# The Tree of Life and Exile



## TimV (Jan 9, 2009)

The Tree of Life is mentioned three times in the first Book of the Bible, and three times in the last Book of the Bible.

In both Genesis and Revelation the first mention is location.


> Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.





> Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.'



So one can see that the location of the tree hasn't changed in all these ages. It is still where it was created, in the midst of the Garden.

The second time it is mentioned in both Books the subject is it's attributes


> Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"





> Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.



Eating from the tree gives immortality in a perfectly healthy state.

The third time that the Tree is mentioned in both Books the subject is access


> Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.





> Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.



After the rebellion, God sent a second Moses to take those in bondage back home. The Deliverer ransomed His people and will surely lead all His own back to the Garden, where we will finally eat from the Tree of Life, that God in His mercy kept us from eating in our sinful state which would have lead to an eternity in darkest exile. Those who reject His path will forever be banned from eating of the Tree.

-----Added 1/9/2009 at 03:22:09 EST-----

The word Tree of Life is used in almost all modern translations of the Bible, as it is used in all (as far as I have heard) 200-250 existent Greek manuscripts except 4, which use the word Book of Life.

Erasmus, who put together a compliation of differing Greek texts which after his death became known as the "Received Text" used the word Book rather than Tree. Some people who think that the Roman Catholic Humanist Erasmus was directly guided by God to put together a compliation of differing texts to create a manuscript that was perfect, at least after a dozen or so revisions. In other words the RT as we now have it is God's exact Word, which is the exact word for word copy of what the authors of the New Testament wrote down 2 millennia ago.

Those people object to almost all modern versions, even though the modern versions' usage of Tree instead of Book reflects the overwhelming majority of existing Greek texts. One of their objections is numerology. A man named Kinney, who is cited by one of those people on our board who think the RT is only true text on which to base the New Testament quotes Kinney thus:



> As a side note, the number 7 is highly significant in the book of Revelation and in the texts that underlie the King James Bible, and the phrase "the book of life" is found 7 times. This is the number of divine perfection. In the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and NASB it is only found 6 times. Six is the number man, who is weak and prone to fail.



So, using the word Tree in Revelation 22:19 is a departure from Divine Perfection, and an example of the rebellion and failure of Man, because if the word from the overwhelming number of Greek texts is used (Tree), the word Book, which it replaces, is used one time less than in the RT.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 24, 2009)

Hello Tim:

The phrase "Tree of Life" is used in just about all of the modern translations of the Bible. I also agree with you that it is in the vast majority of Greek MSS of the Book of Revelation. Since the translations are based on the MSS, then there is only one argument here - that is - the vast majority of the Greek MSS contain the phrase "Tree of Life."

Can this argument be sustained as the sole reason to include "Tree of Life" in the Greek Text? According to the Critical Text advocates majority readings are not always the best:



> In Matthew 11:19, the phrase "wisdom is justified of her children" is altered to "wisdom is justified of her works" on the emendation of a mere three Greek mss., versus an overwhelming host of both Greek and external evidences. Likewise, the word "for" is removed from James 4:14 on the basis of four Greek mss. and scant external evidence, versus (again) an overwhelming testimony of both Greek and external witness. Similarly, the final clause of Romans 8:24 is changed from "for why does anyone hope for what he sees" to "for who hopes for what he sees", all on the basis of two Greek manuscripts, versus the almost unified witness of the Greek mss. body along with the witness of practically all other ancient versions except the Syriac (which gives several differing readings, many of which don't agree with the Critical Text). In each of these examples, the basis for the emendation is upon the nearly (or sometimes completely) sole witness of some of the favoured Alexandrian texts, as opposed to the much larger and nearly as antique witness of the majority texts, which are almost always supported by the great body of external witness from other ancient versions.


So? The argument that there are few Greek texts which support the "Tree of Life" argument is made void by the very fact that the Critical Text advocates use minority readings in other places of Scripture.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 24, 2009)

> Can this argument be sustained as the sole reason to include "Tree of Life" in the Greek Text? According to the Critical Text advocates majority readings are not always the best:



I purposely left out any reference to the Critical Text. Why on earth do you think I would ever want to defend the Critical Text? The Critical Text is just another Greek Text put together by a man or group of men. It's no different from the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text could become extinct in the next 20s, along with the Textus Receptus, and I wouldn't care one way or the other. They are the product of human scholarship, and if Erasmus and W&H never lived the Church would go on just fine, thank you, and we would still have God's preserved Word, although not in the nice, neat little box that some want.

I am in the above post not saying a word about the Critical Text.

The overwhelming number of Greek manuscripts differ from the Textus Receptus in Rev. 22:19. They say "Tree" and not "Book". So, why can't I believe the proper word is "Tree"?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 24, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Can this argument be sustained as the sole reason to include "Tree of Life" in the Greek Text? According to the Critical Text advocates majority readings are not always the best:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim:

When you reference the "modern translations" you are, indirectly, arguing the Critical Text - since they use it in their translations.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 24, 2009)

> Tim:
> 
> When you reference the "modern translations" you are, indirectly, arguing the Critical Text - since they use it in their translations.



I often have trouble understanding you. Please be patient, and explain clearly. The Majority Text uses "Tree" rather than "Book". So, are you saying that since the Critical Text also uses "Tree" rather than "Book" I am in effect using the Critical Text?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 24, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Tim:
> >
> > When you reference the "modern translations" you are, indirectly, arguing the Critical Text - since they use it in their translations.
> 
> ...



Hi:

This is your statement that I was referring to in your emendation of your original post:



> The word Tree of Life is used in almost all modern translations of the Bible, as it is used in all (as far as I have heard) 200-250 existent Greek manuscripts except 4, which use the word Book of Life.


The "modern translation" following the Critical Text do not always follow the "majority" of textual evidence - as I tried to point out to you in my first post.

OK, so you are arguing that because the Majority Text has "tree of life" that we should read that as the original text of Revelation 22:19?

I believe that majority readings of a text should carry much weight when determining the true text of a particular passage. However, I do not believe that majority readings are the only determinative factor in text critical issues.

First, I believe that the Spirit of God who works with the Word of God will testify in the heart of every believer what the true text of Scripture is at a particular passage.

Second, I believe that the context of a passage has weight in determining a particular passage.

Third, I believe that other passages in Scripture which may speak more clearly also have a say in determining a passage.

Finaly, I believe that if there is a theological issue at stake, then to side with the Biblical doctrines as opposed to unbiblical or no-biblical doctrines in a particular reading has weight in determining whether or not a passage is Scriptural or not.

So, though the vast majority of Greek MSS have "tree of life" I do not believe that it is the only determinative factor in deciding this particular passage of Scripture.

I have to go now and work on a paper for Seminary. I will continue this later.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 24, 2009)

> So, though the vast majority of Greek MSS have "tree of life" I do not believe that it is the only determinative factor in deciding this particular passage of Scripture.
> 
> I have to go now and work on a paper for Seminary. I will continue this later.



Thanks. So we agree that we can leave the Critical Text out of it. Now, to anyone reading this, why can't I believe "Tree" is the best word for this passage?

And particularly for those two dozen here who say that every Reformed Pastor that I've ever had is in a constant (although perhaps ignorantly) state of violation of his ordination vows for thinking "Tree" is a better word than "Book" in this verse, could one of you please explain to me why in a concise, clear way?


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 24, 2009)

I came across this accidentally today, and it seemed to mention some interesting history regarding what you were talking about, in regards to "tree" and "book", and the work of Erasmus. I personally have not studied this issue very much at all, and I in no way have verified the information found on this website, but I figured it might be of some use to you, and it is documented fairly heavily. So, enjoy, and may God grant you discernment between truth and error.

The information is found in the 5th paragraph on this page:

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

Blessings!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 25, 2009)

Hay Tim:

There are four citations in the Book of Genesis that contains the "Tree of Life": Genesis 2:9; 3:17, 22, 24. You also left out the citation in Revelation 22:14 that references the "Tree of Life."

Positive arguments for the use of the "Book of Life" rather than "Tree of Life."

1) The warning given in Revelation 22:19 properly belongs to "the Book of Life": "...shall take away his part out of the Book of Life..."

Rev. 3:5 - "...I will not blot out of the Book of Life..."
Rev. 13:8 - "...whose names are not written in the Book of Life..."
Rev. 20:5 - "...and whoever was not found in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire..."

Compare the above to what the Scriptures say of the "Tree of Life":

Rev. 2:7 - "...To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the Tree of Life..."
Rev. 22:14 - "Blessed are they which do his commandments that they may have a right to the Tree of Life..."

Eating from the Tree of Life is given to those who "overcome" and who "do the commandments."In other words: the Elect. Now, read the full text of Rev 22:19 in light of this:

_And if any man shall diminish of 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 those things where are written in this book, Geneva Bible_

That a man's name can be blotted out of the Book of Life corresponds with the warning given here in Revelation 22:19. The Tree of Life is for the Elect. The Reprobate have no part in the Tree of Life, and, nowhere does the Bible make such a teaching. The Book of Life contains all the deeds of all men. The names of the Reprobate are blotted out of the Book of Life because of their deeds:

_And I saw the dead, both great and small stand before God: and the books were opened, and another book waas opened, which is the Book of Life, and the dead were judged of those things where were written in the books, according to their works ... And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the lake of fire, Rev. 20:12,15 Geneva Bible._

Since the Tree of Life is for the Elect only, then the warning given in Rev. 22:19, if "Tree of Life" is read in it, would be an empty threat. However, to have one's name blotted out of the Book of Life is no empty threat.

2) Biblical and extra Biblical evidence: there is textual evidence for the reading book of life instead of tree of life. The reading is found in a few Greek manuscripts. It is the main reading among the Latin witnesses. The phrase book of life is also the reading of the Old Bohairic version. Finally, it is the reading found in the writings of Ambrose (397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), Primasius (552 AD) and Haymo (ninth century).

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

> Eating from the Tree of Life is given to those who "overcome" and who "do the commandments."In other words: the Elect. Now, read the full text of Rev 22:19 in light of this:
> 
> ,And if any man shall diminish of 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 those things where are written in this book Geneva Bible
> 
> ...



Could you do me a favor and have one of your Reformed Professors read the above? 

There were "books" opened, and in those books were written the deeds of all men. There was another book opened, and this was the Lamb's Book of life. All those who's names were not written in that Book were cast into the lake of fire. It is as clear as day to anyone reading this from a Reformed perspective that all men's deeds are recorded in the "books" but only the Elect are written in the Book.

Yet you say that



> That a man's name can be blotted out of the Book of Life corresponds with the warning given here in Revelation 22:19.



Sorry, but Christ said the Elect were written in the Lamb's Book of life from before the foundation of the world, and no one could take His Elect out of His hand. All your post did was to confirm that the only possible theologically correct translation for Rev 22:19 is not



> And if any man shall diminish of 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 those things where are written in this book



It can only mean those who diminish the Bible will be kept from eating of the Tree of life.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 25, 2009)

Tim, I am very interested in this discussion, not because of the argument about the translation, but because of the implications of the change in meaning. (I am no scholar, but the translations make perfect sense to me.) Could you elaborate? 


> In both Genesis and Revelation the first mention is location.
> 
> Quote:
> Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
> ...



Is there any connection between this and Rev. 21:1-3? 


> 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place [1] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, [2] and God himself will be with them as their God. [3]



I will start another thread on this if it's too much off topic.


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

> Tim, I am very interested in this discussion, not because of the argument about the translation, but because of the implications of the change in meaning. (I am no scholar, but the translations make perfect sense to me.) Could you elaborate?



I think we'd end up going down the path to whether or not the present earth is redeemed, and made perfect, or if it's going to burn away totally and be completely replaced. Is that what you were wondering about?

Regards


----------



## discipulo (Jan 25, 2009)

Yes, Thank you Tim, it is a very interesting argument.

But how would you see the relation with Exodus 32?

_Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 
And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book._ Exodus 32:32-33

It is also important to mention that Kinney has several arguments, apart from numerology ,in stating Book as a good translation.
Also that the origin of Book in the TR textus receptus of Erasmus may not be the Latin Vulgate.


Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life? 

Will Kinney

_Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.) 
Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts. 
Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22, or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22. Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few). 
Of course, the biggest "change" comes in verse 19. Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages." _


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

That is true, there is an example of the expression to blot out some one's name from the Book of Life.

Leaving aside the reams of pages written about the pros and cons of using one word over another, what I'm really getting after is why at least a score of people on this board think it is a sin to use the word Tree, when only 4 of over 200 Greek mss use the word Book. A sin so great that Elders of all the major Reformed churches are in violation of their ordination vows by using a translation that goes with not only the overwhelming majority of preserved Greek manuscripts, but fits in so well with the context.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2009)

TimV said:


> So, using the word Tree in Revelation 22:19 is a departure from Divine Perfection



The correct method of procedure is to establish the text first, then exegete the text, then conclude what patterns exist. If the text can bear the conclusion that a parallel exists between Genesis and Revelation in terms of three references to the tree of life, well and good; but it is highly improper to argue what the text must be on the basis of preconceived parallelisms which the exegete believes ought to exist.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 25, 2009)

That was a very beautiful post. I never saw that before- the three parallels with location, attributes, and access. It was heart warming.

...just wanted to say what a blessing that post was to read. Thanks.


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks, Lynnie!



> The correct method of procedure is to establish the text first, then exegete the text, then conclude what patterns exist. If the text can bear the conclusion that a parallel exists between Genesis and Revelation in terms of three references to the tree of life, well and good; but it is highly improper to argue what the text must be on the basis of preconceived parallelisms which the exegete believes ought to exist.



Naturally you are right, and I wouldn't presume to debate hermeneutics with someone of your learning. But my point with the numerology was that some people will go to any lengths to defend the AV as totally without error, even to the point of using numerology.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2009)

TimV said:


> But my point with the numerology was that some people will go to any lengths to defend the AV as totally without error, even to the point of using numerology.



I can't recall seeing that on PB. Amongst fundamentalist baptists there might be odd arguments like that, but amongst reformed folk who use the AV my experience has generally been that they speak of the integrity of the text first, and then recommend the trustworthiness of the translation of the preserved text.


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

> I can't recall seeing that on PB. Amongst fundamental baptists there might be odd arguments like that, but amongst reformed folk who use the AV my experience has generally been that they speak of the integrity of the text first, and then speak of the trustworthiness of the translation of the preserved text.



It was one of Steve's links supporting the AV perfection position, posted right here. That's where I got it. And he did admit to relying heavily on IFB scholarship.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2009)

TimV said:


> It was one of Steve's links supporting the AV perfection position, posted right here. That's where I got it. And he did admit to relying heavily on IFB scholarship.



Knowing Steve, I would suggest re-examining what he said, because I doubt seriously if he meant his statement to be taken without qualification. He often uses those source because they provide convenient online links which help to present the text-critical literature in summary form. I think we all agree that the abundance of particulars involved in this debate make it very difficult to present one's case over a discussion board.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jan 25, 2009)

Okay I am highly confused.

The word "book" wouldn't fit into most those contexts.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 25, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Eating from the Tree of Life is given to those who "overcome" and who "do the commandments."In other words: the Elect. Now, read the full text of Rev 22:19 in light of this:
> >
> > ,And if any man shall diminish of 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 those things where are written in this book Geneva Bible
> >
> ...



Tim:

Sure, I will do that and get back to you.

But the reading you say is so "obvious" is not explicated by Matthew Henry:



> The rule of judgment settled: The books were opened. What books" the books of God's omniscience, who is greater than our consciences, and knows all things (there is a book of remembrance with him both for good and bad); and the book of the sinner's consicence, which though formerly secret, will now be opened. _And another book shall be opened_ - the book of the scriptures, the statute-book of heaven, the rule of life, pg 2483.


On Rev. 3:5 and the "blotting out the name from the Book of Life":



> Christ will not blot the names of his chosen and faithful ones out of this book of life; men may be enrolled in the registers of the church, as baptized, as making a profession, as having a name to live, and that it was but a name, a name to live, without spiritual life; such often lose the very name before they die, they are left of God to blot out their own names by their gross and open wickedness. But the name of those that overcome shall never be blotted out, pg. 2468.


So? What seems obvious to you is not so obvious to others who are of a better understanding of things.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 25, 2009)

> Okay I am highly confused.
> 
> The word "book" wouldn't fit into most those contexts.



Exactly, and since only 4 of the over 200 Greek manuscripts that we have today use "tree, the overwhelming number of Christian scholars dealing with this verse use the word "tree", as do versions such as the ESV, which is being promoted by top Reformed scholars. 

But there are many people, at least 20 on this board, who think it sinful to use the word "tree" for various reasons, including the belief many here hold that a Calvinist hating Dutch Catholic was inspired by God to re-create the original Books of the New Testament in the early 1600s. So to their mind, switching the word from Book to Tree is changing the Word of God.

Fortunately, none of the Reformed denominations hold to this teeny, tiny, group of people, except for one of the Presbyterian micro denominations. That doesn't stop them pushing their position at every opportunity, though.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jan 25, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Tim, I am very interested in this discussion, not because of the argument about the translation, but because of the implications of the change in meaning. (I am no scholar, but the translations make perfect sense to me.) Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In a matter of speaking. I was actually reflecting on a sermon I heard a few weeks ago about heaven and the afterlife in which the speaker spoke about the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. I really had gotten far enough along to question whether the earth was going to be purified with fire or completely made new. That's a good question.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 25, 2009)

Hay Tim:

There are four citations in the Book of Genesis that contains the "Tree of Life": Genesis 2:9; 3:17, 22, 24.

-RPW


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2009)

Tim,

We could probably get a little further in these discussions if you stopped speaking so heinously derogatorily against Erasmus. We all understand you think he is the scum of the earth.


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2009)

> We could probably get a little further in these discussions if you stopped speaking so heinously derogatorily against Erasmus. We all understand you think he is the scum of the earth.



That's not true. I'm using Luther's view of Erasmus as a teaching tool, since the AVers compile lists of Westcott and Hort's moral failings. I'm trying to point out to them that their arguments, to be taken seriously, have to be consistant.

It is something I find exceedingly irritating. It's OK that Erasmus was an enemy of the Reformation, but if Hort attended a spiritualism meeting it's proof that the CT comes from the Devil.

It's OK to point out that some one I'd never heard of until studying this says the Septuagint was a titanic hoax, and use this person as proof for your position, but I'm a big, fat, meenie for calling that a conspiracy theorist mentality.

It's OK to ask "where are all the Alexandrian copies? There are more Byzantine copies" but when I point out that the vast majority of Byzantine copies use Tree instead of Book people resort to tactics even as foolish as numerology to support the "inspired" choices Erasmus made when choosing among Byzantine sources. "It's true that the manuscript of Revelation Erasmus had in front of him is missing the last six verses TODAY, but since God is not a liar I believe that manuscript had those verses 500 years ago".

That's the bottom line. "The TR is God's perfectly preserved Word, without error, otherwise God is a liar". 

And of course the logical outcome of this primitive thinking is that Reformed Elders who use something different are all in a state of constant (although ignorantly) state of oath breaking.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 26, 2009)

Hay Tim:

There are four citations in the Book of Genesis concerning the "Tree of Life."

Also, kindly explain how one can loose their "part" in the Tree of Life, (your supposed translation of Rev. 22:19) when all the Scriptures you cite make it clear that the Tree of Life is given only to the elect?

Are you among the Arminians who claim that the Elect can lose their salvation?

Finally, no one I know on the board has ever sought to argue for the TR by making an ad hominen attack on Westcott and Hort. Your are arguing in a vacuum.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2009)

> There are four citations in the Book of Genesis concerning the "Tree of Life."



If you had read them, the third and fourth mention are the same. Access. And if fits in perfectly with what I wrote above.



> Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
> Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
> Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.





> Also, kindly explain how one can loose their "part" in the Tree of Life, (your supposed translation of Rev. 22:19) when all the Scriptures you cite make it clear that the Tree of Life is given only to the elect?



Didn't grow up on a farm, did you. It means no access to the produce of the tree. A "part" of the harvest isn't a given until after it's dealt out. Not like a name already written in a book.



> Finally, no one I know on the board has ever sought to argue for the TR by making an ad hominen attack on Westcott and Hort. Your are arguing in a vacuum.



Would you care to bet a 20 dollar donation to the Puritan Board on that? What has been said about them in the last year, and more than once was just as serious as what Schaaf says Luther said about Erasmus



> vainest creature in the world, as an enraged viper, a refined Epicurean, a modern Lucian, a scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 26, 2009)

Hi:

Nope - did not grow up on a farm. However, your farm analogy does not work in the context of the passage which further reads:

_God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book...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_

Your interpretation does not fit the theology of the Tree of Life, nor does it fit the context of the passage.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2009)

So do we have a wager?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 26, 2009)

No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.

Access to the Tree of Life is given only to the Elect. The context in Rev 22:19 indicates that one will be denied access because he/she "takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book."

No other passage in Scripture references such a denial. However, being blotted out of the Book of Life fits the theology and context of Rev. 22:19.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2009)

> No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.



Hmmm..you brought it up, but now you're dropping it. Well, OK. Please be aware that the CT is regularly condemned, including here, by people who use for proof the moral failings of W&H. And my observation is that they love to dish it out, but have a hard time taking it. Another sign of the internal weakness of the AVer theory.



> Access to the Tree of Life is given only to the Elect. The context in Rev 22:19 indicates that one will be denied access because he/she "takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book."



Exactly.



> No other passage in Scripture references such a denial. However, being blotted out of the Book of Life fits the theology and context of Rev. 22:19.



Yes, there is another passage. The Bible begins and ends with this parallel.



> Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
> Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
> Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.



And the overwhelming number of Byzantine texts bear this out. Not that an AVer cares about numbers. Well, they do care about numbers, but only when defending their pet theory. Number are a legitimate "proof" for the TR being God's authentic Word. But numbers are airily brushed aside when they are used against the AVer position.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2009)

This is one time where I wish that Calvin had written a commentary on Revelation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2009)

Or Revelation as well...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 26, 2009)

Oops.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 26, 2009)

TimV said:


> > No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim - you are not making much sense here.

The Genesis quotations are from the Beginning of the Created World. The passages in the Book of Revelation indicate that the Elect will be granted access to the Tree of Life. Only the Elect have this privilege:

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; *To him that overcometh *will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:2 is post Judgment Day, and only those who enter into God's Garden will have access to the Tree of Life. They are those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life:

Rev. 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: *but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.*

I read nothing in all the passages you cite that the Elect will not receive a portion of the Tree of Life after Judgment Day. Quoting Genesis does not make your case. Genesis is pre-Judgment Day.

Reading "Tree of Life" in Revelation 22:19 does not fit the context or the theology of the Scriptures. So, even though the majority of MSS evidence this reading, the reading is incorrect. The Bible cannot contradict itself.

The Elect will not be denied access to the Tree of Life post Judgment Day. The non-elect are blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Book of Life fits the context and theology better.

In other words: Your interpretation of Revelation 22:19 states that some of the Elect will be denied access to:

1) The Tree of Life
2) Heavenly Jerusalem
3) The blessings written in "this book."

That is bizarre to say the least.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 26, 2009)

Where are these statistics coming from? I looked at Metzger's text commentary and it said that no Greek manuscripts contained "book." Also, I thought Rev. 22 was pretty scarce in the manuscript evidence. Is there some kind of central database where you can look this up?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 26, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Where are these statistics coming from? I looked at Metzger's text commentary and it said that no Greek manuscripts contained "book." Also, I thought Rev. 22 was pretty scarce in the manuscript evidence. Is there some kind of central database where you can look this up?



Herman C. Hoskier's _Text of the Apocalypse_ goes through all the textual variations in all of the passages of the Book of Revelation.

It is a massive 2 volume work - I don't know where you can get a copy. I had to do an inter-library loan for it.

Why Bruce Metzger does not refer to it - I don't know.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 26, 2009)

Tim,

I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation. If their church and denomination understands the confession to mean a certain thing or to be inclusive of a certain position, then they are simply not violating anything. Do you accuse baptists of being in violation of their ordination vows since you don't think they rightly teach the word or administer the sacraments? No, because that's how they, as a church and denomination, understand their vows. You can think they are wrong, but you wouldn't say they are violating their ordination vows. 

Disagreements can be brought up and discussed without assuming the other is accusing people of violating an vow before God. I'm pretty sure no one (or at least very few) here assert what you're thinking they do. I hope that reading this can perhaps help to set your mind at ease; I certainly understand that such an accusation, if it were truly present, would unsettle you, as it would me.

Anyway, Grace and peace, brother.


----------



## TimV (Jan 26, 2009)

> I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation.



Wow, Paul. Thanks. Instead of enjoying my lunch I have to go and look this up

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index7.html

From a thread *you* started, so that those who didn't follow *THAT* thread know I'm not making things up. 23 people on the silly poll *YOU* started said that Elders in Reformed churches *HAVE* to use the TR or they are in violation.

I'm not sure whether it's a semantic problem, one of memory, comprehension, back peddling or something else, but not only did many of the Elders here see it clearly that way, but James White mentioned the thread *YOU* started, and also saw clearly what the poll *has* to mean.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 26, 2009)

That's fine, Tim.

Like I said, I don't want to get into this again. All that poll meant was that 23 people interpret the confession differently: that's not an accusation. As I stated repeatedly, I've accused no one of anything at all. I'm sorry you think my question was silly. I was just trying to understand the authorial intent of the confession.

Just _please_, don't say I've accused anyone of anything. Okay? I'm very sorry you've taken an academic question that way. Just believe me when I say that I have nothing against any pastor or elder who uses a CT translation. None. Nothing at all. The copy of the New Testament I use most is the UBS text, just because that's what I've always used and that's where my notes are written. So I certainly _can't_ have anything against people who use it. Peace, brother.

Over and out. I just really don't the energy right now to defend anything. If you want to say I've accused people, that's fine, go ahead. I won't stop you. This is the last time I'll say it: I never have, and I'm not planning on it.

Grace and peace, brother in Christ.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 26, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim,
It is a pretty common view here that the Westminster Confession is an EP document. Now the overwhelming majority of churches in the large conservative Presbyterian denominations are not EP. So those who are not EP should either take an exception or become EP. Those who do not would seem to be in violation of their oaths.

Would you attempt to argue contra EP by saying that since the vast majority of people do not practice such, then the Westminster Confession could not have meant such?

Or that people could not argue for the Westminster Confession being EP because it would put them into an overwhelming minority?

CT


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 26, 2009)

*Moderator Note.*
CT’s post is not off topic as an earlier moderator ruling, that some may have seen, may have implied. That moderator, I, and others, have come to a different consensus after discussing the matter. However, that topic may be worth a new thread. 

Asking the historical question of whether the Westminster Divines in their productions held to a particular position is fair game as a discussion of original intent. But, it should be an academic discussion (not a knee jerk or emotional one). The poll question that has been noted was simply that; looking toward the original intent of the WCF.

However; I'm concerned as are others about the imputing of implications regarding violation of vows and what not beyond that simple question. As Rich recently noted, “It's also good to remember that you can't [i.e. shouldn't] charge a person with holding to all the implications of his statements.” I think that more than applies here. Vow violation involves _animus imponentis _(intention of the imposing body) of any particular church imposing the vows per their constitutional documents. It is another question and one not asked by that poll. PB members will not "hang" anyone with that implication unless a person commits himself clearly to it. And then that question should be able to be fairly discussed based on denominational rulings and other documentation. 

N.B. This charge of vow violation implied against the 23 who voted yes on that poll *will not* be cast about any more. 

Thread reopened.


----------

