Which is correct?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Amy.G, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    NASB:
    Jhn 15:22 "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

    KJV:
    Jhn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.


    Excuse and cloak do not have the same meaning.

    Which do you think is correct?
     
  2. Gwyneth

    Gwyneth
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/gwyneth.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,137
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amy, would not cloak mean covering and therefore mean the same. As in
    "no covering (hiding from)"
    Gwyneth
     
  3. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both are correct, with the only difference being smoother English. That's all!
     
  4. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I was thinking they meant the same thing too - as in when an 8th grader comes in making excuses for not doing his/her homework. What is he really trying to do? Cloak that he doesn't have it. If s/he could hide it completely, s/he would.
     
  5. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. :thumbs:

    When I think of cloak or covering I think of God making the covering for Adam and Eve, which is a way of saying a covering for sin.

    When I read that in the KJV, it sounded to me like they did not have forgiveness for their sin.

    I guess I saw it the wrong way. :)
     
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I went back and looked at the KJV and instead of cloke it has cloak, which is different. With cloak being to reading, then it means "something you hide with."
     
  7. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    What exactly are you referring to?
     
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I copied that verse from Blue Letter Bible and it had "cloke". My KJV has "cloak".

    It makes sense now. The word "excuse" is easier for me to understand though.

    I'm trying to learn the KJV. It's not so easy to understand as my NASB.

    Thanks for helping me out guys! :)
     
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I just let my imagination run wild. :laugh:
     
  10. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    HA! I'm always glad I'm not the only one to do that little ol' thing ;)
     
  11. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Believe it or not, I've never used the KJV. I'm just now studying it!

    It's pretty obvious I'm not used to the language! :laugh:
     
  12. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I haven't used it since I was in junior high. I won't share the year so you guys don't have to strain your math brains here.
     
  13. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was about 5 years ago, right?

    Me too. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  14. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'll take that ;)
     
  15. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    I must ask. Why are you studying the KJV in particular?

    I understand why one would study the Bible in general, but why this particular version?
     
  16. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because, I have studied from several major translations like: NIV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, and Amplified, but never the KJV. I read some of it when I was first saved, but a couple of months later I started attending a Baptist church and I was given the NASB. So, I never went back to the KJV. The church I attend now uses the KJV and I thought it was time I gave it a chance.

    :)

    Edit to say: I have a KJV electronic Bible that I have been using for about a year and a half as a concordance only.
     
    #16 Amy.G, Jan 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2008
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Amy, you were correct for seeking clarity here. My 1611 reprint has "cloke"; it also has a translator's alternate word in the margin: "Or, excuse". So, King James' men agree with NASB (the NKJV, and some others) that "excuse" is at least an acceptable rendering. My 'modern' KJV has "cloak".

    The Greek word is prophasis (Strong's #4392) and is defined by Thayer as: pretext, or show. That is, there is an alleged reason, or a pretended cause; alternatively, its putting on a show.

    In context starting in verse 21, Jesus is telling his disciples that "they" (now referring to worldly unbelievers) will persecute followers of Christ because "they" do not know the Father; and in verse 22 indicates that if Jesus Christ had not come into the world "they" would not have recognized their sin (ostensively, as if the sin was not their responsibility). Verse 23 states that "he" (singular, instead of plural) that hates Christ, also hates God; verse 24 confirms the identity of "they" as those that would have "had not sin" had He not completed His work.

    Today, we may think of a "cloak" as a cape-like garment, but "cloke" (just an antique spelling of "cloak") as a noun can also mean a deceptive outward appearance. I'm not real strong in English grammar, but I don't think "cloke" is being used as a verb in this verse, so I won't cover those definitions. The second definition of "cloke" (after a garment) found in Webster's 1828 dictionary is --
    A cover; that which conceals; a disguise or pretext; an excuse; a fair pretense.​

    Modern readers might interpret the KJV as that a disguise has been lifted. From whom were they hiding their sin? God certainly was aware of their sin. They knew their own sin (else they would not know to try to hide it, just like Adam and Eve). The remaining answer would be: others. Do people hide their sin from others? Sure. Technically, this is a possible interpretation; but is that what Jesus was teaching here?

    I favor the reading of the NASB and NKJV: that since Christ was crucified and risen "they" may no longer deny their culpability. They no longer can ignore or divert their own guilt. The Pharisees thought their heritage would obsolve them. While it is true that their sin is covered under Christ's blood, there is no acceptance here by these persons. I don't think the emphasis is on hiding or covering of sin. Quite the contrary, I think Jesus has made the ownership of sin very clear!
     
    #17 franklinmonroe, Jan 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2008
  18. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you so much!

    The alternate word in my Bible is "covering". The word in the text is spelled "cloak".

    So they had no covering for their sin, meaning their sin was exposed. They couldn't hide behind the excuse of "we didn't know". I think that's what you're saying.

    I don't know why that confused me.

    Thanks. :)
     
    #18 Amy.G, Jan 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...