If you could read Hebrew and Greek

[John the Baptist]

From what I have read, Erasmus used Codex 1r which was missing the last leaf (the last 6 verses of Revelation). To further support the idea that it was back translated from Latin, the part where it says "Book of Life" occurs as such in the Latin Vulgate, but is read "Tree of Life" in the Greek. No Greek text that Erasmus had access to contained the reading "Book of Life". The earliest appearance of "Book of Life" comes from Latin. And the Greek words for "book" (βιβλιον) and "tree" (ζ

[Calvary]

# 1 - citations to the tune of 7 sources.

A simple review of the critical apparatus' of Von Soden, or Tischendorf's 8th, or Nestle-Aland's 26th, Alford, USB, Metzger, Hoskier, (Revelation) would provide the proof that you seem to need before you will turn away from fables and wives tales.

# 2 - citations to the tune of 5 sources.

The KJB's "book" does in fact have Greek support.

051, 296, 2049, 2067, mg.

# 3 - citation to the tune of 1 expert that puts every one on this board on quiet repose, or do you suppose to "debunk" the eminent scholar Doctor Hoskier?

Doctor Herman Hoskier, the world's foremost collator of Revelation mss, says that Erasmus did NOT take the reading from the Latin. (ask Mr baptist if he will share the words of Erasmus himself that I sent him in Latin, PM)
Hoskier maintains that the reading came from 2049 or perhpas 141. (The Text of Revelation)

And you have the nerve to say that I didn't provide any sources? Can you read English beloved?

Again I state with total confidence from my years of experience. Even when confronted with overwhelming evidences, men whose predisposition against the error free position of the KJB onlyist will continue to cavil. Case in point.

Stating that even if you provided proof of such quotes I would remain unconvinced? You made the statement that such quotations exist. The onus is on you to provide such proof.

I repeat.

It's amazing what one finds when one does his own studies in place of simply reading one sided histories that are antangonistic to the KJB being the final, errorless, preserved authority.

Gentlemen, even if I did produce the needed source quotes, in my experiences, men much like yoursleves will not be swayed by any facts. You will continue to promote falsehoods as gospel truth.

Mr Baptist, as much as you have read the negative material about Hort, about Wescott, you continue to profer their fodder as a Bible.

My Lord said it is better to not cast pearls before swine.

@ Will,

You may find it quite amazing at what a specific google search will avail. Give it a whirl.

The Bible says to study to show THYSELF approved.

Roll up your sleeves beloved. Do the needful that you might be profited.

God bless,

Calvary

A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced even still.

[Calvary]

Sorry for the bump,

Having just re-read page 4 of this thread, I see that Kubel and Will both stated opinions that Erasmus had no Greek mss for the ending of Revelation. Both posts were sans any source, sans any proof and sans any facts.

I will continue to stand where I stand on this issue. Niether of you having offered anything in the realm of proofs.

I have made reference to over 15 available materials that can be found and looked at. Yet according to Will, I have not proved anything.

lol

[Will]

Sorry for the bump,

Having just re-read page 4 of this thread, I see that Kubel and Will both stated opinions that Erasmus had no Greek mss for the ending of Revelation. Both posts were sans any source, sans any proof and sans any facts.

I will continue to stand where I stand on this issue. Niether of you having offered anything in the realm of proofs.

I have made reference to over 15 available materials that can be found and looked at. Yet according to Will, I have not proved anything.

lol

Here is one such quotation I have:

The only copy of the Book of Revelation he had was one he borrowed from a friend named Johann Reuchlin. He then engaged a copyist to make a copy of the document so that he could return the original to his friend. This proved a difficult task, because the manuscript included a commentary on the Revelation, and the copyist had to extract some of the biblical text from the text of the commentary. Naturally a number of mistakes resulted which found their way into Erasmus' Greek New Testament.
Furthermore, the final leaf of Reuchlin's manuscript was missing (or mutilated), so Erasmus backtranslated those verses (in addition to others in the Revelation and elsewhere in the New Testament) from the Latin Vulgate. In other words, he translated the missing passages, as well as several other NT verses, from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek so that he could finish the task in the allotted time. Consequently, several words and verses appeared in the final product which have never been found in any Greek manuscript to this very day. Indeed, one Greek term he used in Chapter 17 of the Revelation does not even exist in the Greek language (see below).
The number of Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament reached the grand total of seven. (Over 5000 are available to scholars today). These documents still exist, and are known to be of relatively poor quality and of late vintage. All of them, in fact, were minuscules from the 11th, 12th and 15th centuries. This, plus the back-translation from the Vulgate, and the speed at which he worked, produced a Greek New Testament that was replete with mistakes. Even Erasmus himself acknowledged the poor
quality of his work, with the written comment that it had been "thrown together, rather than edited."

Translation Problems in the KJV New Testament by Dr. Theodore H. Mann, Journal of Biblical Studies Issue 1:1 Jan- Mar 2001

Now, I know the Bible says that a younger man isn't supposed to rebuke an older man. But get ready because I'm about to go against that. You Calvary, post out of a spirit of haughtiness and pride that is second to none on this board. I've debated greatly and prayed concerning making this statement, and I feel that I can no longer remain silent. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, you mock and belittle them in a spirit that is NOT of God. I would challenge you to search your own heart, and see if these things are so. You taunt others who you are not in agreement of, and sneer that they are novices or ignorant. Rather than attempting to edify them, you tear them down. This attitude is not of God brother. You cannot worship God in spirit and truth when you inflict such callous words upon your brothers in Christ. Pride is not becoming of a minister of the Gospel. I will pray that you look at your own words and actions and check them against Scripture. I realize that I am not perfect, and I at times have posted in the flesh. If I have offended you, I ask your forgiveness. But you must understand brother, there are others on this board that you have mocked and belittled and hurt with your words. These things ought not be so.

In Christ

[kevinmiller]

Now, I know the Bible says that a younger man isn't supposed to rebuke an older man. But get ready because I'm about to go against that. You Calvary, post out of a spirit of haughtiness and pride that is second to none on this board. I've debated greatly and prayed concerning making this statement, and I feel that I can no longer remain silent. Whenever somebody disagrees with you, you mock and belittle them in a spirit that is NOT of God. I would challenge you to search your own heart, and see if these things are so. You taunt others who you are not in agreement of, and sneer that they are novices or ignorant. Rather than attempting to edify them, you tear them down. This attitude is not of God brother. You cannot worship God in spirit and truth when you inflict such callous words upon your brothers in Christ. Pride is not becoming of a minister of the Gospel. I will pray that you look at your own words and actions and check them against Scripture. I realize that I am not perfect, and I at times have posted in the flesh. If I have offended you, I ask your forgiveness. But you must understand brother, there are others on this board that you have mocked and belittled and hurt with your words. These things ought not be so.

:goodpost:

[Kubel]

Why does this discussion have to get personal? I hate to say it, but the more KJVOs I get into discussions with, the less I see their love. Why does this have to be "if you disagree with my position, you are an enemy of me and an enemy of God"?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=628329

There's the thread I was talking about. Lots of information there, particularly post 21. I'm not a Latin nor Greek scholar, so all I can do is hear what others say, check that their information has some backing, and then pass on what I've heard. Don't attack me, attack the information.

[Calvary]

The number of Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus in the production of his Greek New Testament reached the grand total of seven. (Over 5000 are available to scholars today)

This idea no doubt comes from the mis-information that Erasmus only used the library of the Basle Dominicans for his edition. To which is a mere assumption and unprovable.

"Erasmus himself protested against accusations of this sort in his dedicatory letter to Leo X. And it seems undeniable that he used notes, at any rate, which he had made on the manuscripts he had seen in England."
(Cambridge History of the Bible vol ii pg 498)

"Erasmus's own MSS collection was so large and valuable that it was siezed by customs when he left England to go and finalize the Greek New Testament. Erasmus said, 'They had stolen the labours of my life' ". (Froude, Life and Letters, pg 169)

In addition, it took two assistants to oversee and help transport his library. Certainly Erasmus was well verses in all readings.

This, plus the back-translation from the Vulgate, and the speed at which he worked, produced a Greek New Testament that was replete with mistakes.

As far as the back translation, I hope that there is enough doubt placed over this myth that we ought as good Christians give the KJB the benefit of the doubt.

To the "hurried work" fable, I cite the following.

Erasmus was surrounded by Bible mss for at least 40 years of his life. All biographies easliy prove this fact. His entire life was about the collection and studying of the Greek New Testament, vernacular Bibles, which he had memorized much of, studied many and had been exposed to Latin versions, Italica, Gothic, and Greek. Erasmus was already working on the Greek New Testament in 1507, a letter to Aldus Manutuis shows the important place this text had in his mind .

Froude writes that for years before 1507 the text was being prepared. (Froude, Life and Letters, pg 93)"He was known to be preparing an edition of the [Greek] New Testament with a fresh translation [Latin]. he had been at work over the Greek MSS for many years. The work was approaching completion".

"the edition was in great part prepared during a stay in England"
(Cambridge History of the Bible, vol 2 pg. 498)

Erasmus himself wrote, "I am losing my eyesight from overwork, I toil over Greek texts..." (Froude, Life and Letters, pg 76)

The Yale University Press states, "It is often reported that printer Johann Froben asked Erasmus to work quickly..." Yale continues, "Erasmus himself wrote that he had been working on his edition for two years", between 1512 and 1514. (Allen, Erasmi Epistolae III, Oxford, vol 3, no 256)

Rummel in Erasmus's Annotations on the New Testament, says that when Erasmus went to Basel to work on the printing of this Greek New Testament, he arrived, "weighed down with books... and copious notes on the New Testament".

Erasmus worked on the text for at least a dozen years.


Yet Kutilek says that it was "hastily and carelessly done." (The footnote offered by Doug Kutilek for proof in his book, Erasmus, His Greek Text and His Theology does not exist when checked)

I wish to add that it seems that most KJB detractors of any ilk, be they TR men or KJB preferred men, seem to overlook the simple truth that Erasmus is not responsible for the creation of a text, but rather the PRINTING of the Greek text that was recieved every where. He transmitted an already accepted text by the priesthood of the believers and put to print what was already hand written and which were used before the advent of the printing press.

Fredrick Nolan, in 1815 wrote, "It is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican mss. ... Erasmus published an edition, which corresponds with the text which has been since discovered to prevail in the great body of Greek manuscripts."

Erasmus was also familiar with the early Fathers, and verified his Greek New Testament with their writings.

Another seeming concept I see when talking about the KJB and it's underlying Greek is a naiveté that seems to suggest that the KJB translators sat down, opened Erasmus's Greek New Testament and translated it into English. Nothing could be further from the truth. The KJB is an ecclectic text that has the true God preserved readings and therefore is the inspired word of God through transmission. In other words, it really matters little if Erasmus had the last 6 verses of Revelation in his Greek NT or not. There is no obligation for the KJB to correspond exactly with the edition of Erasmus. That is a straw man argument that KJB critics have somehow convinced true Bible believers they need to address. And now the very conservative believers who are young, impressionable, looking for a reason to believe what they have been taught is so, have less material to access, are overwhelemd with these so called "discrepancies" when the simple and obvious fact is, there are none. (Young honest believers like kevinmiller) Brother, don't get side tracked and caught up in non essentials! If Erasmus didn't have it, SOMEONE DID! That's the real issue beloved. That much is true as we see that the KJB translators did in fact have the reading somewhere, in some MSS or IT WOULDN'T BE IN YOUR BIBLE!!!!

The KJB is a faithful transmission of the recieved text (readings) that all true believers have accepted since the beginning of the New Testament period. It is a vernacular Bible. It is a logical step in the continued preservation of God's word through His Body on earth.

If you are offended that I have presented a differing opinion other than yours and have had the audacity to back it up with quote after quote, then you brother need to grow up. How does your casting the slightest doubt upon the veracity of the preserved word lift up and edify the believers on this board?


Yes, I am way over on the dogmatic side of my assertations, I have parried with Doctors for a long time who will truncate and distort the truth with not a care for it. The goal is to get rid of that book. At all costs, get rid of that book. Your goodly doctor , Will, is no different. Now the real thing that gets me is this, should I believe that this man has not read of these same arguments I have presented as rebutals before he ever wrote what he wrote? Hmm. If he had, what about his "Christian character"? Yet you would impunge me for talking tough yet honestly.

At least I do not willingly lie.

[John the Baptist]

@ Kubel,

Hardly brother. There is plenty of evidence.

@ Will (not SOD)

Slander? Hardly, and furthermore, your position was given no source proof whatsoever. Along comes a KJB only and all of the sudden the burden of proof is on him!!??

@ SOD,

What would Jesus do?

A. Inspire a Bible that people could read?
B. Inspire conflicting Greek mss which few could read?
C. Inspire unsaved liberals to write conflicting lexicons that would support conflicting Greek NT's?
D. Inspire the originals and then lose them?


@ Mr Baptist, Will (not SOD) and Kubel et al:

Men like William Coombs continue to influence the fence straddler with statements that say, "There is no Greek mss evidence for the last 6 verses of Revelation, Erasmus pulled them out of thin air, or backtranslated from the latin."

An aside, ya know Kubel, if you would think about it, Erasmus would hardly have confounded the two latin words as you suggested, in fact I dare say that you merely parroted the findings of some one somewhere as you do not read Latin? Erasmus confused over a few Latin words? What a pathetic entry! Surely your source knows nothing of Erasmus or his upbringing.

They say this knowing full well that they misrepresent the truth. They say this knowing that most run of the mill Christians won't suspect that they lie.
Adam is alive and well in KJB critics.

The KJB's "book" does in fact have Greek support.

051, 296, 2049, 2067, mg.

Doctor Herman Hoskier, the world's foremost collator of Revelation mss, says that Erasmus did NOT take the reading from the Latin. (ask Mr baptist if he will share the words of Erasmus himself that I sent him in Latin, PM)
Hoskier maintains that the reading came from 2049 or perhpas 141. (The Text of Revelation)

Let me speak plainly brethren.

A simple review of the critical apparatus' of Von Soden, or Tischendorf's 8th, or Nestle-Aland's 26th, Alford, USB, Metzger, Hoskier, (Revelation) would provide the proof that you seem to need before you will turn away from fables and wives tales.

It is sickening that men have to be convinced like children that the moon is not made of cheese and have mss numbers, names, sources that they neither have never heard of or seen a day in their life quoted before they will simply believe in faith that the KJB is vindicated, was always right, never was in question, will never be found to be in error and therefore more than just trustworthy, but altogether the inspired words of God.

Proof? Even criminals in our judicial system are afforded more respect than you men give the KJB.

I'm done,

Calvary

[The KJB's "book" does in fact have Greek support.

051, 296, 2049, 2067, mg.

Doctor Herman Hoskier, the world's foremost collator of Revelation mss, says that Erasmus did NOT take the reading from the Latin. (ask Mr baptist if he will share the words of Erasmus himself that I sent him in Latin, PM)
Hoskier maintains that the reading came from 2049 or perhpas 141. (The Text of Revelation)

051 is 10th Century A.D. 2049 is 16th Century A.D. 296 is 16th Century A.D. 2067 is 15th Century A.D. Two of these are after the printing of Erasmas Greek New Testament. Can you not understand why these manuscripts ,because of there late date, are not sufficient for textual proof that the manuscripts Erasmas had did not contain all of Revelation. He only had one manuscript avaible to him, that is why he translated the Latin into the Greek. He did a note worthy job.

[Guest Guest]

@ SOD,

What would Jesus do?

A. Inspire a Bible that people could read?
B. Inspire conflicting Greek mss which few could read?
C. Inspire unsaved liberals to write conflicting lexicons that would support conflicting Greek NT's?
D. Inspire the originals and then lose them?




Calvary

Calvary,
You know my answer to these questions. I've poured over all the manuscript "evidence" (anotherwards, read what other guys have said about it) and found it, though sometimes interesting, totally unedifying. What did it for me is when I was trying to witness to a coworker (who was a lesbian and a drunk) and she used the same textual arguments that a lot of the brethern use in order to reject the truth.(Actually, this wasn't the first unsaved person that resorted to this "christian" tactic). Now where do you think she learned all these arguments? From Christians thats where!

Wil

[Calvary]

Two of these are after the printing of Erasmas Greek New Testament.

Then two of them are before. :smile

(I notice that you still care little for proper spelling or grammer)

As I said, the KJB is not obligated to follow Erasmus, not in Revelation 22 or in Matthew 22. That is an self imposed requisite of the critics, a diversionary tactic to somehow find fault with the KJB.

So far niether you nor Will have offered anything other than one man's quote who in said quote cites no proof whatsoever that Erasmus followed anything.

For all you know he followed a little wolf.

@ Song,

I agree.

[John the Baptist]

Then two of them are before. :smile

(I notice that you still care little for proper spelling or grammer)

As I said, the KJB is not obligated to follow Erasmus, not in Revelation 22 or in Matthew 22. That is an self imposed requisite of the critics, a diversionary tactic to somehow find fault with the KJB.

So far niether you nor Will have offered anything other than one man's quote who in said quote cites no proof whatsoever that Erasmus followed anything.

For all you know he followed a little wolf.

@ Song,

I agree.

This is not a perversion tactic, but following the Greek text which is the basis and authority for the KJB. Erasmus did a good job of translating the Latin into Greek. I am not trying to discredit the KJB. It is a known fact that Erasmus translated the last six verses of the final Chapter of Revelation into Greek, which were missing from the manuscript he had in his possession.

God Bless
John

[Calvary]

Diversionary, not perversion.

As far as being a well known fact, that remains to be a matter of opinion.

According to your proofs thus far it is, John the Baptist guy on the forum says ... versus Doctor Hoskier, the pre-eminent scholar on Greek texts of the Book of Revelation says.

I'll give you one guess as to whom I'll believe.

Secondly, it is an myth exposed that Erasmus had no Greek text. The facts of history would indicate that Erasmus had ample evidences and ample first hand knowledge of the last 6 verses of Revelation from his 40 years of pursuing the information. His library alone took two young men to help him move it from place to place.

On this issue mr. baptist, your information is wanting, your loyalty to false information betrays your unwillingness to see any truth objectively.

I say again, in my years I have found the case to be this, any critic of the KJB, be he a TR man or a KJB preferred, in the end will reject historical proofs, citations, quotes from scholars for their own predetermined belief that no translation can be error free. Your doctrine of originals only is unbiblical and untenable, and worse yet, unprovable.
Sadly, not even God Himnself could change your mind. It's already made up.

[IM4given]

Okay you guys have me all confused about this - which is not difficult to do these days :loco

Are the ones who are arguing about the validity of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation trying to discredit or explain away the scriptures that forbid the changing of any of the words of the Bible? Do you honestly mean to say that we should just rip that page out of our Bibles and throw it out? Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to get at here and why you are so vehemently arguing about this? :puzzled:

If those last 6 verses of the Holy Bible don't mean anything, than neither does any other verses of scripture in the Bible - we might as well pitch the whole thing in the garbage can. Once we throw out that page, then someone else will come along and tell us that other pages are no good either, and expect us to rip them out of our Bibles too. Very soon we will have nothing left of the scriptures upon which our civilization has been based. What makes that any different than burning Bibles like Hitler did? You can argue about it, believe in it or not, throw in the garbage can and burn it if you have to, but God will continue in His work in spite of all the human efforts to eradicate his Holy Word. Do I have to remind anybody about the message Bro. Matt has posted on every page of Online Baptist? :wink

[Calvary]

Good posting Janet. (I can't beleive I even said that! - just kidding)

Here is the issue boiled down.

If the KJB critic can cast aspersion on our KJB error free position, he can begin to invalidate our KJB only position. So he goes to work trying to prove that there are errors in our Bible. He does not do it in the English, he attacks the underlying Greek text that we claim as foundational to our position.

So what does the "original only" man do? He says that there is an error in the KJB by way of no Greek textual support for the last 6 verses in Revelation. He says there are no Greek texts anywhere that have the reading as we find it in our KJB. He furthermore casts doubts upon Erasmus's text by suggesting that Erasmus doctored the text to be in line with what the Latin vernacular Bible says.

If he (the no error free Bible man) can't openly attack the KJB, he will do so by a back door attack on the text which our precious Bible was translated from. Guilt by association.

Does that make sense Janet?

But the problem is multiple in its scope. First off, there is no evidence that what John the Baptist, or Will have posted is in fact true. Will quoted a man who cited nothing. Will quoted the opinion of another man sans any historical evidence at all.
John the Baptist merely said "it is a well known fact". According to whom? Daniel Wallace? James White? James Coombs? Doug Kutilek?

Secondly, there is ample historical evidences that Erasmus was familiar with several variations of the text in question, had personal experience with several vernacular (languages) versions and was also in posession of literally hundreds of letters from the sharpest of minds of his time who helped him concur textual types.

Thirdly, and by far the most damaging to this mythical fable of criticism is that in the end analysis, it makes no difference whether or not Erasmus found his last 6 verses in Latin or pig-latin for all that matters, there is no reason to dismiss the reading in Revelation as found in the KJB for lack of Erasmus' support. Especially since the bulk of the NT Greek that underlies the KJB was taken from Stephens and Bezae, not Erasmus. Even the KJB translators themselves said they consulted many versions to bring forth the KJB.

In the end it is a moot point. But the finer points are to expose the false dealings of men who insist that we do not have a perfect Bible. They will lie. They will distort. They will flat out ignore evidence. And worse yet, they will continue to tell their myth wherever they can find an audience. Even after having been publically proved to be in error.

Yes, I am going to go to the mat for this. Satan is the father of the lie. Do you do the works of your father?

[IM4given]

Good posting Janet. (I can't beleive I even said that! - just kidding)

Who'd ever think that we'd ever see eye to eye on any issue?

Good posting Bro. Calvary. :highfive: