The word "opened"

[Richard_yaash]

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."

Within Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece the word in question is: heneogmene

Now, I freely admit I do not possess the knowledge of Greek to break this down appropriately nor accurately. However, you can easily see it is quite a bit different from what we see within 'Strong's'. Nor do I have a Greek Lexicon or dictionary in which or from which I may clearly lay this out from. According to the best sources I have, it seems to approximate most closely to "having been opened".

Within the Bishops translation as well is it rendered as "was open". In my opinion, it is merely a translational issue and I personally can not see any real drastic effect upon the text in this instance.

I do realize Massorite that you did not refer to Strong's here, but as it came up within the thread, I would like to take a moment to say a couple words regarding it here:

Regrettably. Strong's for as valuable of a tool as it is, is a very basic tool. It *only* shows us the 'root' word. It does not show us the exact conjugation(s)/declension(s)/etc. of that which we are looking up. Thus we are not truly able to get a really clear picture by using Strong's alone.

For whatever it may or may not be worth...

[patricia1]

well I would say to see a open door, one is to assume someone opened it. was it closed afterwards...?

[Massorite]

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.

According to my Websters the word "vestibule" is speaking of an entrance hall. The Strong's speaks of both the words vestibule and the word porch regarding this verse. My bible uses the word "porch" and my Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon uses only the word porch for this verse and as we all know a porch IE front porch is not a hallway. This is probably why it is confusing to you. Different translates of the various bible translates see fit to translate the words they think best to use. The problem I see is that in the interest of making it easier to understand the bible in many cases they actually make it more confusing which is why we must be very careful about what bible version we choose to study from. My bible also uses the word "house" in place of the word "sanctuary".

I do believe that satan is behind some of these newer bible translations because they create confusion and animosity among us rather then unity and satan is the author of confusion.

[Massorite]

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!!

Yes it is surprising how changing one little word can influence how we interpret any given scripture and change how we percieve many more that are related to that verse. It is so important that we reseach indepth every word in the bible.

[Massorite]

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."

Within Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece the word in question is: heneogmene

Now, I freely admit I do not possess the knowledge of Greek to break this down appropriately nor accurately. However, you can easily see it is quite a bit different from what we see within 'Strong's'. Nor do I have a Greek Lexicon or dictionary in which or from which I may clearly lay this out from. According to the best sources I have, it seems to approximate most closely to "having been opened".

Within the Bishops translation as well is it rendered as "was open". In my opinion, it is merely a translational issue and I personally can not see any real drastic effect upon the text in this instance.

I do realize Massorite that you did not refer to Strong's here, but as it came up within the thread, I would like to take a moment to say a couple words regarding it here:

Regrettably. Strong's for as valuable of a tool as it is, is a very basic tool. It *only* shows us the 'root' word. It does not show us the exact conjugation(s)/declension(s)/etc. of that which we are looking up. Thus we are not truly able to get a really clear picture by using Strong's alone.

For whatever it may or may not be worth...

Absolutely! I agree 100% The Strong's is a great bible dictionary for a young student of the bible. However like you I have found that the Strong's is shall we say shallow when it comes to hardcore biblical research.