Someone is in Big Trouble

[Amanuensis]

I believe in the OP, I indicated one or the other is in Big Trouble. (Please reread the OP.).

There is plenty of information written about it. I would start by looking at some of the footnotes in commentaries to lead to reliable resources to read about it. A Google search will yield good resources but you have to be patient and sift through a lot of ignorance to find scholarly papers. Be more verbose in the search terms.

Almost all the English translations include it in vs 8 but not in vs 11. The brief time I have had to read about it tells me that the answer will be that it is not missing because it was never there, but it will take me more than a day to be able to absorb the information that is written about this.

I would say that no one is in trouble because neither one would be what the verse taking and adding was talking about. They are doing their best to translate. It is not a conspiracy.

 

[Mem]

Someone either added or left out (depending on which side of the debate you are on) the phrase " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and", whichever way you go someone is in BIG trouble if that promise holds true.

My understanding of the adding to or taking away from "the words 'of the prophecy' in this book" s as in conceptual terms. That is, adding, " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," is not really adding nor taking away any truth as much as adding, "I am just a man" and attributing that to something Jesus said would be doing both adding something He "is not" and taking away from something He "is."

 

[Adstar]

Looking at this passage in Rev 22...

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
(Rev 22:18-19)

So if you take the Textus Receptus (in this case we'll use the KJV, Rev 1:11 says...

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. (Rev 1:11)

and taking a translation based on the Alexandrian Text (in this case NASB)...

saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev 1:11)

Someone either added or left out (depending on which side of the debate you are on) the phrase " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and", whichever way you go someone is in BIG trouble if that promise holds true.

Yes indeed If they have taken away the Word of God then they will have their salvation taken away..

 

[peldom10]

I would read the explanations presented by manuscript experts on the verse in Rev 1 if I really wanted to find the best answers.

Even the manuscripts that the KJV scholars used did not say "candlesticks" in Revelation but they added it anyway. So according to your logic they took away the word that means oil fed lamps and lampstands that John wrote and added candlestick a completely different object and technology that was not used in 1st Century but was used in the medieval days of the KJV scholars.

So if you are intellectually honest, and I assume that you want to be, then you must admit that according to your logic the KJV have violated this verse and added a word that John never intended. Are they in "big trouble?"

KJV 1611 edition? ...new KJV....?

Check that...reference in scriptures refers to...leaders of church...as candlesticks...symbolism.

 

[peldom10]

My understanding of the adding to or taking away from "the words 'of the prophecy' in this book" s as in conceptual terms. That is, adding, " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," is not really adding nor taking away any truth as much as adding, "I am just a man" and attributing that to something Jesus said would be doing both adding something He "is not" and taking away from something He "is."

WRONG...God does not say dont change...except thisd...or that...does He? Where do you stop.
He said what He means...NO CHANGE.

 

[Amanuensis]

KJV 1611 edition? ...new KJV....?

Check that...reference in scriptures refers to...leaders of church...as candlesticks...symbolism.

No, John saw oil fed lamps on lampstands as symbolism of leaders. Not candlesticks. John said lychnias which means oil fed lampstands. They did not use candlesticks until a thousand years later.

If one cares about word for word accuracy they will care about this and will reject the word candlestick and replace it with lampstands (oil fed type of lamp) There is symbolism in the oil part that is lost in replacing the word with Candlestick.

 

[Mem]

WRONG...God does not say dont change...except thisd...or that...does He? Where do you stop.
He said what He means...NO CHANGE.

Do you always imagine yourself walking on water when you wade through the shallow end?

 

[crossnote]

Almost all the English translations include it in vs 8 but not in vs 11. The brief time I have had to read about it tells me that the answer will be that it is not missing because it was never there, but it will take me more than a day to be able to absorb the information that is written about this.

I would say that no one is in trouble because neither one would be what the verse taking and adding was talking about. They are doing their best to translate. It is not a conspiracy.

Never even hinted at a conspiracy, if it was never there, then someone added it in, and if it was there someone removed it. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

 

[crossnote]

My understanding of the adding to or taking away from "the words 'of the prophecy' in this book" s as in conceptual terms. That is, adding, " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," is not really adding nor taking away any truth as much as adding, "I am just a man" and attributing that to something Jesus said would be doing both adding something He "is not" and taking away from something He "is."

It doesn't say adding or taking away 'truth' but adding or taking away 'words'.

Revelation 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Why must we complicate that which is spoken quite clear as a warning?

 

[Mem]

It doesn't say adding or taking away 'truth' but adding or taking away 'words'.

Revelation 22:18 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Why must we complicate that which is spoken quite clear as a warning?

Translation from one language to another is complicated so there's always the risk of missing the truth. I understand the position but I don't think that God is as nick-picky as one might think He would be, or he would've commanded every man woman and child not owning a KJV be destroyed.

 

[peldom10]

Translation from one language to another is complicated so there's always the risk of missing the truth. I understand the position but I don't think that God is as nick-picky as one might think He would be, or he would've commanded every man woman and child not owning a KJV be destroyed.

WOW...If I bet ...I would bet you believe in .....universalism too...don't you.

 

[crossnote]

Translation from one language to another is complicated so there's always the risk of missing the truth. I understand the position but I don't think that God is as nick-picky as one might think He would be, or he would've commanded every man woman and child not owning a KJV be destroyed.

I did not start the OP to start a debate between the Received Text vs Critical Text. So that 'KJV dig' was uncalled for.

I do understand though that liberal theologians play loosey goosey with the text and conservative theologians are more careful to detail. I confess to siding with the latter in that regard.

 

[Mem]

I did not start the OP to start a debate between the Received Text vs Critical Text. So that 'KJV dig' was uncalled for.

I do understand though that liberal theologians play loosey goosey with the text and conservative theologians are more careful to detail. I confess to siding with the latter in that regard.

I consider myself a moderate cautioning against taking scripture both too simply and too complexly.

 

[Mem]

WOW...If I bet ...I would bet you believe in .....universalism too...don't you.

lol. You'd bet that you know it all.

 

[crossnote]

I consider myself a moderate cautioning against taking scripture both too simply and too complexly.

Here is Jesus' take on the matter...

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18)

 

[Inquisitor]

Looking at this passage in Rev 22...

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
(Rev 22:18-19)

So if you take the Textus Receptus (in this case we'll use the KJV, Rev 1:11 says...

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. (Rev 1:11)

and taking a translation based on the Alexandrian Text (in this case NASB)...

saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev 1:11)

Someone either added or left out (depending on which side of the debate you are on) the phrase " I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and", whichever way you go someone is in BIG trouble if that promise holds true.

I checked the Latin Vulgate which was translated a thousand years before the KJV. The Latin Vulgate omits that sentence, 'I am the Alpha..."

So a Bible translation from the fourth century does not contain those extra words, what more can I say?

 

[Bluesproverb]

I checked the Latin Vulgate which was translated a thousand years before the KJV. The Latin Vulgate omits that sentence, 'I am the Alpha..."

So a Bible translation from the fourth century does not contain those extra words, what more can I say?

With all the versions out there, which is the closest most authentic to what would be the first bible?

 

[Edify]

I will add another can of worms to the Op.
How many "add to" or "take away" from the text by not understanding because they don't properly study to show themselves approved?
Many times we do this when we think we know what it says & are actually teaching false doctrine.
Adding or taking away doesn't always mean in written form.

If we say it must be a writing of scripture only, where is the context that says so?

Remember, most Jews then made their children memorize the scripture by heart.
My point is where it really matters is how it's written in our hearts.

 

[peldom10]

With all the versions out there, which is the closest most authentic to what would be the first bible?

I have judged KJV 1611 the best overall.
Even it has ...pneuma...greek...miss interpreted it should be Holy Spirit....not Holy Ghost.

The NEW AGE RELIGION bibles have been written and published since the 1960's. They have many new false interpretations never recorded before that time frame.
The Bible....does not change.

 

[peldom10]

I will add another can of worms to the Op.
How many "add to" or "take away" from the text by not understanding because they don't properly study to show themselves approved?
Many times we do this when we think we know what it says & are actually teaching false doctrine.
Adding or taking away doesn't always mean in written form.

If we say it must be a writing of scripture only, where is the context that says so?

Remember, most Jews then made their children memorize the scripture by heart.
My point is where it really matters is how it's written in our hearts.

What is in the heart is from...what the heart is exposed to in written form.
Thta's the reason ...new age religion...works so hard to get the intent changed.