I hope that we can debate together on that topic one day, and I hope Heavenly Pilgrim does not believe like you, in that we do not have a spirit that lives on after the death of our bodies.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
I hope that we can debate together on that topic one day, and I hope Heavenly Pilgrim does not believe like you, in that we do not have a spirit that lives on after the death of our bodies.
Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Mark 10:18 ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος
There is none good but one, God.
Jesus was plainly saying, even rebuking this man:
Why are you being so flippant with calling me (and perhaps others) "good"?
Do you not know that there is only one person that is Good, and that is God?
If I am good then I am God; If I am not good then I am not God.
Be careful who you call "good." Only God is good!
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Mark 10:18 ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος
There is none good but one, God.
Jesus was plainly saying, even rebuking this man:
Why are you being so flippant with calling me (and perhaps others) "good"?
Do you not know that there is only one person that is Good, and that is God?
If I am good then I am God; If I am not good then I am not God.
Be careful who you call "good." Only God is good!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, I understand your position, and am not taking issue with it. You have every right to take that from the text as it is writtenin the manuscript you choose to read. As for me, I simply see other possible options as to why the discrepancies in the GK texts and lexicons.
Just as a side note, pay careful attention to how it is said that (if all accounts are the same account) that Jesus loved that man. Oh sure, Jesus loves everyone in a sense, but Scripture takes special effort to give us an insight into the depth of love Jesus had for that particular man. There was a special connection, I sense it every time I read the account. They were not at antipodes. I believe the man was sincere, just not yet willing at that time to follow the Lord. Jesus never rebuked him or called him a liar. He loved him. He did not treat him as He did so many others when He knew their heart was wicked. He loved him. I believe he spoke kindly tenderly with loving passion to that man. I simply see the distinct possibility that Christ was simply confirming that the law was indeed good, and should be kept.....yet one thing (imagine that , ONE THING) he lacked.
I certainly will allow you to disagree. Again, you have every right. :thumbs:
Just as a side note, pay careful attention to how it is said that (if all accounts are the same account) that Jesus loved that man. Oh sure, Jesus loves everyone in a sense, but Scripture takes special effort to give us an insight into the depth of love Jesus had for that particular man. There was a special connection, I sense it every time I read the account. They were not at antipodes. I believe the man was sincere, just not yet willing at that time to follow the Lord. Jesus never rebuked him or called him a liar. He loved him. He did not treat him as He did so many others when He knew their heart was wicked. He loved him. I believe he spoke kindly tenderly with loving passion to that man. I simply see the distinct possibility that Christ was simply confirming that the law was indeed good, and should be kept.....yet one thing (imagine that , ONE THING) he lacked.
I certainly will allow you to disagree. Again, you have every right. :thumbs:
Can you prove that there exists discrepancies in the account given in Mark? Even if you find one in Matthew, you don't find one in Mark, so you are just chasing a rabbit trail.
Consider the whole story.
Jesus told him to keep the law, and he would live.
He said: "This I have done from my youth" (a lie).
Then Jesus beholding him, loved him and said: "This do, sell all that thou hast, give to the poor, take up thy cross, and follow me."
But the man went away sorrowful for he had many riches.
Jesus turned to his disciples and said: "How hard shall it be for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
I say unto you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The disciples were astonished at that saying.
What had just happened?
Jesus indeed loved the young man, as he loves all. He had just demonstrated that the law was impossible to keep. He told the young man to keep the law, but the young man couldn't keep the law. In the end he coveted his riches more than he desired God. Jesus demonstrated that his sin of covetousness kept him from the very thing that he said he was seeking after:
"Good Master, what must I do to have 'eternal life'"?
Eternal life cannot be gained by keeping the law. No man can keep the law, and that is what Christ demonstrated with this man. He knew that he did not, could not, and would not keep the law. In fact he rejected Christ and broke the law in doing so. He coveted his riches more than he desired Christ. Covetousness is a terrible sin. Thou shalt not covet.
You presume to be more inspired than Mark and Luke who both include "God" (theos)??????? Mark and Luke prove that the better manuscript reading for Matthew is that one which agrees with two other INSPIRED witnesses.
Of course not! You better reread the Lexicon as you read it wrong. Agathos is Nominative Masculine Singular and if you read it as "neuter" you are either looking at the wrong word or inventing your own Greek grammar.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
CaseGNumberSGenderNἀγαθός,a \{ag-ath-os'}
[SIZE=-1]1) of good constitution or nature 2) useful, salutary 3) good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy 4) excellent, distinguished 5) upright, honourable [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1) of good constitution or nature 2) useful, salutary 3) good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy 4) excellent, distinguished 5) upright, honourable [/SIZE]
Ok, I see the problem. You don't understand that Greek adjectives can be used in all three genders (Masculine, Neuter and Feminine).
However, when they are used in any context the gender is determined by the gender of the noun they modify. The adjective must agree with the noun it modifies both in gender, case, and in number.
If you will check the text again you will see that the noun the adjective "agathos" modifies is a Masculine noun and therefore must agree with it in gender, case and number.
For example in the Text you have chosen that omits "theos", Matthew 19:17 still retains the masculine singular definite article preceding "agathos." The masculine singular definite article "ho" which looks like 'o immediately precedes agathos in that Greek text.
If you look again at your Lexicon the term "agathos" should be followed by "n" and "ov" which gives the femine and neuter nominative form.
If Matthew wanted to use the neuter form here, not only must the definite article be in the neuter form (which it is not but in the masculine) but you would find the neuter "agathov" which is the neuter form of the masculine nominative singule "agathos." However, the neuter form is not found in Matthew's account.
The masculine and neuter Genitive singular "agathou" are identical and only the noun being modified can determine whether it is masculine or neuter.
The Analytical Greek Lexicon published by Zondervan lists the term like this:
Agathos, n, ov
Thus listing the term "agathos" in its masculine form while giving the ending of the feminine and neuter in the nominative case.
Find a Greek scholar you trust and he will back up every word I have said.
However, there are no alternative readings for the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke as they all say "God" "theos" and all use the same masculine nominative case "agathos."
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Biblicist, it appears at this stage that the only thing we can do is to take this verse phrase by phrase as it appears in the Greek in Matthew 19:17 alone. I am not interested in looking at any other passages at this time. I want to focus on Matthew 19:17 by itself again phrase by phrase. I think we can skip the first phrase, "A he said under him." Let's start with the second phrase, "Why callest thou me good?
In the Greek it reads: Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ;
τίς,ri \{tis}
1) a certain, a certain one 2) some, some time, a while 1) who, which, what gender N
με</SPAN> ἐγώ,rp \{eg-o'}1) I, me, my
ἐρωτᾷς</SPAN> ἐρωτάω,v \{er-o-tah'-o}1) to question 2) to ask 2a) to request, entreat, beg, beseech For Synonyms see entry 5802 Person 2 tense P Voice A
περὶ</SPAN> περί,p \{per-ee'} 1) about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near
τοῦ</SPAN> ὁ,ra \{ho}1) the 2) this, that, these, etc Gender N
ἀγαθοῦ;</SPAN> ἀγαθός,a \{ag-ath-os'}1) of good constitution or nature 2) useful, salutary 3) good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy 4) excellent, distinguished 5) upright, honourable Gender N
Now from this portion of the text alone, the following questions: Is there anything in this portion of the GK text that would indicate that the Christ said anything closely related to , " Why callest thou me good?" Is there anything in the GK text itself that indicates Christ's person as "good" is in question or being addressed by Christ's response?
Biblicist, respond to the actual GK text above alone and nothing else. Do not point to any other verse, for you have no certain knowledge that any other text was the same individual being spoken to in this text. There well could have been three persons addressed in Matthew Mark and Luke, just as many other stories in the New Testament that on the face seemed somewhat similar could in fact have been different occurrences. So for now we are going to try to allow this text in the Greek to speak for itself, adding nothing to the text of our own conjecture. We want to know what this text says. Let the chips fall where they may. There will be plenty of time to discuss the other places in their own right later.
What would be a reasonable rendering of this portion of this passage by itself ?
In the Greek it reads: Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ;
τίς,ri \{tis}
1) a certain, a certain one 2) some, some time, a while 1) who, which, what gender N
με</SPAN> ἐγώ,rp \{eg-o'}1) I, me, my
ἐρωτᾷς</SPAN> ἐρωτάω,v \{er-o-tah'-o}1) to question 2) to ask 2a) to request, entreat, beg, beseech For Synonyms see entry 5802 Person 2 tense P Voice A
περὶ</SPAN> περί,p \{per-ee'} 1) about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near
τοῦ</SPAN> ὁ,ra \{ho}1) the 2) this, that, these, etc Gender N
ἀγαθοῦ;</SPAN> ἀγαθός,a \{ag-ath-os'}1) of good constitution or nature 2) useful, salutary 3) good, pleasant, agreeable, joyful, happy 4) excellent, distinguished 5) upright, honourable Gender N
Now from this portion of the text alone, the following questions: Is there anything in this portion of the GK text that would indicate that the Christ said anything closely related to , " Why callest thou me good?" Is there anything in the GK text itself that indicates Christ's person as "good" is in question or being addressed by Christ's response?
Biblicist, respond to the actual GK text above alone and nothing else. Do not point to any other verse, for you have no certain knowledge that any other text was the same individual being spoken to in this text. There well could have been three persons addressed in Matthew Mark and Luke, just as many other stories in the New Testament that on the face seemed somewhat similar could in fact have been different occurrences. So for now we are going to try to allow this text in the Greek to speak for itself, adding nothing to the text of our own conjecture. We want to know what this text says. Let the chips fall where they may. There will be plenty of time to discuss the other places in their own right later.
What would be a reasonable rendering of this portion of this passage by itself ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you call me good?
You know that there are none that are good. All have a depraved nature, born of original sin. Why is it then that you are calling me "good"? You must have a good reason. What is different about me, that you are calling me good?
The essence of "goodness" is God-ness.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
DHK, it would be my contention, AT THIS TIME, that the GK does not support any such notion as "Why callest thou me good?" I do not think the object is Christ's nature being addressed by the GK text at all in this portion of the GK text. Look up at my last post and the words from the GK lexicon. Tell me what would be a simple straight forward rendering IYO of the words and their meanings, again from the GK text and meaning of the words posted in a GK lexicon. I would encourage others to do the same.
I am NOT arguing I am right. I am simply looking at the text in the GK with an open mind. Does the GK indicate to you that Christ was respnding to a comment of His nature being called good? I have no hidden agenda. I am simply asking and seeking for the truth concerning this text.
I am NOT arguing I am right. I am simply looking at the text in the GK with an open mind. Does the GK indicate to you that Christ was respnding to a comment of His nature being called good? I have no hidden agenda. I am simply asking and seeking for the truth concerning this text.
I trust the translation of the KJV more than I trust you.
I trust the dozens of other translations more than I trust you.
I have no reason to doubt the translation, "Why callest thou me good?"
On what valid basis do you doubt this?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
It should also be noted that I cannot see in Mt 19:16 where he even called Christ "Good Master" in the GK text itself. I see he called him "teacher" and asked about something good, but I do not find in the GK itself where Christ was addressed as being "Good".
Again, here is the GK text. Καὶ</SPAN> ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ εἶπεν, Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον;
Again, I am not saying I am right, I am simply reading the text itself, and I do not find the word "good" qualifying the term 'teacher' he addressed Him as.
Again, here is the GK text. Καὶ</SPAN> ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ εἶπεν, Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον;
Again, I am not saying I am right, I am simply reading the text itself, and I do not find the word "good" qualifying the term 'teacher' he addressed Him as.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: The valid basis is the human heart, the manner in which men are prone to help out certain texts to support some other notion they hold to, just as new versions change and eliminate whole verses, etc. On the basis of the manner in which the hierarchy of different churches ruled and the manner they treated their opposition, just for starters.
A few years ago I would have just accepted the KJV without question until I have corresponded with those on this list as well as others and see how so many can twist and change things at will. I owe it to myself, since it is my soul not anyone else's at stake, to do my best to examine some things, made much simpler today with all the helps, and to not be too quick to accept any particular translation, seeing there are so many available saying different things. They all cannot be right. It is ok is it not to simply look up GK words in a lexicon, and if certain words are simply not there nor supported, to question how something was really stated is it not? .......or shall we only leave it to the Calvinist's or others to guide us and to trust their renderings implicitly?
Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν
Teacher, the good
the good Teacher
the good Master
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Are you KJO DHK?
You do not even know Greek and you want to judge those who do????
What scholar asserts that Mark and Luke speak aboout some other individual????? Please bring them forward or bring evidence that Mark and Luke are speakng of some other man! You cannot assume it or just assert it as all the evidence denies such an presumptive idea.
The textual reading you have hand selected based upon your vast understanding of textual criticism Literally says "Why question me concerning goodness?"
The KJV translators were correct in following the readings that agree with Luke and Mark. The text you have chosen is in error and there are two inspired writers who side against it.
Textual Criticism has nothing to with Calvinism or non-Calvinism. It simply has to do with: which text is the most accurate? The Critical Text or the Majority Text? I for one believe that the KJV which comes from the TR, the Majority Text, is more accurate and complete then the modern versions which use the Critical Text. This is a matter for you to study out. You should also take a basic Greek course. You don't seem to even recognize the Greek words in the verse you posted.
HP: The valid basis is the human heart, the manner in which men are prone to help out certain texts to support some other notion they hold to, just as new versions change and eliminate whole verses, etc. On the basis of the manner in which the hierarchy of different churches ruled and the manner they treated their opposition, just for starters.
A few years ago I would have just accepted the KJV without question until I have corresponded with those on this list as well as others and see how so many can twist and change things at will. I owe it to myself, since it is my soul not anyone else's at stake, to do my best to examine some things, made much simpler today with all the helps, and to not be too quick to accept any particular translation, seeing there are so many available saying different things. They all cannot be right. It is ok is it not to simply look up GK words in a lexicon, and if certain words are simply not there nor supported, to question how something was really stated is it not? .......or shall we only leave it to the Calvinist's or others to guide us and to trust their renderings implicitly?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Matt. 19: 16
Today's English version: Teacher, he asked what good thing must I do to receive eternal life?
New international version: Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Jerusalem Bible: Master, what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?
New English Bible: Master, what good must I do to gain eternal life?
Revised standard version: Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?
Go to the GK text now that I posted. Show me where the word 'good' modifies the word 'Teacher' or 'Master.' Does not the word 'good' modify' the 'thing' asked about to gain eternal life? Did he not ask Jesus what 'good thing' he was to do to gain eternal life?
Today's English version: Teacher, he asked what good thing must I do to receive eternal life?
New international version: Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?
Jerusalem Bible: Master, what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?
New English Bible: Master, what good must I do to gain eternal life?
Revised standard version: Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?
Go to the GK text now that I posted. Show me where the word 'good' modifies the word 'Teacher' or 'Master.' Does not the word 'good' modify' the 'thing' asked about to gain eternal life? Did he not ask Jesus what 'good thing' he was to do to gain eternal life?
Last edited by a moderator:
You are demonstrating why you believe bizzare ideas and have bizzare interpretations.
In order to justify the textual variant you have chosen for Matthew 19:17 you will have to condemn both Mark and Luke and deny they were inspired as they use the same exact reading the KJV translators followed which agrees with Mark and Luke.
Instead you reject a reading of Matthew 19:17 found in ancient manuscripts that agrees with the undisputed readings found in both Mark and Luke.
To suggest that Mark and Luke spoke of some other person than Matthew is ludriocus as there is NO EVIDENCE for that assumptiona and there is MASSIVE evidence against that presumption.
No, I am KJV preferred.
Look at some of the terms involved.
The KJV came from the TR or the received text--those texts which were received by the majority.
They are also called the Majority Text because the majority of the churches have used this text down throughout the centuries. It was always the accepted text. This is easily verifiable since the W-H text is an eclectic text and did not come into existence until Westcott and Hort put it together at the end of the 19th century when liberalism was rampant.
This year marks the KJV's 400th anniversary (last year did). No other Bible has lasted so long. It is an accurate translation. The KJVO say that it is infallible. I don't go that far. I know that there are inaccuracies in its translation. But the underlying Greek text is more accurate than the others. That is what I believe.