1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Rev. 22:19 Book of life or Tree of life?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    See David Aune, Revelation, vol. 52a of the Word Biblical Commentary, pp. cxxxix ff. Aune gives a complete listing of dates for all Greek 293 minuscule MSS, including those made from printed copies of the TR (they are MSS 296, 1668, 2049, 2066, 2136, and 2169).

    You are making some *huge* assumptions -- for instance, that these "other Greek texts" even contained Revelation, and if they did, that they were not late copies of Erasmus' text. Given that we know next to nothing about these MSS, we can hardly vouch for their reliability. Such evidence we *do* have indicates that both Stephanus and Beza relied heavily on Erasmus' work, even to the point of reproducing some of Erasmus' "howlers." For example, following Erasmus, Stephanus has ακαθαρτετος rather than the correct ακαθαρτα in Rev. 17:4 -- and ακαθαρτετος isn't even a real Greek word! That these editions should follow Erasmus' "book of life" at Rev. 22:19 isn't surprising.

    Jerome's Vulgate also suffered from transmissional errors as it was copied. Some Vulgate copies had the corrupt reading "book (libro) of life" found in some of the Old Latin MSS rather that the correct reading "tree (ligno) of life" found in the Greek MSS. Erasmus followed the corrupt reading.
     
  2. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jack Moorman asked, "What are we to make of a man's 'part' in the tree of life?"

    Any thoughts?
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archy posts: The Greek MSS commonly cited as having "book of life" -- Hoskier 57 (AKA Gregory 296), and Hoskier 141 (AKA Gregory 2049) are both hand-written copies of the TR made *after* the TR was printed."
    Archy, can you document the dates for these manuscripts please. Where can I find this information?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    See David Aune, Revelation, vol. 52a of the Word Biblical Commentary, pp. cxxxix ff. Aune gives a complete listing of dates for all Greek 293 minuscule MSS, including those made from printed copies of the TR (they are MSS 296, 1668, 2049, 2066, 2136, and 2169).

    Archy, the original argument was that the reading was found in mss. 141, not 57. Can you give a date for this? Here is what I originally copied from Dr. Holland:

    "However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.)

    Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts.
    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "It is also reasonably well documented that Erasmus had only one Greek copy of Revelation, and that it was by his own admission missing the ending."
    Archy, the KJB is not done solely on the basis of Erasmus' text. You should know this. Stephanus had at least 16 independent Greek manuscripts that Erasmus did not have and he reads "book of life". We have none of these 16 mss. today, as far as I know.
    Then after him we have Beza and he also had Greek texts that neither Erasmus nor Stephanus had and he also reads "book of life". Besides, Erasmus was familiar with many manuscripts that he did not directly use for his text.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You are making some *huge* assumptions -- for instance, that these "other Greek texts" even contained Revelation, and if they did, that they were not late copies of Erasmus' text. Given that we know next to nothing about these MSS, we can hardly vouch for their reliability. Such evidence we *do* have indicates that both Stephanus and Beza relied heavily on Erasmus' work, even to the point of reproducing some of Erasmus' "howlers." For example, following Erasmus, Stephanus has akaqartetoV rather than the correct akaqarta in Rev. 17:4 -- and akaqartetoV isn't even a real Greek word! That these editions should follow Erasmus' "book of life" at Rev. 22:19 isn't surprising.




    John Gill says regarding the reading of book of life: "The Alexandrian copy, one of Stephens's, and the Complutensian edition, read, "the tree of life";

    Now Stephen had at least 16 Greek manuscripts, and we know they had 1 John in them because he as well as John Gill said the three witnesses from heaven, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one", were found in 9 of the 16 copies he had. Erasmus had none of these.

    If "one of Stephens" read "tree of life", what would then be the assumption about what the others read, especially in view of the fact that John Gill firmly believed "book of life" was the correct reading?

    Now for your pasted and tired comments about akatharetos not being a real Greek word.

    Arch, check out these three well known lexicons. Liddell and Scott , Abridged edition, 17th edition 1887, on page 23 lists the word and says it is equal to akatharsia.

    Thayer's 1978 expanded and revised edition also lists the word, and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich 4th revised and expanded 1952 edition also lists the word as found in the KJB Greek text and then mentions Revelation 17:4 as the example.

    Apparently they believe it to be a real Greek word.

    Will Kinney
     
  4. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0


    Aune's list is a summary of the work done by Hoskier (1929) and Schmid (1955). Hoskier 141 (= Gregory 2049) appears in Aune's list as a 16th C. "copy of printed TR." Even though Hoskier himself did not believe that the MS was a copy of a printed TR, he had to acknowledge that it uses "the semicolon of interrogation," a feature of 16th C. Greek MSS.

    In other words, it's found in the Old Latin copies (where the ligno-libro corruption originated) and in *later* copies of versions influenced by the Old Latin -- which is precisely what we'd expect to see of a corruption that originated in the Latin West and spread elsewhere as time passed.

    There are several things we might assume. We might assume that the other 15 Stephens MSS (1) did not contain the Book of Revelation at all; (2) contained the Book of Revelation, but were defective in that portion containing 22:19; (3) contained the Book of Revelation, but read "tree of life" rather than "book of life." We can't know for certain. We can't even know (unless Gill explicitly tells us this) if the sole Stephens MS which reads "tree of life" does so in the actual text or in a marginal note. There are far too many uncertainties to base any firm conclusions on hearsay evidence about MS witnesses to which we no longer have access.

    The Liddell-Scott online doesn't have an entry for ακαθαρτητος at all -- http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=greek

    Entry from Thayer's -- "ακαθαρτης, -ητος, η, impurity: Rev. 17:4, -- not found elsewhere, and the true reading here is τα ακαθαρτα της."

    Entry from the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker -- "ακαθαρτης, -ητος, η, uncleanness τ. πορνειας Rv 17:4 t.r., a reading composed by Erasmus. The word does not otherwise exist (s. ακαθαρτος 2).—RBorger, TRu 52, ’87, 57."

    Apparently they *don't* believe it to be a real Greek word. Perhaps that's because its only known occurence in *any* Greek document from the most ancient Greek sources through to Erasmus' day is in Erasmus TR. The only reason any lexicon bothers to include it is because it appears in Erasmus' very influential Greek NT, *and nowhere else.*
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Archy, it looks like the lexicons keep on changing, don't they. Future editors add or take away to what was in previous lexicons by the same name. My copies of these do not read like your copies. Interesting.

    I trust the promises and providence of God to have given us a perfect Bible, and it is the King James Bible.

    You, on the other hand, do not have an inerrant bible, but rely on your own understanding. Proven many times.

    So, which of these is the corrupt text? Your fellow multiversionists can't seem to get their act together either and agree even among themselves.

    The Book of the Revelation

    This book has more textual variants than any other book in the New Testament, and this fact is often illustrated in the multiplicity of differing bible versions that result from following different texts or sometimes in how the same texts are translated. I will briefly mention just a few examples.

    Revelation 15:3 "...Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of SAINTS."

    "King of saints" is found in the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, the Third Millenium Version, the Spanish Reina Valera, and Luther's German translation.

    The NIV, ASV, RV, and RSV all follow different texts and say: "King OF THE AGES", while the NASB, ESV, and ISV follow yet other texts and have: "King OF THE NATIONS".

    Some of the same texts that split between "ages" and "nations" also read "stone" in Revelation 15:6. Where the KJB, NIV, ESV, and NASB read of seven angels clothed in pure and white LINEN, the RV and ASV say they were arrayed in STONE, pure and bright!

    Revelation 21:3 "...Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, AND BE THEIR GOD."

    "and be their God" is found in many manuscripts and is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV, and the ISV. However Sinaiticus omits this reading and so do the RSV, NRSV, and the NASB. The former Nestle-Aland texts omitted these words, but now they have put them back in the text.

    In the last verse of the book of Revelation, the King James Bible, as well as the NKJV, Young's, Websters, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV21, and the Third Millenium Bible we read: "The grace of OUR Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. Amen."

    The texts followed by many modern versions omit the words "our", "Christ", and "you all", but they don't even agree among themselves.

    Instead of " with you all", the Alexandrinus says simply "with all" and so read the NASB and the ESV. But Sinaiticus reads "with the saints" and so read the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the ISV. The NIV also adopts this reading but paraphrases it as "with God's people".

    Those who exalt the Sinaiticus Greek manuscript as being one of the most reliable may be surprised to know of some of its readings in the book of Revelation. In 10:1 instead of "a rainbow was upon his head" Sinaiticus has "hair" was on his head. In 7:4 instead of 144,000 it reads 140,000 and in 14:3 instead of 144,000 it has 141,000. Instead of "the former things are passed away" in 21:4 Sinaiticus has "the sheep are passed away" and in 21:5 instead of "I make all things new" Sinaticus says "I make all things empty"

    "the science of textual criticism" is a misnomer and a farce. I believe God has been faithful to fulfill His promises to preserve His complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words in a Book we can actually hold in our hands, read, memorize, and believe with all our hearts.

    Many scholars today tell us they are attempting to reconstruct as closely as possible the text of the New Testament by rummaging through the various textual readings and trying to put together what God originally wrote. It is my sincere belief that God has already providentially "worked through" this whole process by means of the translators of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Afterall, only He knows for sure which readings are His and which are not.

    The Bible believer, and by that I mean one who believes every word of God's written word that he holds in his hands, and makes no attempt to "correct" it, or doubt its text, - the Bible believer - first looks to Almighty God to have fulfilled His promises that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of those thousands like me who believe God has done this in the Authorized King James Bible.

    May the God and Father of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be pleased to grant you like precious faith.

    Will Kinney
     
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In all fairness Will with your definition and criteria of a “Bible believer” we would have to exclude the King James Bible translators as "Bible believers" who failed on each of your essential points of proof.

    The KJB translators and the committees which followed them “corrected” the text of the King James Bible on numerous occasions and in innumerable cases indicated their ability to “doubt its text” by publishing those doubts in the form of marginal notes with the express intent on allowing the reader to decide for him/herself as to a variant or a nuance difference within the original language MSS.

    As a further expression of doubt (or should we say a new found “conviction”) they eventually saw the “error” of their ways and expunged the Apocrypha and other RCC “extra baggage” from the KJV.

    And BTW (as mentioned so many times before), the KJV translators approved of the proliferation of translations and said that it was a good thing because it was useful in determining the “sense” of the Scriptures calling even the “meanest” of them the Word of God.

    Will, the KJV has a history of corrections of all kinds. For the better as it turns out.

    I thought you needed to be reminded of these facts and that your oblique indictment of those who “correct” the Bible is also a slander of those KJV translators who had the discernment to recognize and publicly admit to those errors which they felt duty bound to “correct”.

    HankD
     
  7. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, since you seem to have missed it the first time -- the only reason why *any* Greek lectionary old or new includes the word ακαθαρτητος is because it appeared *only* in Erasmus' Greek NT, the first Greek document in history ever to use the word because it *created* the word. Let me offer you a challenge: search any Greek lexicon for an occurrence of the word ακαθαρτητος in any other Greek source anywhere prior to the publication of Erasmus' TR. I guarantee you won't find it. Why? Because it's not a real Greek word.

    I also trust in the promises and providence of God, Who *never* promised to preseve His word in one specific version in the English language. And while the KJV is certainly a magnificent translation, it's demonstrably not "perfect" in the sense of "flawless, without error, incapable of improvement." The presence of a demonstrably corrupt reading in Rev. 22:19 proves this (despite attempts to shift the discussion away from it. [​IMG] )
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hank, you can believe whatever you want to. But you posted this "quote" out of context just like James White does in his book.

    "And BTW (as mentioned so many times before), the KJV translators approved of the proliferation of translations and said that it was a good thing because it was useful in determining the “sense” of the Scriptures calling even the “meanest” of them the Word of God."

    Here is the context of their quote, which you totally and intentionally misrepresent.


    One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).

    One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:

    Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

    The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.

    Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. Jame R. White writes, "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).

    The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:

    There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement . . .Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."


    Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.

    The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.

    Will Kinney
     
  9. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now for the "meanest" translation.

    Meanest Translation

    By: Logos1611
    Date: 9/28/01 4:19 pm

    In a recent post by Extrabcase, he provides a link to an article written by W. J. Bethancourt III, entitled "The King James Bible 1611 A Comment" (http://www.locksley.com/6696/kjv1611.htm). I would like to make a few brief comments about this article because it demonstrates an often misapplication of what the KJV translators originally wrote.

    Brother Bethancourt quotes the paragraph from the original preface which reads as follows: "Now the the later we answer: that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

    To this Brother Bethancourt writes: >>Take in very carefully what you have just read. The King James translators believed that even the meanest [most inferior] translations of the Bible in English at that time, in their opinion, not only contained the word of God, but actually WERE the word of God.<<

    It should be noted that the KJV translators did not state that an inferior translation is God's word. Nor, did they state that ALL translations of the Bible in English are the word of God. The word "meanest" does not mean "inferior" but "basic." It should also be noted that they were specifically discussing English versions that were "set forth by men of our profession" as opposed to the Roman Catholic version. Therefore, this has reference to the Tyndale, the Coverdale, Matthew's, the Great Bible, the Geneva, and the Bishops' Bible. As a student of early English versions, I can state that these five versions have a great amout of total agreement within themselves. In fact, there is greater agreement between any one of these and the KJV than there is between the KJV and the NKJV. Therefore, the KJV translators were not including all versions without exception, for they even state that theirs was different from the Latin based Catholic version. Instead, they were noting that even the most basic of their English versions were in agreement. If we are to quote them, we must do so within the context of their own words and times. Not as we would like to understand them in light of our current time.

    Bethancourt continues, >>They also stated their belief that no translation of the Bible, regardless of textual "imperfections and blemishes" should be denied to be the word of God.<< Actually, they were not discussing textual imperfections at all. They were discussing translational imperfections. Their example establishes this in noting that the King's speech may be translated into several languages. There is a difference in noting that a word can be translated several ways, or that a phrase can be improved upon in its translation, as opposed to differences in underlining texts. Again, we would do well to take in context what the translators said, and not what we desire for them to have said.

    Yours in Christ Jesus,
    Dr. Thomas Holland
    Psalm 118:8
    http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html
     
  10. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    One must wonder - if the Greek word does not exist anywhere before Erasmus, does that mean that the KJV was translated from a less than ideal source? Does it lose the claim of infallibility then?
     
  11. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archy, you posted: "I also trust in the promises and providence of God, Who *never* promised to preseve His word in one specific version in the English language. And while the KJV is certainly a magnificent translation, it's demonstrably not "perfect" in the sense of "flawless, without error, incapable of improvement." The presence of a demonstrably corrupt reading in Rev. 22:19 proves this (despite attempts to shift the discussion away from it. )


    Archy, you cannot prove the reading of "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 is corrupt. Dr. Holland, Hoskier, and Dr. Hills all argue for the legitimacy of this reading and they cite several Latin mss. that have it, as well as the Boharic version, which usually favors your Alexandrian readings, but not here. Ambrose and other church Fathers quote it as it stands in the KJB.

    They also mention the Greek text of 141, which obviously in their opinion predated Erasmus.

    Regarding Stephanus and Beza, we know they had access to Greek mss. that we no longer have today, and neither they nor the KJB translators slavishly followed Erasmus, yet all Greek texts produced by these men read "book of life", and so do the Greek versions of the Greek Orthodox churches even today.


    What I have seen from your point of view is that you are your own final authority. You reject the KJB, NKJV, Youngs, Webster's, Geneva, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc. because they all read "book of life" here.

    So, you favor the Westcott-Hort texts like the NASB, NIV, ESV. But you also disagree with these versions in several places, both in the N.T. and the O.T.

    Even here in Rev. 22:21 where the modern versions disagree with each other between "the saints" and "with all", their reading is based on basically one manuscript each, and they do not agree with each other.

    You are right that God never promised directly to give us a perfect Bible in English. Nor did He say He would do so in Hebrew or Greek or any other language. But He did promise to preserve His words.

    I look at the evidence and conclude He has done so in the King James Bible. You apparently think many of God's words are "out there somewhere" in all the conflicting versions, and even these you at times correct according to your own understanding.

    I cannot convince you and you will not move me from my position.


    Even guys from your side admit in print that there undoubtedly were thousands of Greek copies which no longer exist today. To try to prove which reading is the real one by manuscript evidence alone is impossible. We can get a general idea at best, but the general evidence strongly favors overall the readings found in the King James Bible, - not the variant readings in the conflicting NASB, NIV, ESV type versions.

    All the versions you recommend or prefer are the WH type texts, and all frequently depart blatantly from the Hebrew texts. This, in my opinion, automatially disqualifies them.

    I can find several clear blunders and theological errors in the mvs, and this disqualifies them as being the pure words of God.

    Anyway, this is how I see it, and you and I will not agree in this life about this issue.

    Will K
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, here is the actual context, let the readers decide if your accusation of my so-called intentional mis-representation stands. What you posted is not what they said but someone second-quessing what they meant by what they said.

    Here we see the quote in context where the KJV translators put their stamp of approval upon the Septuagint (with marginal notes) and apparently the Church of Rome Saints Jerome and Augustine who had a great affection for the Septuagint/Apocrypha as well as the Church of England translators.
    As you see it was the Puritans who complained about the Church of England pre-KJV Scripture translation but not only that they later rejected the AV1611 for the Geneva Bible which they loved and cherished and brought to America with them.

    http://www.reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html

    HankD
     
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0

    Look at the sum total of all the facts.

    (1) The reading "book of life" is found in the text of no known Greek MS of Revelation before Erasmus' time, and only begins to appear in the text of Greek copies around the time Erasmus published his Greek TR. This suggests the reading is a late addition to the Greek MS tradition.

    (2) The *earliest* evidence for "book of life" comes *only* from Western Latin sources (some Old Latin MSS and early Latin fathers), and with the passing of time begins to appear in some later non-Latin sources (like the Bohairic, which occasionally shows the influence of "Western" readings). This suggests the reading originated in an early Western Latin source and gradually spread to other regions.

    (3) The Greek words for "book" (βιβλιον) and "tree" (ζυλον) do not resemble each other at all, and are unlikely to be confused by a Greek scribe. However, the Latin words for "book" (libro) and "tree" (ligno) resemble each other very closely, and *are* likely to be confused by a Latin scribe. This suggests that the reading "book of life" originated as a Latin scribal error.

    All these facts taken together would lead a reasonable person not blinded by KJV-Only dogma to conclude that "tree of life" is the original Greek reading and "book of life" is a later corruption in the Latin MSS tradition.



    Not so obviously, as even Hoskier admits when he notes that 141 uses semicolons as question marks, a feature introduced into Greek MSS in Erasmus' time.

    MSS we know next to nothing about and cannot examine to verify their contents, their readings, their age, or the quality of their texts.



    If Stephanus didn't slavishly follow Erasmus in at least some places, why does his Greek text contain the same erroneous non-Greek word Erasmus' text used in Rev. 17:4?

    No, I reject the *reading* "book of life" (regardless of which versions have it) because the preponderance of evidence is against its originality; and I accept the *reading* "tree of life" (regardless of which versions have it) because the preponderance of evidence favours its originality. That's how you do text criticism -- "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21, KJV).



    And God preserved His word for us today in the same way He preserved His word for Erasmus and the KJV translators -- in the Greek and Hebrew MSS.



    I look at the evidence and conclude that the KJV, though a magnificent achievement, is not "perfect" in the sense you use the word "perfect" (i.e., "without flaw, incapable of being improved.") My thinking is exactly the same as that of Erasmus and the KJV translators, who apparently also believed that God's words were not found in any single document and who also used multiple original language sources in making their text-critical and translational decisions.

    The KJV also departs from the Hebrew texts in a number of qere-kethiv situations. Why doesn't that "automatically disqualify" the KJV?



    The KJV also has "clear blunders and theological errors." Why don't they "disqualify the KJV as being the pure words of God?"
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What you get, Archy, when each of you becomes your own authority is stuff like the following examples taken from just a few verses in Mark 10 and the ending of Revelation. The same type of confusion and discord among your "textual experts" can be shown from many portions of Scripture.

    In verse 21 in the KJB we read: "The grace of our Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN." Here the word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, but again Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit it, and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV.

    Then in the very last part of the last verse of Revelation, where the KJB says: "be with YOU ALL, AMEN", here Sinaiticus is different from all other texts, reading "with THE SAINTS". The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version all read "with the SAINTS" (following Sinaiticus) while the NIV paraphrases the Sinaiticus reading as "with GOD'S PEOPLE". However the NASB 1995 and the new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) now reject Sinaiticus and go with Alexandrinus instead, which says: "with ALL" and omits the word "you". But wait. The even newer ISV (International Standard Version), and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard have once again gone back to the Sinaiticus reading of "with the saints". The modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

    It is a tad hypocritical of Bible correctors to criticize the King James reading "book of life", when the two other variant readings adopted by the conflicting modern versions of "with all" and "with the saints" are found ONLY in ONE manuscript each and, according to the UBS textual apparatus, not in any other ancient version or quoted by any church father.


    Mark 10:16-26 Amazing inconsistency in the Modern Versions!

    Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female."

    The word GOD is found in the Majority of all texts, including A and D. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit this word and so does the UBS, Nestle Greek text. The Revised Version and the American Standard Version also omit this word.

    BUT, the word GOD is included in the NASB (italics), and now back in the texts of the NIV, and ESV.

    Mark 10:7 "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE."

    The words "and cleave to his wife" are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus AND the NASB. The previous Nestle's text also omitted these words. The new Holman Christian Standard puts these words in brackets. However all these words are found in the Majority of all texts including A and C, and are now back in the Nestle text and they are again included in the NIV, ESV, and the ISV (International Standard Version 2004)!!

    Do you see how the "scholars" can't agree with each other and their own Greek texts keep changing? They have no settled words of God, and what one group of scholars gives, another group takes away.


    Mark 10:24 "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter into the kingdom of God!"

    The whole meaning of the verse is changed by omitting these words. Based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omitting them, versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV read: "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" No, it is quite easy to enter the kingdom of God. Repent and believe the gospel.

    All these words - "for them that trust in riches" - are found in the majority of all texts, including A, C, D, plus at least 21 other uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Old Latin, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian versions. The previous Revised Version and the American Standard Version included these words!! They are even found in the Douay version, but then later Catholic bibles also omitted these words. Even the Catholics can't agree among themselves in their bible versions.

    What is of interest here is that there are two new versions coming out on the market - the Holman Christian Standard, put out by the Southern Baptists, and the ISV (International Standard Version). Well, the Holman version still omits "for them that trust in riches", but guess what? The ISV puts them back in!! So the RV, ASV, and ISV include "for them that trust in riches", but the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman omit them, and yet all these versions are put out by scholars who reject the Traditional Texts as found in the King James Bible.

    Mark 10:26 "And they were astonished out of measure, saying AMONG THEMSELVES, Who then can be saved?"

    The reading of "among themselves" is found in the majority of all texts, A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, the Douay version, and even in the Nestle Greek texts. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "saying TO HIM" (that is, to Jesus), instead of "saying among themselves" and so do the RSV, NASB, and the ESV. However the NIV, and the two new ones coming out now, the Holman Standard and the ISV read "saying among themselves" like the King James Bible.


    So when each of you guys becomes your own textual critic, you only end up with discord and confusion. I believe God has given us an inerrant Holy Bible in the King James Version. Your side has none.

    Will Kinney
     
  15. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, I noticed what Will did! He is waving his arms trying to show something else so he doesn't have to answer Arch's questions. I guess that means that he can't answer those queries, huh?
     
  16. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

    Will, thank you for all the time and effort you put into sharing that information with us! I really appreciate it. I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for you! It is amazing how so many here care more about winning the argument than anything else, and it is quite apparent that God himself has been left out of their equation and methods. Sad, but true.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Will, you're always telling us who are not limited to using just the KJV that we have no final authority. What, or who, is YOUR final authority for embracing the KJVO myth? And what or who is your final authority for telling us all that we also should be KJVO?
     
  18. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

    robycop,

    Many of us continually explain this to you, and supply scriptures also, but you either refuse to listen, or do not understand. I can't help you with this. Maybe if you asked the Lord to give you wisdom concerning this, he will show you.

    May the Lord continue to richly bless you robycop, and all on these posts.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  19. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    This statement sounds remarkably like one an RC apologist would use to argue for papal infallibility. "So when each of you guys becomes your own textual interpreter, you only end up with discord and confusion. I believe God has given us an inerrant interpretation of the Holy Bible in the pope's infallible pronouncements. Your side has none."

    I suspect that neither of us would accept the dogma of papal infallibility on the basis of such an argument. Why, then, you would use that same argument to extend a kind of quasi-papal infallability to the KJV translators is a mystery to me.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Will, perhaps you don't know it but in most cases I agree with you that the alexandrian texts are flawed (or at least that the historical evidence to change the TR is not conclusive to warrant the change).

    However (IMO) you need to simply stick to the facts because invariably when you bring a charge (such as the one above) it can also be leveled at the KJV and its history of revision and error corrections and yourself in that you also are your own final authority having chosen the KJV produced by a Church which to this day is not sure whether they are Roman or Anglo-Catholic.

    To illustrate:
    Was the First Edition of the AV1611 an "inerrant" Bible before the 400+ textual corrections made during the years 1613-1769?

    Were all the words of the First Edition AV1611 "inspired" including those which would be corrected?

    Was the First edition AV1611 "perfect" in that it contained the Apocrypha? If so what was God thinking when He led these men to include these books which contain Church of Rome heresy which they published as "The Holy Bible"?

    On the other hand it is good to see you use the phrase "I believe" is relation to your choice of Bible version.

    HankD
     
Loading...