-
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!
Book of Life
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
John Nordstrom maintained that Erasmus acknowledged in his annotations that he had translated the last six verses of Revelation 22 from the Latin Vulgate, but that the printer did not choose to print that note in the printed edition. John Nordstrom asserted: “This omission can be verified by placing side-by-side Erasmus’ hand-copied notes with the actual printed copy” (Strained by Blood, p. 74).
KJV defender Laurence Vance noted: “Since Codex 2814 was missing the text of Revelation 22:16b-22, Erasmus infamously translated the passage into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, which he acknowledged in the first edition of his annotations” (Text of the KJB, p. 369).
Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Jan Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “Erasmus would later use the Aldine Bible as an independent witness to the Greek text” (Text of the KJB, p. 372).
Ron Minton maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at Revelation 22:19 “where all known Greek manuscripts have ‘tree of life,’ but the Latin has ‘book of life’” (Making and Preservation, p. 132, footnote 216). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3). Glenn Conjurske noted: “The Greek column of the Complutensian reads ‘tree of life,’ not ‘book of life,’ while the adjacent column which contains the Latin Vulgate reads libro vite, that is ‘book of life’” (Bible Version, p. 252).
KJV defender Laurence Vance noted: “Since Codex 2814 was missing the text of Revelation 22:16b-22, Erasmus infamously translated the passage into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, which he acknowledged in the first edition of his annotations” (Text of the KJB, p. 369).
Jan Krans claimed that Erasmus wrote in his annotation on Revelation 22:20 the following as translated into English: “However, at the end of this book, I found some words in our versions which were lacking in the Greek copies, but we added them from the Latin” (Beyond What is Written, p. 55-56, footnote 11). Jan Krans noted that Erasmus later “ordered the proofreaders of his second edition to supply the final words of Revelation from the Aldine edition of the Greek Bible” (p. 57). Jan Krans suggested that “it seems Erasmus never realized that the text of the New Testament in the Aldine edition is derived from his own first edition” (p. 57, footnote 16). KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “Erasmus would later use the Aldine Bible as an independent witness to the Greek text” (Text of the KJB, p. 372).
Ron Minton maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at Revelation 22:19 “where all known Greek manuscripts have ‘tree of life,’ but the Latin has ‘book of life’” (Making and Preservation, p. 132, footnote 216). Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3). Glenn Conjurske noted: “The Greek column of the Complutensian reads ‘tree of life,’ not ‘book of life,’ while the adjacent column which contains the Latin Vulgate reads libro vite, that is ‘book of life’” (Bible Version, p. 252).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Then the Latin preserved the original Greek.
The 'book of life' was also correct due to other historical writings.
Anyway, the KJB is still right.
The 'book of life' was also correct due to other historical writings.
Anyway, the KJB is still right.
Your human opinion is not scripture. The KJV is not right because you say so.
You are advocating human KJV-only opinions that are not taught in Scripture.
According to the Scriptures, it can be concluded that sound true faith would not come from believing or following opinions, speculations, or traditions of men (Mark 7:7-9, Col. 2:8, Matt. 15:9) or from following men’s unjust applications, misinterpretations, or twistings of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15, 2 Pet. 3:16).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Book of life is right.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads "the book" of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of "the tree" of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek MSS for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek MSS. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while "the tree" of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek MSS, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for "tree" in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for "book" is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin MSS; that "book of life" as well as "tree of life" is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators. (This textual problem is not discussed in NA27.) New English Translation Notes
Now I know you are going to disagree but then you have to explain why this variant is not found on any of the Greek manuscripts.
The KJB is not inerrant as has been proven many times.
You can prefer the KJB as a number on this board do but it is not the best or the most accurate.
Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not prove it to be right.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
The Bible is not right?
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
What you are being told is that the KJB 1611 that you think is inerrant is in fact not inerrant.
You do not seem to grasp the fact that there were errors in the 1611 text and they were corrected over time.
God has preserved His word but it is foolish to think that that word is the English 1611 KJB bible.
He has preserved it in the many Greek manuscripts that have been found over the years.
Use the KJB but do not think that it is the best or has been based on the best manuscripts. It is based on the best manuscripts they had in 1611 and corrected up to 1769 which is the KJB that we have in hand today.
The KJV's New Testament translation primarily relied on the Textus Receptus (Received Text) of the Greek New Testament. This text type, also known as the Byzantine text, was compiled by Erasmus and was the most common Greek text available during the time of the KJV translation.
Even though there were many spelling, punctuation, and printing corrections, the meaning of the Bible did not change between the 1611 and 1769 versions. The updates were made to make the text easier to read and more accurate.
Today, most critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as UBS4 and NA27, consider the Alexandrian text-type corrected by papyri, to be the Greek text that is closest to the original autographs.
37818
Well-Known Member
Not if it correctly reads "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I located the Syriac Bible ...
Revelation 22:19 - ܘܰܐܝܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܡܒ݂ܰܨܰܪ ܡܶܢ ܡܶܠܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܳܒ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܢܒ݂ܺܝܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܢܒ݂ܰܨܰܪ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܡܢܳܬ݂ܶܗ ܡܶܢ ܩܰܝܣܳܐ ܕ݁ܚܰܝܶܐ ܘܡܶܢ ܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܳܐ ܩܰܕ݁ܺܝܫܬ݁ܳܐ ܐܰܝܠܶܝܢ ܕ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܺܝܒ݂ܳܢ ܒ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܳܒ݂ܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ
Three Syriac to English translations:
(Etheridge) And if any man make to cease from the words of the book of this prophecy, Aloha will make to cease his portion of the tree of life, and of the holy city of which is written in this book.
(Murdock) And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are described in this book.
(Lamsa) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
VS
(KJV) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So Coptic manuscripts exist from the 4th Century and Syriac manuscripts exist from the 7th century ... they would not be based on Greek and Latin copying traditions, but older manuscripts now lost to us and closer to the autographs (in time). This does not make them a "better" source, just a DIFFERENT witness.
2 Corinthians 13:1 [KJV] "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
Revelation 22:19 - ܘܰܐܝܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܡܒ݂ܰܨܰܪ ܡܶܢ ܡܶܠܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܳܒ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܢܒ݂ܺܝܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܢܒ݂ܰܨܰܪ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܡܢܳܬ݂ܶܗ ܡܶܢ ܩܰܝܣܳܐ ܕ݁ܚܰܝܶܐ ܘܡܶܢ ܡܕ݂ܺܝܢ݈ܬ݁ܳܐ ܩܰܕ݁ܺܝܫܬ݁ܳܐ ܐܰܝܠܶܝܢ ܕ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܺܝܒ݂ܳܢ ܒ݁ܰܟ݂ܬ݂ܳܒ݂ܳܐ ܗܳܢܳܐ
Three Syriac to English translations:
(Etheridge) And if any man make to cease from the words of the book of this prophecy, Aloha will make to cease his portion of the tree of life, and of the holy city of which is written in this book.
(Murdock) And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are described in this book.
(Lamsa) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
VS
(KJV) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So Coptic manuscripts exist from the 4th Century and Syriac manuscripts exist from the 7th century ... they would not be based on Greek and Latin copying traditions, but older manuscripts now lost to us and closer to the autographs (in time). This does not make them a "better" source, just a DIFFERENT witness.
2 Corinthians 13:1 [KJV] "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I already gave quotes in a link earlier of early church father's saying 'book.'
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I can only speak for myself, but if an OP is unwilling to even summarize the key points they want to discuss, then I feel no obligation to follow an anonymous link to try and work out what point was attempting to be made. So I just take the TITLE at face value.
How would you react if everyone responded to the OP by posting links to a sermon, blog or video as the only response to the OP? Would you spend hours reading, listening or watching them to find out what we had to say?
To the point about the ECFs …
1. They are a legitimate source of witness, but one should check their quotes against another source. I have found quotes claim one thing and the original text in context does not match the alleged quote. (I am just speaking in general as I have not read the link to see these quotes for myself … as I explained above).
2. As a Baptist, I am “underwhelmed” by the ECFs as an authoritative source. In matters of crucial doctrine they were hit and miss. However, if they made a reference to an exact quote, then they made the reference and must have read that quoted passage … which places a date for that passage earlier than the date of the ECF quote. That is important.
What we must exercise caution in, is that the reference is a direct quote to what is claimed is being quoted. Nobody is arguing that “Tree of Life” appears nowhere in scripture or that “Book of Life” appears nowhere in scripture. It is one specific word in one specific verse that is being debated to determine what the autograph likely said (since later manuscripts differ between the Greek and Latin).
The Lamb's book of life is where the names of those born anew are written. Some people try to conflate the OT Book of the Living, with the Lamb's book of life, but that only leads to endless confusion.
Book of life is wrong
Yes. It is your translation of Rev 22:19 that is wrong
So. And???
Book of life is wrong
37818
Well-Known Member
No handed down Greek Codex for Revelation 22:19, book for tree.