Book of Life

[KJB1611reader]

I

Perhaps you are blindly trusting the one-sided, biased research of a possible heretic. How do you know whether Steven Avery is a true believer? Steven Avery denies and rejects the Bible doctrine of the Trinity, holding some kind of hidden, non-orthodox "oneness" view. Steven Avery claims that 1 John 5:7 does not teach that these three [the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost] are three persons who are one God. He seems to deny that God the Father is a person and that God the Holy Spirit is a person.

Claims that Latin church fathers who used the Old Latin or Jerome's Latin Vulgate used "book of life" is merely evidence of their use the incorrect Latin reading. Steven Avery may be appealing to quotations that are not proven to be direct quotations from Revelation 22:19. Early Church fathers often did not quote verses clearly and accurately since their scripture texts were not divided into verses. Sometimes any scripture quotations in the writings of the early church fathers were revised and changed in later printed editions to match the readings of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

I do not know him, I just quoted from Will.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Could tell me the book thou wrote on the kjb?

Perhaps you are blindly trusting the one-sided, biased research of a possible heretic. How do you know whether Steven Avery is a true believer? Steven Avery denies and rejects the Bible doctrine of the Trinity, holding some kind of hidden, non-orthodox "oneness" view. Steven Avery claims that 1 John 5:7 does not teach that these three [the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost] are three persons who are one God. He seems to deny that God the Father is a person and that God the Holy Spirit is a person.

Claims that Latin church fathers who used the Old Latin or Jerome's Latin Vulgate used "book of life" is merely evidence of their use the incorrect Latin reading. Steven Avery may be appealing to quotations that are not proven to be direct quotations from Revelation 22:19. Early Church fathers often did not quote verses clearly and accurately since their scripture texts were not divided into verses. Sometimes any scripture quotations in the writings of the early church fathers were revised and changed in later printed editions to match the readings of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

 

[Logos1560]

Andreas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀνδρέας Καισαρείας; 563 – 637)

You do not demonstrate that the Andreas text is a trustworthy Byzantine Greek NT text. One scholar associated the Andreas text with the corrupt Western family of texts.

Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). KJV defender Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). James Edward Snapp wrote: “Erasmus, in order to finish the first edition of his compilation, used Valla’s notes and a Latin Vulgate text to reconstruct the Greek text of verses 16-21” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 140). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7).

This manuscript includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from typical Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified or associated “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions of the TR, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82).

 

[KJB1611reader]

You do not demonstrate that the Andreas text is a trustworthy Byzantine Greek NT text. One scholar associated the Andreas text with the corrupt Western family of texts.

Isbon Beckwith wrote: “Cursive no. 1, of the 12th or 13th century containing the Apocalypse, with the commentary of Andreas, is of particular interest, since it was the only Greek Ms. which Erasmus had for the Apocalypse in his first edition of the Greek Testament (1516)“ (Apocalypse of John, p. 412). John David Michaelis as translated by Herbert Marsh noted: “Erasmus relates in his defence adversus Stunicam, that he used only one single manuscript of the Revelation for his edition of the New Testament” (Introduction to the NT, Vol. II, p. 312). KJV defender Thomas Holland wrote: “The manuscript Codex 1r used by Desiderius Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament is missing the last six verses of Revelation chapter twenty-two” (Crowned With Glory, p. 168). James Edward Snapp wrote: “Erasmus, in order to finish the first edition of his compilation, used Valla’s notes and a Latin Vulgate text to reconstruct the Greek text of verses 16-21” (NT Textual Analysis, p. 140). Jan Krans maintained that this manuscript had some other omissions in its text, noting: “Some striking examples, by no means exhaustive, of omissions in min. 2814 that are restored by Erasmus” on the basis of the Latin Vulgate include phrases or clauses at Revelation 2:2, 2:17, 2:20, 3:12, 6:11, 22:11 (Beyond What is Written, p. 54, footnote 7).

This manuscript includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Greek text of this manuscript is sometimes described as the “Andreas text” because the manuscripts with Andreas’s commentary have some readings said to characterize or distinguish them from typical Byzantine Greek manuscripts. In a new translation and his commentary on the book of Revelation, Craig Koester distinguished between the text used in the commentary by Andreas and the Byzantine text (p. 149). Josef Schmid classified the Andreas text as one of the four main text types or families of text for the Apocalypse. Edward Hutton identified or associated “the Andreas text with the great Western family” (Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 47).

At times in this worn manuscript of the book of Revelation used by Erasmus and his copyist, it has been said that it was difficult to distinguish the commentary from the text. Henry Alford observed: “The text in the MS. is mixed up with the commentary of Andreas” (Greek Testament, Vol. 4, p. 263, footnote 8). In this manuscript, Thomas J. Conant noted: “The text and commentary alternate, without any break in the line” (Baptist Quarterly, April, 1870, p. 135). James R. White suggested that Erasmus “had an unknown copyist make a fresh copy and returned the original to Reuchlin” (King James Only, second edition, p. 91). Although some errors made by that copyist in his copying may have been corrected in later printed editions of the TR, W. Edward Glenny maintained that “the copyist made several errors that are still found in the TR text published today” (Beacham, One Bible Only, p. 82).

I believe the KJB IS RIGHT.

 

[Logos1560]

Could tell me the book thou wrote on the kjb?

Norris, Rick. Could the 1611 KJV Have Been Better—Not Just the Printers’ Fault? Statesville: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2006.

Norris, Rick. Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions. Fifteenth Edition. Statesville, NC, 2010, 2017, 2025.

Norris, Rick. KJV-only Myths about Archaic Words. Statesville, 2009, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Practically Identical: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV? Statesville, NC, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Revised Cambridge KJV’s. Statesville, NC, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Today’s KJV and 1611 Compared. Fourth Edition. Statesville, NC, 2006, 2013, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Today’s KJV and 1769 Compared. Statesville, NC, 2020, 2025.

Norris, Rick. The Unbound Scriptures. Fayetteville, NC: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2003.

Norris, Rick. Which Sword is Sharper. Statesville, 2025.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Norris, Rick. Could the 1611 KJV Have Been Better—Not Just the Printers’ Fault? Statesville: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2006.

Norris, Rick. Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions. Fifteenth Edition. Statesville, NC, 2010, 2017, 2025.

Norris, Rick. KJV-only Myths about Archaic Words. Statesville, 2009, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Practically Identical: The Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV? Statesville, NC, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Revised Cambridge KJV’s. Statesville, NC, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Today’s KJV and 1611 Compared. Fourth Edition. Statesville, NC, 2006, 2013, 2025.

Norris, Rick. Today’s KJV and 1769 Compared. Statesville, NC, 2020, 2025.

Norris, Rick. The Unbound Scriptures. Fayetteville, NC: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2003.

Norris, Rick. Which Sword is Sharper. Statesville, 2025.

Hi Rick, good day Rick.

 

[atpollard]

Norris, Rick. KJV-only Myths about Archaic Words. Statesville, 2009, 2025.

Just for fun I did a search for this book.

I discovered that I could buy the paperback from Walmart.
I found a 2009 discussion (review) of it from a KJVO defender.

It was interesting what he (I assume it was a "he", online names make gender hard to identify) chose to quote from your book and how he attempted to refute it with mockery. The quote [paraphrased in his post] was clearly making the claim that the KJV Bible contained several hundred to over a thousand distinct "archaic" words, but if you counted every occurrence of an archaic word, many words appearing many times, that the count of actual "archaic" words was perhaps as high as 20,000.

The rebuttals were twofold:
1. There are only about 8000 distinct words in the KJV, so 20,000 is nonsensical [which is a failure to comprehend the point you raised in the paraphrased quote that the 20,000 was not "distinct words" but "distinct occurrences".

2. Words like "Thee, Thou, Ye ..." are not archaic according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

I do not know what the 2009 Cambridge Dictionary might have said ... but the Merriam-Webster Dictionary does list "Thou" and "Thee" and "Ye" as "archaic" words in the 2025 online version of their dictionary. Curious about how many times these common words appeared, I used Blue Letter Bible to do a quick search of the KJV for "thou" (5474 occurrences), "thee" (3827 occurrences), and "ye" (3985 occurrences) ... Those three words comprise 13,286 occurrences of "archaic" words among just those three words alone. That makes the 20,000 word claim at least plausible since we are over half-way there.

As I said, this means nothing. I just did it for fun because I was curious. You posted a list and I selected one of the titles at random and did a Google search to see what came up.

Congratulations on getting published.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Just for fun I did a search for this book.

I discovered that I could buy the paperback from Walmart.
I found a 2009 discussion (review) of it from a KJVO defender.

It was interesting what he (I assume it was a "he", online names make gender hard to identify) chose to quote from your book and how he attempted to refute it with mockery. The quote [paraphrased in his post] was clearly making the claim that the KJV Bible contained several hundred to over a thousand distinct "archaic" words, but if you counted every occurrence of an archaic word, many words appearing many times, that the count of actual "archaic" words was perhaps as high as 20,000.

The rebuttals were twofold:
1. There are only about 8000 distinct words in the KJV, so 20,000 is nonsensical [which is a failure to comprehend the point you raised in the paraphrased quote that the 20,000 was not "distinct words" but "distinct occurrences".

2. Words like "Thee, Thou, Ye ..." are not archaic according to the Cambridge Dictionary.

I do not know what the 2009 Cambridge Dictionary might have said ... but the Merriam-Webster Dictionary does, indeed list "Thou" and "Thee" and "Ye" as "archaic" words in the 2025 online version of their dictionary. Curious about how many times these common words appeared, I used Blue Letter Bible to do a quick search of the KJV for "thou" (5474 occurrences), "thee" (3827 occurrences), and "ye" (3985 occurrences) ... Those three words comprise 13,286 occurrences of "archaic" words among just those three words alone. That makes the 20,000 word claim at least plausible since we are over half-way there.

As I said, this means nothing. I just did it for fun because I was curious. You posted a list and I selected one of the titles at random and did a Google search to see what came up.

Congratulations on getting published.

Nothing wrong with thee, thou. No one have issue with hymns or Shakespeare.

 

[37818]

Where Latin get book?

Good question, since all known Greek Codex of Revelation 22:19 have "tree of life."

 

[atpollard]

Nothing wrong with thee, thou. No one have issue with hymns or Shakespeare.

I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with them ... however, nobody I know denies that Shakespeare is in "archaic" and not "modern" English and the Elizabethan words are not commonly used except at the Renaissance Festival. In contrast, Rick claimed those words were archaic (which they are) and the KJVO defender claimed they are not archaic (which appears false).

Do YOU use "Thee, Thou, Ye" when shopping at Walmart or ordering at McDonald's?

 

[KJB1611reader]

I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with them ... however, nobody I know denies that Shakespeare is in "archaic" and not "modern" English and the Elizabethan words are not commonly used except at the Renaissance Festival. In contrast, Rick claimed those words were archaic (which they are) and the KJVO defender claimed they are not archaic (which appears false).

Do YOU use "Thee, Thou, Ye" when shopping at Walmart or ordering at McDonald's?

Yes.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I will from henceforth. I haven't had a chance yet..

 

[Silverhair]

I'm no Latin expert - far from it - but I thought the Latin for "tree" was "arbor." "Lignum" is the Latin word for "wood."

I used google translate and we find
libro = book
ligno = wood
lignum = wood

So it seems that NET+ is correct.
There could have been the error introduced going from Greek to Latin and then back.

 

[KJB1611reader]

I used google translate and we find
libro = book
ligno = wood
lignum = wood

So it seems that NET+ is correct.
There could have been the error introduced going from Greek to Latin and then back.

As stated in websited cited earlier; some Latin mss had either.