Romans 3:10. As it is written, THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE. version 1
romans 3:10: As it is written, no one will be righteous, no one. version 2.
do you see a differance or are they both the same?
2007-10-05 02:27:19 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
my corrupt translation are the christians version one, when they say no no will become perfect or no one can become perfect.
2007-10-05 02:36:42 · update #1
opps version 2 I mean.
2007-10-05 02:37:09 · update #2
I made version 2 up to show you how you teach my soul that no one can be be good. You as a christian say virsion 2 to me, the Lord shows me virsion 1.
2007-10-05 02:48:43 · update #3
Version 1 - "is"
Version 2 - "will be"
Sounds to me, that the main difference is that version 1 is saying that no one is currently righteous. Version 2 is saying that no one will ever be righteous
2007-10-05 02:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you remember your grammar from school (and if you are like most of us you have never used it since) you may remeber that there are different "tenses" to verbs. Such as the "past tense" (ran) and the present tense (run).
In the Greek language there is an additional tense which indicates an action that began in the presence and is still going on at the future. If we were to use this tense in terms of "run", we would say they "would still be running".
When translating the Bible, the King James translators tried to use one English word for each one Greek/Hebrew word. They tried to avoid using phrases to translate a single word. So they usually translated any verbs in the "still going on" tense as present tense. So for Romans 3:10, you would get no one "is" righteous.
Some of the newer translations use the future tense instead, as the action is not complete in the present, but still going on, so they use no one "will be" righteous.
Neither changes the meaning of the verse - that everyone is (and continues to be) unrighteous until they are saved. It is just a difference in the style that the translators used.
2007-10-05 09:39:21 · answer #2 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your reading from a corrupted translation. Get yourself a King James Version.
2007-10-05 09:32:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is the second similar question you've asked. Respectfully, I don't know what translation you're looking at.
None of the about 10 translations I look at have it in the future.
Edited to Add: OK thank you for adding that explanation.
2007-10-05 09:44:55 · answer #4 · answered by Q&A Queen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you making these second versions up??? The first version is correct but why don't you quote the whole version and not little snippets of it? Are you trying to mislead Christians? It will never happen. Sorry. Nice try.
2007-10-05 09:39:18 · answer #5 · answered by teatotler 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋