Massorite Posted February 24, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted February 24, 2008 When I did some research on this verse (Book of Rev. ch. 4 verse1) I found that the word "opened" had been changed from the word "open". So when we look at this verse as saying "I looked and behold a door WAS OPENED" verses "I looked and behold a door WAS OPEN". We can see that changing the word "open" to the word "opened" can change how we perceive what the verse is actually telling us thereby changing what we understand and leading us to believe that which is not. The Geneva bible which was the first ever bible translated into English was translated by William Tyndale in 1526 almost 100 years before the King James version and uses the word"open" instead of the word "opened". Which means that if the door was already open when John looked up then those who use this verse to re-enforce the Pre-trib concept have not done their research and are deceived into believing that which is not and are teaching that which is wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grungekid Posted February 24, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 660 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/01/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1990 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I have a question related to this: why is it that certain sentences in the Old Testament don't make any sense once we subtract the italicized words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 25, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2008 I have a question related to this: why is it that certain sentences in the Old Testament don't make any sense once we subtract the italicized words? I never noticed that. Can you give us an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted February 25, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 I have a question related to this: why is it that certain sentences in the Old Testament don't make any sense once we subtract the italicized words? Can you give an example of what you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grungekid Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 660 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/01/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1990 Share Posted March 1, 2008 It's coming: "And the vestibule that was in front of the sanctuary was twenty cubits long across the width of the house, and the height was over one hundred and twenty." -2 Chronicles 3:4 That's just one that I encountered the other night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan4257 Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 421 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/24/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 When I did some research on this verse (Book of Rev. ch. 4 verse1) I found that the word "opened" had been changed from the word "open". So when we look at this verse as saying "I looked and behold a door WAS OPENED" verses "I looked and behold a door WAS OPEN". We can see that changing the word "open" to the word "opened" can change how we perceive what the verse is actually telling us thereby changing what we understand and leading us to believe that which is not. The Geneva bible which was the first ever bible translated into English was translated by William Tyndale in 1526 almost 100 years before the King James version and uses the word"open" instead of the word "opened". Which means that if the door was already open when John looked up then those who use this verse to re-enforce the Pre-trib concept have not done their research and are deceived into believing that which is not and are teaching that which is wrong." Very interesting. Strong's says "to open up (lit or fig., in various applications): open." Which leaves the writer to translate into whatever sense seems most appropriate to the writer. In the NIV the verse is translated as "After this I looked and saw a door standing open in heaven..." So it appears that the translators of that version agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbit Pada Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 113 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/17/1964 Share Posted March 1, 2008 When I did some research on this verse (Book of Rev. ch. 4 verse1) I found that the word "opened" had been changed from the word "open". So when we look at this verse as saying "I looked and behold a door WAS OPENED" verses "I looked and behold a door WAS OPEN". We can see that changing the word "open" to the word "opened" can change how we perceive what the verse is actually telling us thereby changing what we understand and leading us to believe that which is not. The Geneva bible which was the first ever bible translated into English was translated by William Tyndale in 1526 almost 100 years before the King James version and uses the word"open" instead of the word "opened". Which means that if the door was already open when John looked up then those who use this verse to re-enforce the Pre-trib concept have not done their research and are deceived into believing that which is not and are teaching that which is wrong." That's very good to know Massorite I didn't know that, I bet there's alot of little things like that that have been changed in scripture; I know when I study I find my Greek interlinear a great help for things like that. Thanks for sharing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 I have a question related to this: why is it that certain sentences in the Old Testament don't make any sense once we subtract the italicized words? The italicized are usually words that have been added for clarity. It is near impossible to make a direct 'word for word' translation. I will respond further and demonstrate this in your example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2008 "And the vestibule that was in front of the sanctuary was twenty cubits long across the width of the house, and the height was over one hundred and twenty." -2 Chronicles 3:4 Here is a transliteration of the Hebrew: ve-ha-'ulam 'asher `al_peney ha-'orek `al_peney rokhav_ha-bait 'amot `esrim ve-ha-govah me'ah ve-`esrim ve-yetzapehu mi-penimah zahav tahor: Which is, as 'word for word' as I may: and-the-vestibule which upon_front the-length upon_front width_the-house cubits twenty and-the-height hundred and-twenty and-he be to overlay from-faceward gold pure: and-the-portico which upon_face the-length upon_face width_the-house cubits twenty and-the-height hundred and-twenty and-he be to overlay from-faceward gold pure: and-the-portico [ve-ha-'ulam] which ['asher] upon_face [`al_peney] the-length [ha-'orek] upon_face [`al_peney] width_the-house [rokhav_ha-bait] cubits ['amot] twenty [`esrim] and-the-height [ve-ha-govah] hundred [me'ah] and-twenty [ve-`esrim] and-he be to overlay [ve-yetzapehu] from-faceward [mi-penimah] gold [zahav] pure/clean [tahor]: In the above, I have laided it out three ways so that you can see not only the exact word order, but also how it all relates together. Hopefully this will be of some help to you in understanding these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted March 1, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Just nitpicking. I believe the Geneva Bible was Calvin's translation (or translated in Calvin's Geneva). It was heavily influenced by Tyndale's translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts