Revelation 13:1 Versions

[Cheeky200386]

My mom and stepdad came across this translation difference while listening to Andy Woods’ study on Revelation.


The NASB version says the Dragon was standing on the sand/shore as the beast comes out of the sea but the NKJV and KJV indicate John is standing on the shore/sand observing the beast coming out of the sea.

That’s super different and just one example of translation differences that make it sound different. Was it John or Satan standing there?

My mom and stepdad plan to ask Andy Woods for help understanding that difference at the prophecy conference Q&A they’ll have.

 

[dwb]

I get confused by different translations also. Some omit verses, or change statements into questions. I know in spreading the gospel these small differences don't matter, but when you confidently state you believe every word is the inspired word of God, and then find differences such as this it causes confusion. I would feel much more comfortable if they all matched.

I don't think we are supposed to claim one version is better than another so I won't do that, but my advice is find one you like and read it, and don't worry about the others.

 

[Cheeky200386]

I get confused by different translations also. Some omit verses, or change statements into questions. I know in spreading the gospel these small differences don't matter, but when you confidently state you believe every word is the inspired word of God, and then find differences such as this it causes confusion. I would feel much more comfortable if they all matched.

I don't think we are supposed to claim one version is better than another so I won't do that, but my advice is find one you like and read it, and don't worry about the others.

I stick with the KJV but I would like to know why there is this difference. Which one is it? Did John stand there or the Dragon? I wasn’t able to answer my mother.

I’m not debating, just genuinely curious on what actually happened in Revelation 13:1 or do we just consider both happened, both John and the Dragon stood on the shore observing? Know what I mean?

 

[Hol]

I found this:

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 1. - And I stood upon the sand of the sea. The Revised Version, agreeing with א, A, C, Vulgate, Syriac, AEthiopic, Armenian, Victorinus, reads ἐστάθη, "he stood." The Authorized Version follows the reading ἐστάθην, "I stood," which is found in B, P, Coptic, Andreas, Arethas. Fortunately, the point is not important. Whether St. John or the dragon stood on the edge of the sea is not material, since we are distinctly told that the ten-horned beast rose from the sea.

Wordsworth aptly contrasts this station on the unstable sand in proximity to the sea, the clement of commotion, with the vision of the Lamb on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1-5). The imagery which follows is founded upon the vision of Daniel 7. The phrase should probably be joined on to the preceding passage, as in the Revised Version. The new vision then opens in the customary manner with εῖδον, "I saw," as in Revelation 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And saw a beast rise up out of the sea. Supply "I," and make this the beginning of the fresh paragraph (see above).

(Bonus info!) The one beast here takes the place of the four beasts of Daniel 7, and is distinguished by the characteristics of the first three (see on ver. 2). This beast arises from the sea, the second beast from the earth (see ver. 11). They are the instruments of the woe which is denounced against the earth and the sea in Revelation 12:12. The sea, again, is the type of instability, confusion, and commotion, frequently signifying the ungovernable nations of the earth in opposition to the Church of God (cf. Revelation 17:15; Revelation 21:1). Probably this is the beast referred to in Revelation 11:7, and (more fully) in Revelation 17. It is the power of the world which is directed towards the persecution of Christians.

@Cheeky200386, I hope this helps.

 

[Cheeky200386]

I found this:

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 1. - And I stood upon the sand of the sea. The Revised Version, agreeing with א, A, C, Vulgate, Syriac, AEthiopic, Armenian, Victorinus, reads ἐστάθη, "he stood." The Authorized Version follows the reading ἐστάθην, "I stood," which is found in B, P, Coptic, Andreas, Arethas. Fortunately, the point is not important. Whether St. John or the dragon stood on the edge of the sea is not material, since we are distinctly told that the ten-horned beast rose from the sea.

Wordsworth aptly contrasts this station on the unstable sand in proximity to the sea, the clement of commotion, with the vision of the Lamb on Mount Zion (Revelation 14:1-5). The imagery which follows is founded upon the vision of Daniel 7. The phrase should probably be joined on to the preceding passage, as in the Revised Version. The new vision then opens in the customary manner with εῖδον, "I saw," as in Revelation 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And saw a beast rise up out of the sea. Supply "I," and make this the beginning of the fresh paragraph (see above).

(Bonus info!) The one beast here takes the place of the four beasts of Daniel 7, and is distinguished by the characteristics of the first three (see on ver. 2). This beast arises from the sea, the second beast from the earth (see ver. 11). They are the instruments of the woe which is denounced against the earth and the sea in Revelation 12:12. The sea, again, is the type of instability, confusion, and commotion, frequently signifying the ungovernable nations of the earth in opposition to the Church of God (cf. Revelation 17:15; Revelation 21:1). Probably this is the beast referred to in Revelation 11:7, and (more fully) in Revelation 17. It is the power of the world which is directed towards the persecution of Christians.

@Cheeky200386, I hope this helps.

I guess that’s the best answer I can find. It doesn’t matter. Thank you. Frustrating but oh well.

 

[Hol]

Here’s another cut n’paste. It’s the meaning of the Greek “I saw”:

Strong's Greek: 3708. ὁράω (horaó) — 684 Occurrences
Matthew 1:20 V-AMA-2S
GRK: αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου
INT: of him having pondered behold an angel of [the] Lord

Matthew 1:23 V-AMA-2S
GRK: Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος
INT: Behold the virgin

Matthew 2:1 V-AMA-2S
GRK: τοῦ βασιλέως ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ
INT: the king behold magi from [the]

Matthew 2:2 V-AIA-1P
GRK: τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ
INT: of the Jews we saw indeed of him

Matthew 2:9 V-AMA-2S
GRK: ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστὴρ
INT: went away and behold the star

Matthew 2:9 V-AIA-3P
GRK: ἀστὴρ ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ
INT: star which they saw in the sky

@Cheeky200386, you’ve probably seen examples of Strong’s concordance offering Greek words for English phrases. Some individual words simply are not in the Greek manuscripts.

 

[mattfivefour]

@Cheeky200386, The issue comes about because there is a difference between the two major Bible manuscript streams. One stream has the words "and he stood on the shore" as the end of Revelation 12:17. The other stream has the words "and I stood on the shore" as the beginning of Revelation 13:1.

Plus the former has the Greek word ἐστάθη and the latter has the Greek word ἐστάθην. You will notice there is only one letter difference between the two. But the first is the third person singular (he/it stood) and the second is the first person singular (I stood).

As a Greek scholar has said:

"The choice of which is proper here really stands or falls on your position on the three chief critical texts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & Vaticanus), you either accept their pedigree or do not. The passage makes sense (though with slightly different implications) either way and no great doctrine hangs upon either reading. The context and the flow of the passage admit either without great preference. Therefore it is really a question of whether to accept the critical text sources or the majority text sources."​

So, we either have:

"And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus. And he stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw rising out of the sea a beast, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on its horns, ten diadems, and upon its heads, names of blasphemy."​

Or we have:

"And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus. And I stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw rising out of the sea a beast, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on its horns, ten diadems, and upon its heads, names of blasphemy."​

Take your pick. I side with the scholar above who says "no great doctrine hangs upon either reading" because he is correct. You won't go wrong with either.

So why did God permit these variants in the transmission of His Word down through the ages? I think He permitted them in order to prove the authenticity of His Word.

First of all these variants (which seem to have been introduced through small copyist errors) do not affect any important doctrine. (I would suggest they do not affect any doctrine at all; at least i have never found one.) But their existence among the thousands of diverse manuscripts proves that no single entity could have altered the overall text, proving that the overall Word of God that we have is indeed the authentic Word of God. Do you see? The existence of small variants among literally thousands of ancient manuscripts proves the Bible's authenticity because if some entity had conspired to alter the Bible, there would be no variants: every manuscript would be identical. As someone has said, God preserved His message to us through the sheer volume of its transmission while at the same time proving that its message has not been altered. Glory to His name!

I hope this helps.

 

[Cheeky200386]

@Cheeky200386, The issue comes about because there is a difference between the two major Bible manuscript streams. One stream has the words "and he stood on the shore" as the end of Revelation 12:17. The other stream has the words "and I stood on the shore" as the beginning of Revelation 13:1.

Plus the former has the Greek word ἐστάθη and the latter has the Greek word ἐστάθην. You will notice there is only one letter difference between the two. But the first is the third person singular (he/it stood) and the second is the first person singular (I stood).

As a Greek scholar has said:

"The choice of which is proper here really stands or falls on your position on the three chief critical texts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & Vaticanus), you either accept their pedigree or do not. The passage makes sense (though with slightly different implications) either way and no great doctrine hangs upon either reading. The context and the flow of the passage admit either without great preference. Therefore it is really a question of whether to accept the critical text sources or the majority text sources."​

So, we either have:

"And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus. And he stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw rising out of the sea a beast, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on its horns, ten diadems, and upon its heads, names of blasphemy."​

Or we have:

"And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus. And I stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw rising out of the sea a beast, having ten horns, and seven heads, and on its horns, ten diadems, and upon its heads, names of blasphemy."​

Take your pick. I side with the scholar above who says "no great doctrine hangs upon either reading" because he is correct. You won't go wrong with either.

So why did God permit these variants in the transmission of His Word down through the ages? I think He permitted them in order to prove the authenticity of His Word.

First of all these variants (which seem to have been introduced through small copyist errors) do not affect any important doctrine. (I would suggest they do not affect any doctrine at all; at least i have never found one.) But their existence among the thousands of diverse manuscripts proves that no single entity could have altered the overall text, proving that the overall Word of God that we have is indeed the authentic Word of God. Do you see? The existence of small variants among literally thousands of ancient manuscripts proves the Bible's authenticity because if some entity had conspired to alter the Bible, there would be no variants: every manuscript would be identical. As someone has said, God preserved His message to us through the sheer volume of its transmission while at the same time proving that its message has not been altered. Glory to His name!

I hope this helps.

This is extremely helpful. Thank you!!! It makes a lot of sense and explains quite a bit especially with other differences I’ve seen over the years. I’ve heard of the various manuscripts that have lead to several translations but I have never studied that information deeply.

Thankfully, all of the the changes that I’ve come across have never changed significant doctrine. I’ll share this with my mom and stepdad too.

I find all of this fascinating. I wish I had more time to study manuscripts, learn ancient languages, and go to excavation sites.