Matthew 5:21-22

[Pamelasv]

I'd actually flood this forum with questions, but I refrain.

In my nasb (touted as the most 'literal', which is why I read it, so I trust it the most.) It says:

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder'and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to you that everone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the into the fiery hellcourt; and whoever says to his brother 'You good for nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. "

The niv says 'raca'which is a term of contempt, replacing it with 'You good for nothing.'

I know there is the internet in which in some there are varying opinions, and it is more fun to discuss it anyway. I never was clear about this one.

Somewhere it says something about empty head? Personally I think that is terrible to say that is a term of contempt, or used as one. I have been guilty of it myself, using a different term tho, and know have been called it as well. But it reminds me of Moses, who said he was slow of speech, and God said 'Who formed the mouth?' Etc. So technically it is insulting God by insulting others who are fearfully and wonderfully made. Far from loving one another as we have been commanded.

[Littlelambseativy]

That translation is not one I smile familiar with but from the sound of it...I prefer the New King James though many here prefer another. The NKJ is one of the most true to the original writing of scripture.

[Kan]

That translation is not one I am familiar with but from the sound of it...I prefer the New King James though many here prefer another. The NKJ is one of the most true to the original writing of scripture.

 

You might like to watch Gail Riplinger on You Tube, she has done some interesting research on new versions. She is naturally hated by many.

[Willa]

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

I always think of the verse that says a fool says in his heart that there is no God.

Young's literal translation reads empty fellow for raca, and rebel for moros. Alt3 reads empty headed fool for raca, and worthless fool for moros.

The complete Word Study Dictionary say that raca is referring to the intellect like when I yell (to my shame) you stupid idiot! to a driver who cuts me off, driving recklessly while texting. Perhaps thoughtless is a good word for their act.

But mora refers to the person's moral character and heart as being worthless. It is standing in judgement of their value as human beings (which is forbidden), not their actions.

So I, too, am guilty of slander every few years, and we all must rely on God's grace both for our salvation and for overcoming bad habits.

NASV is most accurate to the text it uses. Many of us feel that text was corrupted by the gnostics whose stronghold was in Alexandria Egypt. The text that they call the oldest and best, alexandrinus, was from Alexandria and shows many changes that correspond to gnostic beliefs. The texts used previously to translate the ASV of 1901 were from the same family but translators did not leave out portions and change the meaning of others, but adhered to more conserviative renderings. The text for KJV, textus receptus, was drawn from both the Byzantine (held by the Greek church), and Vaticanus + Siniaticus, the texts used for the latin vulgate and ASV.

So many of us reject that the newer translations are most accurate which have chosen renderings that are not supported by the majority of early church fathers as well as early texts; instead we consider them slightly corrupted. If read with that in mind, they can still be edifying but we consider them less reliable. Many adhere only to Textus Receptus or to KJV. I like the byzantine (majority) texts and am less trustful of the Alexandrian texts, which were not used for good reasons by most of the early church.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'd actually flood this forum with questions, but I refrain.

In my nasb (touted as the most 'literal', which is why I read it, so I trust it the most.) It says:

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder'and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to you that everone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the into the fiery hellcourt; and whoever says to his brother 'You good for nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. "

The niv says 'raca'which is a term of contempt, replacing it with 'You good for nothing.'

I know there is the internet in which in some there are varying opinions, and it is more fun to discuss it anyway. I never was clear about this one.

Somewhere it says something about empty head? Personally I think that is terrible to say that is a term of contempt, or used as one. I have been guilty of it myself, using a different term tho, and know have been called it as well. But it reminds me of Moses, who said he was slow of speech, and God said 'Who formed the mouth?' Etc. So technically it is insulting God by insulting others who are fearfully and wonderfully made. Far from loving one another as we have been commanded.

 

The term that is used for "fool"  doesn't translate well into any of our english versions and it doesn't refer to someone's intelligence.  The word "fool"  in our culture is an ignorant person, a person without knoweldge or wisdom.   But that is not what "fool" meant in ancient near east.

 

The concept of a fool was someone who was living a lifestyle that was a danger to the community, in that it would potentially bring down God's judgment.    What I mean is that in our culture today in the west, we value rugged individualism, the self-made man.  We believe in striking it out on your own and making your own way, your own wealth and standing on your own two feet.  But in Jesus day, in that part of the world, that mentality was anathema.  In that part of the world (and there is still a residue of this today in the middle east), you didn't live for self.  You lived and worked for the good of your family, your clan and your community.  Your honor was wrapped up in the honor of your community in which you lived.  The good of the many outweighed the good of the one.  

 

So in Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus paints a picture of the worst kind of person.  This was a son who takes his inheritance and blows it on himself, who leaves his father and strikes out alone to do his own thing. In doing so he brings great dishonor to his father and the family.  For the original audience, this son was the most detestible person on earth, and Jesus is showing the immeasurable degree of the father's forgiveness by painting the son in such a negative light.    In ancient near east, the Prodigal Son is a "fool." 

 

So, in that culture to call someone a fool was to accuse this person of damaging the honor of the community.  "Fool" was slander and defamation of character if it was not true.  It was an attack on a person's honor in a way that most of us in our 21st century western culture have no point of reference for.  Honor was worth more than the wealth of the world.   Honor was so highly prized a man would die to keep his honor.  So to attack a man by calling him a fool, thus damaging his honor and to do so falsely without just cause, was a sin of huge magnitude.

[Augustine17]

It is true that the fool says/said in his heart there is no God. A fool is someone who acts unwisely or is silly. But telling someone you are useless or whatever just to say it is bad. It doesn't help them deal with their lack of knowledge or faith, and it just puts down, though there are circumstances when it doesn't. Jesus called one of his disciples dull before, I think because they had unbelief after he was resurrected. Still, Jesus has the well being of those who witness his way in mind when he preaches or rebukes (maybe not all of them). To call someone fool is nonconstructive unless somehow that gets them out of a bad habit or leads them to repent. A fool is referred to in Jesus' parables, but he did not call anyone a fool to their face for the sake of calling them a fool to their face, and I am not aware if he has even done it at all anyways. Also he did call hypocrites what they were and shamed them on many occasions, but when he did it he taught them a lesson or someone was taught a lesson by it. Other than that an insult is an insult, and insult's are not right. Paul also wanted people to be build up and not bring down and it is written in the Scripture.

 

 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear it. -

Ephesians 4:29 + the word it at the end which I added. (approx translation I guess)

Edited February 5, 2015 by Augustine17

[Guest Thallasa]

Thank you Shiloh for a very clear explanation,and it is very inteteresting too .

 

When you speak of 'rugged individualism' ,as a european who lives in the countryside ,this is not something

 greatly valued in the same way here,  as in the US of A ; The only two cultures who really think like that are

those of England (not Scotland,nor Wales ) and North America .

 

Through aggressive marketing capitalism etcit has been sold world wide ,and has done a great deal of

damage to healthy communities .Apparently in France before the war there were many

varieties of fruits and vegetables ,which have been reduced to one or two or three by big american companies

who have created franchises on God' seeds,and force small and big growers to buy from them, seeds which

genetically modified ,last only one season .

 

A culture of 'prodigal sons' who have never repented,and need to . 

[Pamelasv]

I'm sorry, I did not type correctly.  I was thinking of 'empty head', not fool. 

 

Well for crying out loud I cannot delete this. 

 

I DID say empty head at the bottom, so was trying to explain to Shilo357's post.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pamelasv

[Deychrome]

I used to be KJV-only, but after doing some research I've found that I'm not sure which translation I can really trust. Man cannot seem to keep his biasness in check when it comes to Biblical matters. A translator who believes in Once Saved Always Saved/ Eternal Security cannot translate the texts, apparently, without choosing words that help to support that belief. So, I have begun to study Greek, and will later learn Hebrew too, so that I can read and translate the old codices myself. Man will always prove untrustworthy, I guess.

[Guest shiloh357]

There will never be a perfect translation.  Every translation has strengths and weaknesses.   But none of the weaknesses that exist obscure the message of the text.   So any complaint about translations is really a non starter in that you can lead someone to the Lord using the KJV, NAS, or the NIV or whatever.