- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I use most of the below translations. But I need to know why did most of the translations change scripture from “do His commandments to wash their robes”.
(KJV+) Blessed3107 are they that do4160 his848 commandments,1785 that2443 they846 may have2071 right1849 to1909 the3588 tree3586 of life,2222 and2532 may enter in1525 through the3588 gates4440 into1519 the3588 city.4172
Rev 22:14
(ALT) Happy [are] the ones doing His commandments, so that their right will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter by the gates into the city.
(ASV) Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and my enter in by the gates into the city.
(BBE) A blessing on those whose robes are washed, so that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may go in by the doors into the town.
(ESV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
(GW) “Blessed are those who wash their robes so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
(HCSB) “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.
(ISV) How blessed are those who wash their robes so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city!
(MRC) Blessed are those who wash their robes, that their authority will be over the tree of life, and by the gates may enter into the city.
(Murdock) Blessed are they who do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
(WEB) Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.
(KJV-1611) Blessed are they that do his commandements, that they may haue right to the tree of life, and may enter in thorow the gates into the citie.
(KJVA) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
I can't find any errors nor have I heard any errors with “do His cpommandments”. Keeping in context with the rest of revelation it should read “do His Commandments”:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus:
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Then theirs 1 John:
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
This is the onle scripture which speaks of washing their robes, which refers to those who come out of the great tribulation
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Do any of you scolars know why they would change the scriptures?
David, I know you and others know all the definitions and what they mean in certian scriptures. If their is no reason, then these people are in big trouble!Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Hello Kenrch,
This difference comes from a variance in the manuscripts used.
Scholars recognize two manuscript sources. Many translations are based primarily on the Alexandrian Text while the King James and New King James are largely from the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
Both readings of Rev. 22:14 are seem to be in harmony with related texts in the Bible.
To what extent do manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures differ from one another? Estimates of the number of differences, called “variant readings,” in Greek manuscripts and ancient translations exceed 200,000. Does this suggest that the text of the Christian Scriptures has become hopelessly obscured? Actually the figure is quite misleading. How so?
In A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix point out: “There is an ambiguity in saying there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, since these represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament. If one single word is misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts, this is counted as 3,000 variants or readings.”
Moreover, most of the variant readings are merely mechanical, having to do with matters such as spelling (comparable to the difference between “honor” and “honour”) and word order. One scholar declared that out of 150,000 variant readings those that could raise doubt as to meaning amounted to only 400. Of these, only 50 were truly significant. Similarly, Fenton John Anthony Hort, a world-renowned scholar of the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, writes:
“The proportion of words [in the entire Greek text of the Christian Scriptures] virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven-eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities constitutes the whole area of criticism. . . . the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”
Whatever version of the Christian Scriptures you possess, there is no reason to doubt that the Greek text upon which it is based represents with considerable fidelity what the inspired authors of these Bible books originally wrote. Though now nearly 2,000 years removed from the time of their original composition, the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is a marvel of accurate transmission.
Pertinent here is the testimony of Dr. Hort, one of the ablest Bible scholars of all time. According to him, seven-eighths of the words of the “New Testament” are above doubt; and if differences of spelling are set aside, only one word in sixty is in doubt. And of these the number involving substantial variation is so small that they “can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text”.—Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1912), page 6.
F. J. A. Hort, who was coproducer of the Westcott and Hort text, writes: “The great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. . . . If comparative trivialities . . . are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”
The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1974, Vol. I, page 561Anyway, so in answer to the question:
Quote Do any of you scolars know why they would change the scriptures? In this case, it may not so much be a matter of changing the scriptures as it is deciding which manuscript to go by. This seems to be one of those very rare places where there is a variation in manuscripts.
david.
Quote (david @ Jan. 27 2006,07:41) Hello Kenrch, This difference comes from a variance in the manuscripts used.
Scholars recognize two manuscript sources. Many translations are based primarily on the Alexandrian Text while the King James and New King James are largely from the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
Both readings of Rev. 22:14 are seem to be in harmony with related texts in the Bible.
To what extent do manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures differ from one another? Estimates of the number of differences, called “variant readings,” in Greek manuscripts and ancient translations exceed 200,000. Does this suggest that the text of the Christian Scriptures has become hopelessly obscured? Actually the figure is quite misleading. How so?
In A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix point out: “There is an ambiguity in saying there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, since these represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament. If one single word is misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts, this is counted as 3,000 variants or readings.”
Moreover, most of the variant readings are merely mechanical, having to do with matters such as spelling (comparable to the difference between “honor” and “honour”) and word order. One scholar declared that out of 150,000 variant readings those that could raise doubt as to meaning amounted to only 400. Of these, only 50 were truly significant. Similarly, Fenton John Anthony Hort, a world-renowned scholar of the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, writes:
“The proportion of words [in the entire Greek text of the Christian Scriptures] virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven-eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities constitutes the whole area of criticism. . . . the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”
Whatever version of the Christian Scriptures you possess, there is no reason to doubt that the Greek text upon which it is based represents with considerable fidelity what the inspired authors of these Bible books originally wrote. Though now nearly 2,000 years removed from the time of their original composition, the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is a marvel of accurate transmission.
Pertinent here is the testimony of Dr. Hort, one of the ablest Bible scholars of all time. According to him, seven-eighths of the words of the “New Testament” are above doubt; and if differences of spelling are set aside, only one word in sixty is in doubt. And of these the number involving substantial variation is so small that they “can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text”.—Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1912), page 6.
F. J. A. Hort, who was coproducer of the Westcott and Hort text, writes: “The great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. . . . If comparative trivialities . . . are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”
The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1974, Vol. I, page 561Anyway, so in answer to the question:
Quote Do any of you scolars know why they would change the scriptures? In this case, it may not so much be a matter of changing the scriptures as it is deciding which manuscript to go by. This seems to be one of those very rare places where there is a variation in manuscripts.
david.
Thanks David,I don't understand how you can say:
Both readings of Rev. 22:14 are seem to be in harmony with related texts in the Bible.
Do or keep the commandments is in the old as well as the New Testament numerous times and again in Rev. 22:14.
While “wash their robes” is mentioned ONCE in the whole bible.
Rev 7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
The reason I asked was because like denomination bible translations have “some” truth. You will disagree but not one translation has all the truth not even the King James .
The Diaglott has it ” Blessed those doing the commandments of him”
Unless someone can convience me otherwise I'll believe the original.The original? Are you referring to the Emphatic Diaglott Kenrch? It's true that it is an excellent translation. Jehovah's Witnesses don't print a lot of different Bibles. As far as I can tell, there's only been about 3 or 4. The following may be of interest to you.
“The Emphatic Diaglott.
Sorry, somehow I missed the rest of that:
“The Emphatic Diaglott.
In 1902 the Watch Tower Society came to be the copyright owners, sole publishers, and distributors of The Emphatic Diaglott. This version of the Christian Greek Scriptures was prepared by the English-born Bible translator Benjamin Wilson, of Geneva, Illinois. It was completed in 1864. It used the Greek text of J. J. Griesbach, with a literal interlinear English translation and Wilson’s own version to the right using his special signs of emphasis.” –All Scripture is Inspired, page 323, par 10Another factor for differences is in the types of translations.
There are usually 2 types of translations:
- literal
- dynamic or functional or idiomatic equivalence
The first approach takes the closest word in the translated language from the original language and may add/take away some words to complete the thought or make the sentence intelligible in the translated language.
The second one, takes a whole sentence or thought and uses words from the translated language in a way to convey the meaning as clear as possible.
Literal translations are usually more accurate, but usually harder to read as translations from one language to another is never as simple as word for word replacement. Word for word replacement can also change the meaning completely in the new language. So a little license is given to make each verse understood.
Dynamic translations are usually very easy to read as they are written in the translated language with sentence construction that you may find in any well written book. They take the thought from the original language and try to convey it in the new language as clear as possible. The disadvantage with this approach is that the author doing the interpretation probably needs to know what each sentence means. This freedom an reliance on the understanding of the translator can lead to some gross errors.
That is why it is always handy to read both types and perhaps have a concordance on hand too.
Other differences are the scripts themselves. The Textus Receptus (KJV) have verses that the Majority texts do not. These differences are usually the result of words in the margin of a previous text being included in the copied (latest) text/version.
Reasons for this error can happen because an author may have added a note in the margin of an older script as reference to a particular verse, or may have forgotten a word(s) when copied and put it in the margin later on. It has been suggested that this may be one reason how notes in the margin were eventually included in the text itself, i.e., confusion over the words being notes or left out when they were copied the last time. Another reason would be prejudice. Notes in the margin may have been included in the text in the next copy, to strengthen a doctrine. I John 5:7 could have been added for that reason as it makes the whole context seem to teach the Trinity doctrine, yet it is a clear insertion in the Textus Receptus. These insertions are quite noticiable because of the many texts available. Some translations have information about inserted verses at the bottom of a page if the inserted verses are mentioned.
Overall I believe that the texts are quite accurate when compared. The Dead Sea Scrolls also confirm the accuracy of the texts.
T8 your information on notes in the margin was interesting I never knew that.
I've always been cautious with people demanding a direct translation only, not that I don't believe what was written but consider how would someone a 1000 years from now understand statements from the 70's like “that's far out” or would a “cool dude” be a cowboy needing a blanket.
Translations are also affected by the culture one's from, it brings a slant to an interpretation (or possibly a better understanding) and even the best, well intentioned person is subject to mistakes.
The point I'm trying to make is I cannot ignore or completely accept, either, literal or dynamic interpretations. But, I'm not sure that it is not what God intended as it forces us to search for truth and in doing so be guided by the Spirit into all truth.
It's my belief that God looks for us to lovingly correct each other for our errors and mis-interpretations. I believe “attitude” is reserved for people who are perverting the truth through selfish desires (not for those honestly seeking it but have not found it yet).
Thank you
I totally agree seekingtruth.
May God be with you and lead you.
Yes the scriptures are there to teach and to show when we err. But it is the Spirit that teaches us what it means. The Spirit will also contradict that which is of man.
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.Quote (seekingtruth @ Feb. 04 2006,06:56) T8 your information on notes in the margin was interesting I never knew that. I've always been cautious with people demanding a direct translation only, not that I don't believe what was written but consider how would someone a 1000 years from now understand statements from the 70's like “that's far out” or would a “cool dude” be a cowboy needing a blanket.
Translations are also affected by the culture one's from, it brings a slant to an interpretation (or possibly a better understanding) and even the best, well intentioned person is subject to mistakes.
The point I'm trying to make is I cannot ignore or completely accept, either, literal or dynamic interpretations. But, I'm not sure that it is not what God intended as it forces us to search for truth and in doing so be guided by the Spirit into all truth.
It's my belief that God looks for us to lovingly correct each other for our errors and mis-interpretations. I believe “attitude” is reserved for people who are perverting the truth through selfish desires (not for those honestly seeking it but have not found it yet).
Thank you
Let me go back to my original question. Why was Rev. 22:14 changed? What reason is given, was there a misstranslation or was “do the commandment” added by the translator. Even if wash his robe in the blood is somehow clearer the bible states “not to add nor take away from Revelations. You know like Easter was changed to Passover which is correct, but I see no reason to change Rev. 22:14 to wash his robe in the blood.
Can someone please give me a reason Why?Rev 22:14
(ALT) Happy [are] the ones doing His commandments, so that their right will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter by the gates into the city.
(ASV) Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and my enter in by the gates into the city.
(BBE) A blessing on those whose robes are washed, so that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may go in by the doors into the town.
(ESV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
(GW) “Blessed are those who wash their robes so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
(HCSB) “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.
(ISV) How blessed are those who wash their robes so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city!
(KJV-1611) Blessed are they that do his commandements, that they may haue right to the tree of life, and may enter in thorow the gates into the citie.
(KJVA) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(MRC) Blessed are those who wash their robes, that their authority will be over the tree of life, and by the gates may enter into the city.
(Murdock) Blessed are they who do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
(SVD) طُوبَى لِلَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ وَصَايَاهُ لِكَيْ يَكُونَ سُلْطَانُهُمْ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْحَيَاةِ وَيَدْخُلُوا مِنَ الأَبْوَابِ إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ،
(WEB) Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.
There must be a reason why.
It's such a blessing to go to borthers for help. I'm so glad that the Lord guided me to this forum
I apoligize, I'm new to this whole forum thing and as I was unable to answer your question and I was reading through to see if someone did. Then I just responded to a point in T8's reply and went off on some other less related topic of my own.
Quote (seekingtruth @ Feb. 04 2006,16:07) I apoligize, I'm new to this whole forum thing and as I was unable to answer your question and I was reading through to see if someone did. Then I just responded to a point in T8's reply and went off on some other less related topic of my own.
Why was that scripture changed? Can anyone “not” understand “who do His commandments”. Does who washed their robes in His blood easier than who do His commandments.This is important! This is the Word of God!
Rev 22:18 I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, that if any one shall add to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are described in this book.…take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life,…
That's serious! Why would anyone take away then add to Revelation when as someone said taken in context with the bible they mean “about” the same. Why disobey the Word especially if they mean the same.
Someone PLEASE tell me why.
I quote the following from another website:
Differences in Bible translations are generally not a problem for readers because the Holy Spirit can impress hearts with any of them, yet the closer we come to the original manuscripts, the better we can know the intent of that Spirit who inspired the writers.
The New King James Version (following the KJV) reads “Blessed are those who do His commandments” (. . . hoi poiountes tas entolas autou) while the clause in other modern versions is “Blessed are those who wash their robes” (. . . hoi plunontes tas stolas auton, NIV, RSV, NASB, and others).
Of course, this difference comes from a major variance in the manuscripts used. Scholars recognize two manuscript sources. Most modern translations are based primarily on the Alexandrian Text while the King James and New King James are largely from the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
So all I can say is that tampering with scripts exist. There are differences, but due to the amount of scripts available to scholars, it is easy in most cases to spot the tampering as a bit of detective work and comparison will show them up. Even the relative point in time when they were added or taken away can be determined in some or many cases.
Of course in Revelation we are told to not add or take way from the words of that book. That was written because men indeed have the power to do such a thing and have done it.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 05 2006,00:24) I quote the following from another website:Differences in Bible translations are generally not a problem for readers because the Holy Spirit can impress hearts with any of them, yet the closer we come to the original manuscripts, the better we can know the intent of that Spirit who inspired the writers. The New King James Version (following the KJV) reads “Blessed are those who do His commandments” (. . . hoi poiountes tas entolas autou) while the clause in other modern versions is “Blessed are those who wash their robes” (. . . hoi plunontes tas stolas auton, NIV, RSV, NASB, and others).
Of course, this difference comes from a major variance in the manuscripts used. Scholars recognize two manuscript sources. Most modern translations are based primarily on the Alexandrian Text while the King James and New King James are largely from the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
So all I can say is that tampering with scripts exist. There are differences, but due to the amount of scripts available to scholars, it is easy in most cases to spot the tampering as a bit of detective work and comparison will show them up. Even the realtive point in time when they were added or taken away can be determined in most cases.
Of course in Revelation we are told to not add or take way from the words of that book. That was written because men indeed have the power to do such a thing and have done it.
Thanks t8 I know what you are saying but the “modern” I like to say “last days” translators. Certainly anyone who is cleaned in the blood of the lamb and is subject to the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit cannot help but keep the commandments. But we have free will and I believe some have actually joined the other side otherwise there would be no warning.
2Co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.Didn't John know that the believers have their robes washed in the blood of the lamb, and yet the warning.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1Jo 3:22 and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.
1Jo 5:2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievousIn the last days the saints will be keeping the commandments.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus:
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.If anything the complete word of God agrees with “do His commandments”. I see no reason to change scratch that, be in direct disobedience to the Word of God our Father. John in the Spirit wrote do His commandments (Rev. 1:10).
My spirit agrees with John and the Spirit rather than man.Again thanks for answering
Hey Ken,
I think I answered this one before. I can understand your “dilemma”. But have you ever considered that perhaps the KJV does not have the correct rendering after all?
Consider
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Now consider
Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
Rev 7:14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
—————————————
Zec 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
Zec 3:2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”
Zec 3:3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.
Zec 3:4 He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.”
Zec 3:5 Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by.
—————————————
Isa 61:10 I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.Now which do you truly think has the most power and meaning? Beyond that, is access to the tree of Life granted under the Law (keeping the Commandments) or by the cleansing of the blood of the Lamb? The latter should result in the former, but the former rarely leads to the latter. Else why was Yeshua sent?
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 02 2007,09:17) Hey Ken, I think I answered this one before. I can understand your “dilemma”. But have you ever considered that perhaps the KJV does not have the correct rendering after all?
Consider
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Now consider
Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
Rev 7:14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
—————————————
Zec 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
Zec 3:2 The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”
Zec 3:3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.
Zec 3:4 He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.”
Zec 3:5 Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by.
—————————————
Isa 61:10 I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.Now which do you truly think has the most power and meaning? Beyond that, is access to the tree of Life granted under the Law (keeping the Commandments) or by the cleansing of the blood of the Lamb? The latter should result in the former, but the former rarely leads to the latter. Else why was Yeshua sent?
Yes but it is possible to be washed in the blood of the lamb and still disobey God.Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'These people say Lord lord didn't we………..in your name!
Obviously Jesus wasn't impressed because these people did not do God's will which is to DO his commandments.
Depart from me you workers of lawlessness!
Besides the scripture says NOT to add or take away from the book of Revelations.
Ken,
I can see from your various posts that you hold the Law above grace. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is what I sense. True grace and the knowledge of it in our lives actually leads to obedience to the Law.
But can you prove that the manuscript used for the KJV is the correct one? I think you assume so, but there are several places I can show you where the KJV has had additions and changes not found in earlier manuscripts.
And just because people say they do things in God's name does not mean they have accepted Yeshua as savior. I've known pastors who have been doing the works of God for years who end up giving their life to Christ later in life because they were working off of head knowledge rather than heart knowledge of the savior. So your argument is actually reversed: you can obey the commandments in God's name, but never have a saving knowledge of the Son. In that case, the verses you quoted above fit like a glove.
Ken,
Oh, and BTW, you took the Matthew verses out of context. Those verses speak of false prophets, not those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2007,06:02) Ken, Oh, and BTW, you took the Matthew verses out of context. Those verses speak of false prophets, not those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb.
You are right it is speaking of false prophets who perform miracles but don't do God's will by keeping His Law. What is Grace Kejonn? Is grace unmerited favor to sin?
Here is scripture again that points to the fruit one would have IF they love God.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
I have grace, I have the forgiveness of sin. But I strive to OBEY the Father so as not to sin again.
It's like faith without works.
People would say that “robes washed in the blood is the same as Do His commandments. May be so but scripture says NOT to touch the words in Revelation.
And with churches teaching that Christ nailed the Ten Commandments to the cross and that we no longer have to keep them. Somehow it doesn't seem right to change the scripture to washed robes in blood when they teach A LIE that the law of God is no longer. Seems like they changed the scripture to fit their doctrine. You don't see that? Guess not.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.But then it's only scripture. Most follow their own idea and don't pay attention to scripture. I'm glad I didn't change the words in the book
and believe the words they changed!IHN&L,
Ken
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
