PDA

View Full Version : 1 Thessalonians 5:22 - What does it mean?



TrustGzus
May 30th 2017, 05:01 PM
Based on another thread, some appear to think it means don't watch vampire movies? What do you think it means?

jesusinmylife
May 30th 2017, 08:37 PM
I think it depends on whether the Vampires are vegetarian or not.

TrustGzus
May 30th 2017, 09:05 PM
I think it depends on whether the Vampires are vegetarian or not.

I don't know any veggie vamps. Even in Twilight they weren't veggie.

jesusinmylife
May 30th 2017, 09:06 PM
I don't know any veggie vamps. Even in Twilight they weren't veggie.

Well, they considered themselves "vegetarian" since they didn't eat human blood. It was a loose play on words.

Brother Mark
May 30th 2017, 11:09 PM
The word "evil" here is from the Greek word poneros. It can mean "hurtful" or "evil, i.e. (in effect or influence). It is translated in the KJV as "bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked".

My current guess is that we should abstain from those things that have a bad influence upon us. So one person may abstain from all alcohol while another should abstain from watching violent TV shows. Perhaps it means more than this... but your question is a good one.

Trivalee
May 30th 2017, 11:35 PM
Based on another thread, some appear to think it means don't watch vampire movies? What do you think it means?

To refrain from any activity or action that could lead to sin....

Walls
Jun 1st 2017, 08:32 AM
Based on another thread, some appear to think it means don't watch vampire movies? What do you think it means?

1 Thessalonians 5:22; "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

This is my understanding.

We must make the difference that scripture has made. It is NOT, "Abstain from all evil." It is Abstain from an APPEARANCE! That is, what APPEARS to be evil, but might not be evil. In 1st Corinthians 8:4-13 Paul regulates whether we should eat things offered to idols. In the text he establishes the following:

An idol is a nothing. It is a figment of idol-worshipers minds and has no substance in the spiritual world
Christians may freely eat food offered to idols
Christians have varying degrees of knowledge and maturity
The baby, or immature Christian who does not have this knowledge, must not eat of these things if his/her conscience does not allow it
The mature and knowledgeable Christian, who is in the weak one's company, must adapt to the weaker one for conscience's sake

That is, it is NOT evil to eat of food offered to idols. But to some Christians it APPEARS to be evil. If the Christian, who has liberty to eat these things knows, or suspects that he/she is in company of a weak Christian, the mature one must "ABSTAIN FROM THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL." This is so that the weak one, who is going according to conscience, is not stumbled.

This "Abstaining from the appearance of evil" can be applied to many things. Example; A man, a Christian, is clever and diligent. He becomes wealthy. He is FREE to drive a Mercedes Benz for he knows 1st Timothy 6:17; "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." But after some time he takes part in the Eldership of a Church that has many poor people, and many who think that a Mercedes Benz is a sign of worldliness. It is now time for this brother to relinquish his Mercedes, or buy an older one that has not the APPEARANCE of worldliness or excess. He does not sin by driving a Mercedes, but to some of the congregation it has the APPEARANCE of evil.

jesusinmylife
Jun 1st 2017, 12:43 PM
To refrain from any activity or action that could lead to sin....

Can you be a little more specific? Almost anything can lead to sin. If we choose to allow it.

BadDog
Jun 1st 2017, 01:44 PM
Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Seminary, views this text differently than most. I read an article by him on this text several years ago, and I agree with him. Now this will be something quite different than you've heard before on this verse, but I like that it fits so well into the context, both here and in Acts 17.

First then, we need to look at it in context in 1 Thessalonians. Most translations translate verse 22 something like, "Abstain from every form of evil." But what is meant by "form?" Wallace pointed out that the noun εἶδος (usually translated as "form" in this verse) can have the meaning of, "mint" or "coinage." He said something about the early church having a tradition that the words in verse 21 should actually be attributed to Jesus rather than Paul. And it was prefaced by the words "become approved money-changers." Now this is just tradition, but if Paul assumed that his readers were aware of it, what could Paul have meant here by "form of evil?"

BTW, the word we're considering here comes from εἶδο - "that which is seen." And it has a wide range of usage. Looking up εἶδος in a Lexicon I found one of the less common uses was, "wares of different kinds, goods,POxy.109.1 (iii/iv A.D.), PFay.34.7 (ii A.D.): hence, payments in kind, groceries." Wallace's idea of mint or coinage is part of the lexical possibilities in Bauer as well (BGAD), which can't be found online, unfortunately. Is Paul warning the Thessalonians against taking any bad coins? ...of a Bible teaching nature? It reminds me of what Luke (and perhaps Paul through Luke) had to say regarding the Jews in Berea:

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so.

Is that what Paul is warning the Thessalonian Believers about? Especially since we see here that this was a problem in Thessalonica with the Jews? Was Paul encouraging them to be more like the Jews in Berea?

Now verse 22 is in a participial form, perhaps better seen as, "by abstaining from evil things and by holding fast to the good." Sounds a bit like Acts 17:11. Also Paul may well be quoting from a previously unrecorded saying of Jesus in 1 Thess 5:21-22. If so, and this is just speculation, though with some historical support, then these verses could be rendered something like, "Test all things; hold fast to the good, but abstain from every false coinage." The idea then being that believers need to be careful to stay away from that which is counterfeit... IOW from false doctrines. Be like those Jews in Berea who examined the scriptures carefully to see if what Paul was teaching was valid. Look at verses 20-22 in the NRSV, for the context:

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good;

Then Paul gives this warning. How do we get his warning to fit into the immediate context? After saying to hold fast to that which is good, he says to avoid something.

Let's look at how this might fit into the context. In verses 19-20 Paul gives the warning, "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise the words of prophets." So that is the context for the warnings in verses 21-22. This is followed by a contrastive δέ (“but” or "instead") in verse 21, "but test all things." DE and ALLOS are two words usually translated as "but" in Greek, and DE always focuses on contrast while ALLOS is a strong negative. Now the context here has to do with exercising discernment when it comes to spiritual instruction. So why would Paul be warning about avoiding every form of evil, if by form of evil he meant to avoid bad behavior? That seems to be totally unrelated to what he had been saying, unless the "form of evil" he was referring to was doctrine.

The Thessalonians were being told to respect the Spirit’s guidance and to listen to the words of prophets in their church, and of course to scripture in general. Then they are warned not to just accept everything without question, but to "test all things." They should then keep the good and throw out the bad. Following this contextual reasoning, verse 22 has the idea of, "stay away from bad doctrine." That is perhaps what Paul means by "throw out the bad" with avoid "every form of evil." If so, then this warning in verses 19-22 has nothing to do with lifestyle but with doctrine. Avoid every form of bad doctrine or teaching.

Anyway, that's Wallace's argument, and it makes sense to me. But I have no issue with those who reject this reasoning. But IMO the "form of evil" here Paul was warning about was bad teaching.

BD

Scooby_Snacks
Jun 1st 2017, 02:08 PM
Based on another thread, some appear to think it means don't watch vampire movies? What do you think it means?

If an individual thinks that watching vampire movies will lead them into sin, yeah, they ought not watch 'em.

It seems to me that verse 5 is the last item of the items preceding it. It is a "give in".

Example: In order to take care of everything that pertains to your vehicle, for it to perform to it's ability for a very long time-

Have current insurance, manufactured recommended regular maintenance/upkeep, and cleanliness.
*Don't take it to fly by night mechanics. Be informed enough to make wise decisions about what is required.

The give in is: Be responsible- drive safely keeping yourself, passengers and others in mind on the road.

swordsearcher
Jun 1st 2017, 02:09 PM
This is a clear cut scripture that doesn't need to be complicated. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Paul lists some things that Christians should do or not do (verse 22). It's about living in sanctification("the Lord sanctify you wholly" in the verses that follow 22 ) which requires abstaining from the appearance of evil. If it looks evil, feels evil, tastes evil, or smells evil, stay away from it. Evil in any form is no good for e Christian.

Brother Mark
Jun 1st 2017, 02:21 PM
First then, we need to look at it in context.

The context caught my eye when TG first posted it. I've been wondering about it and then you post on it. Thanks for sharing what you shared. What's interesting to me about it is all the positives that are commanded. Then right at the end of the paragraph, a warning about abstaining from every form of evil.

1 Thess 5:12-22

12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil. NASB

So the specific context is that last sentence... 1st, examine everything. 2nd hold to that which is good. 3rd abstain from every form of evil.

Your post is intriguing. Though I wonder if it is speaking of any food we allow into our minds beyond just doctrine???

Thanks for sharing BD. You helped me see a bigger picture here.

Grace to you,

Mark

BadDog
Jun 1st 2017, 02:22 PM
This is a clear cut scripture that doesn't need to be complicated. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Paul lists some things that Christians should do or not do (verse 22). It's about living in sanctification("the Lord sanctify you wholly" in the verses that follow 22 ) which requires abstaining from the appearance of evil. If it looks evil, feels evil, tastes evil, or smells evil, stay away from it. Evil in any form is no good for e Christian.
You're welcome to reject my thoughts on vs. 22, though I did give careful support of Wallace's thinking here, but please note that "appearance " of evil as translated by the KJV is translated as "form" by virtually every modern translation. Also note that I did consider both the immediate context and the context of Paul's missionary journey where he visited Thessalonica. You're just looking at the sentence in verse 22 and choosing to ignore the context of that sentence. How does what Paul said in verse 22 fit into the paragraph? Regardless of what you think of Wallace's reasoning, you should explain how your thoughts fit the context, right?

I respect your opinion here, and to go with the most straightforward understanding as you've done is a solid hermaneutical approach. But we should always consider the context in trying to interpret accurately.

Paul is not saying to avoid every "appearance" of evil, but to avoid every "form" of evil. That is not lexically sound. The KJV rendering is simply a poor translation here. Regardless of how you view my earlier post, it's "form," not "appearance."

BD

BadDog
Jun 1st 2017, 02:34 PM
The context caught my eye when TG first posted it. I've been wondering about it and then you post on it. Thanks for sharing what you shared. What's interesting to me about it is all the positives that are commanded. Then right at the end of the paragraph, a warning about abstaining from every form of evil.

1 Thess 5:12-22

12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil. NASB

So the specific context is that last sentence... 1st, examine everything. 2nd hold to that which is good. 3rd abstain from every form of evil.

Your post is intriguing. Though I wonder if it is speaking of any food we allow into our minds beyond just doctrine???

Thanks for sharing BD. You helped me see a bigger picture here.

Grace to you,

Mark
Mark,

You're welcome, and this was not my idea, but Daniel Wallace's, whom I have much respect for. And as you said whether Paul was just referring to teachings or more, we do need to try to get it to fit into the context.

Thanks for pointing out the larger context of the chapter also. I have found that most passages which have been misunderstood or are difficult to understand are clear when read in context.

Also, I like how this fits into the historical context (Acts 17). I think that was my own idea, not Wallace's, but it's been awhile since I looked at what he wrote. I believe it was an article pointing out the error of the KJV use of "appearance" there. I took notes on it and those are what I posted from.

BD

swordsearcher
Jun 1st 2017, 02:37 PM
You're welcome to reject my thoughts on vs. 22, though I did give careful support of Wallace's thinking here, but please note that "appearance " of evil as translated by the KJV is translated as "form" by virtually every modern translation. Also note that I did consider both the immediate context and the context of Paul's missionary journey where he visited Thessalonica. You're just looking at the sentence in verse 22 and choosing to ignore the context of that sentence. How does what Paul said in verse 22 fit into the paragraph? Regardless of what you think of Wallace's reasoning, you should explain how your thoughts fit the context, right?

I respect your opinion here, and to go with the most straightforward understanding as you've done is a solid hermaneutical approach. But we should always consider the context in trying to interpret accurately.

Paul is not saying to avoid every "appearance" of evil, but to avoid every "form" of evil. That is not lexically sound. The KJV rendering is simply a poor translation here. Regardless of how you view my earlier post, it's "form," not "appearance."

BD

I don't reject your view of this scripture. Whether it's form of evil or appearance of evil, evil doctrine or evil vampire, abstain from it.

BadDog
Jun 1st 2017, 03:51 PM
I don't reject your view of this scripture. Whether it's form of evil or appearance of evil, evil doctrine or evil vampire, abstain from it.
Swordsearcher,

Thanks. I tried to post twice, and lost it. So I give up on it. I'll just say a few quick words and go away for a day... until they fix this stupid server.

In Ephesians 6:5-7, Paul says to avoid doing things as "eye-service," striving to please men. In Galatians 1 Paul again warns against striving to please people.

Normally I would post those verses, but I've been too discouraged by this erratic server.

My concern with the use of "appearance" here is so many believers say that we have to be so careful about offending someone with what we say or do.

Hogwash! Our goal should always be to just strive to please the Lord.

Catch you later... much later, unfortunately. :P

BD

TrustGzus
Jun 1st 2017, 09:20 PM
BadDog's post and what he shared from Wallace match what I think is going on.

The NIV family has shown this. It's interesting looking at how the NIV family has progressed on this. The 1984 had it as a bunch of sentences that weren't obviously tied together.

Look at 1984...

19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

Then in the TNIV they made it a long sentence...

20Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22reject whatever is harmful.

2011 did the same as TNIV by making it a longer sentencebut went to more traditional wording on verse 22...

20*Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21*but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22*reject every kind of evil.

Anyway, that makes a lot of sense to me.

BadDog
Jun 1st 2017, 11:29 PM
BadDog's post and what he shared from Wallace match what I think is going on.

The NIV family has shown this. It's interesting looking at how the NIV family has progressed on this. The 1984 had it as a bunch of sentences that weren't obviously tied together.

Look at 1984...

19 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

Then in the TNIV they made it a long sentence...

20Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22reject whatever is harmful.

2011 did the same as TNIV by making it a longer sentencebut went to more traditional wording on verse 22...

20*Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21*but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22*reject every kind of evil.

Anyway, that makes a lot of sense to me.

TrustGsuz,

Very interesting what the NIV did there. They allow the natural progression to show.

BD

TrustGzus
Jun 1st 2017, 11:45 PM
TrustGsuz,

Very interesting what the NIV did there. They allow the natural progression to show.

BD

I wish HCSB / CSB had followed.

jesusinmylife
Jun 2nd 2017, 12:00 AM
More and more I'm starting to appreciate my NIV Bible even more. I think I should update to the 2011 edition. I'm still on the 1984.

keck553
Jun 2nd 2017, 12:28 AM
The word "evil" here is from the Greek word poneros. It can mean "hurtful" or "evil, i.e. (in effect or influence). It is translated in the KJV as "bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked".

My current guess is that we should abstain from those things that have a bad influence upon us. So one person may abstain from all alcohol while another should abstain from watching violent TV shows. Perhaps it means more than this... but your question is a good one.

I don't know if trees can be classified as vegans, but apparently their fruit can be "poneros...."

Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. (Matthew 7:17)

keck553
Jun 2nd 2017, 12:29 AM
More and more I'm starting to appreciate my NIV Bible even more. I think I should update to the 2011 edition. I'm still on the 1984.

NIV is an excellent translation.

Aerith
Jun 2nd 2017, 12:30 AM
Swordsearcher,
My concern with the use of "appearance" here is so many believers say that we have to be so careful about offending someone with what we say or do.

Hogwash! Our goal should always be to just strive to please the Lord.

BD

This is true, but we won't have to "tip-toe" with our words if we warn others in love - and making sure we take care of the beam in our own eye frist. In some forums I have read from a lot of Christians who don't warn others out of love, but rather either condescending or even name-calling, and putting others down for their ignorance. Thankfully, I have not read a lot of that here on this site. :)


And to answer the OP: If God convicts you of something you shouldn't be doing or saying, obey Him. It's really that simple. :) And if you aren't sure, you're so much better off asking Him in prayer.

TrustGzus
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:47 AM
This is true, but we won't have to "tip-toe" with our words if we warn others in love - and making sure we take care of the beam in our own eye frist. In some forums I have read from a lot of Christians who don't warn others out of love, but rather either condescending or even name-calling, and putting others down for their ignorance. Thankfully, I have not read a lot of that here on this site. :)


And to answer the OP: If God convicts you of something you shouldn't be doing or saying, obey Him. It's really that simple. :) And if you aren't sure, you're so much better off asking Him in prayer.

I agree that if a person is convicted about something they should not do it. However, is 1 Thessalonians 5:22 a verse to use in support of that? If you follow the thread, I didn't not think it is legitimate to use that verse in that way.

Brother Mark
Jun 2nd 2017, 02:09 AM
I agree that if a person is convicted about something they should not do it. However, is 1 Thessalonians 5:22 a verse to use in support of that? If you follow the thread, I didn't not think it is legitimate to use that verse in that way.

Perhaps a better scripture is the one in Corinthians after Paul gave the discourse on whether it was OK to eat meat offered to idols or not. He summed it up with this verse:

1 Cor 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
NASB

This has been a very informative thread for me.

Jude
Jun 2nd 2017, 02:28 AM
You're welcome to reject my thoughts on vs. 22, though I did give careful support of Wallace's thinking here, but please note that "appearance " of evil as translated by the KJV is translated as "form" by virtually every modern translation. Also note that I did consider both the immediate context and the context of Paul's missionary journey where he visited Thessalonica. You're just looking at the sentence in verse 22 and choosing to ignore the context of that sentence. How does what Paul said in verse 22 fit into the paragraph? Regardless of what you think of Wallace's reasoning, you should explain how your thoughts fit the context, right?

I respect your opinion here, and to go with the most straightforward understanding as you've done is a solid hermaneutical approach. But we should always consider the context in trying to interpret accurately.

Paul is not saying to avoid every "appearance" of evil, but to avoid every "form" of evil. That is not lexically sound. The KJV rendering is simply a poor translation here. Regardless of how you view my earlier post, it's "form," not "appearance."

BD

Virtually every modern translation ?

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous Watch Out For Them!

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm


Jude

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 05:05 AM
This is true, but we won't have to "tip-toe" with our words if we warn others in love - and making sure we take care of the beam in our own eye frist. In some forums I have read from a lot of Christians who don't warn others out of love, but rather either condescending or even name-calling, and putting others down for their ignorance. Thankfully, I have not read a lot of that here on this site. :)


And to answer the OP: If God convicts you of something you shouldn't be doing or saying, obey Him. It's really that simple. :) And if you aren't sure, you're so much better off asking Him in prayer.
Agree completely.

BD

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 05:31 AM
Virtually every modern translation ?

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous Watch Out For Them!

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm


Jude
Jude,

Don't agree, FYI. And this text you quoted is not referring to the words translated from Greek or Hebrew into the KJ form of English text. Also, that isn't the best translation from Hebrew in the KJV there. You should look at what the NET has to say on it:

Psalm 12:6-7 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined. 20 You, Lord, will protect them; 21 you will continually shelter each one from these evil people, 22

Look at note #21 21 tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.

It appears that the word "them" is referring to the Lord's words, but that is impossible. A noun always has to agree in gender with its antecedent. It's referring to the oppressed mentioned in verse 5. Now the Lord's words (in the source language as they were spoken or written through the inspiration of the Spirit) are thoroughly reliable.

But these verses are not saying that God protects the words of translation. I must warn that you are in a dangerous organization... almost cultic. Please at least consider what other Christian groups have to say. You can look at CARM, an excellent Christian apologetics organization.

I've heard that argument from Psalm 12 before.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 05:33 AM
I do not want to turn this into a KJV-only rabbit trail, but I felt that I could not ignore what was posted regarding Psalm 12.

BD

Daniel567
Jun 2nd 2017, 07:21 AM
NIV is an excellent translation.
The fact of the matter is that it is one of the worst paraphrases around (using the fancy term "dynamic equivalence" to excuse its trangressions), adding and subtracting and transposing words at will. It is also constantly under revision, just like a house that was never built properly and is in constant need of repairs.

TrustGzus
Jun 2nd 2017, 11:37 AM
Virtually every modern translation ?

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous Watch Out For Them!

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm


Jude

Besides the good comments by BadDog, if you think your understanding of Psalm 12 is correct, I'd encourage you to read this thread I wrote where I not only explain the problem based on the Hebrew but give comments from people that lived before the KJV, and people who use the KJV and don't agree with what you're saying.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/241813-Psalm-12-and-the-KJV

TrustGzus
Jun 2nd 2017, 11:55 AM
The fact of the matter is that it is one of the worst paraphrases around (using the fancy term "dynamic equivalence" to excuse its trangressions), adding and subtracting and transposing words at will. It is also constantly under revision, just like a house that was never built properly and is in constant need of repairs.

Even translation scholars who aren't NIV fans don't call it a paraphrase. Usually the term paraphrase is used when taking a version already in the same language and modifying or simplifying it.

This is why The Living Bible is called a paraphrase. Ken Taylor took an English translation (ASV) as his base and worked from that.

Daniel and Jude, I'd really encourage you fellows to read both sides of the KJV issue. I'd also encourage you to read both sides with a fair-minded approach. What I mean by that is realize both sides are believers. Both sides are fallible too. All people can be deceived by Satan. That means, as unbelievable as this may sound, that the KJV only side might be the deceived ones.

This means reading books and (using a baseball analogy) calling a ball a "ball" and a strike a "strike".

Also, I'd recommend anyone taking an "introduction to logic" course at their local junior college. The amount of fallacies the KJVO side commit is really off the charts.

i think the difference in these two sides shows in the attitude towards the alternate. Those on the modern side do appreciate the KJV. I know that I do. One of the main reasons they end up talking about problems these days is often to simply counter the KJVO idea that the KJV is perfect. It's an outstanding work of scholarship. It's clearly not perfect.

Brother Mark
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:04 PM
My mind has been changed on this topic because of this thread. I have embraced, but not entirely, the common interpretation of "abstain from all appearance of evil". But there were things that did not settle with me. I couldn't reconcile it completely with other passages (nor with the concept of freedom that is taught in the scriptures).

I think one problem with the common interpretation of "abstain from all appearance of evil" is that we allow others to determine how we should live before the Lord. Is that how Jesus lived? For example, it appeared evil to Simon for Jesus to let the woman wash his feet with her hair. It appeared evil to the Pharisees for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. How did Jesus get accused of being a wine bibber and a glutton if he never drank wine or if he didn't eat with others a good bit? So it seems that Jesus did things even though they "appeared evil" to other people.

I couldn't reconcile all that. There was a tension with it and it seemed unbalanced if I took the "avoid all appearance of evil" to its logical conclusion. No watching any TV because well, I am now supporting evil Hollywood. Now, I can't shop in any store that sells a TV because that is supporting evil Hollywood. And for those that are teetotalers, where can I buy groceries without supporting those that sell alcohol, and so on. So avoiding "all appearance of evil" becomes almost impossible in our current society if it means what we have commonly interpreted it to me.

But with BD's post, and with TrustGzus' posts, this tension goes away. For now, we are to be careful of what we let into our souls through teaching. Let's look at the context again.

1 Thess 5:12-22

12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.
NASB

The first sentence of the paragraph is about those that teach us and how we are to esteem them. Then, we are told to live peacefully with one another. Then we are instructed to admonish, encourage, help, and to be patient with others. Next, we are informed that we are not to return evil for evil but rather, to always seek the good of others. Then, we are instructed to rejoice, pray, and have gratitude (RPG is a powerful weapon!). Nor, we are told, are we to quench the Spirit. Then in closing, the author says "do not despise prophetic utterances but examine everything carefully. Hold fast to that which is good and abstain from that which is evil".

In my opinion, he is telling us to be Bereans when someone prophesies (preaches, etc). Keep in mind that periods and punctuation are interpretive. This reconciles very well with much of scripture including those passages that tell us to study to be approved, Romans 14 and 15, 1 Cor 8, etc. where we are taught freedom and that we are to live as unto the Lord.

Thank you TrustGzus for starting this thread and Baddog for contributing. I have been thoroughly blessed by what I have learned here.

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:21 PM
The fact of the matter is that it is one of the worst paraphrases around (using the fancy term "dynamic equivalence" to excuse its trangressions), adding and subtracting and transposing words at will. It is also constantly under revision, just like a house that was never built properly and is in constant need of repairs.
Uh, can you explain what you mean by "adding and subtracting and transposing words at will?" If you're referring to simple revision, the Zondervan Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has a commitment written into their charter to always keep the NIV up-to-date. It is a commitment to make changes over time due to the evolution of the English language and other changes needed so that the translation remains accurate over time.

In 1998 they made a revision to the NIV which was a gender inclusive change, bringing in changes that more accurately represented speech today. It was called the NIVI, and the SBC blew a fuse, saying that they were distorting the NIV. After some discussion, some big wigs with Zondervan said to them that they would not change the NIV in America. One problem... the CBT is independent of Zondervan, and they have the autonomy to do what they think is correct, and not be influenced by politically pressure. And they said they would change the NIV where necessary... that this was actually written into their charter, and h nce that they must continue to make revisions to keep it as accurate as possible.

I love that the Way that Zondervan has set up the CBT allows it to not be influenced by political or other pressures, even by their own founding organization! As a result, I would venture that no other translation is as true to their principles of Bible translation as the NIV. As an example, the committee of translators for the KJV felt tremendous pressure from King James and bowed to some demands he made, though they did stick to their guns with some demands as well. But the KJV was born as a result of tremendous political pressures. The King James Bible was designed to bring conformity among various groups some who opposed the Geneva Bible and to support the hierarchical structures within the English monarchy and the Anglican Church.

An example of another organization resisting such political pressures is the Universal Council of Churches, the organization behind the RSV. Some ere outrages that they translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than "virgin." But that was the correct translation. For decades they refused to allow anyone the rights to make a version of the RSV that translated that verse sifferently.

The SBC bought the rights to make a revision around 2000, and now we have the ESV as a result. But IMO the NRSV is more accurate and faithful in general than the ESV.

So I say that we should congratulate the CBT for their integrity. Detractors may choose to make statements similar to the one you made in your post. But I hope that people will recognize what is going on here and not simply jump on the bandwagon.

My issue with the NIV has never been their translate philosophy, but I felt that since a Reformed organization is behind it (PCA) that it had a Reformed bias in its translation. But as TrustGZus has explained they have made changes where this may have been so in the past. I also had a big issue with their translation of SARKOS as "nature" rather than the basic idea of "flesh." But the CBT changed that.

By the way, by definition it is NOT a paraphrase. A paraphrase is a translation from one language into the same language, such as Taylor did many years ago with the Living Bible (please don't confuse it with the NLT, which is a translation). Since the CBT clearly went from the original languages into English a claim of it being a paraphrase is simply not true.

The Message is also not a paraphrase, by definition. Peterson has a strong background in the original languages, and he made his translation in a very free form, I agree. But technically the proper way to refer to his work is as "paraphrastic," since he went from the original languages into English. Though in this instance I think we can call it a paraphrase since in an interview with Today's Christianity magazine he himself referred to it as a paraphrase. :D But the publishers still call it a translation.

So personally I am glad that the NIV has added, subtracted and transposed words in their revisions.

Thx for considering what I had to say on this. Please, no one respond with KJV-only claims... let's not go down that rabbit trail. :P

BD

Jude
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:30 PM
Uh, can you explain what you mean by "adding and subtracting and transposing words at will?" If you're referring to simple revision, the Zondervan Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has a commitment written into their charter to always keep the NIV up-to-date. It is a commitment to make changes over time due to the evolution of the English language and other changes needed so that the translation remains accurate over time.

In 1998 they made a revision to the NIV which was a gender inclusive change, bringing in changes that more accurately represented speech today. It was called the NIVI, and the SBC blew a fuse, saying that they were distorting the NIV. After some discussion, some big wigs with Zondervan said to them that they would not change the NIV in America. One problem... the CBT is independent of Zondervan, and they have the autonomy to do what they think is correct, and not be influenced by politically pressure. And they said they would change the NIV where necessary... that this was actually written into their charter, and h nce that they must continue to make revisions to keep it as accurate as possible.

I love that the Way that Zondervan has set up the CBT allows it to not be influenced by political or other pressures, even by their own founding organization! As a result, I would venture that no other translation is as true to their principles of Bible translation as the NIV. As an example, the committee of translators for the KJV felt tremendous pressure from King James and bowed to some demands he made, though they did stick to their guns with some demands as well. But the KJV was born as a result of tremendous political pressures. The King James Bible was designed to bring conformity among various groups some who opposed the Geneva Bible and to support the hierarchical structures within the English monarchy and the Anglican Church.

An example of another organization resisting such political pressures is the Universal Council of Churches, the organization behind the RSV. Some ere outrages that they translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than "virgin." But that was the correct translation. For decades they refused to allow anyone the rights to make a version of the RSV that translated that verse sifferently.

The SBC bought the rights to make a revision around 2000, and now we have the ESV as a result. But IMO the NRSV is more accurate and faithful in general than the ESV.

So I say that we should congratulate the CBT for their integrity. Detractors may choose to make statements similar to the one you made in your post. But I hope that people will recognize what is going on here and not simply jump on the bandwagon.

My issue with the NIV has never been their translate philosophy, but I felt that since a Reformed organization is behind it (PCA) that it had a Reformed bias in its translation. But as TrustGZus has explained they have made changes where this may have been so in the past. I also had a big issue with their trqnslation of SARKOS as nature rather than the basic idea of "flesh." But the CBT changed that.

by the way, by definition it is NOT a paraphrase. A paraphrase is a translation from one language into the same language, such as Taylor did many years ago with the Living Bible (please don't confuse it with the NLT, which is a translqtion). Since the CBT clearly went from the original languages into English a claim of it being a paraphrase is smply not true.

The Message is also not a paraphrase, by definition. Peterson has a strong background in the original languages, and he made his translation in a very free form, I agree. But technically the proper way to refer to his work is referring to it as "paraphrastic," since he wnt from the original languages to English. Though in this instance I think we can call it a paraphrqse since in an interview with Today's Christianity magazine he himself referred to it as a paraphrase. :D But the publishers still call it a translation.

So personally I am glad that the NIV has added, subtracted and transposed words in their revisions.

Thx for considering what I had to say on this. Please, no one respond with KJV-only claims... let's not go down that rabbit trail. :P

BD

Who owns Zondervan?


Jude

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:41 PM
I found this information at:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1471&context=clcweb

Following is a description of some of the 15 rules for translation which King James set up for the translation committee. Some consider the KJV to be actually a revision, and in actuality it is a revision of previous revisions of Tyndale's work, primarily the Bishop's Bible, as explained below. But it was a much better revision than previous revisions of Tyndale's work.


There are fifteen rules James transmits through Bancroft and each rule comes in on the side of established order and unity. The first rule states that "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit" (Norton 7). This rule is a clear gift to the bishops of the Anglican Church, one which they were most connected and familiar with. Rules eight through fifteen are especially revealing as they address the organization of the translating committees according to whom the translation of the Bible would act more a revision. Numerous translators would be involved and unlike the Geneva, Matthews, Coverdale, Bishops, or Rheims Bibles, the new translation would be the work of more than a handful of people. The rules are often clear on the job of each translator in each committee and rule eight is that "Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he think good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their part on what shall stand" (Norton 8). James has made sure no single voice is more prominent than others and that no name will be attributed to this translation but his own. Rules nine through eleven make the system of the checks and balance of translation even more apparent: each committee's work will be checked over by other committees and none will fully be ac- cepted until all are in agreement.

It goes on, for those interested in the history.

BD

Jude
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:43 PM
I found this information at:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1471&context=clcweb

Following is a description of some of the 15 rules for translation which King James set up for the translation committee. Some consider the KJV to be actually a revision, and in actuality it is a revision of previous revisions of Tyndale's work, primarily the Bishop's Bible, as explained below. But it was a much better revision than previous revisions of Tyndale's work.



It goes on, for those interested in the history.

BD

Thx for considering what I had to say on this. Please, no one respond with KJV-only claims... let's not go down that rabbit trail. :P


Jude

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:43 PM
Who owns Zondervan?


Jude
This is your only comment? It doesn't matter who owns Zondervan since Zondervan did not do the translation or subsequent revisions... the CBT did, and cannot apply pressure for revision changes.

BD

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:48 PM
Thx for considering what I had to say on this. Please, no one respond with KJV-only claims... let's not go down that rabbit trail. :P


Jude
Jude,

:lol: Touché. I actually respect what King James tried to do there. And I think that the translation committee tried to do what they thought was correct in their work... but when the monarch of the country in which you reside is the impetus and guiding force for a translation, having designed the rules for translation they were to follow... well, they must have felt some pressure! Who wouldn't?!

But as you imply, let's stick to looking at the NIV and how it was translated and its revision process. What do you think of how the CBT was set up? No other Bible has such a setup, protecting it from undue pressures.

BD

Jude
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:51 PM
Jude,

Touché. I actually respect what King James tried to do there. And I think that the translation committee tried to do what they thought was correct in their work... but when the monarch of the country in which you reside is the impetus and guiding force for a translation, having designed the rules for translation they were to follow... well, they must have felt some pressure! Who wouldn't?!

But as you imply, let's stick to looking at the NIV and how it was translated and its revision process. What do you think of how the CBT was set up? No other Bible has such a setup, protecting it from undue pressures.

BD

Who owns Zondervan?


Jude

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 01:54 PM
Here's what I posted earlier and is getting lost regarding the NIV revision process:




The fact of the matter is that it is one of the worst paraphrases around (using the fancy term "dynamic equivalence" to excuse its trangressions), adding and subtracting and transposing words at will. It is also constantly under revision, just like a house that was never built properly and is in constant need of repairs.

From an earlier post by Baddog:
Uh, can you explain what you mean by "adding and subtracting and transposing words at will?" If you're referring to simple revision, the Zondervan Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has a commitment written into their charter to always keep the NIV up-to-date. It is a commitment to make changes over time due to the evolution of the English language and other changes needed so that the translation remains accurate over time.

In 1998 they made a revision to the NIV which was a gender inclusive change, bringing in changes that more accurately represented speech today. It was called the NIVI, and the SBC blew a fuse, saying that they were distorting the NIV. After some discussion, some big wigs with Zondervan said to them that they would not change the NIV in America. One problem... the CBT is independent of Zondervan, and they have the autonomy to do what they think is correct, and not be influenced by politically pressure. And they said they would change the NIV where necessary... that this was actually written into their charter, and h nce that they must continue to make revisions to keep it as accurate as possible.

I love that the Way that Zondervan has set up the CBT allows it to not be influenced by political or other pressures, even by their own founding organization! As a result, I would venture that no other translation is as true to their principles of Bible translation as the NIV.


And if you have an issue with DE or "meaning based" translation, perhaps you would like to explain to us the issues you see with it? I went into some detail in earlier posts on the process. Please address my comments in posts I've already made on this. Why do you prefer formal equivalent translation? I explained in previous posts that no translation is actually word-for-word since this would not be translation at all, and even the KJV did not do so. What we are considering is whether or not a translation strives to follow the forms and word order, as much as possible, of the source language, as the NASB and KJV did, or prefers to focus on meaning first over form.

Added-edited: I should add that all translators consider the meaning of the source languages, of course, and all pay some attention to the source language forms. What we are referring to is the emphasis.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Jun 2nd 2017, 02:11 PM
Who owns Zondervan?


Jude
Jude,

I answered this previously, but you've ignored what I said. It does not matter who owns Zondervan now since the CBT is independent of Zondervan in translation issues. And the NIV was originally translated before the present ownership. But here is what Wikipedia says about Zondervan:


They are a part of HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc.

Zondervan was founded in 1931 in Grandville, MI, a suburb of Grand Rapids, by brothers Peter ("P.J.", "Pat") and Bernard (Bernie) Zondervan, who were the nephews of publisher William B. Eerdmans. The company began in the Zondervans' farmhouse and originally dealt with selling remainders and publishing public domain works.

The first book it published was Women of the Old Testament by Abraham Kuyper, in 1933.[2] Within a few years it developed a list of its own, and began publishing Bible editions. The Berkeley Version appeared in 1959, and the Amplified Bible in 1965. The NIV New Testament was published in partnership with the International Bible Society in 1973, and the complete NIV Bible appeared in 1978.[3] The company was bought by HarperCollins, a division of News Corp, in 1988, and is the company's principal Christian book publishing division. Scott Macdonald was appointed President and CEO in May 2011.[4]

So?

BD

Brother Mark
Jun 2nd 2017, 02:22 PM
I find it interesting that we started out on 1 Thes 5:22, then upon looking at the greater context we moved to 1 Thes 5:12-22. And from there, settled on 1 Thes 5:21-22.

1 Thess 5:21-22
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.
NASB

Now we are examining everything carefully concerning translations. Let us hold to that which is good and abstain from that which takes on the form of evil. We need to be careful in the doctrine we pursue and how we pursue it. It is worth studying out.

I use to be KJVO but then I met someone who walked in the power of God, full of love and mercy. But he used a different version. What did that say to me? I could not deny the power of God in this man's life. Now, I use something other than a KJV but I still use the KJB. And the Lord still speaks to me through the other versions.

Daniel567
Jun 2nd 2017, 04:25 PM
Uh, can you explain what you mean by "adding and subtracting and transposing words at will?"...
Since this thread is about another subject, I do not wish to derail it with detailed discussions about the Bible version issue. I just gave a very general warning to those who think the NIV is acceptable as a translation. While it has not generally been recognized as a paraphrase, that is precisely what it is and we could go into great detail to prove this. The hype and propaganda promoting modern Bible versions never gives Christians any warnings about what is really happening.

CadyandZoe
Jun 2nd 2017, 05:09 PM
You're welcome to reject my thoughts on vs. 22, though I did give careful support of Wallace's thinking here, but please note that "appearance " of evil as translated by the KJV is translated as "form" by virtually every modern translation. Also note that I did consider both the immediate context and the context of Paul's missionary journey where he visited Thessalonica. You're just looking at the sentence in verse 22 and choosing to ignore the context of that sentence. How does what Paul said in verse 22 fit into the paragraph? Regardless of what you think of Wallace's reasoning, you should explain how your thoughts fit the context, right?

I respect your opinion here, and to go with the most straightforward understanding as you've done is a solid hermaneutical approach. But we should always consider the context in trying to interpret accurately.

Paul is not saying to avoid every "appearance" of evil, but to avoid every "form" of evil. That is not lexically sound. The KJV rendering is simply a poor translation here. Regardless of how you view my earlier post, it's "form," not "appearance."

BD

Is it possible that the paragraph that precedes verse 22 contains "forms of evil", e.g. not appreciating those who teach or labor among us; not living in peace with one another; not rejoicing; quenching the spirit and etc.? If so, then perhaps the list is not meant to be exhaustive in which case verse 22 gives the general rule. Paul not only wants the Thessalonian church to do all the good things listed and avoid all the bad things listed, but he wants them to do other good things that aren't listed and avoid other bad things that aren't listed. After examining everything carefully, having determined what is good in that particular situation; do that. And having determined what is bad in that situation; don't do that.

jesusinmylife
Jun 2nd 2017, 05:23 PM
The hype and propaganda promoting modern Bible versions never gives Christians any warnings about what is really happening.

What exactly do you believe is happening?

BadDog
Jun 3rd 2017, 04:52 AM
Since this thread is about another subject, I do not wish to derail it with detailed discussions about the Bible version issue. I just gave a very general warning to those who think the NIV is acceptable as a translation. While it has not generally been recognized as a paraphrase, that is precisely what it is and we could go into great detail to prove this. The hype and propaganda promoting modern Bible versions never gives Christians any warnings about what is really happening.
Ok, I agree. But just FYI I pointed out the definition of a paraphrase. The NIV does not fit the meaning of a paraphrase. But you could refer to it as paraphrastic, though I myself would not agree with that.

BD

shepherdsword
Jun 3rd 2017, 10:40 AM
Virtually every modern translation ?

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous Watch Out For Them!

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” —Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm


Jude

MOD NOTE

The KJVO position is only allowed in Contro. You have been warned about this several times. Please respect our rules.

The KJVO only discussion stops now. If anyone has any questions please open a thread in chat to moderators.

Trivalee
Jun 3rd 2017, 03:36 PM
Can you be a little more specific? Almost anything can lead to sin. If we choose to allow it.

My understanding is to avoid any action, association, activity, etc that could potentialy cause one to sin. For example, a clean guy whose best mate is druggie may succumb to the same vice. Some believers believers are over confident of themselves and their ability to resist sin, but often they fall. Jehoram, who succeeded his father Jehoshaphat, king of Judah forsake the ways of the Lord which his father folowed and became evil and wicked influenced by his marriage to Ahab's daughter.

2 Chron 21:6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord.

One may argue that it is possible to associate with unrighteous people and still remian spotless, while this is true I believe however, that this is the essence of Paul's warning to flee from all appearances of evil. Why put yourself to the test when it's easy to walk away? I believe you'll find that the under mentioned passage also warns of the pitfalls of self confidence.

1 Cor 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

ChangedByHim
Jun 3rd 2017, 07:11 PM
1 Thessalonians 5:22; "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

This is my understanding.

We must make the difference that scripture has made. It is NOT, "Abstain from all evil." It is Abstain from an APPEARANCE! That is, what APPEARS to be evil, but might not be evil. In 1st Corinthians 8:4-13 Paul regulates whether we should eat things offered to idols. In the text he establishes the following:

An idol is a nothing. It is a figment of idol-worshipers minds and has no substance in the spiritual world
Christians may freely eat food offered to idols
Christians have varying degrees of knowledge and maturity
The baby, or immature Christian who does not have this knowledge, must not eat of these things if his/her conscience does not allow it
The mature and knowledgeable Christian, who is in the weak one's company, must adapt to the weaker one for conscience's sake

That is, it is NOT evil to eat of food offered to idols. But to some Christians it APPEARS to be evil. If the Christian, who has liberty to eat these things knows, or suspects that he/she is in company of a weak Christian, the mature one must "ABSTAIN FROM THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL." This is so that the weak one, who is going according to conscience, is not stumbled.

This "Abstaining from the appearance of evil" can be applied to many things. Example; A man, a Christian, is clever and diligent. He becomes wealthy. He is FREE to drive a Mercedes Benz for he knows 1st Timothy 6:17; "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." But after some time he takes part in the Eldership of a Church that has many poor people, and many who think that a Mercedes Benz is a sign of worldliness. It is now time for this brother to relinquish his Mercedes, or buy an older one that has not the APPEARANCE of worldliness or excess. He does not sin by driving a Mercedes, but to some of the congregation it has the APPEARANCE of evil.

Yeah, appearance is a poor translation. Correctly, "Abstain from every form of evil." The poor translation of appearance is a legalist's dream come true. It can then be used to forbid lots of activities that are NOT evil.

Daniel567
Jun 3rd 2017, 07:36 PM
Yeah, appearance is a poor translation. Correctly, "Abstain from every form of evil." The poor translation of appearance is a legalist's dream come true. It can then be used to forbid lots of activities that are NOT evil.

No. It is not a "poor" translation at all (more KJV bashing). Please note that "appearance" is one way of translating eidos.

Strong's Concordance
eidos: that which is seen, form
Transliteration: eidos
Short Definition: form
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from eidó
Definition
that which is seen, form
NASB Translation
appearance (1), form (3), sight (1).

As for "legalists", the only legalists we have from the Bible are those who believed that they could be saved by keeping the Law.

David Taylor
Jun 3rd 2017, 09:23 PM
The fact of the matter is that it is one of the worst paraphrases around (using the fancy term "dynamic equivalence" to excuse its trangressions), adding and subtracting and transposing words at will. It is also constantly under revision, just like a house that was never built properly and is in constant need of repairs.

I believe I have read that all modern versions that aren't public domain, and sell their version for profit/copyright, must make revisions and changes every few years.

Not sure exactly what that entails.

ChangedByHim
Jun 3rd 2017, 09:31 PM
No. It is not a "poor" translation at all (more KJV bashing). Please note that "appearance" is one way of translating eidos.

Strong's Concordance
eidos: that which is seen, form
Transliteration: eidos
Short Definition: form
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from eidó
Definition
that which is seen, form
NASB Translation
appearance (1), form (3), sight (1).

As for "legalists", the only legalists we have from the Bible are those who believed that they could be saved by keeping the Law.
It's a poor translation in the sense that most misinterpret the meaning of appearance based on how that word is used today. I'm not KJV bashing so get off your little soapbox.

TrustGzus
Jun 3rd 2017, 09:47 PM
MOD NOTE

The KJVO position is only allowed in Contro. You have been warned about this several times. Please respect our rules.

The KJVO only discussion stops now. If anyone has any questions please open a thread in chat to moderators.

I'm no mod. But I'm going to quote Shepherd's post as a reminder this thread is about the meaning and application of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. It's not a translations thread.

David Taylor
Jun 5th 2017, 02:15 PM
****************
* ModStaff Note *
****************


As stated above, all KJVO discussions shall be venued in the Contro subforum.

BadDog
Jun 9th 2017, 12:14 PM
I believe I have read that all modern versions that aren't public domain, and sell their version for profit/copyright, must make revisions and changes every few years.

Not sure exactly what that entails.
Any translation committee that is interested in keeping their translation accurate and correctly impactful will regularly evaluate their translation to keep it up-to-date. That should be viewed as a positive intention.

It is not about making money, but about retaining accuracy. Any translation which does not regularly revise the translation naturally declines in accuracy and impact.

BD

TrustGzus
Jun 9th 2017, 01:04 PM
Any translation committee that is interested in keeping their translation accurate and correctly impactful will regularly evaluate their translation to keep it up-to-date. That should be viewed as a positive intention.

It is not about making money, but about retaining accuracy. Any translation which does not regularly revise the translation naturally declines in accuracy and impact.

BD

As frustrating as updates can be (if you've memorized), I want accuracy over a fixed text. So I appreciate updates done to the NIV and ESV and CSB (the three I use the most).

Daniel567
Jun 9th 2017, 03:07 PM
It is not about making money, but about retaining accuracy. Any translation which does not regularly revise the translation naturally declines in accuracy and impact.
This is another Christian urban myth. Actually every revision is another attempt to water down the Word. So making a Bible "gender-neuter" (for example) is supposed to be more accurate and have a greater impact? It is all about making money from gullible Christians, while pandering to those who have no business tampering with the Word of God.

ChangedByHim
Jun 9th 2017, 03:15 PM
Any translation committee that is interested in keeping their translation accurate and correctly impactful will regularly evaluate their translation to keep it up-to-date. That should be viewed as a positive intention.

It is not about making money, but about retaining accuracy. Any translation which does not regularly revise the translation naturally declines in accuracy and impact.

BD

Yes but how often? I don't want a Bible translation that is making changes every five years or so.... constantly tweaking the text.

TrustGzus
Jun 9th 2017, 03:25 PM
This is another Christian urban myth. Actually every revision is another attempt to water down the Word. So making a Bible "gender-neuter" (for example) is supposed to be more accurate and have a greater impact? It is all about making money from gullible Christians, while pandering to those who have no business tampering with the Word of God.

Publishers do produce translations partly over financial concerns. Holman wants to do a Study Bible (for example). They don't publish a translation. So every time they sell a Bible, part of the funds go to Lockman for using the NASB or to some other publisher for permission to use a translation they produced. Holman puts scholars together and create the HCSB and now they don't have to pay for rights.

But they've updated the HCSB twice (the second time was the CSB). There's no money in revisions. That's simple integrity to be more accurate.

Same with gender-neutral. Let's look at one out of hundreds of examples I could use.

The KJV says in 1 John 2:9....

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

So if someone hates women, then he's not in darkness? The sentence begins with "he". So women are ok to hate?

The NIV cleared up the subject but not the object of the hatred....

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

The TNIV cleared it all up being gender neutral in the process.

Those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer are still in the darkness.

That is exactly what John means by ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι και τον αδελφον αυτου μισων εν τη σκοτια εστιν εως αρτι.

There is nothing wrong with what the TNIV did there.

Now that I've responded AGAIN to KJV arguments in this thread, if you have any objection, please start a new thread in contro and quit hi-jacking this thread about 1 Thessalonians 5:22 please.

CadyandZoe
Jun 9th 2017, 08:36 PM
Publishers do produce translations partly over financial concerns. Holman wants to do a Study Bible (for example). They don't publish a translation. So every time they sell a Bible, part of the funds go to Lockman for using the NASB or to some other publisher for permission to use a translation they produced. Holman puts scholars together and create the HCSB and now they don't have to pay for rights.

But they've updated the HCSB twice (the second time was the CSB). There's no money in revisions. That's simple integrity to be more accurate.

Same with gender-neutral. Let's look at one out of hundreds of examples I could use.

The KJV says in 1 John 2:9....

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

So if someone hates women, then he's not in darkness? The sentence begins with "he". So women are ok to hate?

The NIV cleared up the subject but not the object of the hatred....

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

The TNIV cleared it all up being gender neutral in the process.

Those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer are still in the darkness.

That is exactly what John means by ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι και τον αδελφον αυτου μισων εν τη σκοτια εστιν εως αρτι.

There is nothing wrong with what the TNIV did there.

Now that I've responded AGAIN to KJV arguments in this thread, if you have any objection, please start a new thread in contro and quit hi-jacking this thread about 1 Thessalonians 5:22 please.

What if John meant "brother"?

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2017, 09:08 PM
Publishers do produce translations partly over financial concerns. Holman wants to do a Study Bible (for example). They don't publish a translation. So every time they sell a Bible, part of the funds go to Lockman for using the NASB or to some other publisher for permission to use a translation they produced. Holman puts scholars together and create the HCSB and now they don't have to pay for rights.

But they've updated the HCSB twice (the second time was the CSB). There's no money in revisions. That's simple integrity to be more accurate.

Same with gender-neutral. Let's look at one out of hundreds of examples I could use.

The KJV says in 1 John 2:9....

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

So if someone hates women, then he's not in darkness? The sentence begins with "he". So women are ok to hate?

The NIV cleared up the subject but not the object of the hatred....

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

The TNIV cleared it all up being gender neutral in the process.

Those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer are still in the darkness.

That is exactly what John means by ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι και τον αδελφον αυτου μισων εν τη σκοτια εστιν εως αρτι.

There is nothing wrong with what the TNIV did there.

Now that I've responded AGAIN to KJV arguments in this thread, if you have any objection, please start a new thread in contro and quit hi-jacking this thread about 1 Thessalonians 5:22 please.

Seems to me that many are frustrated by some people trying to change the English language. That's the beef. To translate the bible in such a way as to accommodate arguments against "noninclusive" language was offensive to some. On the other hand, it would seem to me to be like Paul, and to become all things to all men that we might by some means win them to Christ, translating a book that was "inclusive" would be a good thing. English and most other languages I am familiar with (which is very, very few) use gender specific terms to include all people. In Spanish, a group of Latinos can include women. But a group of Latinas is women only. Thus Latinos is inclusive. In English, we use "you guys" the same way. It seems self evident to me that verse you quoted is all inclusive. But some want to change the language for reasons of their own.

I guess what I am saying is that I would rather someone turn away because of the offense of the cross than the offense of Mark or Mark's use of language.

CadyandZoe
Jun 9th 2017, 09:18 PM
Seems to me that many are frustrated by some people trying to change the English language. That's the beef. To translate the bible in such a way as to accommodate arguments against "noninclusive" language was offensive to some. On the other hand, it would seem to me to be like Paul, and to become all things to all men that we might by some means win them to Christ, translating a book that was "inclusive" would be a good thing. English and most other languages I am familiar with (which is very, very few) use gender specific terms to include all people. In Spanish, a group of Latinos can include women. But a group of Latinas is women only. Thus Latinos is inclusive. In English, we use "you guys" the same way. It seems self evident to me that verse you quoted is all inclusive. But some want to change the language for reasons of their own.

I guess what I am saying is that I would rather someone turn away because of the offense of the cross than the offense of Mark or Mark's use of language.

I'm personally not offended by gender inclusive language although it isn't as clear and unambiguous as gender specific language and so in my own writing I continue to use "he" and "him" for the sake of clarity. What offends me is two things: first the insistence that we change our language is both narcissistic and ignorant. And second, a change of wording is a movement away from what the author intended to say.