PARABLES

FWIW to anyone here is one place among many where the English language is insufficient in a word-for-word translation of the NT Koine.

The Bible's shortest passage:
John 11:35 Jesus wept. edakrysen o` yesous

Verb dakruo (dakruon, a tear)

The word for weep in John 11:35 (dakruo) is different than the word for weep (klaio) typifying what the weepers around Jesus were doing. dakrou is used only here.

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: dakruo: To weep, shed tears, to be tearful.

Vine's: dakruo To shed tears.

Admittedly the "weep" in the shortest verse in the Bible is impossible to do justice to with one English word. But it is important to know that Jesus "weeping" was significantly different than those "wailing" around Him.

The difference is lost in most English translations.

HankD

 

Hank, you keep solidifying the reason those of us who know God has placed His witness upon the KJB. We who know Jesus is Messiah, Jesus is God, know there is a distinct difference in why Jesus wept.

It is the prime evidence of English literature to open the eyes, not close them by a limited understanding and the placing of scales upon the eyes.

The question arises at the individual inspection of "Jesus wept", but when you read further, (something most "modern scholars" seemingly don't advise) the context shows Jesus shouldn't have been weeping in the same manner as Lazarus' family and the "hired?" weepers. It would be ludicrous to even think for a moment Jesus wept over the death of Lazarus, especially since He would raise him from the dead in 8 verses.

So then we must understand the why of His weeping, not try to determine the degree of His weeping comparatively, that is explained in the following verse:
Luke 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

Notice the exclaimation point in thier response, it is an egual and opposite reaction to the degree of His weeping, exclaimatory!

So why did Jesus weep? I know why, because of the evil sin of unbelief, not unlike the one about thinking we don't have the Perfect Bible in the AV 1611 KJB.

 

And yet ALL translations in some ways limit the scope of the original language. Some do better than others, others don't.

And yet, the KJV says that Jesus "wept." Care to show us a dictionary definition for wept?

Here's Webster's - the old version which KJVO's like so much:

WEEP, v.t.

1. To lament; to bewail; to bemoan.

We wandring go through dreary wastes, and weep each others woe.

2. To shed moisture; as, to weep tears of joy.

Groves whose rich trees wept odrous gum and balm.

3. To drop; as the weeping amber.

4. To abound with wet; as weeping grounds.

Which definition of wept falls under this category? See how wept isn't that great of a choice?

Why not try to determine the degree of his weeping? John apparently thought it appropriate enough to include it in the Greek, so why do the originals not get the priority here?

Sin of unbelief? How do you come up with that exegetically (not eisegetically?)

 

WEEP, v.i. pret. and pp. wept. Weeped, I believe is never used. [See Whoop. The primary sense is to cry out.]

1. To express sorrow, grief or anguish by outcry. This is the original sense. But in present usage, to manifest and express grief by outcry or by shedding tears.

They all wept sore, and fell on Pauls neck, and kissed him. Acts 20.

Phocion was rarely seen to weep or to laugh.

2. To shed tears from any passion. Persons sometimes weep for joy.

3. To lament; to complain. Numbers 11.

WEEP, v.t.

1. To lament; to bewail; to bemoan.

We wandring go through dreary wastes, and weep each others woe.

2. To shed moisture; as, to weep tears of joy.

Groves whose rich trees wept odrous gum and balm.

3. To drop; as the weeping amber.

4. To abound with wet; as weeping grounds.

John Gill:As he was going along to the grave, see #Joh 11:28; as he was meditating upon the state of his friend Lazarus, the distress his two sisters were in, and the greater damnation that would befall the Jews then present, who, notwithstanding the miracle, would not believe in him. This shows him to be truly and really man, subject to like passions, only without sin.

Ere, since all sin is rooted in unbelief, I suggest you stay out of the other books and stick with the Bible for awhile and you won't ask such questions.

Only God can weep over the unbelief of sinners who remain in that sin unto death in the sense of John 11:35, and the word I used was "COMPARATIVELY" for no weeping on this earth can be understood to equal or even come close to that which the Lord Himself weeps. So in all actuality, even the Original Koine Greek could not accurately exprees in any words known to man, since you like to "split hairs' over it.

 

Interestingly enough, you use two books to give your reasoning here. That's kinda funny.

But how do you know - the KJV says nothing about comparison, so you MUST go to an outside source to understand this. Using just the KJV, how do you know that the reason he wept was because he mourned for their sin, when that is not seen anywhere in the Scripture specifically. Show us in the great KJV where this information is found, without having to go to commentaries that look at the original Greek words.

 

And in addition, it seems that you are saying that Jesus wept louder than those who were mourning. In actuality, the Greek word means a much softer crying, not a louder wailing.

 

To answer your last question, how is it you think all the people present heard Him weep if he just let out a little wimper as you say? Then tell me how 5000+ women and children heard Him "speak" on a hillside?

FYI, I "saw" this in John 11 long ago, right after I got saved, it's actually pretty simple for most saved folks to understand, besides, you wouldn't know any different unless you read the passage from the KJB and you know it, don't you?

Let me ask you one more, I have already asked this, but it seems everyone doesn't want to answer: Just why do you think Jesus was weeping? It COULD NOT have been for the death of the very one He was going to raise from the dead 8 verses later!

Go figure!

The following are passages referencing the word "unbelief" Reckon there to be any similarities to why the Lord would weep in front of unbelieving Jews?

Mark 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
Mark 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Let me ask just one more. When you hear Thomas in the Bible what is the first thing that comes to mind? Is it "ol'doubting Thomas? Is there a correlation between "doubt" and "unbelief"?

Aren't doubt and confirmation of belief in just Who Jesus is dealt with from the scripture in context? Why is it you need it laid out for you in simpler terms than the scripture offers? Hmmm? Now we do see molasses making the "sticky wicket". Use the KJB and the context will just jump out all over you.

 

That's quite easy. Many of the places Jesus spoke at were places that public speakers were familiar with. If you go to, for example, the Mount of Olives, you'll notice it has a shape that's perfect for public speaking. The hillside is shaped in a way that reflects sound very accurately. A person can speak and be heard very clearly 500 feet away.

You've proven that to be wrong with your incorrect "context" of John 21 earlier in this thread.

 

You obviously don't have much of a concept of reality. I never said the ampitheater type surroundings couldn't afford the acoustics for Jesus to be heard. Besisdes, ever consider that 5,000 people would be stretched out a little further than 500 ft. away? No, of course you didn't, you just attempted to play on people's ignorance to try and prove a point. Typical.

No, don't belive so, even though you would have others belive that. Your application of the Greek lacks just a little to the context itself. Also the way you apply and interpet the scripture is very limited to say the least, of course when you use something DEAD to relate something ALIVE you end up on the DEAD end.

 

Ignorance would be NOT taking things like location of speaking into account. I find it quite amusing that I point out a biblically relevant topographic reality, and then you accuse me of not believing in reality.

I really hate to burst your bubble, but the explanation I gave was 100% biblically accurate. It was not my opinion, or interpretation. The problem here is that you simply refuse to look past what you "think" it says in English, for fear that your KJVO position will be proven wrong.

 

Blame John who decided to use the word for whimper instead of wail. Your issue is with the Holy Spirit's inspiration, not me.

 

Guys I love to burst your bubbles, that's what's different about me. Have yall even considered the context? Well, what about the synonyms? You know most of the synonyms are more in line with the context. Maybe the word wept is not fully explained in the Greek like you say it is. To say blame it on John for using the wrong word is more than just comical. I would rather believe the Englsih context over that. Your arguement over the word wept in your Greek fails the context and harmony of the passage, so there must be a reasonable explaination and it is in the synonyms. This would indicate the failure of accurately defining Greek by the Greek dictionary except for the definition found in the synonyms.

1145 dakruw dakruo dak-roo’-o

from 1144; ; v

AV-weep 1; 1

1) to weep, shed tears

For Synonyms see entry 5804

Synonyms

See Definition for alalazw 214
See Definition for dakruw 1145
See Definition for yrhnew 2354
See Definition for klaiw 2799
See Definition for odurmob 3602
See Definition for stenazw 4727

214-to wail in oriental style, to howl in a consecrated,
semi-liturgical fashion
1145-to shed tears, weep silently
2354-to give formal expression to grief, to sing a dirge
2799-to weep audibly, cry as a child
3602-to give verbal expression to grief, to lament
4727-to express grief by inarticulate or semi-articulate sounds,
to groan

Since the word comes from another Greek word of "uncertain affinity" how in God's Name do you really know what the Greek word means?

1144 dakru dakru dak’-roo or dakruon dakruon dak’-roo-on

of uncertain affinity; ; n n

AV-tear 11; 11

1) a tear

Now, like I said before, when Jesus wept, the context and the reaction by those who were around Him is exclaimatory. So unless you fellows don't mind looking rather foolish, you should just bow your heads in defeat and save yourselves the shame and admit you are wrong and haven't any explaination at all.

 

Well, we're making a little progress, as he's beginning to look things up...

Both of those have been duly considered.

Is that what we did? Go back and read. I said that if you have a problem with the word the author used, then take it up with him. It is you, not me, who seem bent on blaming John here.

Your context seems to be solely built on an exclamation point, which is nowhere to be found in the Greek. Yet something else that was added by the KJV-authors (not that I hold it against them, since there is no punctuation in the koine style of Greek.)

We cannot define something by its synonyms, neither in English nor Greek, so your premise is invalid.

If you were to have went to one of the definitions that you say proves your point, you would have seem the definition to klaio as:

to sob, i.e. wail aloud (whereas dakruw - dakruo 1145 is rather to cry silently):--bewail, weep.

See the difference? That is why we have to carefully look at the dictionary to see the nuances. It is also noted that Strong's isn't the best dictionary to understand these nuances - it is written more for the beginning Greek student. May I suggest Thayer's as a good starting point?

Just because one does not know the root of a Greek word does not mean that we do not know the definition of the word. I bet that you do not know the root of the word "chortle" but that you know it means to laugh. (Anyone know where it comes from?)

It is also noted that John was nice enough to quote Vine's dictionary as well as a much more specific Greek-English lexicon.

Not in the original. But even if it was, just because those around him marvelled at how much Christ loved Lazarus, it does not mean that he loudly wailed and cried. Sometimes even soft tears can elicit that kind of response.

Long way from that, as the words above note. We're still on the side of orthodoxy.

 

Quickening Spirit:

"So why did Jesus weep? I know why, because of the evil sin of unbelief, not unlike the one about thinking we don't have the Perfect Bible in the AV 1611 KJB."

Then YOU must be guilty of what you say is a sin of unbelief. Whenever you quote Scripture, it's from the 1769 KJV edition. I know because I have both the 1769 and a replica 1611 right in front of me. If the AV 1611 is perfect as you say, then changing the spelling or punctuation in the slightest makes the resulting edition less than perfect. An improvement? You cannot improve perfect. The slightest change is a degradation from perfect.

 

And as a little reminder to our KJVO friends-Virtually every one of the most popular MVs, as well as the YLT, read, "Jesus wept". The KJV isn't one whit better in the context of John 11.

 

So you really don't know but you think your original is correct just because you think so. We're looking stark faced into a miracle in the making and you take the solitude approach just because some Greek word, which is derived from , get this now for the "accurate ' Greek, UNCERTAIN AFFINITY, and you argue a totally pointless case since the word is uncertain in it's conception of degree, but anyone who looks at the passage, exclaimation point or not understands the emotional degree of the situation and you have them silently weeping enough so Jesus is heard by many to silently shed a tear.

What an oxy-moronic phrase to account Greek as being so accurate relying solely on it's individual meaning of a word, when that particualr Greek word is of "UNCERTAIN AFFINITY" L Y T S

Orthodoxy rooted in "UNCERTAIN AFFINITY".

Now I suppose the comment the Greek has no exclaimation point over-rides even common sense derived through experience in this type of situation to have Jesus appearing as some catholic nun silently shedding a single tear and others exclaiming, OH! How He loved him!. HOG WASH!

Has anyone ever witnessed the traditional funeral of the Jews, man they even hire people to weep and wail, and hear comes little ol'Jesus and sheds a silent tear, and then the others excliamed at His reaction,"Why looky at little ol"Jesus oh, you know He must have loved him, why He even shed a little ol'tear." and you people really expect us to believe it? O LORD! Please Help ME!

 

Apply that same logic to the Greek words and they consistent chnaging of spellings yet are supposed to be the same, get this, ACCURATE words. HAH! UNCERTAIN AFFINITY is NOT accuracy. OH YES! Hear goes Cranston off the deep end again with the BIG OL" Spelling infraction.

 

Yes, part of my family heritage is Jewish and this is not the practice anymore (with us anyway).

Don't forget QS that it is the Holy Spirit who chose this different word (used only once in the NT) for the "weeping" of Jesus. There must have been a reason.

It seems to me that in your desparation to be right you have over stepped the boundaries of the consideration of the sensiblities of your brethern.

Also, you certainy have read quite a bit into the shortest passage in the Sciptures. Something I believe is quite a piece of "dynamic eqivalence".

Personally brother I understand you and your passion but I fear that you have wounded the spirit of others who do not.

HankD

 

What is it that I don't know - it is WHY he was crying. There are different explanations, all of them worthy for consideration, but Scripture is SILENT on this issue.

I don't think you know what uncertain affinity means. Just because we don't know the etymology of a word doesn't mean that we don't know the meaning. There are thousands and thousands of other Greek works out there contemporary to the Scriptures. That is one of the ways that we learn ancient languages.

Again, you don't understand the difference between knowing the definition of the word and knowing where it came from. You could probably tell us all the difference between a doctor and a nurse, but may not be able to tell us from whence those words originated. This does not make your definitions any less precise.

You've a bizarre sense of humour. Perhaps rsr should add some quotes on this post for his document.

Makes sense to me. Go to a funeral sometime. When my grandfather died, our stoic pastor was even seen silently crying at the funeral. I could tell immediately that he loved my grandfather.

Again, argue with the Spirit who inspired the word.

It is of note that you refused to answer the unanswerable, that the definition that you yourself provided gave the difference between the klaio of the Jews and the dukruo of Christ. It is also noted that you ignored that another dictionary and a lexicon were specific about what the two words meant. Set up as many straw men as you'd like. You can't deal with the TRUTH of the matter, because then your house of cards will fall.