1 Corinthians 6:11 - "are" or "were"?

[Friend of God]

I have a question about 1 Corinthians 6:11. The verse is rendered two different ways depending on the Bible version that you use.

KJV
"and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

NASB-NKJV-ESV-NIV
"and such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

So which is more accurate, are we washed, etc or were we washed, etc?

 

[Steven2006]

The important thing is read in context with verses 9 & 10 they both are saying and mean the same thing.


As far as which is the most accurate, while I am no expert here is an opinion. Since these things had already taken place "were" sounds more grammatically correct.

.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'm out and about right now but I have. Sneaking suspicion the answer lies in how you take the Greek verbs.

Or, just as likely, there's a different between the TR and the more reliable manuscripts.

I'll check and reply later...I love shopping at the mall on Saturday...

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Friend of God

I was glad to discover you thread.

I can’t tell you how many times, I have been told that.......
“All the other versions do, are update the outdated words; None of the meanings of the verses are changed:
They just us updated words.”

But your post shows us, that these other versions do change the meanings of the verses.


Thank you

 

[Steven2006]

Hello Friend of God

I was glad to discover you thread.

I can’t tell you how many times, I have been told that.......
“All the other versions do, are update the outdated words; None of the meanings of the verses are changed:
They just us updated words.”

But your post shows us, that these other versions do change the meanings of the verses.


Thank you

As I posted earlier if read within the context of the verses the come before this it doesn't change the meaning at all.

 

[Friend of God]

Thanks for your replies everybody. They're really appreciated.


Please don't mistake my question as wishing to prove the superiority of any version. That's not why I asked it. I use the KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV when I study. They are all equally God's word and I respect them as such.


I'm just curious about the difference between the versions and do they mean that we have been washed etc in the past or are now being washed etc.


I agree with Steven about the context, perhaps the difference is in the translation of the Greek verbs after all as preachinjesus stated.

 

[menageriekeeper]

And here again is a difference between the language of 400 years ago and our language now.

Both are correct Cuz. Were is "more" correct to us because we use tenses somewhat differently now.

The translators of the KJV didnt' use the word "are" to mean that we are actively being washed at any moment in time. Instead, they mean we are already cleaned up! We don't need cleaning again.

Could they have used were? I suppose. But in the day......

Personally, I'd have used "have been" to express the meaning.

Just my uneducated (in translation) two cents of course.

 

[Trotter]

From my (quick) research into this, "were" looks to be a more accurate rendering. I didn't find any references to the verbs being a present tense. Even Zodhiates's notes referred to them as past tense.

 

[Baptist4life]

..........there's a different between the TR and the more reliable manuscripts....

I asked once before when someone made a similar statement............can you PROVE that statement? Or is it just your opinion? I'm still waiting for anyone to PROVE it. All I've gotten in reply are opinions of men. Not PROOF. In my opinion the TR is the best. I cannot PROVE that, so when I make a statement like that, I always say "in my opinion". I hate to nit pick, but posting your OPINION as FACT kinda rubs me the wrong way.

 

[sag38]

No offense bfl but where were you when the Garvey was posting his opinion as being God's undeniable truth. He did it over and over again. He gave not one shred of Biblical evidence to support his declarations but I don't recall him rubbing you the wrong way.

 

[Baptist4life]

No offense bfl but where were you when the Garvey was posting his opinion as being God's undeniable truth. He did it over and over again. He gave not one shred of Biblical evidence to support his declarations but I don't recall him rubbing you the wrong way.

Well, I don't remember, maybe I wasn't reading on here at the time. I'm not sure why. But, if he made those statements as FACT, then he's just as wrong as anyone else. IMHO, there is no way to PROVE your beliefs either way, so arguing over it is fruitless. There are countless threads all over the internet about Bible verses/versions, etc. Makes for good conversation I guess, but after reading them for years now, no one has PROVEN anything either way. I have my "preferences" others have theirs. Just the way it is, and probably always will be. When we get to Heaven, I'm not really gonna care, so I'm not gonna let myself get "angry" with anyone over it here on earth. Are you a born again Christian following the Lord Jesus Christ? Then you're my brother or sister in Christ, and God would not have us bickering amongst ourselves. BTW, I apologize for using the "rubs me the wrong way" statement. Poor choice of words by me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Friend of God]

And here again is a difference between the language of 400 years ago and our language now.
Both are correct Cuz. Were is "more" correct to us because we use tenses somewhat differently now.
The translators of the KJV didnt' use the word "are" to mean that we are actively being washed at any moment in time. Instead, they mean we are already cleaned up! We don't need cleaning again.
Could they have used were? I suppose. But in the day......
Personally, I'd have used "have been" to express the meaning.
Just my uneducated (in translation) two cents of course.

Your explanation makes perfect sense Cuz. Guess I should've thought about the language change between the time of the KJV and now.


You're right "were" does sound better to us today and conveys the same meaning.


Thanks for your "uneducated [in translation] two cents"! It really helps.

 

[Jerome]

more gramatically correct?
language change?
sounds better?
400 years ago?
correct way back in the day?

You all might want to glance at the headlines of today's sunday paper and see how often "present tense" verbs are used for things that are "past".

 

[Deacon]

και ταυτα τινες ητε αλλα απελουσασθε
αλλα ηγιασθητε αλλ εδικαιωθητε εν τω ονοματι
του κυριου ιησου και εν
τω πνευματι του θεου ημων
1 Corinthians 6:11 (TR1550 - Stephens)

καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε• ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε,
ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι
τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν
τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
1 Corinthians 6:11 NA27

The only difference between the textual receptus and the Nestle-Aland Critical text is the title of “Lord Jesus” [TR] and “Lord Jesus Christ” [NA27]
(it's rather unusual that the longer title is in the NA27 – Metzger liked the shorter reading).

******************

I think you may be right regarding the change in language/grammar usage in the AV.

If you "have been sanctified" also means you “were sanctified” (modern versions) and you “are sanctified” (AV).

In each case the action is something that happened in the past.

Rob

 

[Mexdeaf]

So what is that we were discussing again? :laugh:

 

[Steven2006]

So what is that we were discussing again? :laugh:

Don't you mean are discussing? :laugh:

 

[Friend of God]

Thank you for all your replies, and for letting me benefit from your learning and experience. Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

There is an important difference, and its not because of a variant or because of old language. The verse must be looked at in the context of the writers purpose. The writer is not making a direct statement about an event in the past or action taking place in the present; He is making a contrast between a past status with a present status. Notice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, KJV) --

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.​

The writer is saying that some of you were unrighteous (past condition) but now you are righteous (present condition). We were once Theives, Idolaters, Drunkards, and such (nouns not verbs). We are now Inheritors of the kingdom of God. The purpose of the writer is not that you "were" made righteous at a point in time in the past (although that is true); the purpose is to show that your current status is righteousness. In contrast to the unrighteous, The Washed, The Sanctified, and The Justified (consider these nouns, not verbs) enter the kingdom. I believe I side with translations using "are" here.

 

[MNJacob]

For what it is worth, the tense in the TR is identical to the the text used by more modern translations. It is an Aorist Middle Indicative in the second person plural.

The aorist tense is a bit different than any English tense because it indicates a simple completed action. Both translations are correct in the sense that the action of being washed fully has been accomplished and is complete.