Appearance of evil

Spiros Zodhiates is a recognized contemporary authority who says of eidoz:

Emphasis mine.

Thayer also wrote that eidoz is used by Josephus in the Aniquities (10:3:1) "...and showed himself..."

Perhaps, this isn't limited to only doctrinal issues. Gill went on to say:

At any rate, the suggestion that the KJV translators were in this case behaving mendaciously in respect to 1 Thess. 5:22 appears to be without foundation. They seem to have used just the right word.

 

Great post, DHK !!

 

Agreed, and the 1611 AV translators appear to concur with

Cranmer [1539]:

Abstayne from all euell appearaunce.

Rheims [1582]:

From al appearance of euil refraine your selues.

and the 1599 Geneva Bible:

Abfteine from all appearance of euill.

Oddly enough, the word "appearance" is not in my 1557 Geneva Bible. [I only have the New Testament for this Version] It reads:
Abstayne from all kynde of euil.

 

Tyndale 1534
1Th 5:22 Abstayne from all suspicious thinges.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ASV):
abstain from every form of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NAS):
abstain from every form F65 of evil.

FOOTNOTES: F65: Or {appearance}

1 Thessalonians 5:22 (nKJV):
Abstain from every form of evil.

Appearance in 1611 = form in 2003

 

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Appearance in 1611 = form in 2003

As you know, the Oxford English Dictionary not only gives current definitions, but all known senses of a word throughout its history. I pulled down my huge single-volume OED (with magnifying glass!) to see if I could substantiate your claim. While 'appearance' has had 15 different senses in its long history, none of these appear to be equivalent to 'form'.

 

The word "appear" can also mean to show up, to come along, as in "The star appeared in the sky". So perhaps the translators were thinking we should avoid evil every time it appears, or every time it shows up.

Does that make sense?

 

Makes sense to me. In fact:
Amen, Brother Paul of Eugene -- Preach it!

FORM -- 1. The apperance of a thing
(as opposed to function, consistanacy, etc)

In the business for which I used to do
quality assurance, there is FORM, FIT,
and FUNCTION.
The function is what the part does.
The fit is how the part interacts with
other parts (like: tisn't a plane,
tis 70,000 parts flying in close formation )
The form is that which can be
shown by appearance.

 

Makes sense to me. In fact:
Amen, Brother Paul of Eugene -- Preach it!

FORM -- 1. The apperance of a thing
(as opposed to function, consistanacy, etc)

In the business for which I used to do
quality assurance, there is FORM, FIT,
and FUNCTION.
The function is what the part does.
The fit is how the part interacts with
other parts (like: tisn't a plane,
tis 70,000 parts flying in close formation )
The form is that which can be
shown by appearance. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so you're saying the modern versions are using "form" as a synonym for appearance, meaning merely what something LOOKS like? I have no argument with that.

 

Last time I checked this thread was about the appearance of evil.

Now it is about Bible versions.

To me, this appears evil, LOL!

 

Timothy 1769: "Ah, so you're saying the modern versions are
using "form" as a synonym for appearance, meaning merely
what something LOOKS like? I have no argument with that. "

No, I'm saying in 1611 the word "appearance" here
means what the word "form" means in 2003.

 

I see what you are saying, but what does it mean to abstain from evil which appears?

 

On many threads on the BB board and on the active thread "But it is just lunch" right now this verse often pops in, followed by little constructed scenarios where weaker Christians see people entering bars, or stores next to porn shops, or eating with another married woman etc.

It just leads me to ask . . .
WHERE DO YOU GUYS LIVE that you go bumping into each other all the time? I work in Austin (about 600,000) and live just north of it in Round Rock (about 65,000) and I don't think I EVER have run into someone in a restaurant, store, walgreens, etc that I recongized or who would know me. Everyone I know at work, or church, or friends, I see when I am at those locations or when we get together, but I have never seen them by chance. When I was in graduate school in Palo Alto, I think ONCE I was having dinner with my wife at Olive Garden and there was another couple from our Church there. We thought that was pretty coincidental.

I grew up in a town of 3600 and I guess a ran into a lot of people there that I knew. Perhaps it is just a small town thing? </font>[/QUOTE]Well heres my take on this "appearance of evil" contraversy:

The King James Version's rendering of 1 Thessalonians:5:22 has been the source of much confusion again in this area of separation:

1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]

1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

Even from other translations of the Greek word eidos in the King James Version itself we can see that it does not mean "appearance" in the sense that even if it could appear to be evil then avoid it.

The Scriptures are telling us here to avoid the actual presence of evil in whatever form it may take. Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern English correctly when they render it as:

Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."

So yes I should "avoid every kind of evil". We agree on that completely. What is a kind of evil? Here is one example.

A movie at the theater that is filled with filth is "a kind of evil" and I should avoid it. Going to the Movie theater itself is not evil, it is what I see there that makes my actions right or wrong.

IFBReformer

 

In this case I favor a more literal interpretation as given in the King James version. I understand the view points others have made regarding how this scripture is interpreted in other versions. However, another point of view with respective to this particular verse, is that either translation makes sense is "good theology"! Avoiding all forms of evil sure makes sense. Evil is evil regardless what its form may be and we know that Satan can present it in so many appealing ways such that discerning it can be most difficult. Avoiding something that others could mistakenly view as evil also makes sense. When viewed from the broader perspective of all scripture it seems to me one view is not exclusive of the other. Further, the latter view does not imply that someone making something evil out of something that isn't evil is not wrong in that action. We know that one of Satan's tricks is to make good appear evil to discredit Christians and thereby Christ. Likewise, it's completely understandable that it's just not always possible to literally follow such advice in every situation. The problem I see with discrediting the latter interpretation comes about when it's used to support the idea that we can do what ever we want no matter how it appears to others and no matter how risky to might be. We need to remind ourselves that it is not through our own power that we resist temptation but through that of the Lord.

 

But the poitn is that the KJV, as "appearance" is understood today is not the more literal. It is incorrect. Paul is not concerned with things that may appear evil though they really are not. Paul is concerned with actual evil.

The other may be a good principle; it is simply not the principle found in this verse.

 

Have to go back to the "bumping into people" aspect of this thread. I was in Dublin today (1.2 million people), twenty miles from our town of 20,000 and bumped into a lady who is a part of our church of 20 people!

You'd better watch our not matter what "appearance" means .

(please, I know that God is always watching me, this was humour)

 

But the poitn is that the KJV, as "appearance" is understood today is not the more literal. It is incorrect. Paul is not concerned with things that may appear evil though they really are not. Paul is concerned with actual evil.

The other may be a good principle; it is simply not the principle found in this verse. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I don't agree that it is absolutely not the meaning claimed by many. That's based upon what I've studied to date and what many far more knowledge than me have concluded. I can see the translation making sense either way. The Greek words used could be taken either way. But I can sure understand the points made by others. There's just so much to learn and a lot of difficult questions are involved. Maybe, I'll just ask old Paul when I see him one of these days just exactly what it was the Lord inspired him to write in the original text.