What is the narrow gate?

[Wormwood]

Typo, it should read John 7:15. I repeat: (Please compare with your personal Bible/Babble if it's laughable or not)

John 7:15 (ESV)
The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?”

John 7:15 (ISV)
The Jewish leaders were astonished and remarked, "How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?"

John 7:15 (MLV - Modern Literal Version)
And the Jews were marveling, saying, How does this man know the Scriptures, having not learned them?

Let's just ignore the discrepancy/variance between these 2 texts:

Nestle GNT 1904
ἐθαύμαζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες Πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς;

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἐθαύμαζον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες Πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς


Ἰουδαῖοι (plural masculine adjective) = Jewish people (possibly/literally, the Judaic/Judeo-[Hebrews] of some 2,000 years ago, or possibly/allegorically, the Judaic/Judeo-Christians of today). An adjective is not a noun. Jews (whatever that is) is a noun.

man -- All texts omit.

Are you guys very sure that all of your "strange/joke" books are worth defending? Why can't you all stop loving the glory (tradition/word) of men (humans) more than (meaning you love both) the glory (Yahshua/word) of God (Yahveh)? -- John 12:43

What exactly is your point in all this? Are you attempting to argue that the hundreds of Greek scholars who put these translations together do not know what they are doing or are somehow trying to perpetuate a man made tradition? This is the danger of someone who does not know Greek but uses a Greek online dictionary to try to critique scholars who actually know the language.

First, the reason "man" is not in the Greek but supplied in the English is because other words imply the masculine noun. Unlike English, Greek verbs, definite articles, etc. have different endings which imply whether or not they refer to a man, woman or plural group. The Greek word memathekos is singular and masculine, and thus, "this one" hutos, is understood in the context to refer to "this man."

Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."

You should stop critiquing Greek translations with your online Greek dictionary. There is a reason hundreds of scholars disagree with you...and it is because they know what they are talking about. Not because they are tying to push some errant, man-made tradition.

 

[StanJ]

@Wormwood

What HG is doing, even by his user name, is showing he is an illuminist. The JWs, LDS, Oneness and many other groups practise this. The commonality is, that they all believe THEY have the truth over all of accepted Christendom, and they are always all proven WRONG, except to themselves.

 

[HearGod]

What exactly is your point in all this? Are you attempting to argue that the hundreds of Greek scholars who put these translations together do not know what they are doing or are somehow trying to perpetuate a man made tradition? This is the danger of someone who does not know Greek but uses a Greek online dictionary to try to critique scholars who actually know the language.

First, the reason "man" is not in the Greek but supplied in the English is because other words imply the masculine noun. Unlike English, Greek verbs, definite articles, etc. have different endings which imply whether or not they refer to a man, woman or plural group. The Greek word memathekos is singular and masculine, and thus, "this one" hutos, is understood in the context to refer to "this man."

...

Re: John 7:15 (the verse under discussion)

the hundreds of Greek scholars who put these translations together do not know what they are doing ????????

They all do? And I don't? Well, let some of them speak for themselves then:

New Living Translationhttp://biblehub.com/nlt/john/7.htm
The people were surprised when they heard him. "How does he know so much when he hasn't been trained?" they asked.

Holman Christian Standard Biblehttp://biblehub.com/hcsb/john/7.htm
Then the Jews were amazed and said, "How does He know the Scriptures, since He hasn't been trained?"

Common English Bible (CEB)
Astonished, the Jewish leaders asked, “He’s never been taught! How has he mastered the Law?”

Living Bible (TLB)
The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. “How can he know so much when he’s never been to our schools?” they asked.

The Message (MSG)
The Jews were impressed, but puzzled: “How does he know so much without being schooled?”

New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
The Jews were amazed and said, “How does he know scripture without having studied?”

*All the above 6 Versions/translations omit the "this" pronoun, so you have just lost a small point here. (Score is 1 to 0)

Young's Literal Translationhttp://biblehub.com/ylt/john/7.htm
and the Jews were wondering, saying, 'How hath this one known letters -- not having learned?'

** YLT added "one" instead of "man," so you have just lost another small point here. (Score is 2 to 0)


Darby Bible Translationhttp://biblehub.com/dbt/john/7.htm
The Jews therefore wondered, saying, How knows this [man] letters, having never learned?

Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)
Then the Jews were marveling, saying, “How does this One know writings[a], not having learned?”

***After going through more than 2 dozen Versions, I found only these 2 Versions to be honest/correct/acceptable, so you have just lost another small point here. (Score is 3 to 0)

...

Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. ...

You should stop critiquing Greek translations with your online Greek dictionary. There is a reason hundreds of scholars disagree with you...and it is because they know what they are talking about. Not because they are tying to push some errant, man-made tradition.

There is a reason hundreds of scholars disagree with you...and it is because they know what they are talking about ?????

They do, and I don't? So let them be my guests to prove for themselves here:


[SIZE=12pt]International Standard Versionhttp://biblehub.com/isv/john/7.htm[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Jewish leaders were astonished and remarked, "How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?"

NET Bible[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Then the Jewish leaders were astonished and said, "How does this man know so much when he has never had formal instruction?"

Common English Bible (CEB)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Astonished, the Jewish leaders asked, “He’s never been taught! How has he mastered the Law?”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Living Bible (TLB)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. “How can he know so much when he’s never been to our schools?” they asked.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Jewish leaders were amazed and said, “How did this man learn so much? He never had the kind of teaching we had!”[/SIZE]

*After browsing through around 30 Versions, I found these 5 Versions that read Jewish leaders instead of Jews (whatever that is), so you have lost a bigger 2 points here. (Score is now 5 to 0)

[SIZE=12pt]Good News Translation (GNT)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Jewish authorities were greatly surprised and said, “How does this man know so much when he has never been to school?”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]**GNT translated it as [/SIZE]Jewish authorities, so you have lost another 2 points here. (Score is now 7 to 0)

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
[SIZE=12pt]And the Judeans :unsure:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]were astonished and were saying, “How does this man know the scrolls, having not learned?”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Judeans :unsure:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]were surprised: “How does this man know so much without having studied?” they asked.[/SIZE]

***These 2 translated it as Judeans, so you have lost a bigger 3 points here. (Score is now 10 to 0)

[SIZE=12pt]Contemporary English Version (CEV)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The leaders [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]were surprised and said, “How does this man know so much? He has never been taught!”[/SIZE]

****CEV translated it as leaders, so you have lost another 3 points here. (Score is now 13 to 0)

[SIZE=12pt]New Living Translationhttp://biblehub.com/nlt/john/7.htm[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The people [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]were surprised when they heard him. "How does he know so much when he hasn't been trained?" they asked.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]New Century Version (NCV)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The people [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]were amazed and said, “This man has never studied in school. How did he learn so much?”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Expanded Bible (EXB)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The people [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]·were amazed [marveled] and said, “This man has never studied in school. How did he learn so much?”[/SIZE]

********These 2 [amazingly ] translated it as people, so you have lost a big 5 points here. (Score is now 18 to 0)

Please tell me again the reason hundreds of scholars disagree with me.

...

Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."

Saints? This is off topic, so I shall KIV this one, and: Spare you, not bankrupt you today. :wub:

What exactly is your point in all this? Are you attempting to argue that the hundreds of Greek scholars who put these translations together do not know what they are doing or are somehow trying to perpetuate a man made tradition? This is the danger of someone who does not know Greek but uses a Greek online dictionary to try to critique scholars who actually know the language.

First, the reason "man" is not in the Greek but supplied in the English is because other words imply the masculine noun. Unlike English, Greek verbs, definite articles, etc. have different endings which imply whether or not they refer to a man, woman or plural group. The Greek word memathekos is singular and masculine, and thus, "this one" hutos, is understood in the context to refer to "this man."

Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."

You should stop critiquing Greek translations with your online Greek dictionary. There is a reason hundreds of scholars disagree with you...and it is because they know what they are talking about. Not because they are tying to push some errant, man-made tradition.

Typo, it should read John 7:15. I repeat: (Please compare with your personal Bible/Babble if it's laughable or not)

John 7:15 (ESV)
The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?”

John 7:15 (ISV)
The Jewish leaders were astonished and remarked, "How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?"

John 7:15 (MLV - Modern Literal Version)
And the Jews were marveling, saying, How does this man know the Scriptures, having not learned them?

Let's just ignore the discrepancy/variance between these 2 texts:

Nestle GNT 1904
ἐθαύμαζον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες Πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς;

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἐθαύμαζον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες Πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς


Ἰουδαῖοι (plural masculine adjective) = Jewish people (possibly/literally, the Judaic/Judeo-[Hebrews] of some 2,000 years ago, or possibly/allegorically, the Judaic/Judeo-Christians of today). An adjective is not a noun. Jews (whatever that is) is a noun.

man -- All texts omit.

γράμματα (plural neuter noun) = letterings (writings). It does not mean learning (a singular feminine noun) or educated (a verb) or Scriptures (a feminine noun).

μεμαθηκώς (perfect active participle verb) = having learnt. It is not a noun (school).

Are you guys very sure that all of your "strange/joke" books are worth defending? Why can't you all stop loving the glory (tradition/word) of men (humans) more than (meaning you love both) the glory (Yahshua/word) of God (Yahveh)? -- John 12:43

Hi there! Wormwood,

The score now stands at 18 points to 0. This is obviously not a game of Tic-tac-toe bro. Shall we continue? It's a shame (to you or me?) that you left out this:

γράμματα (plural neuter noun) = letterings (writings). It does not mean learning (a singular feminine noun) or educated (a verb) or Scriptures (a feminine noun).

μεμαθηκώς (perfect active participle verb) = having learnt. It is not a noun (school).


*I've said it before and I will say it again: It's your move now, if you haven't shot yourself [again] in the foot.

Cheerio bro!

@Wormwood

What HG is doing, even by his user name, is showing he is an illuminist. The JWs, LDS, Oneness and many other groups practise this. The commonality is, that they all believe THEY have the truth over all of accepted Christendom, and they are always all proven WRONG, except to themselves.

Tsk Tsk Tsk! A backstabber and a false accuser huh?

 

[Wormwood]

HearGod,

I know Greek. You do not. Please let me know if you have ever taken a formal class on Koine Greek...but I think we both know the answer to this. You know nothing about how endings work on verbs, adjectives, and definite articles. You are looking up words in an online dictionary with no real knowledge of how Greek grammar works. It would be like you taking up a Spanish-English dictionary and trying to lecture a native Spanish speaker how improperly they translate. Its laughable. You are trying to make yourself look like an authority by using Greek words, but your explanations reveal you do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Leave translating to those who have spend their lives learning the language.

"learning" is the translation of the phrase grammata oiden. The phrase is a Greek idiom consisting of the words "letters" and "to know" which is understood to mean "learning." Because scholars actually study hundreds of thousands of early Greek literature documents and understand idioms, phrases, and grammar constructs which indicate how something should be interpreted. For instance, I might say in English, "I'm riding shotgun." This means "Im riding in the front passenger seat." Its a idiom that carries a common English meaning. However, you would be arguing that it literally means "to ride on a shotgun" with your ridiculous word for word online dictionary techniques. Lol. You are too funny.

 

[HearGod]

Actually YOU are doing all the talking/writing, not me. I did ask you though for some verification of your credentials, but based on all you have posted so far I can see you have none so there's no use in pursuing this charade any further. Ba bye.

credentials (Again? Sigh!)

So you and your little mind is expecting an irrelevant [wide/broad] gateway/shortcut to know about my capabilities/limitations by asking for my credentials instead of scholarly [re]searching for genuine/logical sources/citations/facts/proofs huh? I am a maestro (ICRU) and a bondservant of God (YHVH), but you will never find me huckstering His words [from a peddling/pimping pulpit] for your money (and you can jolly well keep your "fricken" job/daughter to yourself ) .

However, I don't hold a Permanenthead.Damaged degree from any Trinity Colleges/Universities (because writing strange/diverse/satanic master's/doctoral thesis/doctrines is not my cup of tea), if that paper/verification is what you are [chasing] after. I am sure that it is obvious to some, yet oblivious to others [here] that I Can Read/tell the diff between a simple noun/school and a [simple] verb/learn (above-mentioned). Can you?

In contrast/chiasmus, the tall and handsome me and my brilliant/beautiful mind is expecting my good self to win a couple of Nobel Prizes before I turn 120 [in my next resurrected/reincarnated life]....long after you have speculated/failed to find the strait/troubled gateway. Lalalalllalala... :wub:

[Mamacita, I'll go to sleep now, it's X'mas Eve...]

HearGod,

I know Greek. You do not. Please let me know if you have ever taken a formal class on Koine Greek...but I think we both know the answer to this. You know nothing about how endings work on verbs, adjectives, and definite articles. You are looking up words in an online dictionary with no real knowledge of how Greek grammar works. It would be like you taking up a Spanish-English dictionary and trying to lecture a native Spanish speaker how improperly they translate. Its laughable. You are trying to make yourself look like an authority by using Greek words, but your explanations reveal you do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Leave translating to those who have spend their lives learning the language.

"learning" is the translation of the phrase grammata oiden. The phrase is a Greek idiom consisting of the words "letters" and "to know" which is understood to mean "learning." Because scholars actually study hundreds of thousands of early Greek literature documents and understand idioms, phrases, and grammar constructs which indicate how something should be interpreted. For instance, I might say in English, "I'm riding shotgun." This means "Im riding in the front passenger seat." Its a idiom that carries a common English meaning. However, you would be arguing that it literally means "to ride on a shotgun" with your ridiculous word for word online dictionary techniques. Lol. You are too funny.

Stop bragging and prove your point by winning back your 18 lost points for a start.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm not bragging and I am not interested in "winning" according to your silly point system. I am just pointing out that you are butchering the Greek with your plug-and-play online dictionary translation work. Its not how translations are done because it is not how Greek works. Therefore, I wouldn't accuse translations of trying to be deceptive or are trying to push some man-made philosophy. It simply isn't true. There are reasons most translations agree on how they approach these verses and I assure you it isn't because they have some perverse agenda. It is very sad that you would so quickly classify and demean those with formal educations that spend their lives trying to understand the Word of God in depth. To even hint that such efforts are "pimping" or seeking a "satanic master's" approval is unbecoming of a Christian. I am very disappointed in your labeling and hateful spirit.

 

[StanJ]

Tsk Tsk Tsk! A backstabber and a false accuser huh?

I don't know who you think you are stabbing in the back, but you are a false accuser, and we all know who the father of liars is.
IMV, it's you zero and everyone else the truth so apparently you can't count either.

I'm not bragging and I am not interested in "winning" according to your silly point system. I am just pointing out that you are butchering the Greek with your plug-and-play online dictionary translation work. Its not how translations are done because it is not how Greek works. Therefore, I wouldn't accuse translations of trying to be deceptive or are trying to push some man-made philosophy. It simply isn't true. There are reasons most translations agree on how they approach these verses and I assure you it isn't because they have some perverse agenda. It is very sad that you would so quickly classify and demean those with formal educations that spend their lives trying to understand the Word of God in depth. To even hint that such efforts are "pimping" or seeking a "satanic master's" approval is unbecoming of a Christian. I am very disappointed in your labeling and hateful spirit.

This sound a lot like someone else who was banned from here. Maybe you should check out his IP
Thanks for making these points however I`m sure they are lost on HG because apparently he doesn't actually HEAR anybody, EVEN God.

credentials (Again? Sigh!)
So you and your little mind is expecting an irrelevant [wide/broad] gateway/shortcut to know about my capabilities/limitations by asking for my credentials instead of scholarly [re]searching for genuine/logical sources/citations/facts/proofs huh? I am a maestro (ICRU) and a bondservant of God (YHVH), but you will never find me huckstering His words [from a peddling/pimping pulpit] for your money (and you can jolly well keep your "fricken" job/daughter to yourself ) .
However, I don't hold a Permanenthead.Damaged degree from any Trinity Colleges/Universities (because writing strange/diverse/satanic master's/doctoral thesis/doctrines is not my cup of tea), if that paper/verification is what you are [chasing] after. I am sure that it is obvious to some, yet oblivious to others [here] that I Can Read/tell the diff between a simple noun/school and a [simple] verb/learn (above-mentioned). Can you?
Stop bragging and prove your point by winning back your 18 lost points for a start.

Now that you`ve gone to the ad hominem to defend your polluted views, this just solidifies who or what you are, an accuser of the brethren, nothing more.
You are nothing more than a supercilious self absorbed little child, who is anti establishment, anti God and anti Bible. I can see you don`t even have ANY basic schooling or understanding of grammatical syntaxes, let alone Greek. You also can`t even keep score honestly, as you haven't proven one solitary point., except maybe in your own mind which is not reality here in any way shape or form.
Time for you to go on ignore. Hopefully most will follow my lead.

 

[aspen]

So disheartening.......

 

[Timotheos]

Jesus is the gate which is referred to here, and as such He is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of heaven. It not a matter of following struct requirements, it is a matter of going through that gate, Jesus, and submitting to His will.

In John 10:9, Jesus is the door. In John 14:6, Jesus is the way. In Rev 3:20, Jesus stands at the door and knocks. And the list goes on, but it can never be exhausted. Jesus is my all and all. Praise God for giving us Jesus. Bless His holy name.

Mr StanJ,

1) Do you have a problem with the above rendering of Luke 13:22-30?
2) Do you think I have rendered it out of its proper context?

Well, I know now for sure that you haven't understood what is "a/the hole of a/the needle"[yet].




What was in Jesus' mind when He made these statements, nobody knows????
Tsk tsk tsk! Nobody? Well, I know now for sure that you don't know, but I don't know in what capacity you are speaking for all others, unless you don't have faith in the [working/gift of] the holy spirit of God.

so basically it is just supposition on your part????
Supposition because you thought nobody knows? Not even literally? Here is one straightforward example (Please let me know if you need another):

Luke 7:12

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ (pyle) τῆς πόλεως
King James Bible
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city,

Nestle GNT 1904
ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ (pyle) τῆς πόλεως
New American Standard Bible
Now as He approached the gate of the city,

Jerusalem was a city/town that had a gate.

Bottom line is that Jesus is the gate, the narrow way, the narrow door and the gate to the sheep pen????
1) If Jesus IS the gate, then who IS the door of verse 25?
2) If Jesus IS the gate, then who IS the Master of the house?
3) Please show me one verse in the Bible that refers to Jesus as any gate?
4) The narrow door? How in the world did you come up with such a "strange" idea?
5) And where in the world did you get the gate to the sheep pen from?
6) Is the narrow way of Matthew 7:13-14 referring to Jesus? We shall soon see:

Well, I know now for sure that you will never be able to understand Matthew 7:13-14 from your regular "strange" Bibles/Babbles (Please check and compare with your personal supposedly translated version that are probably "strangely" influenced/approved by the Roman Church and approved by a certain "strange" Bible Society). I will only reveal to you a few of the dozens of errors in your (another?) Gospel:

Matthew 7:13-14

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Εἰσέλθετε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι' αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)· ὅτί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες (finding) αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her)

Nestle GNT 1904
Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)· ὅτι στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες (finding) αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her).


King James Bible
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

New International Version
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

In verse 13,

What happened to this ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the)?

leadeth/leads = FEMININE SINGULAR verb.
Exactly which one leadeth/leads?
The wide gate? Or the broad way/road? Or the _________(her)??????

What happened to this αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)?

In verse 14,

What happened to this ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the)?

leadeth/leads = FEMININE SINGULAR verb.
Exactly which one leadeth/leads?
The strait/small gate? Or the narrow way/road? Or the _________ (her)??????

What happened to this αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her)?

Do all these really look like a/my supposition to you? Just because you thought nobody knows huh?


Btw, if the narrow gate is the metonymy for Jesus, then who should we characterize the wide gate as? Satan?

In John 6:60, many of Jesus' disciples having heard, said, "This word is harsh, who is able to hear concerning it?" I wish my Pastor could preach and expound God's holy word in this same manner. A certain Pastor Steve wrote,

Riff Raff in the Church

[SIZE=13.333333015441895px]Okay, so we know that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, but do we have to go so far as to say he hung out with [/SIZE][SIZE=13.600000381469727px]druggies[/SIZE][SIZE=13.333333015441895px] and child pornographers?[/SIZE]
Oh, yes, these are exactly the kind of folks Jesus hung out with.
He welcomed those whom the Standard Religious Society (SRS, or, if you please,the church) didn’t want to have anything to do with.
There were the ones that the SRS called “sinners”, but many of them really weren’t, or at least no more than anyone else. The tax collectors were folks who worked for the Romans to collect tolls for their roads. While some tax collectors DID cheat the Romans and others (like Zaccheus in Luke 19), but these toll collectors did no such thing. They didn’t make much, but they didn’t collect enough to cheat the Romans. So they had a job, just a job. But because they worked for the Romans they were automatically rejected by the SRS (i.e. the church).
So Jesus, were he here today, he would hang out with those who were “unacceptable” in the church’s eyes today. He would hang out with the homeless who are often excluded from the church simply because they don’t have good enough hygiene. He would hang out with those who belonged to cult groups like Samaritans (like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Muslims today) and explain to them the heart of God’s truth.
Jesus also hung out with those who really, seriously sinned. People like Zaccheus, but also prostitutes and betrayers. If Jesus were here today, He would hang out with the homosexuals and drunks who are unsure of their reception, even if they repent. He would hang out with the druggies and tell them about the gospel, welcoming them, eating with them, hoping to bring them— or to keep them— in God.
Who are the Riff-Raff?
Jesus targeted three groups that were set outside of the church. He welcomed the ones who were just not good enough to be in a “proper” church— Samaritans, the lame, the blind, women, the Gentiles. All of these groups were people who could be in right standing with God, but they were set out of the Temple for one reason or another. The church, like the Temple of old, has a pretty strict idea of who belongs to it. No, they don’t set up rules for it, but they set boundaries through their subtle but negative reactions to those who are poor, of different beliefs, or of a different culture.
The church today is as cultural as it is spiritual— sometimes it is more culture than Spirit. And those who do not belong to the culture are outcast.
Another group that Jesus targeted is the sinner. Some of these are professional sinners, such as prostitutes and tax collectors— those whose very profession excluded them from good graces in God’s community. Some are sinners by what they did— adultery, theft, rebellion— and they are painted as such for the rest of their life for one sin. These are like those who are in jail or prison for crimes done. While some churches might accept them, they certainly don’t allow them near their children. Again, the welcome is only partial.
The other group Jesus specifically targeted is the judged. These are people who were judged by God or by people and they have the mark of judgment against them. In Jesus’ day they are the demon possessed or the lepers. Today, they may be sufferers of AIDS or those going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol or some other addiction. They may be people who have chronic mental illnesses. At first they might be welcome into today’s church, but then they would be rejected because they are “too difficult” or “cause too many disruptions.”
Should the church welcome the Riff Raff?
Absolutely. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for the church. If God sees sinners repenting as more important than a bunch of people who go to church regularly, then maybe we need to stop growing our churches and getting out on the street.
Jesus didn’t just sit in the temple, looking for the riff raff to come to him. He didn’t just have a seeker’s service. Rather, he went out and established a party in every village he went to, and shared the gospel at the party. He attracted the riff raff with the kind of gathering they liked, in their area, and then spoke a message that wasn’t easy for them to hear, but it was the truth. Not everyone believed, but it was important.
So the church doesn’t just need to welcome the riff raff, they need to go out where they live and give them a party.
Why should we do this? Because these riff raff— even if they’ve been following Jesus for years, they feel that they are second class Christians, or that they have no chance of being right with God at all. They think that their lives are apart from God and there is no acceptance for them. How is this? Because the church has separated themselves from the riff raff. As long as the church will have nothing to do with the riff raff, the riff raff figure that they don’t need God, either. Yet Jesus focused his ministry on the riff raff. Jesus loves the riff raff. And Jesus’ first church was full of the riff raff— more than the “normal” folks.
How are the Riff Raff saved?
This is the easiest question to ask, but the hardest one to live out. We know that everyone is saved by faith in Jesus, by their devotion to God, their repentance from sin and their reliance on the Holy Spirit. That’s how everyone is saved, without exception, forever and ever, amen.
But the church doesn’t act that way.
Rather they act like the homeless are saved by pushing through paperwork to gain homes. They act like the addict is saved by going to some anonymous group and never relapsing. They act like the homosexual is saved by getting married to someone of the opposite sex. They act like the mentally ill person is saved by taking medication.
Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with these things by themselves. But they aren’t the answers for people with these problems. The only way anyone is saved is through Jesus and reliance on the Holy Spirit. And Jesus and the Spirit will lead the outcast person to the things they need for their lives.
Sometimes the answer will be homes, marriage, medication and dishwashers and everything that makes up a middle class life. But for many people, it won’t.
Jesus, in calling the riff raff, chose to be homeless himself. He chose to be rejected. He chose to be without a family. And many of his followers went the same way. Jesus became homeless to welcome the homeless. He became family-less to welcome the family-less. He became penniless to welcome the penniless. He became rejected to welcome the rejected. And so we cannot insist that the outcast— or even the middle class— to be a part of the church must have homes, families, money and acceptance.

If the Riff Raff aren’t in the church, the church isn’t of Jesus


Thank you, Pastor. Now I understand my life…
Janet Isabel Smith

First, the reason "man" is not in the Greek but supplied in the English is because other words imply the masculine noun. Unlike English, Greek verbs, definite articles, etc. have different endings which imply whether or not they refer to a man, woman or plural group. The Greek word memathekos is singular and masculine, and thus, "this one" hutos, is understood in the context to refer to "this man."

HearGod is right. There are hundreds of Greek singular masculine nouns on top of "man." These are but just a few of them:- god, person, human, evangelist, messenger, apostle, prophet, worker, starter, priest, architect, ruler, baptist, helper, master, teacher, judger, heir, witness. Regardless, it is wrong to add any word into Scripture without highlighting it in italic type or ellipsis.

Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."

HearGod is right again. Be it a translation of Greek to English or vice versa, you may sometimes (not always though) treat or use an adjective as a noun, but it is completely wrong to translate an adjective into a noun when the adjective form is available, regardless. Jewish may not necessary mean Jew(s), British may not necessary mean Britain and Indian does not mean India.

Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."

From HearHim's comment, I am sure he knew about this too. The adjective hagios should always be translated as holy or sanctified. The English word "saint" derived from the Latin sanctus in origin a term in indigenous tradition connected to the name of the god Sancus...

Excerpts from [link removed]
The origin of the English word ‘saint’.
Regarding the word “saint”, its origin and meaning – it came into use in the English language around the 1100s, as an adjective used of those whom the Catholic Church had “beatified” and “canonised”. At that time, the meaning of the word “saint” was “holy”, corresponding to the Latin adjective sanctus which meant “holy”, “sacred” (related to the verb sancio, “to consecrate”). So, in the 1100s, “saint Eligius” simply meant “holy Eligius”. Later, in the 1300s or so, the word “saint” began to be used even as a noun, “a saint”, but it still referred to the Catholic “saints” and was not used of living persons.
From the 1500s and onward, the English word “saint” began to be used also of (living) persons of “extraordinary holiness”, and then even of church members and so on.
Even the words “saintdom” and “sainthood” were originally Catholic concepts, referring to those whom the Catholic Church had “beatified” and “canonised”. A note: The words “sainthood” and “saintdom” do not appear in any of the most common bible-translations.
This is how the English word “saint” came into being:

• The Greek text of the New Testament has hagios. The makers of the Catholic Vulgate version translated that into Latin as sanctus.
• Wycliffe, whose 1395 English translation was mostly based on a Latin text and not on the Greek, did not translate the Latin sanctus but used it, in the transcribed form “seyntis”.
• Later, the spelling was changed further, to “sainctes” (Tyndale, 1525), “sayntes” (Coverdale, 1535), “saintes” (Geneva bible, 1560) and finally “saints” (Geneva bible, 1587).

Excerpt from...[link removed]

HearGod,

I know Greek. You do not. Please let me know if you have ever taken a formal class on Koine Greek...but I think we both know the answer to this. You know nothing about how endings work on verbs, adjectives, and definite articles. You are looking up words in an online dictionary with no real knowledge of how Greek grammar works. It would be like you taking up a Spanish-English dictionary and trying to lecture a native Spanish speaker how improperly they translate. Its laughable. You are trying to make yourself look like an authority by using Greek words, but your explanations reveal you do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Leave translating to those who have spend their lives learning the language.

"learning" is the translation of the phrase grammata oiden. The phrase is a Greek idiom consisting of the words "letters" and "to know" which is understood to mean "learning." Because scholars actually study hundreds of thousands of early Greek literature documents and understand idioms, phrases, and grammar constructs which indicate how something should be interpreted. For instance, I might say in English, "I'm riding shotgun." This means "Im riding in the front passenger seat." Its a idiom that carries a common English meaning. However, you would be arguing that it literally means "to ride on a shotgun" with your ridiculous word for word online dictionary techniques. Lol. You are too funny.

Sir, with all due respect and the admiration that is owed, I think if only you had known just a little bitty of biblical Greek, you would have done everything possible not to lose HearHim and "his" thread, Sir.

 

[StanJ]

Looks like HG has come back as Timotheos, only more onerous. Seems like they both have the same father.
Another thread that has probably taken it's course and needs to be closed.

 

[Born_Again]

As luck would have it, I am an investigator professionally and comparing documents for similarities of authors is one field I work in...... I am reviewing the threads right now and so far, it's looking very similar with minor adjustments both grammatical and textual.....

I'll get back with you!!!

Yea, I'm going to call it...... Same person. Take it as you will!!!! Later!

 

[lforrest]

If you noticed his statement of faith was "Hear Him." Sound familiar?

 

[stevevw]

What I dont understand is it says that narrow is the road into heaven and wide is the pathway to hell. So this sounds like its saying that many will end up in hell and only a few in Heaven. That seems rather excessive to have so many end up in eternal suffering. There wont be many in heaven to socialize with. It will seem like us small mob up here and that very large crowd down in hell. Surely there must be an allowance for some to get a second chance to make it. I would have thought if so many failed the first time that something has gone wrong with the message. Maybe they all get a second chance before the very end. Does anyone know if this is the case or are they all doomed.

 

[Born_Again]

We are all given the same chance. It is essentially saying there are many who will not only deny Christ but claim to know Christ but never did... Meaning, YOu can say you follow Christ but unless you live for Him, live sinless, in love and truly walk with Him, then He will say He never knew you. Everyone has the chance at redemption but it's what you do with it. Do you just go to Church on Sunday and then live on indulging in worldly things that do not bring glory to Christ? Some of our brothers on here can give some really good scripture telling what it is to really walk with Christ....

I have no doubt, there will be very few in the kingdom. Nothing went wrong with the message, mankind just chose not to listen.

 

[StanJ]

What I dont understand is it says that narrow is the road into heaven and wide is the pathway to hell. So this sounds like its saying that many will end up in hell and only a few in Heaven. That seems rather excessive to have so many end up in eternal suffering. There wont be many in heaven to socialize with. It will seem like us small mob up here and that very large crowd down in hell. Surely there must be an allowance for some to get a second chance to make it. I would have thought if so many failed the first time that something has gone wrong with the message. Maybe they all get a second chance before the very end. Does anyone know if this is the case or are they all doomed.

Hi Steve....that issue is not on topic here. It would be called ECT(eternal conscious torment), versus UR(universal reconciliation) versus EA(eternal annihilation).

If you are really interested, start a thread on it and I'll participate.

 

[Stucky]

The world has got to where there are only a few true believers but God has always had a remnant of people somewhere who would believe Him. Look at the antediluvian world. There was just a few. Noah, his sons, his daughter-in-laws, & his wife. That was all that went into the ark. Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the coming of the Son of man".

What is your definition of a "few"? Do you mean that right now there are only as many "true believers" as Noah and his family?

 

[michaelvpardo]

What I dont understand is it says that narrow is the road into heaven and wide is the pathway to hell. So this sounds like its saying that many will end up in hell and only a few in Heaven. That seems rather excessive to have so many end up in eternal suffering. There wont be many in heaven to socialize with. It will seem like us small mob up here and that very large crowd down in hell. Surely there must be an allowance for some to get a second chance to make it. I would have thought if so many failed the first time that something has gone wrong with the message. Maybe they all get a second chance before the very end. Does anyone know if this is the case or are they all doomed.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'' And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen.'' Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?''
And I said to him, "Sir, you know.''
So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. "They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; "for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'' Revelation 7:9-17

 

[logabe]

What I dont understand is it says that narrow is the road into heaven and wide is the pathway to hell. So this sounds like its saying that many will end up in hell and only a few in Heaven. That seems rather excessive to have so many end up in eternal suffering. There wont be many in heaven to socialize with. It will seem like us small mob up here and that very large crowd down in hell. Surely there must be an allowance for some to get a second chance to make it. I would have thought if so many failed the first time that something has gone wrong with the message. Maybe they all get a second chance before the very end. Does anyone know if this is the case or are they all doomed.

Most Christians don't understand that God has a plan for the ones that don't accept Jesus
during their lifetime. They believe the resurrection is to judge the unbeliever and send him/
her to hell for eternity.

I believe @ the Great White Throne judgment these people will have a Passover experience
and they will be born again (begotten of God), and they will begin their journey of learning
righteousness. In other words, they will be justified after they have been resurrected, but
they will be taught righteousness by the Overcomers that were raised in the 1st resurrection.

Where do I get this from? 1st John 2:2 says,

2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Wait a minute. Why would John make a statement like that knowing that most people wasn't
going to be born again? Why would God make atonement for the unbelievers if He didn't have
a plan to reconcile them? It makes no sense to think God will throw them away in some kind
of torture pit, where there is no more hope. That's not Victory, but it is defeat. 1st Tim. 4:10
says,

10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have
fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all
men, especially of believers.

Explain that to me. What in the world is Paul talking about? Especially of believers. Paul is
telling us that God is the Savior of ALL MEN, not just the believers, but He has a victorious plan
for the rest of His Creation, but the believers will have a better resurrection than the unbelievers.
Hebrews 11:35 says,

35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and
others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that
they might obtain a better resurrection;

Oh, so there's a better resurrection? Rev. 20:6 says,

6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first
resurrection; over these the second death has no power,
but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign
with Him for a thousand years.

Okay, I'm starting to get the big picture now. Paul is telling us that these unbelievers will receive
their born again status in the 2nd resurrection, but the 1st resurrection is better, because you will
be a king and a priest of Christ and receive a crown to rule in the Tabernacles Age. I don't know
about you, but that gives me motivation and hope that causes me to press into the high calling of
God.

In essence, God will use the Overcomers in the Ages to come, to teach the ex-unbelievers the ways
and the plan of God. God has covered these unbelievers with His Blood so in due time He will show
the whole Creation His magnificent reconciliation of the Ages. Eph. 1:10 says,

10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of
the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things
in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

 

[StanJ]

Sorry Logabe, but that is called universal reconciliation and is NOT taught in scripture. Christ died for ALL sin, yes, but that redemptive process only takes effect in our lives once we ACCEPT Him as our savior. Rom 6:10 & 17, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:26.
He IS our savior but in the same way as the Jews, if we don't accept Him, the reality of Jesus is not there. Please read again what 1 Tim 4:10 actually says.
Salvation cannot happen AFTER death as Heb 9:27 shows. The judgment is just that, to judge those who are or are NOT saved.

 

[Wormwood]

HearGod is right. There are hundreds of Greek singular masculine nouns on top of "man." These are but just a few of them:- god, person, human, evangelist, messenger, apostle, prophet, worker, starter, priest, architect, ruler, baptist, helper, master, teacher, judger, heir, witness. Regardless, it is wrong to add any word into Scripture without highlighting it in italic type or ellipsis.

Clearly you do not understand how translation works. There is no one-to-one method of translation by which every Koine Greek word has an exact English counterpart. You are just making stuff up. They are different languages. Some Greek words take multiple English words to properly convey..and vice-a-versa. Again, unless you have taken many years of Koine Greek training, I suggest you leave the translation work to those who actually know the language. Your Greek dictionaries will only get you in trouble if you don't know what you are doing.

HearGod is right again. Be it a translation of Greek to English or vice versa, you may sometimes (not always though) treat or use an adjective as a noun, but it is completely wrong to translate an adjective into a noun when the adjective form is available, regardless. Jewish may not necessary mean Jew(s), British may not necessary mean Britain and Indian does not mean India.

Again, you are displaying an ignorance of Greek. Adjectives in Greek have endings that determine to which noun they are associated. These endings can indicate things like gender, number, etc. Thus, when no noun is present that the adjective is describing, the adjective itself takes the noun form. Thus agiois is plural and refers to that which is holy. If it is by itself, it means "holy ones" or "saints." This is common place in Greek. It is just how the language works. The endings allow for adjective to function independently. Using English examples to try to explain how Greek works is ridiculous. They are different languages and do not work the same way. In English, British will always be linked to a noun...British country...British flag...or, "he is British" (British describes "he") That is NOT how Greek works. There IS no noun present with "Jewish" in the above mentioned text. Thus, it is understood to mean "Jewish people" or "Jews." Which is PRECISELY how it is translated by pretty much every English Bible on the planet. You guys are on a wild goose chase here.