A Grievous Wolf - Time for Truth

7
without a little warmth,) that we altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness, -
which is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify two of the most corrupt
codices in existence.”
Dean Burgon truthfully studied the manuscript evidence. Grievous Wolf has not.
16. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence [sic]
from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Catholic Latin Vulgate of
Jerome was translated into English - a translation of a translation?
Noting Wolf’s comments on translation, he is trying to imply that a translation i.e. the 1611 Holy Bible,
cannot be “all scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” simply because it is a translation.
Wolf is lying again. See samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=29.htm for Dr Gipp’s analysis of God’s inspiration
of several translations.
With respect to the last 6 verses of Revelation, Wolf is lying yet again. The last 6 verses of Revelation
were not taken from the Catholic Latin Vulgate, although the Vulgate contains them. The facts with respect
to these verses and their manuscripts sources are given on the Time for Truth site via the link for
KJO Review Full pp 113ff.
See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php.
The following extracts are taken from that work with respect to Revelation 22:16-21.
Dr Ruckman is quoted as follows [from this writer’s earlier work “O Biblios” – The Book pp 138-139, p
98 of the uploaded file Volume 2, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/].
“The Greek text in this passage contains 135 words, of which Nestle (and Aland and Metzger) omits 17
words, adds 5 and alters 13, making a total of 35 words affected. Of these 35 words, 26 make no perceptible
difference in an English translation, and most of the remaining 9 are of very small significance.…“them”
(vs. 18), “paper” (vs. 19), “tree” (vs. 19), “and” (vs. 19), “even so” (vs. 20), “our”
(vs. 20), “Christ” (vs. 21), “you” (vs. 21), and “amen” (vs. 9). (Trinitarian Bible Society, Oct.-Dec.,
1964, Vol. 449, p. 14, 15)...On each one of those words Erasmus NOW has been supported by recent editors
and translators.
“The Trinitarian Bible Society wisely noticed that…“the correctness of a very large proportion of the
text of Erasmus is CONFIRMED and in the case of the few exceptions it cannot be shown with CER-
TAINTY that the modern CRITICS are RIGHT and Erasmus was WRONG”” (Dr Ruckman’s emphasis).
The above extracts show the essential fact that the 1611 Holy Bible is correct with respect to Revelation
22:16-21, regardless of Grievous Wolf’s insinuations to the contrary.
The following material from the KJO Review Full link outlines the manuscript evidence with respect to
Revelation 22:16-21.
Rev Moorman* gives the details of the support for and against the AV1611 readings for Revelation
22:16-21. It should be noted again that the faithful forerunners of the AV1611, the Tyndale, Great, Geneva
and Bishops’ Bibles, essentially follow the AV1611 readings as do the editions of Stephanus, Beza
and Eleziever, indicating that the King James translators did give due consideration to “the great vernacular
Bibles,” see Dr Mrs Riplinger’s remarks above [from In Awe of Thy Word pp 952ff], according
to the statement in the Preface to the AV1611 that Rev Moorman has noted, “With the former translations
diligently compared and revised”...
*See When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text – A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the
Authorised Version B.F.T. #1617 by Jack. A. Moorman, The Bible for Today, 1988.
And Dr Mrs Riplinger adds that “Erasmus wrote in his Preface that he consulted, not the Latin Vulgate,
but [the] ancient Italic Bibles…dating back to the time of the apostles, [matching] Erasmus’ Greek New
Testament and the King James Bible”...
[Dr Mrs Riplinger] continues.