Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

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, 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:

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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?