22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[a] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[b] a brother or sister,[c] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[d] of fire.
as you can see from comparing these two translations, the kjv includes the phrase "without a cause" while the nrsv does not. according to the nrsv, anger is never justified, while in the kjv, anger is sometimes justified. Leo Tolstoy in What I Believe argues that "without a cause" was an addition to the manuscripts in the fifth century and that earlier manuscripts do not include the phrase. He argues that the phrase undermines the entire context of the Gospel of Christ. Does anyone here agree with the kjv and believe that anger is sometimes justified? If not, all conservatives should obey the true word of God and declare their undying love for Barack Obama.
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[a] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[b] a brother or sister,[c] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[d] of fire.
as you can see from comparing these two translations, the kjv includes the phrase "without a cause" while the nrsv does not. according to the nrsv, anger is never justified, while in the kjv, anger is sometimes justified. Leo Tolstoy in What I Believe argues that "without a cause" was an addition to the manuscripts in the fifth century and that earlier manuscripts do not include the phrase. He argues that the phrase undermines the entire context of the Gospel of Christ. Does anyone here agree with the kjv and believe that anger is sometimes justified? If not, all conservatives should obey the true word of God and declare their undying love for Barack Obama.
Of course anger can be justified....... Just do not allow it to turn into sin.
Jesus was obviously pretty angry when he made a whip and cleared out the courtyard of the temple. However the lesson for us there is hidden in prophecy of the event rather than the event itself.
Regarding the King James Bible: God did not stand idly by while the most widely read version of the English Bible was being translated so poorly that its meaning would be obscured. In other words King James Bible is just fine, but what is always needed for discerning the Scriptures is the spirit of prophecy.
Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.
Hmm...
That verse along with Jesus cleansing the Temple ought to be enough for any Bible believing Christian. But, there is one that is often overlooked. It appears in Mark 3:1-6, and says:
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
The NRSV is suspect anyway. It is based on a problematic set of documents and is, in general, only popular with very liberal scholars. It has a very disturbing history and origin. Guess I'm just old but I stick with translations based on the Textus Receptus.
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[a] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[b] a brother or sister,[c] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[d] of fire.
as you can see from comparing these two translations, the kjv includes the phrase "without a cause" while the nrsv does not. according to the nrsv, anger is never justified, while in the kjv, anger is sometimes justified. Leo Tolstoy in What I Believe argues that "without a cause" was an addition to the manuscripts in the fifth century and that earlier manuscripts do not include the phrase. He argues that the phrase undermines the entire context of the Gospel of Christ. Does anyone here agree with the kjv and believe that anger is sometimes justified? If not, all conservatives should obey the true word of God and declare their undying love for Barack Obama.
Linear Mode
