My pleasure. I enjoy digging up stuff. Amazing how what a simple word search like ‘book’ can come up with on biblegateway.com.
That’s a good site, true!
Habitually I use BlueLetterBible.org for doing searches. It’s a little messy trying to search in Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of course, but what isn’t? 
Good stuff Jason!
About this:
UBS: and will-walk the nations by/through the light of it
UBS: kai peripatesousin ta ethne dia tou photos autes
TR: kai ta ethne ton sozomenon en t(i)o photi autes peripatesousi
TR: and the nations of the saved in the light of it will-walk
What’s interesting here (which I didn’t see you comment on) is that the TR adds “of the saved” to qualify the nations and thus creating two different groups of “nations,” those saved (who will walk in the light) and those not saved (those in the Lake of Fire, who will not walk in the light). I wonder if “of the saved” was added to avoid UR conclusions.
Tom
An excellent thread and thanks again Jason for your time and considerable efforts.
Most posters here will think of themselves as very definitely being inside the New Jerusalem. Speaking as one who will probably be on the outside I can say that this ‘interpretation’ (if I dare use such an emotive word) gives me hope whereas the eternal torment ‘interpretation’ makes me feel annihilation would be the greater good.
I wander if “of the saved” was taken out to assist UR conclusions? This is discussed in Aaron37’s answer to Jason’s challenge in Rev 21.
And answered, both here and there, with the observation that the phrase appears in NOT EVEN ONE RevJohn text I could find, Greek or otherwise, before the 15th century.
You certainly, neither here nor there, provided any counter-evidence otherwise. The note you found in the margin of your New King James doesn’t in the least specify what known texts the phrase is positively coming from, and doesn’t bother mentioning more than two of the UNANIMOUS PRE-15TH CENTURY TEXTS that don’t include the phrase.
(This is something TGB probably remembers, even if you do not. )
Right. The phrase “of the saved” isn’t original. It’s far easier to account for its being inserted that for its being removed.
Tom
Tom: I wonder if “of the saved” was added to avoid UR conclusions.
A37: I wander if “of the saved” was taken out to assist UR conclusions?
Aaron, are you asking a question? I can’t tell. You have a question mark there, but your words make an assertion and don’t ask a question. I think you mean “wonder” not “wander.” Or maybe you really do mean to wander about!
It’s impossible to account for the textual history on the assumption that some universalist scribe removed the original “of the saved” in order to promote his false teaching in the face of orthodoxy. The text reads “nations” and not “nations of the saved.”
And besides, I’ve spoken in tongues over this question for some time and the Spirit has revealed the infallible truth to me. I can’t possibly be wrong now. You can only choose to agree with me (and align yourself with God) or disagree and so reject God’s truth. If you’re teachable, you’ll do the former.
Tom
To be fair (and as I noted), it needn’t necessarily have been inserted to try to underplay (or deny) the evangelism and repentance in the final chapters of RevJohn. After all, if anyone inserted it late, it was the Greek Orthodox, and they’re historically pretty favorable to universalism (though not dogmatically so.) And after all, it isn’t like anyone claims that those who are NOT saved enter the New Jerusalem. (RevJohn itself is very emphatic otherwise, including just shortly afterward.)
More likely a scribe inserted it as a stylistic riff, to make the overall clause sound more similar to something a couple of verses later. That was one of several relatively common reasons for scribal alteration.
As I noted, dispute over this phrase is only important to people who think its inclusion weighs anything against evangelism, repentance and salvation at the end of RevJohn. (Or, at a more technical level, to people hugely gung-ho in favor of the Textus Receptus, especially that it somehow is in fact the “Received Text”.) The rest of us would have exactly no problem with its originality to the text, except insofar as the actual copy evidence strongly indicates it isn’t original.
Evangelism doesn’t make sense if you believe in one final judgment for mankind that takes place in Rev 20:11-15. ( which I believe Rev 20:11-15 is final judgment)
Jason, Do you believe that the bible teaches one judgment for mankind that will be final? If not, why not?
But the Spirit has revealed universalism to me infallibly, so there’s no more to discuss really. Will you agree with me and God, Aaron, or will you reject the truth?
Tom
Yea, but you’re a fallible interpreter of whether you’re infallible! 
Roofus: You’re a fallible interpreter of whether you’re infallible!
Tom: You’re not teachable!
Tom 
Yea, but you’re not reachable 
Tom,
I’m ROFLOL here. My kids are saying, “What’s so funny? C’mon, Mom! Tell us!” 
Sonia
Tom: That’s what all the unenlightened who are under the sway of heresy say. But the Spirit cannot reveal contradictory things. And since you contradict me, you’re not infallible, because the Spirit has revealed universalism to me infallibly.
You could realize you’re wrong, of course. I pray that you see the error of your ways and repent while there is still time. Otherwise you’re in for a big ‘U-oh’ followed by a huge ‘Duh’ when you’re judged.
Tom 
Which, aside from ignoring the actual textual evidence spread for the phrase, could be flipped around just as easily: a static and hopelessly “final” (in that sense) judgment for mankind doesn’t make sense if there is ongoing, hopeful evangelism (much moreso, evidently successful evangelism!) after the (start of the) lake of fire judgment.
(I say “after the start of”, because only an annihilationist would say that that judgment hopelessly finishes–namely with the irrecoverable annihilation of the persons, as persons, being thus judged. God’s judgment of them must otherwise be ongoing, one way or another; and especially if God Himself is continuing to act to keep them in that state of existence. Which He must be doing if supernaturalism is true.)
Rather than trying to make a position fit into the text, I prefer to read a position out of it insofar as possible though also keeping in mind, pro or con, that it has to be compared with other canonical texts for fitting. So I do understand that sometimes it pays to read points into the text developed from elsewhere. But doctrinal interpreters have long understood the hazard for error is greater that way than by reading out from the text (even if both are necessary in some fashion for responsible interpretation).
Anyway, that’s why I created that other discussion thread. I’ll be getting back to that this weekend (hopefully) as my schedule clears up.
I do, although not in the sense you mean. I believe in an ongoing final “crisis” (which is the underlying basis for the word translated as “judgment” from the Greek) for impenitent sinners. So far as that goes, I’m on the same page as any advocate for hopelessly never-ending conscious torment (vs. annihilationism). But I believe God’s goals for the “crisising” are crucially different than hopeless for the sinner as a person. (And crucially different than hopelessness for many of the saved in regard to people they love!)
As to why I believe that way, and not in a hopelessly final static judgement for mankind: that would take a very long time to completely discuss. And you have proven time and time again that you have neither the patience nor the skill for detailed explanations. (Otherwise you would have been working on critiquing my analysis of RevJohn, instead of just mockingly dismissing it. )
Meanwhile, are you going to keep insisting that a phrase which has no evidential existence prior to the 1500s, is in fact original to the text? Or, alternately, are you going to present some textual history for the phrase in copies of RevJohn before the 16th century?
Not that it’s a big deal in the least to me whether the phrase is original to the text–I don’t believe in the slightest that its presence would hurt my case, and I equally don’t believe its absence hurts your case in the slightest. The only reason I’m pressing the point is because it’s, so far, another example of your general refusal to learn from new information. Why bother to have discussions at all if you’re going to just squint shut your eyes and stop up your ears, even on a point as minor as this?
"Other canonical texts’ is being much too kind. It’s the typical REV tap dance. Fun to watch, but going nowhere and, certainly, not to the music of the Gospel. TheRev is marginal stuff as the real thing goes. The West has not had the wisdom to set it off to the side. Yet.
Nope, just speaking from the standpoint of how things worked out historically. Also from the standpoint of someone who accepts the canonical status of RevJohn, which happens to be pretty much everyone else here, too, including the universalists.
Maybe instead of making hostile raw assertions along this line (plus demonstrably incorrect claims about the content, as you’ve occasionally done in other threads recently), you should bother to create a thread yourself to discuss things in detail?
Nor has the East, obviously, since the EOx not only accept it as canonical but have even authorized late alterations to its text (one of which rather famously threw off poor A37, as you might have noticed, who thanks to the NKJV and its underlying reliance on the Textus Receptus was just sure it must have been an original phrase).
In fact, the only groups who have “thrown off” TheRev (and/or never accepted it in the first place) are pretty danged marginal themselves. Not that I hold this against them. But still, this has been pointed out to you before. Trying to make acceptors of it look like the poor benighted minority, isn’t going to wash.
If you don’t want to deal with RevJohn, then stop participating in threads that deal with RevJohn. Or at least make more of an effort to be accurate in your data and logic when doing so.
Jason, you said: "He is appealing to God’s omniscience, not to God’s omnipotence, in knowing ahead of time (as it were) who He will save and who He will give up on saving (or perhaps be unable to save due to some power, or due to some love He has for those He refuses to continue trying to save.)
What do you mean that God refuses to try to save (in the Arm mind) “due to some love”? Is this a reference to the idea of love respecting the freedom of the other?