Romans 14:6

[NotConformed]

I was reading through some scriptures today.  Sometimes when I read, I like to reference different version just to see the multiple ways something has been interpreted.  Usually there isn't much difference at all, worded differently but carrying the same meaning.

This evening I found something a little out of the ordinary.  Check out Romans 14:6.
If you read it in NKJV it says this:

"6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."

Young's Literal Translation puts it this way:

 "6 He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard [it], and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God."

NIV:

"6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

The Message:

"6 What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli."

Worldwide English (New Testament):

"6 One man honours the day to honour the Lord; another man does not honour the day to honour the Lord. The person who eats everything, eats it because he honours the Lord. And he thanks God. And the person who will not eat every kind of food also does so to honour the Lord. And he still gives thanks to God."

Okay, I'll stop there.  I think you get the picture...or DO you?

"Gee, NC, what in the world are you getting at?"

If you'll notice something in this verse - the whole thing is a string of opposites, all coinciding with one another and all sides being justified.  Those dichotomies are maintained, except in one part of the verse.  The first part.

The more original of the versions state it like this:

"He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it." NKJ/KJ
"He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard it, and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." YLT

Both of these pretty much say the same thing.

Most of the others leave out the second half of the verse and throw a different spin on it:

"He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord (where's the rest?)" NIV
"What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake (where's the rest?)" The Message

Many of the more POPULAR versions do this while some of the more classic and basic versions do not.

The "Worldwide English" Version states it as I read it:

"One man honours the day to honour the Lord; another man does not honour the day to honour the Lord (Oh, there's the other half)"

Where's the other half in those other versions.  Again, a string of opposites - two different sides being justified and acceptable.  But one half of one of the given subjects is left out while all the others remain.  Why is this important?  It's very clear that everything in this verse gives the connotation of "if you (eat meat) then it's okay.  If you do NOT (eat meat) it is also okay"

[ those things in "( )" being examples from the verse ]

But what about the whole "if you (honor a day) it's okay.  If you do NOT (honor a day) it is also okay" thing?

If you have a bible with the footnotes you'll see that the "NU-text" omits this part of the verse.

I wonder what the motive for removing (or adding) that part of the verse would be?

This whole NU-Text (Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament {N}, United Bible Societies {U} - and M-Text (Majority {M} text) thing is what makes the difference.  Somewhere along the line, through the centuries, folks translate this stuff and many times make decisions whether to keep something in or to take it out.

Here is another example of this NU-text omition issue - even bigger than the subject in this post -

Mark 16:15-20

Mark 16:15-20 (NKJ) - Otherwise known as "The Great Commission"

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” 
19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.

These verses make up a huge chunk of the basis of our faith and purpose in the Kingdom. 
Still - verses 9-20 are OMITTED from versions like the NIV.

I'm not saying this or that version is better or worse than another.  I'm just saying...depending on how deep you want to go and how much you really want to go into the Word, into what God wants to communicate to us, you can't just skim the surface.  There is so much out there.  Most folks would probably never even notice this stuff.  Those of you that are like me though, we like to dig and find and uncover the deep things. 

It's a blessing to be able to freely read this wonderful book and to freely worship our Almighty God!

Peace,
NC