Christians: Most destructive mistranslation? "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

[Brickjectivity]

I think I have the strongest contender for the most damaging mistranslated verse.

[1Th 5:22 KJV] 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

That is the King James. Its a sentence with a beginning and a period at the end, and it is one that I used to ponder as a young person. There is something wrong with this verse, though. There is something rotten and not-Jesus about it.

Here it is in a more modern translation where it is not a whole sentence but the end of a sentence:

[1Th 5:22 NIV] 22 reject every kind of evil.​

Notice here that the KJV focuses upon appearances, and it would have us make the mistake of looking more sophisticated and holy then we actually are. It props up pretense and show. How dangerous! I wonder how much damage this has caused over the last century. Of course its not supposed to be read by itself, but verses like this one do get noted and spoken in isolation.

Did the KJV originally mean this? Its hard to know because language drifts around. The meaning of the words change over time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think I have the strongest contender for the most damaging mistranslated verse. [1Th 5:22 KJV] 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
That is the King James. Its a sentence with a beginning and a period at the end, and it is one that I used to ponder as a young person. There is something wrong with this verse, though. There is something rotten and not-Jesus about it.
Here it is in a more modern translation where it is not a whole sentence but the end of a sentence:

[1Th 5:22 NIV] 22 reject every kind of evil.​

Notice here that the KJV focuses upon appearances, and it would have us make the mistake of looking more sophisticated and holy then we actually are. It props up pretense and show. How dangerous! I wonder how much damage this has caused over the last century. Of course its not supposed to be read by itself, but verses like this one do get noted and spoken in isolation.
Did the KJV originally mean this? Its hard to know because language drifts around. The meaning of the words change over time.

Any comments regarding a corresponding verse at 1 Peter 2:12 ___________
1 Thessalonians 5:22 seems to harmonize with the verses at 1 Thessalonians 5:14-15
So, yes, reject more than the appearance of evil, but abstain from all wickedness.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I much prefer Psalm 34:15, which suggests that it's not nearly enough to abstain from or reject evil -- one must also do good and pursue peace.

Shun evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.
ס֣וּר מֵ֖רָע וַֽעֲשֵׂה־ט֑וֹב בַּקֵּ֖שׁ שָׁל֣וֹם וְרָדְפֵֽהוּ

 

[Eli G]

I think I have the strongest contender for the most damaging mistranslated verse.

[1Th 5:22 KJV] 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

That is the King James. Its a sentence with a beginning and a period at the end, and it is one that I used to ponder as a young person. There is something wrong with this verse, though. There is something rotten and not-Jesus about it.

Here it is in a more modern translation where it is not a whole sentence but the end of a sentence:

[1Th 5:22 NIV] 22 reject every kind of evil.​

Notice here that the KJV focuses upon appearances, and it would have us make the mistake of looking more sophisticated and holy then we actually are. It props up pretense and show. How dangerous! I wonder how much damage this has caused over the last century. Of course its not supposed to be read by itself, but verses like this one do get noted and spoken in isolation.

Did the KJV originally mean this? Its hard to know because language drifts around. The meaning of the words change over time.

If you want to know which translation is closest to the meaning of the biblical text, it is not your own idea of the message where you have to go, but the text in the original language.

1 Thess. 5: 22
ἀπὸ __ From
παντὸς __ all (sometimes this means: all kind of)
εἴδους __ form, figure, image (something you see ... from this Greek word comes idol)
πονηρού __ evil (this is an adjective)
ἀπέχεσθε. __ get away

There are diferent ways to say the same idea, but now you got exactly the idea in the original Greek.

 

[exchemist]

If you want to know which translation is closest to the meaning of the biblical text, it is not your own idea of the message where you have to go, but the text in the original language.

1 Thess. 5: 22
ἀπὸ __ From
παντὸς __ all (sometimes this means: all kind of)
εἴδους __ form, figure, image (something you see ... from this Greek word comes idol)
πονηρού __ evil (this is an adjective)
ἀπέχεσθε. __ get away

There are diferent ways to say the same idea, but now you got exactly the idea in the original Greek.

Very useful indeed!

In my New Jerusalem bible, the translation is "shun every form of evil", with a note pointing back to Job 1:8, of which this phrase is apparently thought to be possibly a deliberate echo.

The key issue is, as you point out, how εἴδους is interpreted.

We may also need to bear in mind that the meaning of words in the English language, or at least the sense in which a reader would generally understand them, has often changed a bit since the time of Shakespeare, which is (give or take a decade) when the Authorised Version was issued.

(Both sources of uncertainty are reasons why the taking of meanings literally, and the quoting of verses out of context, are naïve and unwise practices.)

 

[Kenny]

I think I have the strongest contender for the most damaging mistranslated verse.

[1Th 5:22 KJV] 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

That is the King James. Its a sentence with a beginning and a period at the end, and it is one that I used to ponder as a young person. There is something wrong with this verse, though. There is something rotten and not-Jesus about it.

Here it is in a more modern translation where it is not a whole sentence but the end of a sentence:

[1Th 5:22 NIV] 22 reject every kind of evil.​

Notice here that the KJV focuses upon appearances, and it would have us make the mistake of looking more sophisticated and holy then we actually are. It props up pretense and show. How dangerous! I wonder how much damage this has caused over the last century. Of course its not supposed to be read by itself, but verses like this one do get noted and spoken in isolation.

Did the KJV originally mean this? Its hard to know because language drifts around. The meaning of the words change over time.

I thought I would look it up and certainly we should reject every kind of evil.

Maybe its the application that you are giving it?

Abstain

(Strongs):
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Apechomai None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ap-ekh'-om-ahee Verb
Definition

1. to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain

Appearance:

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Eidos 2:373,202
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
i'-dos Noun Neuter
Definition

1. the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2. form, kind

What if what he is trying to say is (as an analogy) - it is 11pm and you are just finishing practicing a music set. Rev Freddy, who is married, realizes that Holly (who is not married) needs a ride home and says "I will take you home" with no other thought in mind.

He stops at the gas station and a congregant Jim is there too. Jim sees you, sees Holly, sees the time and the appearance is "You have a wife, what are you doing with Holly at this hour of the night".

Not that you are trying "to look more sophisticated" but rather you don't want to give an opportunity for the enemy to use it to destroy because the "appearance" is of evil?

Of course, we should also abstain from evil too.

MSG
Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil.

BRG
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

DRA
From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.

GNV
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Obviously evil work also has an evil appearance so it would be included as in:

PHILLIPS
Never damp the fire of the Spirit, and never despise what is spoken in the name of the Lord. By all means use your judgement, and hold on to whatever is really good, Steer clear of evil in any form.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@Kenny considering what you are saying there is something there, yes, in the sense of not causing the weaker brother to sin. There is no sin in what Rev. Fred is doing for Holly, though. She needs a ride. He helps. The sin is in the mind of the observer in that situation. Another issue is that he could make his own wife jealous or worried depending. One should not provoke their wife I guess either, though I will let the married men decide about that. From my point of view it seems like one shouldn't...or mustn't...or that one had better not or else.

That being said it is right that a Christian be accused of sins they be not guilty of though not because of suspicious behavior. When people misunderstand you, because you are a Christian man and strange to them, that is an opportunity for you (according to 1 Peter) to intercede with them. By changing their negative opinion of you, you can introduce them to Christ. This is the Jericho method of conversion. You just keep circling the city while rocks are thrown down from the walls. It actually works for any member of any group, not only for Christians. Beginning with "He was numbered with the transgressors," with the accusations of David's brothers (who accuse him of arrogance), and with 1 Peter: it is how to bear the weight of glory.

So considering that, it is true that its not a good idea to flaunt your freedom if its going to cause someone else harm; but its also not possible to avoid every appearance of evil, nor is it natural. A Christian should have genuine spiritual fruit -- not plastic fruit.

 

[Kenny]

So considering that, it is true that its not a good idea to flaunt your freedom if its going to cause someone else harm; but its also not possible to avoid every appearance of evil, nor is it natural. A Christian should have genuine spiritual fruit -- not plastic fruit.

The principle that you are relating here is one hundred percent correct. I'm not denying what you are saying but am in total agreement.

The "possibility" that I was presenting was simply that I'm not sure that's what he meant. (I certainly wish he were here to elaborate the context for which he wrote it).

I am simply saying that I'm not sure that was the context (which remains simply my perspective).

It is impossible to avoid all appearance of evil at all times. But I think "avoid" doesn't mean "If you can't avoid it, get beamed up ). I think it is along the same line as "As much as possible be at peace with all men" for "blessed are the peacemakers" - but you can't be a peacemaker a hundred percent either.

@Kenny considering what you are saying there is something there, yes, in the sense of not causing the weaker brother to sin. There is no sin in what Rev. Fred is doing for Holly, though. She needs a ride. He helps. The sin is in the mind of the observer in that situation. Another issue is that he could make his own wife jealous or worried depending. One should not provoke their wife I guess either, though I will let the married men decide about that. From my point of view it seems like one shouldn't...or mustn't...or that one had better not or else.

Yes, you are right, there is no sin. As you said before, however, in as much as it is possible don't be a stumbling block. Even there you can't do it a hundred percent. This could be a stumbling block both for his wife as well as the person at the gas station. Obviously you can't control every potential offense nor can you control erroneous conclusions... but as much as it is possible - avoid the appearance of evil.

If I were Fred, I would call an Uber. (No, this isn't a paid commercial)

That being said it is right that a Christian be accused of sins they be not guilty of though not because of suspicious behavior. When people misunderstand you, because you are a Christian man and strange to them, that is an opportunity for you (according to 1 Peter) to intercede with them. By changing their negative opinion of you, you can introduce them to Christ. This is the Jericho method of conversion. You just keep circling the city while rocks are thrown down from the walls. It actually works for any member of any group, not only for Christians. Beginning with "He was numbered with the transgressors," with the accusations of David's brothers (who accuse him of arrogance), and with 1 Peter: it is how to bear the weight of glory.

No argument here.

I hope I am not coming across as "you are absolutely wrong" - just offering a different perspective through the Greek definitions and personal viewpoints.

This type of discourse is refreshing to me. Thank you. So much of what I answer is answering irrelevancy - but not in your case.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Very useful indeed!
In my New Jerusalem bible, the translation is "shun every form of evil", with a note pointing back to Job 1:8, of which this phrase is apparently thought to be possibly a deliberate echo.The key issue is, as you point out, how εἴδους is interpreted.
We may also need to bear in mind that the meaning of words in the English language, or at least the sense in which a reader would generally understand them, has often changed a bit since the time of Shakespeare, which is (give or take a decade) when the Authorised Version was issued.
(Both sources of uncertainty are reasons why the taking of meanings literally, and the quoting of verses out of context, are naïve and unwise practices.)

I find a similar connection between Job and Noah at Genesis 6:9 because Noah also shunned every form of evil.
Douay Genesis 6:9 saying Noah was a just man, blameless.........

P.S. speaking of Shakespeare, years ago someone said that Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time of translating Psalms 46.
Using the old King James translation, if one counts 46 words down from the top one comes to the word 'shake' in verse 3
If one counts up from the the end of Psalm 46 one comes to the word ' spear ' in verse 9

 

[exchemist]

I find a similar connection between Job and Noah at Genesis 6:9 because Noah also shunned every form of evil.
Douay Genesis 6:9 saying Noah was a just man, blameless.........

P.S. speaking of Shakespeare, years ago someone said that Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time of translating Psalms 46.
Using the old King James translation, if one counts 46 words down from the top one comes to the word 'shake' in verse 3
If one counts up from the the end of Psalm 46 one comes to the word ' spear ' in verse 9

My view of numerology is that it is a rabbit hole for cranks.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My view of numerology is that it is a rabbit hole for cranks.

Agree that numerology is a rabbit hole for cranks.
What the person did by counting the 46 words the two words found at Psalms 46:3 and Psalms 46:9 was Not about numerology.
Rather, the person was saying that Shakespeare got his supposed pen name from those 2 verses when he was 46 years old.
The person was Not looking for 'guidance in numbers' as would be in numerology.
Since the Bible is against divination/occult (Deuteronomy 18:10-11) I hope the above shows I was not thinking of numerology.

 

[exchemist]

Agree that numerology is a rabbit hole for cranks.
What the person did by counting the 46 words the two words found at Psalms 46:3 and Psalms 46:9 was Not about numerology.
Rather, the person was saying that Shakespeare got his supposed pen name from those 2 verses when he was 46 years old.
The person was Not looking for 'guidance in numbers' as would be in numerology.
Since the Bible is against divination/occult (Deuteronomy 18:10-11) I hope the above shows I was not thinking of numerology.

OK fair enough, but Shakespeare's name was, er, Shakespeare. He is known to have been the son of one John Shakespeare and Mary Arden. So it wasn't a pen name at all. Why do people make up so many daft stories about Shakespeare, I wonder?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

OK fair enough, but Shakespeare's name was, er, Shakespeare. He is known to have been the son of one John Shakespeare and Mary Arden. So it wasn't a pen name at all. Why do people make up so many daft stories about Shakespeare, I wonder?

Yes, I recall my high school English teacher saying that some people wonder if it was a pen name.
So, who did the class think it could be ?
Using my Douay at 1st Cor. 15:33 there was a connection to Menander, but that was in connection to a play, so No, Not Shakesphere.
One said Christopher Marlow. Not sure if maybe that was because he was maybe age 46 at the time of translating Psalm 46 (?)
Another question she presented was that Shakesphere was never in Italy so how was it that he described the chimneys ?
Anyway, way way too long ago to remember, but her classes I found to be so interesting.
Since I believe John, Mary and William will be resurrected and we can meet them then we will have all the details at that coming time - Acts 24:15