The MOST dangerous profession....

Since we don't have the original no one can say with 100 percent certainty whether something has been added or removed. The Byzantine majority has "tree of life", the Scrivener TR and Vulgate has "book of life". The Scrivener TR was a compiled text purposely made to conform to the KJV of 1769, so the authority for the KJ translators for "book of life" is the Latin not the Greek.

Taken to it's logical end according your criteria a person has a 50-50 chance of eternal life depending on their choice of "tree of life" or "book of life" of Revelation 22:19.

Whatever happened to intent? To honestly desire to reconstruct the Word of God (which the KJV translators did by admission) to its original form with the tools available to them and perhaps make a mistake is not the same as an evil intent to remove something from the Scripture because it is something one doesn't like or contrary to one's belief system.

My sincere advice FWIW: Don't hang yourself on your own gallows.

HankD

 

We can't know motive for a certainty.
It would be much safer to say "some modern textual critics..." But of course if they give evidence of an unregenerate heart beyond MSS choice then we are justified in mistrust.

But those same critics will say that we have "added" to the text (1 John 5:7 for instance) because it supports our belief system.

IMO, Bottom line: better not to second-guess motive. just reject what we feel is faulty logic or workmanship.

In my own case, I do reject the W&H hypothesis as defective (but they themselves with sincere intent as Burgon said of them) because of their fixation on Aleph/B in light of a preponderance of non-Alexandrian evidences.

HankD

 

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

John the Baptist was not Elijah reincarnated, but instead, he was a type of Elijah. Hence the NT spells it Elias. Even though John did not believe this to be true, Christ said that he was. So if Christ said, that settles it.

 

HomeB, The AV NT spells Elijah as "Elias" simply because the NT was written in Greek, and that is the Greek form of his name, as the AV does with "Jesus" in Acts and Hebrews when it refers to Joshua; "Agar" in Galatians, when it should be "Hagar". Let's be consistent, when Paul quoted from "Esaias the Prophet", was he, or was he not quoting from "Isaiah the Prophet"? "Esaias" being the Greek form of "Isaiah" Is Paul actually saying that "Esaias" wrote Isaiah's prophecy? I think the AV can bring confusion here when it should have the names uniform, as some of the KJV's did, such as the Open Bible, and Liberty Annotated. Most MV's clear up this potential confusion, and since our God is not the author of confusion...

 

This is an interesting thread Tim. This is also an argument that can go on forever. I try to go with the most literal version that I can find. Most of todays paraphrases remind me of cotton candy. I agree with your point that handling the word of God [translating] is a business that could carry a high price in the here after. [good or bad] Anyone doing this should have clean hands and a clean heart. If they are of bad character, or of obvious ill intent, then that should be considered also.

 

I understand that, but what do you mean about Jesus and Joshua?

 

Acts 7:45 the AV1611 has "Jesus" (in the margin of the 1611 it says, "that is, Joshua") My point is that here it is refering to Joshua, but uses the Greek form of his name i.e. "Jesus" The context clearly refers to one who predated David, that being Joshua (I know Jesus predates Creation as far as His Divinity is concerned)....and notice the context of Hebrews 4:8, this is Joshua, not Jesus Christ. God bless.

 

Well, I don't hold marginal notes as scripture and my Bible says Jesus, so it must be Jesus.

 

HB you really believe this?

Say it isn't so.

HankD

 

Homebound: "Well, I don't hold marginal notes as scripture
and my Bible says Jesus, so it must be Jesus."

"I don't hold marginal notes as scripture" is
an opinion, which i respectfully disagree with.

"My Bible says Jesus, so it must be Jesus" is
a denial of the fact. Acts 7:15 speaks of
one who follows Moses and preceedes David:
must be Joshua who lead the Children of Israel
into the Promised Land NOT Jesus who died for
our sins. Facts cannot be disagreed with,
only dealt with. Escuse me, one can disagree with
a fact only with a loss of creditibility.
One tends to loose arguments when shown no creditibility.

The context needs Joshua to make it correct
and without error. The verse says Jesus.
Fortunately "Joshua" is the English version
of the Hebrew word and "Jesus" is the English version
of the Greek word -- the Hebrew word and the
Greek word are a similar name with a similar meaning.

BTW, the KJV1611 Edition says "Iesus";
the KJV1769 Edition says "Jesus";
the nKJV says "Joshua".

 

HomeBound said:

Well, I don't hold marginal notes as scripture and my Bible says Jesus, so it must be Jesus.

Wow . . . just when you thought the KJV-onlyists couldn't say something even more ridiculous - they do!

You gotta laugh.

 

Yup, that puts supporters of the KJV in a very delicate position. And likewise those who accept the shortened canon of the reformers maybe, too, eh? When you think of it--if taking the verses the way you are--nobody is safe.