why is it written “scroll of life”
in 22:19
and not “tree of life” ?
thank you very much
Erwan
Some translations render it ‘tree’’ others ‘scroll’. The KJV has scroll and the Greek word is biblos that I gather is scroll and where ‘book’ comes from. I presume this is the more accurate.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 'book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.KJV
Rev 22:19 and if any one may take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the scroll of the life, and out of the holy city, and the things that have been written in this scroll;’
Young’s Literal
But NIV renders it
Revelation 22:19
[19] And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
It would be interesting to know whether there is a difference in the manuscripts used to translate or this is a translators effort to render their own understanding.
I suspect someone here will know the reasons for this.
S
I think it depends on the Greek text used, I think the Textus Receptus has scroll of life, whereas other manuscripts have tree.
When Erasmus (1466-1536) was preparing his Greek edition of the New Testament, he had only one Greek manuscript of Revelation. Unfortunately the last six verses were missing. So Erasmus consulted the Vulgate and back-translated those verses from Latin to Greek. Thus the first Greek manuscript containing “book of life” came into existence. Erasmus did the best he could with what he had. For he had no complete Greek manuscript of Revelation available to him. But the Greek editors who followed him, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, slavishly followed the translation of Erasmus, rather than consulting the Greek manuscripts which became available. And with the wealth of early Greek manuscripts available in our day, there is no excuse for not rendering the phrase “tree of life” in the translation. There is no doubt that John had written “tree of life”. So why did some translators stay with “book of life”? Was not this, evidence of poor scholarship? Or was there a traditional reason for following Erasmus et al. in this? Was there a theological reason, perhaps a theory of inspiration, which required staying with the textual group which later formed the Textus Receptus?
Erasmus can be excused, since he had no Greek manuscripts for that part of Revelation. But later translators (including many of those in modern days) who followed textus receptus in spite of having the earlier Greek manuscripts available to them, cannot be excused.
You may be interested in learning what I, personally, discovered about two textual groups which I call “Group A” and “Group B,” which I posted on another forum. You can find in by going to the link below:
theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=2229&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=early+manuscripts
Very useful explanation Paidon. That evil evil Vulgate. 
Thanks Paidion, good explanation; that’s one I’ll store in my notes if I may - more particularly the info on the link.Thanks
S
Weirdly, even though the NASB correctly reports “tree of life”, their Strong’s number for the term is “book” just as earlier in the verse.
Why they would foster confusion on this point I have no idea. It isn’t as though any non-universalist would consider there to be any difference from having one’s “part” in the “tree” or “book” of life taken away! – and neither has any more connection to theories of inspiration than the other (since the salient point in that regard is agreed on by all texts, “if anyone takes away from the words of this book/scroll of this prophecy”).
Maybe the insistence on hanging to the “book” text is because we just recently in this same chapter very explicitly saw that being excluded from the tree of life was far from hopeless?! But non-universalists who regard being blotted from the book of life to be hopeless have ways (right or wrong) of getting around the promise of hope for salvation in this chapter, which (right or wrong) would seem to carry over interpretatively to this saying about the tree.
Well, no one ever said non-universalism has to make sense. 
I presume you are talking about some physical edition of the NASB. This is not the case with the Online Bible NASB.
Hm, yes. Also, it’s the 1970s edition (the one I grew up on) which for no apparent reason continues to be printed. The more updated version is rare, and I couldn’t find it in the Hebrew/Greek study edition I wanted.
If it’s fixed in the Online Bible version, maybe that means they fixed it in the newer print edition, too? (Depends on whether the Strong’s numbering is independent of the version with the OB-NASB.)
Yes, I think that is the case (independency) with the Online Bible.
Same is true with BlueLetterBible online: terms are Strong-ID’d independently of the translations.