Revelation 20-5

[SQ]

Rev.20-5
Is this an added scripture?
I just recently read this was not in the original transcripts. :dontknow:

[rosered]

  Hi SQ

  This is how it is worded in the English Standard  Version


  it does not say  and kings , I have heard that the King James Version  has added  kings ,
  I have never heard of the whole  verse 5  being added though
  there are many versions  to  look though  for more info ,,

hope this helps  a little  :icon_flower:
Rev 20

4Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.

  They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 
5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

[SQ]

Thanks rosered I am considering reading other versions than King James it can be confusing and difficult for me.
I can't be positive, but I believe I read that the Rev 20-5 verse was added on L Ray Smiths site.
He is pretty much up on things but have to say that took me by surprise.  :dontknow:
I will check again.

[WhiteWings]

  it does not say  and kings , I have heard that the King James Version  has added  kings ,

I don't see "and Kings" in KJV or any of the 5 literal versions I checked.
Of course the verse references to those that rule. So kings in a way. But even adding/removing things puts us on a downward slope...

I have never heard of the whole  verse 5  being added though
  there are many versions  to  look though  for more info ,,

(EngSinaiticus)  [no verse] Editor's note: Mr. Tischendorf prepared and published, in 1869, the common version of our English New Testament, with foot-notes showing all instances in which it varies from the three oldest Greek MSS, the Sinaitic, and Vatican, above mentioned, and the Alexandrine, a later and less accurate MS. According to his account, verse 5 is spurious.

[WhiteWings]

Needless to say that "first resurrection" implies there is at least also a second resurrection.

Protos is the Greek word first is translated from.
First only covers part of the load (correct expression)
IMO it misses a very important part.
According to the most literal translation I have
Protos = BEFORE-most

The way I read it the first batch isn't only the first batch but also just a fraction of the total.
Not that this find changes the whole meaning of the Bible but still of importance I think...

[rosered]

  Thanks a bunch  WW .. I should have looked it up first :mblush:
my memory  eeekkk..

Is that guy Mr. Tischendorf  so sure about his assessment , seems the Bible /Word has  had man messing  with it over a long period of time , maybe why that warning is in there , not to add or take away  from it  :sigh:

  I had found this in the KJV and got mixed up  on the priest and kings thingy ,,,, sorry SQ    , and thanks   Bro WW :msealed:

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. 

[WhiteWings]

Is that guy Mr. Tischendorf  so sure about his assessment , seems the Bible /Word has  had man messing  with it over a long period of time , maybe why that warning is in there , not to add or take away  from it  :sigh:

I guess if a verse is left out of the Bible and even clear reasoning is given they must be sure about their case.
I think spotting that a verse is not there is an easy job for a translator.
Í can't prove anything. Just mention it.

[rosered]

Is that guy Mr. Tischendorf  so sure about his assessment , seems the Bible /Word has  had man messing  with it over a long period of time , maybe why that warning is in there , not to add or take away  from it  :sigh:

I guess if a verse is left out of the Bible and even clear reasoning is given they must be sure about their case.
I think spotting that a verse is not there is an easy job for a translator.
Í can't prove anything. Just mention it.

Well I sure am glad you did Bro !
  I just dont know what to think at this point though  :mshock:

  I am hoping the Lords Spirit will intervene and teach/show us what is True 

lots of things are not settled  in my mind yet , and lots of things are , just keep on keepin on asking  the Good Lord for His help in these matters

  when it  comes  you can rest/settle  in that  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Answer: If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

From a site that bashes everything not being KJV

Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes


Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."


Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."


Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes


Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."


Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."


Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."


Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."


Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."


Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."


Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.


Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."


Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes


Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes


Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"


John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."


John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes


Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."


Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."


Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"


Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."


Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."


I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,

"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--

"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you. People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.

[SQ]

Thanks WW I had known the Jehovah's Witness Bible had many changes but honestly this is getting a bit difficult to know what is or isn't supposed to be in the Bible.
Maybe King James is best but the King James 1611version is probably hard to find. :dontknow:
Anyway thanks for the information. 

[WhiteWings]

KJV 1611
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm  -> online version
http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/index.html -> online version
http://www.davidcox.com.mx/esword2/esword%20module%20locator%20data%20bank.html -> e-Sword version

[WhiteWings]

I would read KJV-1611 with even more care than teh later version(s)

In 1613 over 300 variants were corrected from the original 1611 version. One printing of the KJV had one of the 10 commandments which read, "thou shalt commit adultery. This was soon labeled the "wicked Bible". In another printing, the error was made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, "the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God," and was soon called the Unrighteous Bible. In 1702 the England Puritan leader said that "scandalous errors" has affronted the Holy Bible itself.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

[SQ]

You are such a help WW please know you are appreciated.  :cloud9:

[SPOKENFOR]

What is the obsession with the KJV version? I know so many people who are like, "I only read KJV"..oh my....

[SQ]

What is the obsession with the KJV version? I know so many people who are like, "I only read KJV"..oh my....

It is actually a hard read for me, but the KJV I had always thought to be more accurate.
I think maybe I need to venture out.

[SPOKENFOR]

What is the obsession with the KJV version? I know so many people who are like, "I only read KJV"..oh my....

It is actually a hard read for me, but the KJV I had always thought to be more accurate.
I think maybe I need to venture out.

Ok, I guess that is the reason since it is the first English translation. I actually prefer the NKJV and a few others...

[WhiteWings]

According to the KJV fanclub the KJV the translators of the KJV where inspired by the HS.
That makes it simply the best English translation.
And, SF, NKJV and KJV2000 are concidered junk by them because it has, among other things, less hell verses.
Anyway during translation the HS must have had memory problems because of the many many errors that crept in the 1611 version.

I quite often use KJV because it's one of the few that has Strongs linked to to it. NAS is the only other English version I know about with Strong links.

[SPOKENFOR]

According to the KJV fanclub the KJV the translators of the KJV where inspired by the HS.
That makes it simply the best English translation.
And, SF, NKJV and KJV2000 are concidered junk by them because it has, among other things, less hell verses.
Anyway during translation the HS must have had memory problems because of the many many errors thet crept in the 1611 version.

I quite often use KJV because it's one of the few that has Strongs linked to to it. NAS is the only other English version I know about with Strong links.

LOL!......Serious memory problems...... :LH: You tickle me WW...

So, it is the hell verses they miss? That is so sad.....Come Lord Jesus!

I like NKJV I think the most and the Message Bible...( Which a lot of 'fundies' HATE I notice )..What is wrong with the Message Bible?

[WhiteWings]

So, it is the hell verses they miss? That is so sad.....Come Lord Jesus!

Basicly they just compare and all changes are wrong. Or perversions in the case of NIV.

I like NKJV I think the most and the Message Bible..

I like the Companion Bible.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=5927.0

[SPOKENFOR]

So, it is the hell verses they miss? That is so sad.....Come Lord Jesus!

Basicly they just compare and all changes are wrong. Or perversions in the case of NIV.

I like NKJV I think the most and the Message Bible..

I like the Companion Bible.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=5927.0

So, it is the hell verses they miss? That is so sad.....Come Lord Jesus!

Basicly they just compare and all changes are wrong. Or perversions in the case of NIV.

I like NKJV I think the most and the Message Bible..

I like the Companion Bible.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=5927.0

So, it is the hell verses they miss? That is so sad.....Come Lord Jesus!

Basicly they just compare and all changes are wrong. Or perversions in the case of NIV.

I like NKJV I think the most and the Message Bible..

I like the Companion Bible.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=5927.0

Yeah, I hear a lot of talk about the NIV as well...The Companion is good, thanks for that link... :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Forgot the link to the NIV bashing article:
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/new_international_perversion.htm
(myself usually check the more literal versions first)

[SPOKENFOR]

Forgot the link to the NIV bashing article:
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/new_international_perversion.htm
(myself usually check the more literal versions first)

lol.....

[Molly]

The King James Bible is the best and most accurate, based as it is on the most sources.  I read all the Bibles, but I always look to the KJ for the final word.   All other Bibles, including the NKJ are degraded.  I also consider it divinely inspired.

I'm just saying this based on experience, although there is scholarly back up to confirm it.  I think the KJ translators did not have a dog in this fight, as other translators did, and were charged with putting together the most accurate translation possible.  If they were trying to support the divine right of kings, for instance, they would never have translated this in this way--

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;


This makes us all kings, "royal," not just James, and not particularly good propaganda for the ruling monarch.

[martincisneros]

Yeah, the KJV is a fabulous translation sans the roughly 3,500 contradictions (I'm being conservative, others say 20,000) between it and the Greek and Hebrew.  And if you don't mind a translation that's theologically rather than linguistically translated, and that's as much a biproduct of the Latin Vulgate and other sources as the Greek and Hebrew.  So, in other words, partially a translation of really bad translations of the Bible when the subjugation of the congregations to religion was the goal.  And if you don't mind that although they'll claim that words added by the translators are italicized to indicate that they're not in the original languages, yet there's many, many key passages where they DON'T italicize words that they've added.  And if you don't mind a translation that's directly based on 17th century Church of England doctrine rather than doctrinal neutrality.  And if you don't mind the mistranslation that promotes, encourages, blesses, and empowers slavery, the oppression of women, and various other despicable issues that the original Hebrew and Greek totally contradict.  Basically, if you don't mind a translation that I've never experienced anything but Satanic oppression from and am thoroughly convinced is totally demon possessed from the number of exorcisms I've been a part of, and the difficulties I ran into in that department trying to quote/read KJV back in my early days of being involved in deliverance ministry, then by all means, buy a dozen copies and cherish the very source of many of the very cults, demons, laws, and other yokes that we have to sigh at living in a world with. :laughing7:

[Molly]

So what Bible do you like, Martin?

Also, how about an example of one of those 20,000 contradictions?