The following posts were moved from a duplicate topic.
****************************************
Laurie Mosher
Moderator posted 09-30-2005 07:23 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Laurie Mosher Click Here to Email Laurie Mosher Edit/Delete Message This could be "a sticky topic". I've examined and re-examined most of the "newer versions". Often times "other" versions can be used for a better Bible explanation, but one needs to be very careful that the original translation is not substituted or replaced. For instance in the KJV, Revelation 22:14 says Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Nearly all of the other versions have replaced "that do his commandments", with the phrase, "B;essed are they that wash their robes". The argument here is that, "WHAT does washing ones robes have to do with keeping God's commandments?"
Well, I've studied this topic for a bit, and believe that the Bible gives us the answer. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Obviously these two (2) verses are talking about commandment-breakers.
NOW examine verse 11
And such were some of you:
The word, "were" is past tense.
Continuing verse 11:
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
"But you are washed- that is washed in the blood of the Lamb".
John 8:31 Jesus says," Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; "
AND John 14:15, we read these words, If ye love me, keep my commandments.
So whether the verse reads "doing His commandments OR washing one's robes, the verse means exactly the same.
A further study of Revelation 22:15 in any version obviously refers to the obnedience of the commandments from the previous verse. In whichever version- Outside the city are who?
"Commandment breakers"!
Rev 22:15
(American Standard V) Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
(Bible Basic English) Outside are the dogs, and those who make use of evil powers, those who make themselves unclean, and the takers of life, and those who give worship to images, and everyone whose delight is in what is false.
(Contemporary English Version) But outside the city will be dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong.
(Douay-Rheims Bible - Roman Catholic Version) Without are dogs and sorcerers and unchaste and murderers and servers of idols and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.
(Good News Bible) But outside the city are the perverts and those who practice magic, the immoral and the murderers, those who worship idols and those who are liars both in words and deeds.
(God's Word) Outside are dogs, sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters, and all who lie in what they say and what they do.
(KJV) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(LITV) But outside are the dogs and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving a lie, and making it.
(World English Bible) Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
(Weymouth NT) The unclean are shut out, and so are all who practise magic, all fornicators, all murderers, and those who worship idols, and every one who loves falsehood and tells lies.
(Young's Literal Translation) and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.
IP: Logged
Randy S
Member posted 09-30-2005 07:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Randy S Click Here to Email Randy S Edit/Delete Message While some translations are no doubt superior to others, we need to keep in mind that none of them are perfect: not even the KJV. Ellen White counseled that we should learn to see the Bible as a whole, and I think that is the key. The proof text method is not the best method for gaining a complete understanding of God's Word.
For example, the KJV rendering of Genesis 1:28 has God commanding Adam to "replenish the earth". "Replenish" what? Replenish gives the idea that something was there before, and was depleted. But that was not the case. There is reportedly an evangelist who uses this KJV text to teach that there was a prior creation to the Genesis account, which God destroyed.
Where did the KJV translators get this idea? The prior English translation had the word "fill", differently spelled of course, instead of replenish. In fact, I know of no other translation that carries the idea of replenish. It was even corrected in the NKJV translation.
Another point to remember is that there is inherently some paraphrasing that occurs in most translations, including the KJV. Take a look at the Greek in Romans 3:25 for example. How do you go from a noun in the original (lid of the Ark) to the word "propitiation"? The translators did not choose to tell you the God made Jesus the "lid of the Ark", but rather they chose to tell you what the lid of the Ark represented (propitiation). This is the same word that Martin Luther chose to translate into a brand new word: English translation "mercy seat". At least it stayed a noun in his translation. Best to let the reader know what the original concept actually was, and then to have the reader study and think about what the lid of the Ark of the Covenant represented, rather than to tell the reader what the committee thought it represented, don't you think?
Still, the KJV is the finest English translation I have ever read. But there are many new and prospective Christians who find it tedious reading and get discouraged with the antiquated English it contains. They find some of the newer translations easier to understand and, I believe, if they are taught to see the Bible as a whole, comparing one scripture with another, they are on safe ground with most Bible tranlsations.
We need to teach people to build a framework of truth based on the Bible as a whole, and then to paint in the detail with additional study. When you do that, each text must fit into the framework, and the ones that don't are easy to spot, easily researched with a concordance and a Strongs dictionary, even for simple lay-folk like myself. It's when we teach people to build doctrine off of individual texts where specific translations become critical, and I think that method is fraught with danger, as the couple of quick examples I have given may indicate.