Subject: Re: Revelation 22:19 (Book of Life)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:25:56 +0000
To: "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>

To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
From: Paul Stringer 
Subject: Revelation 22 :19 (Tree of Life)

Eddie:

        In the King James it says that the book of life in Revelation
22:18-19 (biblos:G976) which is book. But other translation say tree.
In Strongs it is[book] and in other translation they say tree. I do not 
have an old text on the translation wonder if you could clear this 
up. tree and book are two different meaning in the bible.

paul

>From Eddie:
**************

    The Strong's words (974, 975 and 976) are always translated as
"book".  This word is NEVER translated as tree in the New Testament.
The TREE of life is mentioned in Rev 22:14. This is the Strong's word
(3586).  The word used in Rev 22:14 is also used in Acts 5:30, Acts
10:39, Acts 13:29, Galatians 3:13, I Peter 2:24, Revelation 2:7, Rev
22:2 and Rev 22:14.

     The correct translation should be BOOK.

*********************************************************************

From:          Philip Nowland
To:            <heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com>
Subject:       Re: Revelation 22 :19

Hello Paul

Revelation 22:19 in the New King James Version says - and if anyone takes
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part from the BOOK of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which
are written in this book.

This is virtually the same as the way that the King James Version translated
it, while nearly every modern translation chooses the words - Tree of Life -
rather than - Book of Life. I believe the correct translation in this verse
to be Book of Life, rather than Tree of Life. In the most reliable editions
of the Greek New Testament - the word BIBLIOS is found, and this should be
translated - Book, as it usually is rendered in other places that it is
found in the New Testament.

Why then do most modern translations render it - Tree of Life?

This highlights a serious mistake that has been made by most modern
translators, because they have used an edition of the Greek New Testament,
known as the Eclectic Text. Eclectic means - selecting or borrowing from a
variety of styles, systems or theories. This Eclectic text has been produced
by scholars of a most dubious nature from a theological standpoint. We would
disagree for instance with their view of the inspiration and accuracy of the
Bible. Their edition shows all the hallmarks of their bias to differ with us
with respect to this cardinal belief among Christians.

By an edition of the Greek New Testament, we mean a document where the whole
New Testament is presented in the Greek language of the first century. This
is an attempt, while considering all the available manuscripts (or even
fragments) of antiquity of the New Testament (there are about 28,000 of
them), to produce one single edition - that can be used by us as
representing the New Testament in the form that it was originally written.
The Eclectic edition has always been preferred by Liberal and Modernist
scholars, and has always been contested by a serious school of Evangelical
scholars.

There are other editions of the Greek New Testament. One of them is called
the Received Text, because it portrays, the text of the New Testament as it
has been passed down from generation to generation by the scribes of the
Christian church. Another is called the Majority Text, which simply
recognises the prominence among the variant readings, of the reading(s) that
are supported by the largest number of different manuscripts to which we
have access. Hence its name - the Majority Text. It should be noted that the
Received Text and the Majority Text are very similar, and most Evangelical
scholars prefer one or the other of these two, because they are so close to
each other.

The Eclectic edition of the New Testament, favoured by Liberal and Modernist
scholars, was popularised by two 19th Century English Anglican church
scholars; Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. These two men
were well known for the nature of their work, which was highly critical of
the accuracy of the New Testament. The first English translation to formally
use their edition of the Greek New Testament, was known as the Revised
Version (published in 1881), which was highly criticised by Evangelical
scholars for the unacceptability of its renderings. In the United States it
was itself substantially revised and then published (in 1901) as the
American Standard Version, which was an altogether more decent translation.

I suggest that you read the article that I wrote on the Westcott and Hort
Greek New Testament edition, which is found under my name, on the Haydid Web
Site. Address: http://www.haydid.org

The fact that such a large number of modern English translations have
followed the Eclectic text, does not mean that it is more correct in
scholarship terms. Rather, it explains the fact that the liberal ideas of
those who promote the Eclectic text have actually been more successful in
gaining acceptance in a specific and quite restricted area of scholarship
regarding the New Testament - that of translation of the Greek text into
English. It does not mean that the correct interpretation of the Greek text
was in operation. Indeed there are a number of occasions in the Eclectic
edition where it can be firmly shown that the rendering is totally out of
harmony with the facts as they quite obviously can be ascertained from the
context of the passage that they are found. Some examples of this are 
referred to in my article (mentioned above) on the Haydid web-site.

If the proportional influence that the Eclectic text has actually had upon
the study of the New Testament in general, were to be reflected in the
number of modern translations themselves, then it is highly likely that the
number of translations that have employed it would be noticeably smaller.

As for the phrase - Book of Life, it is found on a number of occasions in
the New Testament, and it is only necessary to read them, to conclude that
the use of the phrase in the context of Revelation 22:19 makes sense, and we
soon get to understand what it is talking about:

Phil 4:3 - And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who
laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow
workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.   (NKJ)

Rev 3:5 - "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will
not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name
before My Father and before His angels.   (NKJ)

Rev 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not
been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world.   (NKJ)

Rev 17:8 - "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of
the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth
will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the
foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and
yet is.   (NKJ)

Rev 20:12 - And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and
books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were
written in the books.   (NKJ)

Rev 20:15 - And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into
the lake of fire.   (NKJ)

Rev 21:27 - But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or
causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's
Book of Life. (NKJ)

The New Testament phrase Book of Life, is quite in harmony with similar
themes and ideas found in the Old Testament. For instance, there is
described the Book of the Living:

Psalm 69:28 - Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be
written with the righteous. (NKJ)
Surely, this is the same as the Book of Life!

How does all this relate to the Tree of Life? Well, obviously if your name
is written in the Book of Life, then you are able to partake of the Tree of
Life. But, they are not exactly the same thing.

Some people believe that the Tree of Life is actually the Bible (or the
Torah). There is no conflict in that. If your name is in the Book of Life,
you should have a desire to read, study and meditate upon the Word of God. I
would have thought that to be synonymous with partaking of the Tree of Life.
If we were view the Tree of Life as something that we are not able to
partake of until we get to Paradise (or Heaven), we must be reminded that
Paul did point out that we are seated already in Heavenly places (see
Ephesians 2:6).

We do not need to wait until we get to Paradise, where we could partake of
the Tree of Life, we can partake of the Tree of Life - the Bible now.

But, then that is what you would expect from someone whose name was written
in the Book of Life.

I trust that this assists

Philip Nowland - Huntingdon, England

************************************************************************