PARABLES

No, Brother, I really don't believe you do understand my passion. The entire context of John 11 begins with the beckoning of Jesus to come to the rescue of Lazarus. The entire context paints the picture of a desparate situation.

This ideal of the word "dakruo" in it's definition to limit it to just this one definition when all the while the root word "dakru" is of "uncertain affinity" and also the synonyms to both these words are defined as 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, it seems something is pushed aside by the efforts of some to confuse the context, intentionally.

Let me ask this question; Is Greek synonymous to the Scripture? Of course the right Greek is, that is what our New Testament is written, but to try and say the synonyms of any word do not have ANY relevence to the Greek word is pushing something over on intelligence. The word "dakruo" has it in it's root definition all the while to weep out loud, all the while having also it's definition of weeping silently. You know what that tells me, and I never claimed to have a specific knowledge at all concerning Greek, that the ideal of the Greek having only one definition and that without regards to context is WRONG! The context, just like in English, determines the affinity of the verb.

The ideal of wounding some one's spirit is an awful attempt to cause guilt. Either your statement is presumptuous or they need to quit running around with their "spirit" so ready to be wounded.

The ideal of propigating Jesus ONLY weeping by shedding a silent tear over the unbelief of His own, the Jews who would receive Him not, is stupendous. Then it would be considered His going to Calvary to be nothing more than a storybook account instead of the Passion of Christ to be willing to endure the Cross despising the shame.

If you want to know the definition of dakruo/wept, then you had better consider Him, the reason He came into this world of sorrow.

If I were lost, and I'm not, I would form the opinion by yalls Greek definition that Christ was complacent and uncaring to only shed a little tear over the unbelief that would send souls to hell, it would make His Propitionary death senseless, even making Ted Turner right and God wrong.

I can tell you why He wept, the context is full of the explanation. Yall have pulled one word out of context, like you've never done that before , and corrupted the entire passage. Why? To try and defame the AV 1611 KJB.

 

God's Word is infinitely superior to the KJB.

 

UNCER'TAIN, a.

1. Not certain; doubtful; not certainly known. it is uncertain who will be the next president.

2. Doubtful; not having certain knowledge.

man without the protection of a superior Being - is uncertain of every thing that he hopes for.

3. Not sure in the consequence.

Or whistling slings dismiss'd the uncertain stone.

4. Not sure; not exact.

Soon bent his bow, uncertain in his aim.

5. Unsettled; irregular.

AFFIN'ITY, n. [L. affinitas, from affinis, adjacent, related by marriage; ad and finis, end.]

1. The relation contracted by marriage, between a husband and his wife's kindred, and between a wife and her husband's kindred; in contradistinction from consanguinity or relation by blood.

Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh. 1Kings 3.

2. Agreement; relation; conformity; resemblance; connection; as, the affinity of sounds, of colors, or of languages.

3. In chimistry, attraction; elective attraction, or that tendency which different species of matter have to unite, and combine with certain other bodies, and the power that disposes them to continue in combination There are two kinds of affinity.

1. Affinity of aggregation, which is the power that causes two homogeneous bodies to tend towards each other, unite and cohere, as two drops of water, which unite in one.

2. Affinity of composition, which is the tendency of bodies of different kinds to unite and form new combinations of bodies with different properties. Such is the affinity which unites acids and alkalies, the results of which combination are neutral salts.

The operations of this principle are various. When heterogeneous bodies have mutually an equal attraction, it is called compound affinity. When one substance decomposes a combination of others, unites with one of them and precipitates the other, the power is called the affinity of decomposition. When bodies will not unite, but by means of a third, which enables them to combine, this is affinity by means of a medium.

Double affinity is when by means of four bodies, two decompositions and two new combinations are effected.


Something is beginning to smell dead around here.

O.K., Greek Scholar, tell us another one. Seems your theology concerning the greek was just shot full of holes by you with your own gun.

You don't know how to understand context obviously and the Scripture is quite clear on the matter, uh, by context.

Uh, no, Scott, I believe you would like for others to believe you, in total disregard of context of Scripture. The word "dakruo" comes from "dakru", a word of uncertain affinity. Why is it you keep trying to stand on a leg that doesn't even have bones in it?

Yeah I've noticed his appearing as one of the scribes. I wonder if he still is going back to the devil's sifting place of Peter and looking for chicken scratch? I did notice the blank stare on his face a few posts back.

"Red herring" anyone?

Nope! You argue with Him, He and I agree!

"Answer the unanswerable"? No, the definition I gave is synonymous with the context, that is what you don't like. There went your "straw man" up in flames! I deal with the Truth of the matter, you try to change it! I only play Uno, you should stop playing blackjack and 5 card stud.

 

Context of Scripture is infinitely superior to your opinion, no matter how much you've convinced yourself.

In Christ,

A Polished Troll

 

So tell me, why is it that we have to know the etymology of a word to know what it means? If, as you say, you cannot have one with the other, what would you say about these words which also have an unknown affinity:

guzzle
hazy
scam
shenanigan
shrivel
sprain
tantrum
turmoil
gadget

...just to name a few. How do we know that these words mean what they are supposed to mean if we don't know where they came from? Can you see how your unknown affinity case is also a house of cards?

As I said before, and you ignored, just because we don't know the etymology of a word does not mean that we cannot know what the word means.

Then show us in context from the chapter that Jesus was crying because of th unbelief of the Jews. It should be easy to see, right, if the context is so clear. Remember, no commentaries or Greek lexicons.

See the words above. It is clear, even looking at English, that we can know the meaning of words crystal-clear, without having to know where they originated.

Nope, just showing you how it is possible that someone can say that love is evident without someone wailing.

I'm not the one arguing against a word that He inspired.

The definition from Strong's specifically says, "to weep," as you pointed out. But what you left out was that Strong's also says that it means to "cry silently" as opposed to "wailing aloud." (G2799) Classic example of not looking at the big picture when looking up words in Strong's. Big picture, it is clear what the word means, and how Christ wept. It is unfortunate that you result to intellectual dishonesty to maintain that house of cards - UNO or otherwise.

 

On the contrary, we believe that words mean things, and that words are what defines the context. Again, your argument is with the Author of the book who chose to use the word instead of the wailing-type of weeping.

 

Context of Scripture is infinitely superior to your opinion, no matter how much you've convinced yourself.

In Christ,

A Polished Troll </font>[/QUOTE]God's Word exists independant of context and opinion.

 

O.K.:

John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Note: They believed Lazarus was sick unto death, Jesus knew better

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.


Here we see the equality of His love for all three, but then we also see His tarrying, we will see in a couple of verses later their UNBELIEF, but first we need to see the evidence of His disciples UNBELIEF:

7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.
8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

IOW, "Master, are you sure you want to go there?" They were in utter UNBELIEF.

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

Theycouldn't undertsand what Jesus meant at the time because of their UNBELIEF. Er, lack of faith.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.


They didn't understand what the Lord had said and His need was to further explain to them Lazarus was dead, not asleep as they believed, but they had yet UNBELIEF. They had never actually seen Jesus raise some one from the dead. Jesus tarried to the UNBELIEF of Mary and Martha, we'll see that soon.

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.


Notice the words "to the intent ye may believe". Uh, why do you suppose He would say this to His disciples? Reckon UNBELIEF has anything to do with it? Yes.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.


Thomas is known as "Doubting Thomas". The name "Didymus" means "twain", or of two minds, uh, double-minded: "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" James 1:8

1374 diqucov dipsuchos dip’-soo-khos

from 1364 and 5590; TDNT-9:665,1342; adj

AV-double minded 2; 2

1) double minded
1a) wavering, uncertain, doubting
1b) divided in interest

UNBELIE'F, n.

1. Incredulity; the withholding of belief; as, unbelief is blind.

2. Infidelity; disbelief of divine revelation.

3. In the New Testament, disbelief of the truth of the gospel, rejection of Christ as the Savior of men, and of the doctrines he taught; distrust of God's promises and faithfulness, &c. Matt. 13. Mark 16. Heb. 3. Rom. 4.

4. Weak faith. Mark 9.

DOUBT, v.i. dout. [L., G.]

1. To waver or fluctuate in opinion; to hesitate; to be in suspense; to be in uncertainty; to be in suspense; to be in uncertainty, respecting the truth or fact; to be undetermined.

Even in matters divine, concerning some things, we may lawfully doubt and suspend our judgment.

So we say, I doubt whether it is proper; I doubt whether I shall go; sometimes with of, as we doubt of a fact.

2. To fear; to be apprehensive; to suspect.

I doubt theres deep resentment in his mind.

DOUBT, v.t. dout.

1. To question, or hold questionable; to withhold assent from; to hesitate to believe; as, I have heard the story, but I doubt the truth of it.

2. To fear; to suspect.

If they turn not back perverse; but that I doubt.

3. To distrust; to withhold confidence from; as, to doubt our ability to execute an office.

Tadmire superior sense, and doubt their own.

4. To fill with fear.

DOUBT, n. Dout.

1. A fluctuation of mind respecting truth or propriety, arising from defect of knowledge or evidence; uncertainty of mind; suspense; unsettled state of opinion; as, to have doubts respecting the theory of the tides.

Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. Genesis 37.

2. Uncertainty of condition.

Thy life shall hang in doubt before thee. Deuteronomy 28.

3. Suspicion; fear; apprehension.

I stand in doubt of you. Galatians 4.

4. Difficulty objected.

To every doubt your answer is the same.

5. Dread; horror and danger.

Now why do you su[ppose the references are made to the disciples and the Holy Ghost singles out ol'Doubting Thomas? UNBELIEF.

17 ¶ Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.


Now who would believe Jesus could raise a stinking corpse back to life again? those filled with UNBELIEF didn't.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.


Now why didn't Mary come running with Martha? She believed her brother Lazarus was dead and there was no hope for him, due to her UNBELIEF.

But why does martha say,"If Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died."

She said this in belief Jesus could have healed his sickness, but had UNBELIEF Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.


At least she believed this much, her UNBELIEF was beginning to drown in the sea of BELIEF.

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
She believed in the Ressurrection, but not necessarilly in Jesus raising Lazarus from immediate death. Now that was what He let it all happen for, to show His power over death as God.

For all those in UNBELIEF.

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.


The hand of UNBELIEF in her heart took one last gulp and entered into Davey Jones locker.
She believed so much we find her RUNNING to tell Mary to come to Him. Why? To cure her of her UNBELIEF.

We'll skip on down due to the fact we're dealing with UNBELIEF.

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?


Uh, they were in UNBELIEF.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?


Martha statrted to ressurrect her UNBELIEF that died at the comfort of His Words, BUT Jesus said "Said I not unto thee, if thou wouldest BELIEVE...?

1 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.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
45 ¶ Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.


I rest my case.

 

Do you also consider His Opinion independent of His Word? Hmmm? seems satan still up to the same old tricks.

I'm just simply amazed you would make a statement like that.

 

Just because unbelief is seen in the passage doesn't mean that is why Jesus wept. He met unbelief everywhere he went, and he he only softly cries here. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

And, you'll notice you used a Greek lexicon and a dictionary. Why were those things needed if all you needed was the KJV?

And again, what was missed:

The definition from Strong's specifically says, "to weep," as you pointed out. But what you left out was that Strong's also says that it means to "cry silently" as opposed to "wailing aloud." (G2799) Classic example of not looking at the big picture when looking up words in Strong's. Big picture, it is clear what the word means, and how Christ wept. It is unfortunate that you result to intellectual dishonesty to maintain that house of cards - UNO or otherwise.

--- and ---

So tell me, why is it that we have to know the etymology of a word to know what it means? If, as you say, you cannot have one with the other, what would you say about these words which also have an unknown affinity:

guzzle
hazy
scam
shenanigan
shrivel
sprain
tantrum
turmoil
gadget

...just to name a few. How do we know that these words mean what they are supposed to mean if we don't know where they came from? Can you see how your unknown affinity case is also a house of cards?

 

God't Word is truth, truth is not an opinion.

Indeed.

The truth is amazing, I'm glad you're finally getting it.

 

And I see by your usual ad hominem defense mechanism I have wounded yours.

HankD

 

God't Word is truth, truth is not an opinion.

Indeed.

The truth is amazing, I'm glad you're finally getting it. </font>[/QUOTE]I know what I'm getting from you is not Truth, God's Opinion is Truth and until we accept His truth it remains only an opinion, much like I see yours; opinion, not truth.

 

And I see by your usual ad hominem defense mechanism I have wounded yours.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]No, not at all, I am saying to those who are hurt so easily the same thing I heard one of the greatest men of God alive say,"If you keep getting your feelings hurt, get your feelings out of the way." Uh, we're Baptists, not charismatics.

BTW, did you see me at ACBRM?

 

QS, I certainly hope you mean what you said,
" O LORD ! Please Help ME!"
You know he will, if you ask.
He'll help the unbelief that you, and all like you, have towards the NIV, NASB, etc.

On the other hand, if you wasn't really asking, then you just took the LORD'S name in vain.

 

Likely story from some one who takes His Word in vain.

 

I understand what the Bible said in John 11. Yall tried to tell me it didn't. I had to relate to what yall say yall understand and found out yall don't. I have shown you the entire context of the passage is dealing specifically with unbelief. You continue to deny the context and rely on one word in Greek which I have also shown is of uncertain affinity and you still hold to error as a means to disagree.

Ta-ta!

 

You have shown you have absolutely no idea what uncertain affinity means several times now. You have not shown that Jesus was weeping because of the sin of unbelief in the slightest. The reason we disagree is because you will not open your eyes to Truth. Words give context, which I have no idea why you don't get.

Again, what you failed to answer, perhaps because you are unable to:

The definition from Strong's specifically says, "to weep," as you pointed out. But what you left out was that Strong's also says that it means to "cry silently" as opposed to "wailing aloud." (G2799) Classic example of not looking at the big picture when looking up words in Strong's. Big picture, it is clear what the word means, and how Christ wept. It is unfortunate that you result to intellectual dishonesty to maintain that house of cards - UNO or otherwise.

--- and ---

So tell me, why is it that we have to know the etymology of a word to know what it means? If, as you say, you cannot have one with the other, what would you say about these words which also have an unknown affinity:

guzzle
hazy
scam
shenanigan
shrivel
sprain
tantrum
turmoil
gadget

 

God doesn't have an opinion, God has the truth.

And just what is my opinion? You haven't been paying attention after all.

My "opinion" is simple: 1)The poverty of language prevents any of us from having perfect communication.

2)If God's Word were perfectly preserved in the KJB or even the original Greek and Hebrew then there would never be any debate over doctrine, because His Word would be perfectly communicated.

3) God is His Word, not your KJB, and not the orginal source manuscripts. God's Word is reality, and it is not an opinion, it is Truth, and it is alive.

The fact is that human beings are fallible, and human language is limited. You add in addition to this that it is the Holy Spirit alone who communicates and reveals the truths contained in Scripture, we begin to see that it is not language which is the medium for communicating truth but God Himself.

 

I have to agree with this one. This is the Bible used by most for around 400 and look at all the different doctrines, tongues, pretrib/posttrib, and so on. If it was so clear in the KJV then why the differences between so many that use it?

These past few months, we have been reading side by side, the KJV with the Geneva. From what we have read so far, there is no question in the Geneva. It is crystal clear and no room for twisting the scripture.

I don't know if it is like that in other versions, seeings how I haven't read one. Still KJVO in mind set.(Except Geneva because that is where the KJV was supposed to come from).

When God gave the 10 commandments (actually written by Him), there was no margin for deviation, plain and simple. Shouldn't that be His word for us?