[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

These two compliment Thomas Holland above. Jack Moorman is blunt and simple, T. L. Hubeart gives a little more backdrop, I added one emphasis.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/reply.htm - Jack Moorman
The variant reading, though supported by the Greek, can hardly be said to make sense: …shall take away his part out of the tree of life

http://www.pennuto.com/bible/rev22_19.htm
Revelation 22:19 and "The Book of Life" - T. L. Hubeart

Other than this passage, it is to be observed that "book of life" appears in Revelation six times: at 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, and 21:27. "Tree of life" appears outside this passage a total of three times: 2:7, 22:2, and 22:14. The "book of life" receives twice the mention of the "tree of life" for good reason: the "tree" appears to be a symbol of reward, while the "book" is symbolic of a person's very salvation. Notice the difference between 2:7 and 3:5 --the former pictures a believer who has already entered the holy city and is receiving fruit from the tree as a reward, while the latter pictures one just getting to enter the city (putting on "white raiment," which is the preparation for entering into His joys; cf. Matt. 22:11) and being assured of his entrance in the words, "I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."

That the meaning of the disputed words in 22:19 is "book of life" is confirmed by mention of exile from "the holy city." We are not in the realm of "reward" here (as we are in 22:12-14 , the last time the "tree" has been mentioned) but in that of soul-peril, as it is a serious thing to tamper with the words of the Lord. (Incidentally, the commentaries of Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott seem to confirm the soul-peril idea. Henry says that "he who takes anything away from [the word of God] cuts himself off from all the promises and privileges of it," while Scott notes that this is expressed "in the most awful manner" and that those who tamper with the canon "have abundant cause to tremble at this solemn warning.")

Shalom,
Steven Avery

The variant reading, though supported by the Greek, can hardly be said to make sense: …shall take away his part out of the tree of life

Wow. Somebody I've never heard of says the MT doesn't make since. I just looked at the MT Greek (although it's on my computer so I didn't have to walk 12 feet like you made me do for Edersheim) and it says shall take away his share/portion (meros) from the tree of life. I seem to recall something about a similar tree in Eden....

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by TimV

Wow. Somebody I've never heard of says the MT doesn't make since. I just looked at the MT Greek ... and it says shall take away his share/portion (meros) from the tree of life. I seem to recall something about a similar tree in Eden....

Tim, like a typical modern versionist concerned that the Bible might actually be pure and true and accurate, you bypass the full explanation of Thomas Holland and Tom L. Hubeart Jr. to try a quick comment against the summary of Jack Moorman. Perhaps you mistakenly think Jack Moorman was talking about grammatical sense, rather than doctrinal sense (similar situation with the Luke 2:22 doctrinal blunder 'their purification' in the MT). For the larger doctrinal study simply see Holland and Hubeart above. And review all the verses yourself. However, since you have shown us no fundamental interest in the purity and accuracy of the Bible text (refusing to even say what version you read and respect) I tend to doubt that you will see much.

And if you "never heard" of T. L. Hubeart, Thomas Holland and/or Jack Moorman (I could list some dozen more) perhaps you have been reading too much material from those who defend no Bible in any language as the pure and perfect word of God, and too little from Bible believers. Thomas Holland even has a whole neat course-style series available on the net.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

And review all the verses yourself. However, since you have shown us no fundamental interest in the purity and accuracy of the Bible text (refusing to even say what version you read and respect) I tend to doubt that you will see much.

Why would I want to hide something like that? Dude, I'm a member in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I post under my name and have posted my work website, and hold to WCF 1.8

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical

and my position is that of the overwhelming majority of Protestant Christians. That God would and did preserve His Word, but not necessarily in the King James Bible of 1611 word for word. I use a dozen bibles, with my favorite two probably the ESV and Geneva.

Friend, I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are a part of a teeny, tiny minority, not me. I love reading theology, and I do it in 6 languages. It's just recently that I've found out about your school of though, and I've been researching it, hopefully with an open mind. I have begun reading some of your school's literature, but most of my reading has been, of necessity (since the vast majority of people who write theology are not of your school) been from people you seem to think have no fundamental interest in the purity and accuracy of the Bible text.

I am honestly trying to understand your position. I do not hold to it at this time, and why on earth you think I am so cowardly that I would want to hide this from you, or the versions of the Bible I read is beyond me.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by StevenAvery

(refusing to even say what version you read and respect)

Originally Posted by TimV

Why would I want to hide something like that? Dude.. why on earth you think I am so cowardly that I would want to hide this from you, or the versions of the Bible I read is beyond me

The name is Steven, not "Dude". You earlier wrote:

"I'm not going to justify my questions to you, Steve. ... I asked a few questions. That's all there is to it. ... My reasons for wanting to know how many Greek mms have tree instead of book are my own. If you could understand how little I care about what version of the Bible you read, your hair would stand up in shock."

Clearly your tone and tude was belligerant and dismissive, to the simple attempt, on a Bible version forum, to delve into out your views and perspective on Bible purity and versions.

If you don't care about what Bible we read and defend, then obviously you have nothing close to an "open mind".

Shalom,
Steven

[MC1171611]

Are God's words pure or aren't they? Did He preserve them or didn't He? Those are the main questions that 1) lead someone to believe the perfection of the King James Bible, or 2) cause a person to lose his faith in God's words and leaves him with a pile of conflicting "authorities" to the point where he must, with the help of his own fallible opinion, decide for himself what is truth.

That's where we come in: we believe that God is powerful enough to do what He said, so He did indeed preserve His words through the centuries. The evidences of God's hand on the KJB are irrefutable: the entire missionary push of the 1800s was by King James Bible believers (of many denominations), both Great Awakenings were brought about by King James only preachers, and the settlement of the US and the western spread of the Gospel was almost solely based on the KJB.

The new "versions" of the Bible do nothing but create confusion among Christians and obscure the truth of God's words; He does not author confusion. The main problem among Laodecian Christians is the lack of authority: they do not want to SUBMIT to anything but their own opinions of what God said, and the myriad perversions foisted upon weak Christians by greedy publishing houses simply gives them that opportunity.

That's where we come in: we believe that God is powerful enough to do what He said, so He did indeed preserve His words through the centuries. The evidences of God's hand on the KJB are irrefutable: the entire missionary push of the 1800s was by King James Bible believers (of many denominations), both Great Awakenings were brought about by King James only preachers, and the settlement of the US and the western spread of the Gospel was almost solely based on the KJB.

Settlement of the US? The KJV wasn't even allowed on the Mayflower. You view of missionary efforts is parochial, and badly so. You may be familiar with mostly English speaking accounts, but that is because you probably don't have the ability to speak any other language.

[Harley]

Originally Posted by TimV

Friend, I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are a part of a teeny, tiny minority, not me.

Hi Tim,
Help me understand the quoted material above. Are you asserting that those of us who hold that King James Bible to be the preserved Word of God are in the minority?

If so, do you have facts that support that position? Facts that support the position that of all the believers in the world, the majority do not believe the King James is the preserved Word of God in English?

Also, if it is true that those of us who believe the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God in English are in the minority (again, I can neither agree nor refute without some facts here) are you suggesting that this is a bad thing? In other words, is this a "majority rules" argument?

If so, then I would offer two points to consider:

1. Did not the King James translators consider the majority by including the verses that other modern translations have to explain are not found in other manuscripts? In other words, if majority rules, why doesn't the ESV just leave 1 John 5:7,8 out since the majority texts does not have this verse?

2. This could just be me, but whenever I am told that I am part of the minority by another believer I seem to think of the following verses:

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

When I imagine a narrow way I don't see a huge crowd, so if the facts are such that I am in a minority I guess that's a good thing.

Peace,
Harley

Hi Tim,
Help me understand the quoted material above. Are you asserting that those of us who hold that King James Bible to be the preserved Word of God are in the minority?

If so, do you have facts that support that position? Facts that support the position that of all the believers in the world, the majority do not believe the King James is the preserved Word of God in English?

Whether it's significant or not is a different question, but yes, the percentage of believers in the world who believe that the KJV is exactly equivalent to the Word of God is less than one percent.

I my own, Reformed tradition, none of the larger denominations have your view in their confessional statements. In Baptist circles, none of the larger denominations hold this. And it's the same with other traditions. And surely you know that the KJV was banned on the Mayflower.

Did you honestly think that a large number of Christians share your views on the subject?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Hmm... this looks like the TimV hoped for repetition-trump-card. Not the most critical issue, if true perhaps the Pilgrims liked the Geneva eschatology margin notes, e.g. the references to the Pope as antichrist (The King James Bible kept the Bible as text, leaving doctrine and exegesis for sermons and teachings and writings and commentary.)

Originally Posted by TimV

And surely you know that the KJV was banned on the Mayflower.

However, I have not seen this banning statement. And others say differently. Joey Faust wrote in to Worldnetdaily recently on this question. Feel free to respond, if you have any contrary facts.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=39977
King James Bible was on the Mayflower - Joey Faust, Venus TX

Today, when the Pilgrims are mentioned, there is a great, misleading half-truth that many are promoting. Notice an example of this half-truth:

"In 1620, the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version." (Gary DeMar, "The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation," www.reformed.org)

I wonder how many "Thanksgiving sermons" contained a sentence or two that stated that the early Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower did NOT possess or use the Authorized Version (King James)? These preachers have simply repeated what they have heard from others. Notice the real truth about the Bibles the Pilgrims had when they arrived on the Mayflower as stated at the Pilgrim Hall Museum:

"Among the books in Pilgrim Hall are four Bibles of unusual interest. One belonged to Gov. William Bradford, the Pilgrim governor, and one to John Alden. These are among the very few objects existing today which we feel reasonably sure 'came over in the Mayflower.' ... John Alden's Bible, rather surprisingly, is the 'King James' version authorized by the Church of England. ... No. 90 in the Pilgrim Hall catalogue designates the Bible which once belonged to John Alden. Some of the leaves are missing, but the colophon at the end of Revelation shows that the New Testament was printed in London by Robert Barker, 'Printer to the Kings most excellent Majestie,' in 1620. The Concordance was printed by Bonham Norton and John Bill in 1619. This is not a Geneva Bible, but the 'King James' or 'Authorized' version. ... The firm of Barker in London printed both King James and Geneva Bibles, sometimes using the same decorative material for both."

The early Pilgrims had both versions! Although the AV was new at the time, it would quickly outshine them all and become the cornerstone of civilization in the New World. Therefore, W.A. Criswell was correct when he stated:

"And when they [the Pilgrims] came to America, they brought with them this Bible, the King James Version of the Word of God. It had been placed in their hands, been translated just nine years earlier. ... So the little colony began with the Christian home, built around the Bible; with a Christian church, preaching the infallible Word of God; and a school whose textbook was the King James Version of the Bible."

Of course, the Pilgrims were not limited to only the books that they were able to bring over on the original Mayflower voyage. For example, William Brewster, their beloved minister, had a regular supply of books shipped to him yearly:

"While living in his log house in Plymouth, built by his own hands, he [Brewster] yearly received supplies of newly published books in Latin and English, and his library was inventoried at his death in 1644 at 400 volumes." (Lyman Denison Brewster, "William Brewster, The Mayflower Descendant," 1902)

Although the Plymouth Pilgrims used the AV and the Geneva (e.g. Gov. Bradford's "Journal" quotes the Geneva version), the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, on the other hand, used the AV as their primary text (not the Geneva). The same thing is true of the separatists and the first Baptists in the New World who went out into the wilderness from them. For example, John Wheelwright's Fast Day Sermon in 1636 quoted from the AV, not the Geneva.

Likewise, John Clarke (1609-1676), who is called the father of American Baptists, used the AV instead of the Geneva (see his "Ill-Newes From New England"). And the rest is well-known history. The AV would soon become "Our Version," and its fruit and authority in the lives of American Christians has been thoroughly documented elsewhere.

Therefore, when your children ask you, "What meaneth this black Book? Why do I have to sit still in church as this old, black Book is read and preached?" we must answer that this Holy Bible was here from the start! It is God's Book. It soon outshined all other versions. They decreased and it increased; and so did our nation as long as it believed, honored and obeyed this Holy Bible.

Joey Faust

=============================================

So how do you "know" this ? Even Gary DeMar makes no such claim.

And how did all those King James Bibles get over to and read and in the Massachusetts Bay Colony if their was such hostility to the Authorised Version.

Oh, in addition to Joey Faust, Lloyd Streeter has also written on this topic. And Marty Shue has an excellent article as well, with some of the same factual information. We wouldn't consider this very much of an issue one way or another. (Especially considering that the Mayflower was only 9 years after the publication of the King James Bible. And knowing some of the 17th century history.) Except we see obstinate accusers like yourself belligerantly make declarations of some "banning". As they say, put up .. or retract.

Shalom,
Steven