Originally Posted by MC1171611

The site holds that the King James Bible is 100% perfect, and any attempt at deviating from it based on "The Hebrew" or "The Greek" is counter-productive and nothing but a cause of cancer in the body of Christ. The King James Bible is God's final, definitive written word for mankind in English: being produced in the Philadelphian Church Age (the church that was praised for keeping the words of God) is but one of the evidences of the Blessings of God on it. Any translation in any language from any other time period should be carefully considered before accepting it as pure.

You will find little support for other English "Bibles" here, other than BrianT and the party line-spewing "Maverick."

How can a "perfect" bible come from imperfect MSS? One *CANNOT* be an onlyist and NOT believe the KJV translators were inspired by God


No party line here,just trying to provoke thought..

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by TimV

I naturally meant the AV.

If this is a forum for people who think the KJV of 1611 is exactly synonymous with the Word of God, then I doubt anyone here has the learning to answer the question that was my reason for registering, namely how many Byzantine texts have the word tree as opposed to book in Rev. 22:11, because the answer would take work, and not blind faith.

If you had bothered to actually read some of the posts here, you would have found that there are quite a few very learned men who can answer questions just like the one you asked. By insulting the entire board in one of your first posts, you've set a bad tone, and don't be surprised if you find yourself banned soon. It's fine to have disagreement (as is evidenced by several non-KJV posters), but your type of comments are specifically warned against in the posting guidelines. Please click the FAQ link up at the top of the page before making more posts.

Isn't this simply another example of the intelligentsia attempting to prove themselves superior in intellect to those venerable men who translated Gods Word into English for us? and as I said earlier, an attempt to set the copyright of the next big buck turning per-version.

No, the Afrikaans translators were farmers who'd been in Africa for 300 years. They saw no need to translate from the KJV, but rather thought it best to follow the Reformation principle of translating from the source.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Revelation 22:19 (KJB)
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.

Originally Posted by Diligent

If you had bothered to actually read some of the posts here, you would have found that there are quite a few very learned men who can answer questions just like the one you asked.

While perhaps not "learned" in a technical sense, the Revelation question is fascinating and I have checked it a bit. Please note that Revelation has a unique textual history and presumptions from other NT books should generally be checked at the door.

A quick check showed that "book of life" may not have Greek pre-TR manuscript support (probably a couple of, or a few, dozen MSS. Hoskier indicated 2 or 3 manuscripts have "book of life" however they may all be post-TR and influenced by the TR). "Book of life" is rich in support in the Latin lines, in the Bohairic, in other lines, in references from early church writers (I am not sure if "tree of life" has any early writer references) and internal consistency. Offhand, the closest similar situation I know would be "her purification" in Luke 2:22, except that the Reformation Bible scholars, afaik, agreed 100% on "book of life" in all their editions, while "her purification" was an excellent Beza correction to earlier TR editions.

My research showed the following church writer references are given as supporting "book of life".

Ambrose (c 390 AD)
Bachiarius (c 420)
Andreas of Cappadocia (c 500)
Primasius of Adrumentum (552 AD) - Commentary on Revelation
Speculum treatise (mss c. 8th century, many consider as Augustine 427 AD origin)
Haymo of Halberstadt (9th century) - Commentary on Revelation
Pseudo-Augustine (1160)

At this time I know of no (0) early church writer references that support "tree of life".

And then in general there is support for "book of life" in the following lines and texts (Latin given in some specifics, due to significance). In some cases the lines may be split, so this is only meant as an evidentiary overview. Remember that Revelation is relatively rare (in the Peshitta Syriac it was one of the books not originally included) with a far smaller number of manuscripts than the Gospels and even, in general, the Epistles.

Bohairic Coptic
Old Latin line
Latin Vulgate
Syriac
Armenian
Ethiopic
Arabic
Tepl

Latin Manuscripts
Codex Fuldensis (~ A.D. 545)
Codex Karolinus (9th century);
Codex Ulmensis (9th century);
Codex Uallicellanus (9th century);
corrector of Codex Parisinus (9th century)
Codex Oxoniensis (12th to 13th century);
Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century);

I hope that helps as a start. The internal aspects are extremely strong, especially for those who look at the Bible as a book of faith and truth and consistency. However I am addressing here textual support.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by TimV

No, the Afrikaans translators were farmers who'd been in Africa for 300 years. They saw no need to translate from the KJV, but rather thought it best to follow the Reformation principle of translating from the source.

While the issue is fascinating, the time of the most deep and informed Christian Hebraists (with an occasional exception) was the Reformation period from 1550 to the early 1600s. With John Gill often offering a retrospective insight.

For more information about this period, read "Hebrew in the Church" by Pinchas Lapide. To a certain extent the studies were jump-started by the work of the Christian Hebraist Sebastian Munster a century before the King James Bible, and it is fascinating to study even the much earlier situation with Hebrew knowledge and Tyndale, Erasmus, Robert Wakefield and others. By the time of the King James Bible these studies were very deep and mature (e.g. read about one of the KJB translators, Miles Smith, the author of the KJB Preface, reading and preaching in English directly from an unpointed Hebrew text in a church sermon, ad hoc, without preparation) in Italy, Geneva and England. Then compare the depth of knowledge and fluency of the Hebraics, including the mikra'ot gadalot, with the halting, stumbling computer-lexicon scholarship of today, bumbling over Akkadian cognates with little Hebrew and Aramaic depth and fluency and little knowledge of the Hebraic heritage.

Yes, to be fair, there are occasional exceptions, especially among Jewish scholars with the Yeshiva-bucher background. However, don't expect to find them translating the NKJV or the NIV or Holman. In todays arcane studies, and the world of computer knowledge and publish-or-perish, and diversions on the right and left, do not expect many of the scholars to have a living, breathing, daily fluency with the languages of their scholarship, if they even have much more than a few years of seminary and auxiliary studies.

Offhand I have never heard of any great Afrikaan Christian-Hebraist scholars who would have more insight into translating the Tanach from the source than the Reformation and Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster King James Bible scholars. If there are any, I would be happy to learn of their background, even if there are not 50 such scholars as worked on the King James Bible. The Hebrew word understanding is much more the issue here, since "oak" or "terebinth" are both possible translations without any obvious compelling advantage to either one.

At this time I have not done any real research, which would generally include the Vulgate, the Targum, the Peshitta, the Greek OT editions, various early commentaries, the Talmud and Midrash, the rabbinical expositors (Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, Rashi, et al) and perhaps a bit more. Including English usage at the time, the commentary of the Reformation scholars and the usage in the earlier English Bibles, especially Wycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva. Have you ? If so, please share away.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thanks, Steve. I'd already gotten that much from the research I've done. I've asked around quite a bit, and it just surprises me that I haven't gotten an answer yet as to how many Byzantine type texts use tree, although a seminary student on another forum promised me he'd look into it.

There seems to be quite a bit of contrary data about which text (if any) Erasmus had of the last few verses of Revelation, so I figured I'd look at the big picture and follow Erasmus

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."

I would like it if you could point me to a good online version of the French Olivietan, Armenian and Peshetta version, with English translations. I'd be much in your debt if you could do that.

As far as terebinth, no, I've done no in depth research. If the Septuagint is a myth, or whatever, then that wouldn't count. If I were on the Afrikaans translating committee, I'd have counted the Septuagint witness, but that's just me. Remember the translator's mothers were put into concentration camps by the English and there was a 25 percent mortality rate, so none of them felt any particular affection for the English language, sad to say!

Thanks much for your help so far!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

At this time I have not done any real research, which would generally include ...

Since the attempt was to give a moderately complete list of the more significant sources, let us add Josephus and Philo and mention that among church commentaries and translations anything from Jerome is of special significance, since he specifically studied in the later period in Israel, learning from the Jews, using the library in Caesarea, translating from Hebrew to Latin.

Here is one article that is a good starting point and note that it directly contradicts TimV's view that "terebinth" is more sensible gardenistically. This column in the Jewish Forward often has excellent material. I will only quote the conclusion that has the "garden variety" part.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11956/
Oaks or Terebinths? By Philologos Tue. Nov 06, 2007

... That leaves oaks and terebinths. I’ll take oaks.

Here’s why. In the first place, while “oaks” is the oldest translation we have of elonei, “terebinths” is the most recent. The Septuagint rendition may represent a genuine tradition passed down from the time the book of Genesis was composed. The Soncino Press edition obviously does not.

Moreover, terebinths, whose small leaves indeed smell a bit like turpentine when crushed, may have an impressive-sounding name, but they are not very impressive in appearance. The terebinth is an evergreen shrub that rarely grows to more than 7 or 8 feet and is found all over Israel, where it is one of the most frequent plants in the hillside maquis; terebinths grow wild in my garden and can spread like weeds if you do not keep them in check. The common Palestinian oak, on the other hand, develops into a tall, stately tree. A whole forest or grove of such trees, now seen in only a few places but less rare in Abraham’s time, is an impressive sight indeed.

Would the Bible have bothered to point out that Abraham was sitting by some perfectly ordinary shrubs? And why single out “the terebinths of Mamre” when terebinths were everywhere? But if Mamre had a well-developed oak grove, that would have been a landmark worth referring to. The rudely monosyllabic oak wins this match against the mellifluous terebinth, hands down.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by TimV

If the Septuagint is a myth, or whatever, then that wouldn't count. If I were on the Afrikaans translating committee, I'd have counted the Septuagint witness, but that's just me

You misunderstand, the Greek OT is one witness to the understanding of difficult Hebrew words in the first centuries, irrespective of the myth of there being a full OT translation circulating from the Aristeas-time. (Ironically unavailable even to Josephus ! for the histories.)

A resource perhaps behind the Vulgate and the Peshitta (of limited use in some cases if the Hebrew ambiguity also exists in the Aramaic) in significance when all are available, yet still of real use in understanding how Hebrew words were viewed 1800 to 1850 years ago, the time of mulitple Hebrew-->Greek OT translations. With some pitfalls, such as the tendency for doctrinal axes (however they do not chop down oak vs. terebinth trees) and alternative differing Greek texts. This was the value of the Greek OT to the King James Bible translators, difficult words. And when studying the history of such words today, it is one significant resource, among several.

Incidentally, when I am at home with more material readily available, and less work need, I can try to augment what is above on both Revelation 22:19 and the oak tree. However since the tone of the thread was a little scratchy, and I had a post of my own readily available on Rev 22:19 to pull from (I especially enjoy 'hard case' studies, they often teach you more than any other verses) I figgered I might as well try to share some pronto. My pleasure to post the Rev 22:19 stuff here, earlier they had been posted only on a private forum and also in the midst of the textcrit cornfuseniks. Never before on a crisp and fine open-to-the-public forum like this one.

Shalom,
Steven

[Tmonk]

The New King James seems to stand alone with its translation. Everything else has "oak" but the Greek Old Testament.

[PeterAV]

TimV stated:

If this is a forum for people who think the KJV of 1611 is exactly synonymous with the Word of God, then I doubt anyone here has the learning to answer the question that was my reason for registering, namely how many Byzantine texts have the word tree as opposed to book in Rev. 22:11, because the answer would take work, and not blind faith.

*******
The work already has been done.
However, I do not believe that anybody has the ability to look at all 5,000+ Greek works to make an emphatic statement as if using this as their prefered mode.
*******
God who was Manifest in the flesh.
This statement is in only 300 of the 5,000+ Greek MSS.
The others do not contain this passage.
Most remains are peice-meal at best.
A few pages here, and a few scraps there.
*******
Here is a reply from Moorman of Dr. Wallaces statements concerning this verse.
*******
6. Erasmus’ manuscript of Revelation is said to have been lacking in the last six verses (22:16-21), and was supplied by referring to the Latin Vulgate. Herman Hoskier in his massive, and I must add, difficult to use, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, has shown that Erasmus may have had Greek manuscript 2049 (Hoskiers’s 141) covering these verses (I 474-77; II 454, 635). But whatever the case, Dr. Wallace should have told the rest of the story; that is, if indeed Erasmus used the Vulgate, in his later editions it was corrected by direct reference to the Greek.

One notable exception is claimed to be 22:19 where the AV/TR reads: …shall take away his part out of the book of life. This has fairly substantial support in other sources, but is found in only three Greek manuscripts (296 2049 2067mg.). 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. In When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, and using Hoskier, I have listed support from the manuscripts, versions, and fathers for eight passages in Revelation 22:15-21.