Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[DHK]

Where is your respect for the Word of God DHK?

It is not a lack of respect but rather a lack of confidence. I lack confidence in those translations which are not based on the Majority Text. But you don't know that because you don't bother to read my posts.
It is not so much a lack of respect but a lack of confidence. Every translation loses meaning in translation no matter how accurately done. Thus it is important to know some Greek and Hebrew. I don't put a lot of confidence in the translation itself, as in the original language.

 

[DHK]

HP: Here we have it folks. Save this post in your saved files.:thumbs:

DHK says that we should throw out Today's English version, the NIV, the New English Bible, the Revised Standard version, and obviously all others that might translate Matt 19: 16-17 as they do.

Where is your respect for the Word of God DHK?

Can I throw you out too?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I read your post when you said you are not KJVO. I also read your post when you disrespected the Word of God, telling me to throw out the five modern translations that disagree with the KJV. Let the reader decide for themselves where you really stand.

I woud be inclined to forgive you on one basis. That being if you join me in a careful study of the text in Matt., by itself. Then if you stick with me there, we can certainly move on in time to the other passages in Mark and Luke. Deal?:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK, I read your post when you said you are not KJVO. I also read your post when you disrespected the Word of God, telling me to throw out the five modern translations that disagree with the KJV. Let the reader decide for themselves where you really stand.

I woud be inclined to forgive you on one basis. That being if you join me in a careful study of the text in Matt., by itself. Then if you stick with me there, we can certainly move on in time to the other passages in Mark and Luke. Deal?:thumbs:

In English I will use the KJV; in Greek I will use the TR.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, you are already trying to stack the deck. I believe, after your former remarks, and to show true remorse for your previous gaff, that you should be forced to defend the NIV or any of the others I set forth, and the N/A GK-English NT, just to prove to the list you love all of God's Word. That would be a clear sign of true remorse and good will. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK, you are already trying to stack the deck. I believe, after your former remarks, and to show true remorse for your previous gaff, that you should be forced to defend the NIV or any on of the others I set forth, and the N/A GK-English NT, just to prove to the list you love all of God's Word. That would be a clear sign of true remorse and good will. :thumbs:

After your continual nagging and baiting I have no remorse. I don't change convictions to placate a whimsy poster with no convictions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Someday I might write a book on, "How God Taught me to Love Via DHK.":thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, can you post the GK in the TR for just the first portion when the man addresses Christ the first time? Thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν

Teacher, the good
the good Teacher
the good Master

HP: This is what DHK posted before, but I do not know for certain where he got it. I notice in this GK, that there is a GK word, denoted teacher I would assume, followed by a comma, and then two GK words. Can someone tell us the meaning of those two GK words following the comma? Are they 'the good' as first stated by DHK? If so, the last two statements by DHK cannot be a correct translation, for it cannot be either... or can it? If one word precedes the other, in this case a possible adjective (good) modifies and defines the noun, can it also, if it follows after a comma, be an adjective defining the noun preceding the comma in the GK? If the comma is simply inserted by some scribe or whoever, and is not in the text itself, can the adjective still follow a noun that it modifies in the GK or would it necessarily need to proceed the noun as in the English?

 

[DHK]

Matthew 19:16 και ιδου εις προσελθων ειπεν αυτω διδασκαλε αγαθε τι αγαθον ποιησω ινα εχω ζωην αιωνιον

Matthew 19:16 And kai, behold idou, one eiV came prosercomai and said epw unto him autoV, Good agaqoV Master didaskaloV, what tiV good thing agaqoV shall I do poiew, that ina I may have ecw eternal aiwnioV life zwh?

Does that help?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Could the possibility exist that dyslexia might have been a common ailment around some monasteries way back then? Just kidding. :saint:

Does the GK have reasonable rules as to where and how adjectives are used, before or following a noun, and in conjunction with the noun or separated by and following a comma? Or again, was there even actual commas in the original manuscripts?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yet another question comes to mind. When looking at the GK I fail to see common punctuation marks like question marks. Why?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, this thread is about Matt 19. If you cannot answer directly the questions about this text on its own merits, and choose to ignore the five, and how many more only God knows, translations that differ from any rendering you have given this far, go start your own thread. You need to learn how to focus.

There are two readings of Matthew and it is impossible to determine the true reading by isolating it from other textual evidence that is available.

You simply cannot arbitrarily choose one over the other simply because it pleases your own theology.

Trying to force a choice by isolating the variant readings in Matthew from other scriptures that deal directly with that passage is absurdly rediculous.

However, if this is simply going to be a choice based upon personal preference then I will side with the KJV and the TR in regard to Matthew and there is absolutely no way you can demonstrate my preference is wrong and the only way you can defend your choice is doing the ostrich thing, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all other Biblical evidence.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I picked the TR to be nice and placate DHK. I have asked some honest questions. Can you help?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, don't make me dream about non existent question marks and adjectives modifying nouns that appear before commas.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Sleep well!:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Yet another question comes to mind. When looking at the GK I fail to see common punctuation marks like question marks. Why?

There were no punctuation marks in the originals. They were added in later on. Punctuation marks are not inspired. But be sure it is punctuation marks you are talking about and not as in the Hebrew (jots and tittles), the smallest letters or parts of letters.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another question comes to mind. When looking at the GK I fail to see common punctuation marks like question marks. Why?

The unedited Greek manuscripts have little to no spacing between words, no verse divisions and few if any paragraph divisions and no punctuation. Punctuation is determined by several factors (case endings, mode/mood and certain terms).

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, don't make me dream about non existent question marks and adjectives modifying nouns that appear before commas.

Sorry, but I haven't been too successful in determining or altering other people's dreams. :sleeping_2:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks for the responses. That was a clear sign of grace and goodwill.:smilewinkgrin:

As I recall there were even some manuscripts in all caps, is that correct? If so, in reality it might be partial conjecture if not completely subjective reasoning that determines a word such as "one" from indicating a mere person from Deity, or even in some cases from something else such as a thing?

The punctuation thing bothers me some, because we all know how punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I know mere wording can at times clearly indicate where a question mark goes, but again, i see a lot of conjecture or subjective reasoning being possibly used to determine whether or not it is a question or possibly a statement.

Are my questions and or assumptions here in accordance to truth as you both see it?