The Tree of Life and Exile

[TimV]

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]

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]

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]

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"?

Tim:

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

Blessings,

Rob

 

[TimV]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

Quote:
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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Okay I am highly confused.

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

 

[CalvinandHodges]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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