Ellen White gives us some examples of the sort of "cause" for which it would be no sin to be angry.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is anger, and there is anger that is directed to individuals making it very personal.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." "Thou hast answered right," said Christ; "this do, and thou shalt live." To love God with all the heart is the first great law of the universe. When the love of God fills the heart, love to our fellow men will flow forth in words and deeds as the fruit of that love.

Matthew 5:22 KJV ... and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

No one here has called anyone a fool, have they? Some have felt that what was done to Korah should be done today to certain individuals. Are such murderers?

A morning sermon from the APL (Adventist Pioneer Library):

THE ROOT OF MURDER

Of Christ it was prophesied that He should "magnify the law, and make it honourable." In the fifth chapter of Matthew we see the law as magnified by His teachings. He said: "Ye have heard that it was said, by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment." Matthew 5:21-22, R.V. It will be noticed that the words, "without a cause," are omitted in the Revision; the statement is absolute: every one who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. Jesus is not disparaging the teaching of old time; He Himself is the Beginning, and He came to make plain that which was taught from the beginning. He did not mean that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," was incomplete, and that He was giving something better and greater, but He showed the comprehensiveness of it,-that the words, "Thou shalt not kill," mean, Thou shalt not be angry. "Love is the fulfilling of the law," and "love is not provoked."

God sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. In every case the sin is not the thing actually done, which man can see, so much as that condition in the man, that led to the doing of it. So long as the root from which murder grows is in the heart, the man is counted as a murderer. Men naturally classify sins into different grades, and in the history of the apostate church man have been required to do penance according to the recognised degree of guilt. Some sins were classed as venial, and others as mortal. For some sins the payment of a small sum would provide satisfaction, while others could be expiated only by a vast amount of treasure or works. This is simply the religion of human nature.

Some sins are more unpopular than others; for some sins the sinner is ostracised, while others do not affect one's standing in society, but may even give one admission into what is considered the "best society." But there is no evidence in the Scriptures that the Lord thus grades sin. We have no reason to suppose that He recognises the distinction made by man, of "murder in the first degree," or "second degree." "Sin is the transgression of the law," and "the wages of sin is death." That comprehends the whole matter.

In this we are not belittling the guilt of murder, but showing where the sin Iies. He who has taken the life of another has done an awful thing, yet he is not necessary more guilty than one who has done something not so looked upon by the world. Let us consider the matter of anger: Who has not been angry? Indeed it is often thought that a display of anger is a mark of spirit, and of strength of character, and that he who cannot be provoked to anger is a milksop, and lacking in ambition. But anger is really brief madness, and to give way to it, the same as to give way to any other passion, is a mark of weakness, and not of strength. How many murders have resulted from quarrels arising over some trifle. Two friends get into a dispute, they are both quick-tempered, and one takes offence at something said by the other; retort is given, the men both lose control of them selves, and blows are exchanged. In their temporary madness a severe blow is struck, and one of them is killed. Then comes the awakening; the man would never have done such a thing if he had known what he was doing, but he was so angry that he did not know what he was about. How many times has this been given as an excuse for something that one has done; and it is true, for a person in this condition is not waster of himself.

In one sense the murder committed under such conditions is an accident; it certainly was not intentional. Yet the man is a murderer, nevertheless. The guilt lies not in the blow that was struck in a moment of unconsciousness, but in that disposition which made the blow possible. How many there are who have been saved from the gallows only by accident. For let every person who has ever been so angry that he has, even for a moment, lost control of himself, remember this: that in that moment he might have taken a life, and the fact that he might have done so, and that it was only accident or the grace of God that preserved him from the actual deed, shows that he war really guilty of the possible murder. This terrible thought should be taken to heart, and serve as an effectual warning against giving way to passion.

Take the case of the first murder ever committed. We have the secret of it given in 1 John 3:11-12. "This is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slow his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." You know the story. Cain and Abel each brought an offering to the Lord; Abel was accepted, Cain was rejected. What evil quality is it that is aroused when one finds another preferred before him?-It is jealousy. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of him. Every jealous feeling is the seed of a murder. Nay, more than this; as with anger, so with jealousy, it not simply leads to murder, but it is murder. Every one who feels hurt because somebody else is honoured and he is passed by; every one who feels sour or morose because he has not been treated with the consideration that he thinks is his due, has violated the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill."

This plainly appears from the text last quoted, taken in connection with the discussion of love. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour." "Love seeketh not its own." Love prefers another in honour; but where love is not, there is murder. Read again the verses quoted from 1 John: the commandment is that we love one another, not as Cain, who slew his brother. Here we are told, not what love is, but what it is not. Love is the opposite of the spirit that Cain manifested. Whoever does not obey the law of love, is classed with Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

This is further shown in the case of Joseph and his brethren: Joseph had received special marks of favour from his father, and because of his high character had been taken more fully into his confidence than his brethren. When they saw him coming to them on an errand of kind near, they said: "Behold, this dreamer cometh; come, let us kill him." They did not actually take his life, but were turned aside from it by Reuben, only as a patter of expediency. In effect, they killed him. They sold him into Egypt, only because they thought that thus they would got rid of him as effectually as by shedding his blood. This was the natural working of envy, for we read: "The Patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt." Envy, therefore, which to the sister of jealousy, is also murder. Every one who envies another, because of his goodness or any good fortune, has transgressed the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

The change is very subtle and the versions were new at that time and appeared improved, as even I used the NIV from college on, but take the whole work and you begin to see a shift and not for the better.

I would think this would settle the question....

Matthew 21:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Here are some of the changes in Mark:

1:1 "the Son of God" is left out. These words present Jesus Christ as Deity. Such an omission is a direct attack on the person of Christ and is without doubt a doctrinal error.

1:31 "immediately" is dropped. The descriptive word tells us when the fever left her and therefore provides us with a miracle. The word left out denies the miracle and thus the one who performed it.

2:17 "to repentance" is left out. See if you see if it makes any difference:
[KJV]17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[NIV]17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

3:15 "to heal sicknesses" is omitted. Jesus gave them authority to heal diseases as well as to cast out demons. Sickness is the result of the effects of sin and Christ had the authority to eliminate it as evidenced when He said, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" and "Rise up and walk."

4:24 "and unto you that hear shall more be given" is left out. It is a Bible teaching that those who seek truth from the Lord shall be given more truth (see John 7:17).

5:36 "as soon" is dropped. The word in the Greek is "immediately." The word immediately is constantly dropped by the revisers of the NIV.

6:11 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" is removed from the text. This passage emphasizes the great degree of responsibility that was upon those cities who heard the Lord's apostles as they preached repentance and worked miracles before them.

7:8 "as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" is omitted. The Lord not only condemns the Pharisees for traditions of men, but he names them. It is doctrinally unsound to let men go on in traditions as we see even today and not expose them, but some don't want that seen in scripture.

9:23 "if thou canst believe" is dropped. The father had said to Jesus, "if thou canst do anything." To this lack of faith Jesus answered, "if thou canst believe." It was at once a rebuke and an encouragement to have faith in him. The father's answer in the next verse is beautiful but the Revisers ruined that also. They omitted "with tears, Lord" from the most precious answer as recorded by the Spirit of God. "24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

9:47 "fire" is omitted. The words are inspired and in complete agreement with Rev. 20:15. The Wicked perishing in the lake of fire is a clear teaching especially for SDA. "15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."Rev. 20:15.

10:21 "take up the cross" is left out. The word to the young man was to divest himself of the riches in which he trusted, consider himself dead to the world, and follow Christ into eternal life.

10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out. This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation.

11:26 The whole verse is removed. "26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." It is a Bible doctrine that if we confess our sins and ask God for favor he requires that our confession of sin include forgiveness of those who have sinned against us.

13:14 "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is dropped. "14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:" Without the reference to Daniel the appeal to understand is without force. Though some might connect it in their thoughts because they are familiar with Scripture, it does not follow that he is referring to Daniel.

14:22 "eat" is dropped."22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body." Our Lord did not give them a relic from the Last Supper to take home and put on a shelf, they ate it.

15:28 The whole verse is left out. "28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." Jesus was crucified between two thieves in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. It is doctrinal error to eliminate clear statements concerning the fulfilling of prophecy (see Luke 24:27).

16:9-20 Twelve verses are omitted. There are many doctrines affected by the omission of these twelve verses. The resurrection of Christ is deleted. The great commission, baptism, eternal damnation and His ascension into Heaven are all taken out of the Word of God. The evidence is clear that these verses are original and to cut them out is to affect many doctrines of the Christian faith.

Yes, and what happened immediately afterward?

Matthew 21:12-16 AKJV
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said to them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said to him, Hear you what these say? And Jesus said to them, Yes; have you never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise?

The blind and the lame were not afraid of Him. The children came to Him. That that is one scary dude! Read The Desire of Ages chapter 65.

Then we have the changes in Luke:

1:28 "blessed art thou among women" is omitted. There were many virgins in Israel at the time, but God chose Mary. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (concerning her birth) is nothing but pagan fiction. Mary was blessed AMONG women, but not ABOVE women. The worship of Mary is contrary to Scripture. This omission is designed to lift her above others and eventually deify her.

2:14 "peace, good will toward men" is changed to "peace among men of good will." The first talks of the birth of Christ as bringing God's peace and good will (reconciliation) to men. The change offers God's peace to men who are good. That is doctrinally unsound since there is none good.

2:33 "Joseph and his mother" is changed to "his father and mother." The Spirit of God is very careful to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and that he did not have a human father who begat him. The change casts doubt upon the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ as the "seed of the woman." Later, when Mary refers to Joseph as "thy father," Jesus answers with, "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business," meaning that God was His father (see 2:48,49).

2:40 "in spirit" is left out. That the child grew and waxed strong in spirit is evident from verse 47. It is unlikely that the Spirit of God wanted us to see how strong Jesus was with reference to his physique.

2:43 "and Joseph and his mother knew not of it" is changed to "and his parents were unaware of it." The first retains the teachings of the virgin birth, the second discards it.

4:4 "but by every Word of God" is dropped. Many are willing to agree that bread alone cannot satisfy man, but few are willing to live by every word of God. This quotation is from Deut. 8:3 where the omitted words are found. The Revisers could not leave this passage in because they have changed "every word of God" in over 5,000 places in the New Testament.

4:8 "Get thee behind me, Satan" is omitted. The devil had tempted Jesus to bypass the cross and receive the kingdom over the world. Jesus, refused to worship him.

6:10 "whole as the other" is left out. These words tell us that not only was his hand restored to use but it was whole as the other. The completeness of the miracle is attested to by these words.

9:54 "even as Elias did" is omitted. Apart from this word they had no precedent for doing such a thing.

9:55, 56 "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" is omitted. In reply to the disciples who thought that they could call down fire from heaven, Jesus told them that he came to save men.

11:2-4 "Our ... which art in heaven" is deleted along with "Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth" and "but deliver us from evil." Only corrupt manuscripts can produce so many departures from the disciples prayer which is found without deletions in Matt. 6:9-13.


22:31 "And the Lord said" is dropped. The Lord Jesus was God and as such he was omnipresent and omniscient. He was present when Satan came before God and asked permission to try Peter's faith. He had prayed to the Father, as Peter's intercessor, that his faith would not fail. It was the Lord who knew all of this and warned Peter specifically.

23:23 "and of the chief priests" is omitted. The Lord was careful to let us know that the religious priests and leaders were involved in the rejection of Christ.

23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" is changed to "Then he said, Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom." The acceptance that Jesus is Lord is doctrinally correct for salvation (see Rom. 10:9- 13).

24:40 The whole verse is omitted. The bodily resurrection of Christ is proven here as he showed them his hands and his feet. The omission affects Bible doctrine very much.

24:51 "and carried up into heaven" is left out. The bodily ascension of Christ into heaven is a Bible doctrine that is denied here. It leaves the Lord parted from them but does not tell us where he went. The Revisers removed the doctrine and left the Word in a poor state of disarray. Acts 1:1, 2 tells us that the "former treatise" (Luke) ended with Jesus being "taken up." That ought to be sufficient to show the Revisers are wrong.

24:52 "And ... worshipped him" is omitted by the NASV. The MAJORITY Text says, "And they having worshipped him returned to Jerusalem with great joy." The picture we have is of our Lord receiving their worship because he is God (see 4:8 where worship is to be to God only) and then before their very eyes ascending into heaven. It is a Bible doctrine that we are to worship Jesus and the omission by the NASV is a clear denial of that doctrine.

Next lets look at the changes in John:

1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "The only begotten God." Such a phrase is foreign to Scripture. It accommodates the Arian teaching that Christ was a lesser deity created by God.

1:27 "He it is... who is preferred before me" is removed. This change removes the pre-eminence and pre-existence of Christ.

3:13 "which is in heaven" is omitted. 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The omission is a corruption introduced by those who do not believe in the perfect and absolute Deity of Christ.

3:15 "should not perish" is removed. This deletion removes the opposite of everlasting life, which is to perish. The doctrine of eternal death for the wicked who perish in the Lake of Fire is weakened by the change.

3:16 "his only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten Son." The word HIS marks Jesus Christ out as God's own peculiar son in a relationship that no one else has. The Deity of Christ is involved and is thereby weakened (3:17 also changed).

4:42 "the Christ" is left out. The purpose of John's gospel as given in 20:31 was to lead people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. That belief was to bring life to them. To omit it here is to deny the purpose of the inspired writer.

5:16 "and sought to slay him" is omitted. The Scripture teaches us that on many occasions they tried to kill Jesus but by supernatural power were kept from doing so (see John 18:6)and they could not take him until his hour was come.

6:47 "on me" is left out. "47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The object of faith has been removed here. Everlasting life does not come to those who believe, but to those who believe on Christ. This is doctrinal error of the gravest sort and has been carried over into the NASV and NIV.

7:8 The little word "yet" is dropped and the result is that the Lord appears to lie to his brothers, since he did go up to the feast. "8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come." There is a world of difference between "I go not up YET" and "I go not up." The sinlessness of Christ is an indispensable doctrine of the Christian faith and lying is sin.

7:53-8:11 The whole story of the woman taken in adultery is omitted. The thrust of John 8:11 "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." is lost.

8:38 The words "my Father" and "your father" are intended to show the difference between his father and their father, who was Satan. "38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." By removing the word "my" and "your" there is a deliberate attempt to remove the meaning.

8:39 "If ye were Abraham's children" is changed to "if ye are Abraham's children." The Lord intended them to see that they were not Abraham's children at all.

9:4 "I must work the works of him that sent me" is changed to "We must work the works of him that sent us." The uniqueness of Christ as the Sent One of the Father is destroyed and he is placed equally with the disciples as sent from God to do the work of God. This is an attack on the Person and Work of Christ. Jesus was sent by the Father and the disciples were sent by Jesus, "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."

9:35 "the Son of God" is changed to "the Son of man." The thing to be believed in John's gospel is that Jesus is the Son of God (20:31). The change by the minority texts is not warranted.

10:38 "that ye may know, and believe" is changed to "that ye may know, and understand." The union of Christ and the Father within the Godhead is that which we are to believe and rely upon for the certainty of our salvation. To understand the union is beyond human comprehension and if it could be understood, that would still not be the equivalent of salvation.

11:41 "where the dead was laid" is removed. "41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." This is an attempt to cloud the evident miracle which followed. (see also 12:2 where "which had been dead" is also removed).

I came across a Adventist.org site on choosing a Bible translation that gave the following engaging explanation for "What Should We Use?"

"Clearly, there are substantial differences between the different translations. The old saying that one Bible is as good as another simply does not hold true. With this in mind, it is my belief that Christians are best off using an essentially literal translation, particularly for in-depth study and public reading. Since all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), we should seek to read translations that reflect the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words to the greatest degree possible. Jesus Himself said, “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law” (Matt. 5:18, ESV), and we should be cautious about translations that alter the inspired Word of God.

Another reason for concern is that, in cases where there is more than one possible meaning of a biblical text, Christians reading dynamic equivalent translations or free paraphrases are frequently given only the translators’ interpretation. Here’s an example from Mark 9:24:

“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!” (ESV).

“Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, ‘I do believe; help my unbelief’” (NASB).

These essentially literal translations preserve the father’s somewhat confusing statement basically as he said it. When the father said, “I believe; help my unbelief,” did he mean that he wanted Jesus to help him overcome his unbelief or was he affirming that he already believed and wanted even more faith? We don’t know for sure, but it’s something we need to grapple with when we read the text. However, notice how dynamic equivalent translations and free paraphrases deal with this verse.

“Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; helps me overcome my unbelief!” (NIV).

“Right away the boy’s father shouted, ‘I do have faith! Please help me to have even more’” (CEV).

“The father cried out, ‘Teacher, I do believe, but please help me overcome my unbelief! Please give me the kind of faith I need!’” (Clear Word).

The wording provided by these translations is so different because they present varying interpretations of what the father really meant to say. When the translator does the hard work of interpreting challenging passages, individual Christians are deprived of the opportunity to think for themselves. The reality is that Christians should expect to wrestle with difficult Bible passages since this is an important part of spiritual growth..."
http://www.adventist.org/pt/espiritualid...le-translation/

Very interesting to say the least..........

Rick, you should only read the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.