying that conjectural emendation is the art of removing anomalies.  To do so, the reading (or all the variant readings if there is more than one reading) must be evaluated as to whether they represent an anomaly.

Holland continues:

Such is the case here. First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."

As mentioned above, the phraseology is not "Trinitarian." To this we must add that the phraseology at 4:8 (surely 4:3 is a typo), is different from that at Revelation 1:4, and 1:8 in that the first two elements are in the opposite positions.  The phraseology at Revelation 11:17, like that of Revelation 16:5 omits "the coming one" in the majority of Greek manuscripts.  Thus, the phrasing of Revelation 16:5 is not as inconsistent as Holland suggests.  Moreover, Beza's proposed fix is to use yet a different phrasing, thereby maintaining inconsistency with the previous instances, even if the TR reading of Revelation 11:17 were accepted against the majority of manuscripts.

Referring to Jesus as Holy (e.g. "O Holy One" or "the Holy One") is more harmonious than it is being credited - it is name given to him multiple times in the Old and New Testaments and it is a description uniquely applied to him in Revelation 15.  

Admittedly, it is unexpected in Greek to use an adjective as a title.  This, no doubt, accounts for the variants that we see, such as variants treating it as a coordinate adjective with "righteous."  However, to suggest that it is repetitive is a mistake.  Consider:

Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

Is the word "holy" objectionably repetitive in that context? Certainly not.  So also, if it were the case that it were a coordinate adjective with "righteous" (as suggested by Beza), then it would simply be taken as a poetic reiteration for emphasis.

Similarly, we do not expect to hear Holland object to the King James Version's phrasing:

Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Any anomaly suggested on this basis must have very little weight.

Holland continues:

Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenoV" (who is, and was, and shall be). It should be pointed out that among the Greek manuscripts the reading is different. Most of them read, "o wn, kai o hn, o osioV" (who is, and was, the Holy one). The oldest Greek text of Revelation containing this passage, which is P47, has a textual variant. This Greek text reads, "o wn kai, o hn, kai osioV" (who is, and was, and Holy one). It is interesting to note that while the actual manuscript itself uses both kai and osioV, and that only the word osioV will fit, the text is rather worn here leaving the other words in the passage mostly unscathed.

I assume that the "V" oddity arose from the use of a special font for Greek that treated a capital V as a terminal sigma.  That was a more popular way of writing Greek before Unicode Greek was in widespread use on the Internet.

The correct term is "textual variants," although I have heard folks even on "my side" say "variances."  

The note about the variants involves some mistranslation of the Greek corresponding to the variants.  Beza's text is more literally "the being [one], and the [one who] has been, and the shall being [one]." The majority text is more literally "the being [one] and the [one who] has been, O Holy [One]."  The P47 variant is more literally "You are righteous (the being [one] and the [one who] has been) and holy" - I've included more context for clarity.  This is the coordinate adjectives variant that I mentioned above.  Several letters of the word "osios" are worn in P47, as shown below, but it certainly is the word written in P47.

(source)

Holland continues:

Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:

This sentence is based on the wildly wrong translation Holland offers of Beza's annotation.  Contrary to Holland's mistranslation, the correct translation (see here for more context) is this:

5 And who [you] will be, καὶ Ό ἐσόμενος. It is commonly read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος, the article indicating, against all manner of speaking, that the scripture has been corrupted. But whether the Vulgate reads the article or not, it translates ὅσιος no more correctly as "Sanctus" (Holy), wrongly omitting the particle καὶ, which is absolutely necessary to connect δίκαιος (righteous) & ὅσιος. But when John, in all the other places where he explains the name of Jehovah, as we said above, I.4, usually adds the third, namely καὶ Ό ἐρχόμενος, why would he have omitted that here? Therefore, I cannot doubt that the genuine scripture is what I have restored from an old bona fide manuscript (lit. old manuscript of good faith), namely Ό ἐσόμενος. The reason why Ό ἐρχόμενος is not written here, as in the four places above, namely I.4 & 8, likewise 4.8 & 11.17, is this: because there it deals with Christ as the judge who is to come; but in this vision, He is presented as already sitting on the tribunal, and exercising the decreed judgments, and indeed eternal ones.

You will notice that although Beza alleges corruption of the text, there is nothing about a line being worn away.  Beza says that the καὶ is necessary to join righteous and holy, and therefore the Vulgate is wrong.  Oddly enough, on this point the Vulgate happens to be right, as the majority of texts do not support Beza's coordinated adjective view.

Holland continues:

In addition to the Greek manuscript witnesses (which in this passage are few, as we have already noted), early translations should be considered. Again, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of "holy" and not "and shall be." Most translations, such as the Latin, omit the "and" using only "holy" (the Latin word is "sanctus"). Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, wrote a commentary on Revelation around 552 AD and used the Latin word "pius" instead of "sanctus." They mean the same, but it does reveal yet another variance in the text. This, of course, brings us to yet another group of witnesses: Patristic citations.

The Greek manuscript witnesses here are not especially few, as compared to the remainder of Revelation.  Thankfully, Holland acknowledges the undeniable fact that nearly all the ancient translations stand with majority of Greek manuscripts.  

While Primasius' use of "pius" rather than the usual Latin translation "sanctus" is interesting, it does not suggest a different Greek Vorlage, as both words are legitimate translations of "osios."  To say that this reveals "yet another variance" (sic for "variant") in the text is really only the case with respect to the Latin tradition.

Two things should be stated before continuing. One, as confirmed by Jerome, there were a number of various Latin editions of the New Testament which differed in both translation and content before and around 405 AD (when Jerome finished his Vulgate). Most of these we do not have. Two, as pointed out by Dr. John Wordsworth (who edited and footnoted a three volume critical edition of the New Testament in Latin) the like phrase in Revelation 1:4 "which is, and which was, and which is to come;" sometimes is rendered in Latin as "qui est et qui fuisti et futurus es" instead of the Vulgate "qui est et qui erat et qui uenturus est." (John Wordsworth, Nouum Testamentum Latine, vol.3, 422 and 424.)

Once again, Holland's concession regarding Wordsworth's statement is significant.  There are a variety of "legitimate" ways to translate Greek to Latin, and pre-Jerome Latin translations varied.  Neither Jerome's nor the other is woodenly literal.

Holland continues:

Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading by Beza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD. Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read as Beza's Greek text does.

Beatus of Liebana does present a different translation from Jerome at Revelation 16:5.  That said, Beatus' translation does not suggest a Greek Vorlage corresponding to Beza's Greek.  In particular, Beatus' translation has two Greek verbs with Holy.  The difference between Beatus and Jerome is the tense of the verbs.  This may be more easily accounted for by considering that the translator of Beatus' Latin may have been less literal and more paraphrastic in his translation.  The sense of "the being [one] and [who has] been" is, after all, an expression of God's eternal self-existence.  This same sense is conveyed by Beatus' Latin translation with different verb tenses.

Whether or not Beatus' and Tyconius' (as that does seem to be Beatus' source) Latin translation was paraphrastic, it only has two verbs and a word corresponding to osios, which emphatically is not Beza's proposal (three verbs and no osios).

Holland concludes (before quoting from various translations):

It should be noted that none of the early English versions, nor the foreign translations, read as does the Authorized Version. However, they do not read as most modern versions do either. Instead they read somewhere in between using both the "and" with "holy." The New King James Version follows the reading of the Authorized Version.

The significance of this is hard to evaluate.  The reason why other Reformation-era Bibles translated "and holy" is because Erasmus and Stephanus printed Revelation 16:5 with an extra καὶ, akin to P47.  While it is understandable that scribes would add such a καὶ to make "holy" coordinate with "righteous," the majority of manuscripts confirm the absence of such a καὶ.

Debate Proposal for Debate with Will Kinney

Here's an outline of debate proposal for a hoped-for debate with Will Kinney regarding whether (and on what basis) the King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition, 1900) and Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1881/94) can be improved.

I. Names

One of the more difficult questions in translation is how to translate names.  When it comes to the names of people, should the names be they transliterated as closely as possible?  Should the Bible reflect a post-Biblical human tradition in preference to a more accurate transliteration?  The name "James" itself is not a close transliteration of the New Testament name ("Ἰάκωβος" Yakobos) but Archbishop Bancroft demanded that the names be kept in their traditional form, and for the most part the King James translators complied.  Even then, though, they were sometimes oddly inconsistent, such as the case of Simeon/Simon, Balac/Balak and Timothy/Timotheus.  When it comes to the names of animals, the King James translators did their best, but sometimes they got things wildly wrong: unicorns and satyrs are two fairly clear examples.  The name of the Passover is an interesting third example of naming issue in the KJV.  

In some of these cases, the KJV is clearly wrong and needs improvement.  In other cases, maybe it is merely a matter of translation preference.  However, if it is merely a matter of preference, can we agree that preferences can change and it is ok to change the KJV according to our preferences? 

A. Names of People

1. Acts 15:14 & 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon or Simon?

At Acts 15:14, should the English text be "Simeon" (as the KJV has) or "Simon" (as the KJV translation rules dictate)?  If the former, then in 2 Peter 1:1, should the English text be "Simon" (as the KJV has) or "Simeon" (as the Greek has)?

In both cases, it seems apparent that we are talking about Simon Peter.  While it is true that the Greek sometimes uses one transliteration rather than the other (i.e. the Greek is itself a transliteration of a Hebrew name), why would we not follow the Greek everywhere or follow a single transliteration consistently? Partially following the Greek and partially not doing so seems like an odd and confusing combination.  On this point the KJV can use improvement. 

2. Revelation 2:14 "Balac" or "Balak"  (if the former why not "Balac" in Numbers 22:2?)

Consistency seems appropriate when we are talking about the same person.  The use of a different transliteration for the Hebrew than for the Greek when referring to the same person is (at best) an odd translation decision.  

3. Timotheus (19x) or Timothy (9x) but never Timotheos (more accurate than Timotheus)

Again, consistency seems like the best policy. The same Greek word is used, but in some places the more English "Timothy" is used, in other places the more Latin "Timotheus" is used, but never is the more Greek "Timotheos" used.  Why not pick one and stick with it? 

B. Names of Animals

1. Isaiah 34:7 "Unicorns" should be "Reems" or "Aurochs" or "Wild Oxen" (discussed more fully here)

I've already discussed this at great length, but there cannot be serious doubt that the King James translators meant the animal on King James' royal coat of arms, and that the animal they had in mind has never existed. Instead, the word "reem" refers to the Aurochs, a species of wild bull that was hunted to extinction in the middle east, and finally died out in the 1600s in Poland.

2. Isaiah 34:14 "Satyr" should be "wild goat" (discussed more fully here)

The King James translators wrongly followed Jewish superstition on this point, against the weight of the linguistic and historic evidence.

C. Name of Passover (debated at greater length here)

Acts 12:4 refers to Passover as "Easter" - it would be better especially in 1900 and beyond to call it "Passover," because no one refers to Passover as "Easter" any more, even though everyone did when Tyndale translated Acts. 

II. Differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus in Revelation 

While the KJV/TR/NA28 usually align with the majority reading of Greek texts, in some cases they depart from them.  The book of Revelation provides an unusually high number of examples of places where the KJV departs from the majority of Greek manuscripts.  How do we know when to follow the majority of Greek texts and when not to do so?  Treating the King James as the standard is inadequate at best and leads us into error in some cases.

A. Where the TR agrees with the NA28 against the Majority

Revelation 15:4 Agios (αγιος) or Osios (οσιος) 

The Majority of Greek Manuscripts have Agios rather than Osios at Revelation 15:4.  Both mean "Holy."  Which is correct? (or is it something else?) Should Agios at least be referenced in a marginal note?

B. Where the TR disagrees with the NA28 and the Majority  

Revelation 16:5 "Lord" should not be added (the vast majority of manuscripts do not have it) and "and shalt be" should not be substituted for "O Holy One" (none of the Greek manuscripts, fathers, or versions have this substitution)(see also this specific post regarding Will's position)

Some Arguments that Jesus is YHWH

The Scriptures abundantly teach that Jesus is YHWH.  Here are some of the relevant passages, thematically arranged.

1. YHWH the Creator

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

 Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

2. YHWH the Redeemer

Isaiah 41:14  Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

3. YWHW the Holy One

Isaiah 48:17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Luke 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

Luke 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Revelation 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

Revelation 16:5 (corrected to the Greek) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, which art and wast, O Holy One, because thou hast judged thus.

4. YWHW the Just

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

Revelation 15:3 (corrected to the Greek) And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of nations.

5. YHWH the Almighty

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

6. YHWH the First and Last

Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

7. YHWH the Self-Existent

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Revelation 11:17 (corrected to the Greek) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

8. YWHW the Saviour

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

"Firing Line" Style Debates as an Alternative to Cross-Examination Debates?

I think there is value in the structure of cross-examination heavy academic debates.  That format is roughly:

1v1

• 1AC - First Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Affirmative speaker by the Negative Speaker
• 1NC - First Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Negative speaker by the Affirmative Speaker
• 1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• 2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• (additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)
• NC - Negative Conclusion
• AC - Affirmative Conclusion

2v2 

• 1AC - First Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the First Affirmative speaker by the Second Negative Speaker
• 1NC - First Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the First Negative speaker by the First Affirmative Speaker
• 2AC - Second Affirmative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Second Affirmative speaker by the First Negative Speaker
• 2NC - Second Negative Constructive
• Cross-examination of the Second Negative speaker by the Second Affirmative Speaker
• 1NR - First Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 1AR - First Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• 2NR - Second Negative Rebuttal of the Affirmative
• 2AR - Second Affirmative Rebuttal of the Negative
• (additional rounds could be added depending on the complexity of the topic)
• NC - Negative Conclusion
• AC - Affirmative Conclusion

There are other ways that a similar structure has been adapted, such as:

1v1

• Affirmative Constructive
• Negative Constructive
• Affirmative Rebuttal
• Negative Rebuttal
• (additional rounds could be added or rebuttal rounds as such could be omitted depending on the complexity of the topic)
• Affirmative CX of the Negative
• Negative CX of the Affirmative
• Affirmative Conclusion
• Negative Conclusion

The value of these cross-examination style debates depends on the ability of the debaters to engage in a proper cross-examination.  A proper cross-examination has the following characteristics:

1. The person asking the questions (the questioner) is limited to asking questions, not making arguments.
2. The person answering the questions (the answerer) is limited to answering the question asked, without re-crossing the questioner.
3. The questioner controls the time, meaning that the answerer needs to stop talking when interrupted by the questioner.
4. The questions need to be addressed to the arguments/evidence presented in the debate by the answerer.

When all four of these are regularly violated by both sides, the debate can descend into chaos.  When they are violated by one side, and honored by the other side, the debate can be confusing to the audience.

One option is just to have an informal dialog.  A possible advantage of this approach is that there are no strict rules to be followed or disregarded.  The downside of this approach is that it can tend to be a bit chaotic and meandering.  A good informal dialog can depend on leadership by a host/moderator in keep the dialog moving along a path toward timely conclusion.  In cases like a “round table” discussion, an informal dialog may be a sort of necessary evil, as it would be complex to have a First constructive speech for each of four (or more) different positions, followed by three or more cross-examinations thereof, etc.  The downside of this approach is that it can be very challenging to moderate, and it can lend itself to being dominated by one person who is more talkative than the other.

Another option is to have a “Firing Line” style format, to provide a degree of structure and balance with fewer restrictions on the debaters.  There are various ways that this could be implemented.  One way would be to begin with opening statements by each side, followed by rebuttals, and then ramped down back-and-forth statements by either side on a given topic of the debate.  For example:

• First Side Opening statement (15 minutes)
• Second Side Opening statement (15 minutes)
• First Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)
• Second Side Major Rebuttal (15 minutes)
• Topic 1
• Round 1
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 2
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 3
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 4
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 5
• First Side 2 minutes
• Second Side 2 minutes
• Round 6
• First Side 1 minute
• Second Side 1 minute
• Round 7
• First Side 30 seconds
• Second Side 30 seconds
• (Either fixed to seven rounds max or continue 30 second back and forth until moderator or debaters go to next topic)
• Topic 2 (same format as Topic 1)
• etc. for additional topics
• First Side Summary of the Discussion (5 minutes or so)
• Second Side Summary of Discussion (5 minutes or so)

One downside of this format is that it requires the host to be a quite active in keeping track of and controlling the time.  An upside is that this format can allow for topics of maximum of about 30 minutes per topic to be covered in a relatively fair way.  It’s also more or less scalable for debates that have larger or smaller numbers of topics.

A potential advantage of this format is that some topics may go less than seven rounds, before both sides feel everything that needs to be said has been said.  Another potential advantage of this format is that it would allow for convenient indexing and “flowing” of the debate on particular topics of interest.

In this format, the first hour of the debate is a bit more static, and the second hour (or more) of the debate is more dynamic.  The topics could be agreed in advance by the debaters, or could be selected in alternation by the debaters (for example, first topic is Side 1’s pick, second topic is Side 2’s pick, etc.), or they could be picked by the moderator or selected by some kind of random draw from a list of possible topics etc.  

I haven’t done any debates in this specific format. 

Another variation of this is to simply go to alternating two minute speeches (without topical constraint) after the rebuttals.  The result might be something similar to day two of the Harold Camping vs. James White debate (link). This variation could be tweaked to be two minutes for side 1, followed by 4 minutes for side 2, and then alternating four minute sections, to allow two minutes to respond to the other side and two minutes to raise a new issue for one's own side, with a final section of the pattern being a two minute section for side 2.

Four minute chunks and an expectation of alternating points, could help to reduce somewhat the amount of direct action by the host/moderator. 

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 Faith," Sub-Section (i),"Calvin's Comments on the New Testament Text," (p. 204): 

The mention of Geneva leads us immediately to think of John Calvin (1509-64), the famous Reformer who had his headquarters in this city. In his commentaries (which covered every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John and Revelation) Calvin mentions Erasmus by name 78 times, far more often than any other contemporary scholar. Most of these references (72 to be exact) are criticisms of Erasmus' Latin version, and once (Phil. 2:6) Calvin complains about Erasmus' refusal to admit that the passage in question teaches the deity of Christ. But five references deal with variant readings which Erasmus suggested in his notes, and of these Calvin adopted three. On the basis of these statistics therefore it is perhaps not too much to say that Calvin disapproved of Erasmus as a translator and theologian but thought better of him as a New Testament textual critic.

...

To the three variant readings taken from Erasmus' notes Calvin added 18 others. The three most important of these Calvin took from the Latin Vulgate namely, light instead of Spirit (Eph.5:9), Christ instead of God (Eph. 5:21), without thy works instead of by thy works (James 2:18). Calvin also made two conjectural emendations. In James 4:2 he followed Erasmus (2nd edition) and Luther in changing kill to envy. Also he suggested that 1 John 2:14 was an interpolation because to him it seemed repetitious. (22)

Hills' endnote cites Calvin's commentaries, presumably the section on the Catholic epistles.  I quote this material as background to Hills' comments about Beza, not as an endorsement or recommendation of Dr. Hills' work.

I note that the KJV does not follow either of these conjectures by Calvin.

At subsection (j) "Theodore Beza's Ten Editions of the New Testament," of the same chapter and section, Hills writes (p. 208):

Like Calvin, Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated in the King James Version, namely, Romans 7:6 that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.

The subsequent sub-section (k) "The Elzevir Editions-The Triumph of the Common Faith" goes on (p. 208):

Admittedly there are a few places in which the Textus Receptus is supported by only a small number of manuscripts, for example, Eph. 1:18, where it reads, eyes of your understanding, instead of eyes of your heart; and Eph. 3:9, where it reads, fellowship of the mystery, instead of dispensation of the mystery. We solve this problem, however, according to the logic of faith. Because the Textus Receptus was God-guided as a whole, it was probably God-guided in these few passages also.

Ultimately, of course, this is Hills' solution for everything.  Because he accepts the KJV as a whole, he resolves every individual question in the KJV's favor.

Hills identifies the substitution of "shalt be" for "holy" as a conjectural emendation, which it may well have been (despite Beza's comments, which suggest reliance in some way on a manuscript).  However, Hills' defense of this is just that "the influence of the common faith" was responsible for keeping these cases "to a minimum." 

While we may agree that there are "few" (though more than Hills enumerates) places where the KJV is supported by only a few manuscripts and "a minimum" of places where the KJV follows a conjecture, their small number is not really a defense of the reading as such.

UPDATE:

June 8, 2025

Someone recently brought to my attention that Edward F. Hills, in Believing Bible Study, also discusses Revelation 16:5.  Page 83 lists the reading as one of three places where the King James Version is "certainly erroneous."  Hills correctly identifies the reading at Revelation 16:5 as a conjectural emendation by Beza.  A portion of page 83 is reproduced below.

At pp. 205-06, Hills makes a similar comment to what we read elsewhere.  Specifically he states:

Like Calvin, Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text. In the providence of God, however, only two of these were perpetuated into the King James Version, namely Romans 7:6, that being dead wherein instead of being dead to that wherein, and Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy. In the development of the Textus Receptus the influence of the common faith kept conjectural emendation down to a minimum.

 

Responding to Jeffrey Khoo regarding Revelation 16:5

Jeffrey Khoo has provided some arguments regarding Revelation 16:5 (Errors in the King James Version? A Response to William W. Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary in The Burning Bush, Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2009)(Cited by Moorman as "Dean Burgon Society eNews, 89- Sept. 2009," which based on the title and date I assume to be essentially the same point.)

*** Start of Khoo ***

Revelation 16:5

Combs says there is "an indisputable error" in Revelation 16:5 where the KJV reads, "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." He says the words "shalt be," should read "holy one." He says there is no evidence whatsoever for the reading "shalt be" which translates accurately the Greek esomenos. According to Combs the right word should be hosios ("holy one") and not esomenos.⁴⁹

It ought to be noted that Beza said he was certain about the reading esomenos in Revelation 16:5 in light of the internal evidences and the ancient manuscript he had in his possession. To be sure, Beza was not a Bible corrector but a Bible believer and defender of the Faith. As such, he would have known only too well the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 against adding to or subtracting from the Holy Scriptures. There must have been compelling reasons for him, with a high view of Scripture, to restore to the Holy Scriptures the true reading which his predecessors had apparently overlooked. He gave his reasons as follows,

"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."⁵⁰

Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.⁵¹ It is entirely possible that there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.

It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, citing Swete commented, "Taking hosios as parallel with dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or adjective."⁵² We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world.

Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained."⁵³ It is also admitted that the reading of ho hosios in Stephen’s edition of the TR differs from Beza’s ho esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,

The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.⁵⁴

The reading of Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Text underlying the KJV is thus not proven as "an indisputable error" as Combs would have us think. There are enough reasons for us to receive it as an authentic reading in the light of God’s special providence as seen in both the internal and external evidences.⁵⁵

...

⁴⁹ Combs, "Errors in the King James Version?," 156.

⁵⁰ As cited in Thomas Holland, "Manuscript Evidence," http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm, accessed on 9 March 2009, emphasis mine.

⁵¹ Ibid. See also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 211, for information on Beatus of Liebana.

⁵² Robert L Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 255-6.

⁵³ Hills, The King James Version Defended, 200.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 223.

⁵⁵ See also Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, 102.

*** End of Khoo *** 

A few thoughts:

1) Beza's certainty is not something that moves me, and I'm not sure why it would move anyone else.

2) The assertion, "the ancient manuscript he had in his possession," is unsubstantiated.  Most of Beza's references to manuscripts are references to collations by others (as discussed here, for example), not manuscripts in his possession.  Moreover, no such manuscript was seen before or since.  Perhaps such a manuscript did exist.  Maybe it was Stephanus' manuscript 16.  Even if it did, so what?  Why would we think a reading found in a single manuscript is correct?

3) The claim that "Beza was not a Bible corrector" is somewhat absurd.  All of Beza's editions prior to 1580 (and all of the other editions of the Greek New Testament, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic) had a different reading, which Beza changed in 1580. The only sense in which Beza was not a "Bible corrector" in this instance is that his correction was not correct.

4) The assertion that "There must have been compelling reasons" for Beza to alter the text is only true as it regards Beza.  Beza felt there were compelling reasons.  But are Beza's reasons compelling? Beza's explanation does not even address the best reading of the text here - the reading with the most Greek manuscripts in its favor.    

5) Thomas Holland's mistranslation of Beza's is not really Khoo's fault, but it is erroneous nonetheless.  Furthermore, how could anyone find Holland's version of Beza "compelling"?  It makes little sense as written.  For example, it does not address why not "and is to come" as in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8.  It also seems to be an argument not so much from a manuscript itself as from the damaged section of a manuscript.

6) Beatus may point us to a reading of Revelation 16 attested to by Tyconius.  Nevertheless, the best explanation for Beatus/Tyconius' Latin reading of "qui fuisti et futures es" is that it is a paraphrastic translation of "εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν" rather than being a witness to an otherwise unwitnessed Greek text with esomenos, because it uses two tenses of the verb "to be" rather than the three proposed by Beza.   Moreover, Beatus/Tyconius is a witness to "holy" being present in Revelation 16:5.  

7) Oddly, Khoo argues that "hosios" is a "harder" reading, a point which ought to be in its favor, but seems to be taken as the opposite by Khoo.  

8) Khoo's claim that "shall be" "functions well as an adjectival participle to describe dikaios—the Righteous One who shall soon come to judge a most wicked world" is opposite of the actual opinion of Beza himself, who argued that coming in judgment has already begun. Furthermore, "shall be" is (per Beza) merely a part of the  explanation of the meaning of YHWH.

9) It is true that Hills, who took this to a be a conjecture, asserted that it "seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of God’s special providence and therefore are to be retained." But there does not seem to be any basis for this "special providence" claim. The reading is not attested by signs and wonders or anything else miraculous that could be deemed a "special providence."

10) Likewise, even if Hills thinks we should go with the KJV, Hills' authority is very slight. The force of his argument depends on thinking that God has placed his stamp of approval on the King James Version, a fact that does not seem to be so.

2 Peter - An Overview

In this overview, I've mostly just quoted the text, and formed it into paragraphs and sections, with some major headings.

Author:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, 

Recipients:

to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Blessing:

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Reason for the Epistle:

Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Warning of the False Prophets:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time.

Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Reiteration of the Epistle's Purpose:

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 

Warning of Scoffers and Coming Judgment:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Doxology

To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Thoughts on 1 John 2:19 and Perseverance of the Saints

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Dan commented (link): "The Greek for the end of 1 John 2:19, which is often cited for perseverance, is less clear than I though.  The difference between  the KJV (that they were not all of us) and ESV (they all are not of us). The KJV leaves open that some, but not all were of us, but the ESV doesn't."

Setting (for the moment) to the side the wording of the KJV, the underlying Greek of 1 John 2:19 is this:

(TR per BLB) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν· εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν· ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν

(NA28) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν – ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν.

The only difference between the TR and the NA28 is a word order issue (I've added underline to show it)  that I don't think meaningfully affects translation in this discussion, and punctuation, which no one claims is original and has a similar effect in any case.

The flow of the verse is this:

(a) ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον they went out from us

(b) ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν but they were not of us

(c) εἰ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν (or εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν) for if they had been of us

(d) μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν then they would have continued with us

(e) ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν but that it might be manifested 

(f) ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν that they were not all of us

Notice that John's argument refers to a group of folks who went out from us, but were not of us (a-b).  John argues that if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (c-d).  Finally, John explains that the reason they left was to manifest their disunion with us (e-f).  In context, the group of folks are the "ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ" (1 John 2:18), the "many antichrists."

With that background, the real difference in translation between the KJV "they were not all of us" and the ESV "they all are not of us" is not about whether some of the many antichrists were of us or all of the many antichrists were of us, but rather whether the "they" in (f) should be understood as changing referent to the people prior to the manifestation of the many antichrists or keeping the same referent as the antichrists themselves.

In other words, the KJV is conveying a similar sense to "they are not all Israel" (i.e. some of what appeared to be Israel wasn't really Israel), whereas the ESV is treating "all" as emphatic of the preceding.

The KJV does not say (nor - imho - does it mean) that "not all of them were of us," i.e. that the "many antichrists" were a mixed crowd, with some being of us and others not being of us.  Instead, the KJV says (and imho means) that "they were not all of us," meaning that the "us" was a mixed group of folks who appeared to be of us and folks who actually were of us.

Not only is this a similar construction to Romans 9:6 but also to John 13:10-11 "but not all" and "ye are not all...." 

In short, I don't think that the KJV translation (even if superior to the ESV) should create any confusion or lack of clarity regarding the message of 1 John 2:19, namely that if the "many antichrists" had been of us then they would not have left us.

Limited Atonement - Notes for a Debate on the Subject

Why Limited Atonement?

It’s explicitly taught in Scripture that Christ died for his people:

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1 Thessalonians 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Purpose:

Save his people:

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

John 3:16-17 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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

What “For” Means 

1. “On Behalf of”

Example:

Genesis 20:7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

 

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

2. “Because of”

Exodus 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Ezekiel 18:26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

3. “Instead of”

Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

John 11:49-52 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Metaphors of Scripture

Sacrificial Metaphor

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Redemption Metaphor

Revelation 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Debt Cancellation Metaphor & Rescue Metaphor

Colossians 2:14-15 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Suretyship Metaphor

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Ransom Metaphor

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Commercial Metaphor

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.