,TODAY, ???
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes. The comma appeared as a raised dot indicating a pause. Even the P74 Mss of Luke which dates to the third century has some limited examples of punctuation in it from what I understand, although I have never examined that MSS and would not be qualified to do so even if I had the opportunity. Yet, even though this Mss does contain some punctuation, it does not contain a comma in any position in Lk, 23:43.
yes,in Luke 23;42 the thief ask him "(when) you come into your kingdom" Strong's Number 932 Greek Dictionary of the New Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com if he would remember him. then Jesus answers when with,,,"today",,,and then states "where". and then in Luke 23;44 the text goes to the exact "hour of the day".
so the thief ask Christ 3 things "when",,"to remember him",and where,"into thy kingdom",,so it seems he answers all 3 things,"today/when,,,you and me/remember,,,kingdom/paradise" by making the statement,,"today shalt thou be with me in paradise". so if the comma is shifted (afterward) then Christ only addresses 2 of the things the thief makes in his statement.
This is how I understand the statement as well but, this explanation only works IF the comma is place after σοι λέγω. If the comma is place after σήμερον this gives a different meaning in relationship to time. The problem is that we cannot prove grammatically where the comma should go. This is why we are looking for internal examples that may offer us a clue.
G
Luke 23:
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Sometimes we find ourselves looking so hard at the Greek and Hebrew that we forget about the English it was translated into...
Since the intent of the translators was for it to make sense to English-reading people according to English language and grammar...
To me, the most convincing answer is both simple - and - in English!
If you will look carefully at the grammar and usage of every occurance of the phrase 'shalt thou be' - especially as compared to the phrase 'thou shalt be' -- I believe you will find that in each case, the phrase is "operative" on one or more words - indicating time, condition, or circumstance.
You will not find a stand-alone 'shalt thou be', whereas you will find a stand-alone 'thou shalt be'.
Even though sufficient meaning may be present in the Greek, you would not - in English - say:
"shalt thou be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; incomplete as a statement )
Whereas - in English - you would say:
"thou shalt be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; complete as a statement )
'To day' is needed to complete "shalt thou be with me in paradise" in English.
"It's that simple..."
I believe the above verse is written correctly - with the comma - in the right place...
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Sometimes we find ourselves looking so hard at the Greek and Hebrew that we forget about the English it was translated into...
Since the intent of the translators was for it to make sense to English-reading people according to English language and grammar...
To me, the most convincing answer is both simple - and - in English!
If you will look carefully at the grammar and usage of every occurance of the phrase 'shalt thou be' - especially as compared to the phrase 'thou shalt be' -- I believe you will find that in each case, the phrase is "operative" on one or more words - indicating time, condition, or circumstance.
You will not find a stand-alone 'shalt thou be', whereas you will find a stand-alone 'thou shalt be'.
Even though sufficient meaning may be present in the Greek, you would not - in English - say:
"shalt thou be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; incomplete as a statement )
Whereas - in English - you would say:
"thou shalt be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; complete as a statement )
'To day' is needed to complete "shalt thou be with me in paradise" in English.
"It's that simple..."
I believe the above verse is written correctly - with the comma - in the right place...
Luke 23:
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Sometimes we find ourselves looking so hard at the Greek and Hebrew that we forget about the English it was translated into...
Since the intent of the translators was for it to make sense to English-reading people according to English language and grammar...
To me, the most convincing answer is both simple - and - in English!
If you will look carefully at the grammar and usage of every occurance of the phrase 'shalt thou be' - especially as compared to the phrase 'thou shalt be' -- I believe you will find that in each case, the phrase is "operative" on one or more words - indicating time, condition, or circumstance.
You will not find a stand-alone 'shalt thou be', whereas you will find a stand-alone 'thou shalt be'.
Even though sufficient meaning may be present in the Greek, you would not - in English - say:
"shalt thou be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; incomplete as a statement )
Whereas - in English - you would say:
"thou shalt be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; complete as a statement )
'To day' is needed to complete "shalt thou be with me in paradise" in English.
"It's that simple..."
I believe the above verse is written correctly - with the comma - in the right place...
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Sometimes we find ourselves looking so hard at the Greek and Hebrew that we forget about the English it was translated into...
Since the intent of the translators was for it to make sense to English-reading people according to English language and grammar...
To me, the most convincing answer is both simple - and - in English!
If you will look carefully at the grammar and usage of every occurance of the phrase 'shalt thou be' - especially as compared to the phrase 'thou shalt be' -- I believe you will find that in each case, the phrase is "operative" on one or more words - indicating time, condition, or circumstance.
You will not find a stand-alone 'shalt thou be', whereas you will find a stand-alone 'thou shalt be'.
Even though sufficient meaning may be present in the Greek, you would not - in English - say:
"shalt thou be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; incomplete as a statement )
Whereas - in English - you would say:
"thou shalt be with me in paradise" ( stand-alone; complete as a statement )
'To day' is needed to complete "shalt thou be with me in paradise" in English.
"It's that simple..."
I believe the above verse is written correctly - with the comma - in the right place...
R
Hope I have all these references inserted correctly, if you end up on some verse that seems off the wall, let me know, or I'm sure you can search for the exact ones.
The other rooster verse (22:34) doesn't contain the exact idiom with the word "amen", but it does contain the preceding "I say to you".
Note that the position of the words "to you" and "I say" are backwards between the Luke 22:34 rooster and Luke 23:43 thief, for whatever that means.
This rooster verse (22:34) doesn't contain "amen" according to Luke.
But Matthew's account (26:34) does include "amen". Also, Luke uses the word "today", and Matthew uses the words "during this night".
Luke does not record Jesus use of "hoti" in this scene, but Luke does use it of himself in 22:61, in an unrelated part of the verse for a different reason, to note Jesus's entire words as a statement rather than Jesus giving a statement, and Matthew does include Jesus using "hoti" to indicate a statement.
Luke does record Jesus use of "hoti" in other places, and I believe if Luke had written "[hoti] today you will be with me in paradise" that it would have meant the thief goes now.
In other words, if Luke had used [hoti] in the thief verse, he would have recorded that " Jesus said quote - 'today you will...' "
But he didn't, and he does know how to use that conjunction to specify a statement within a statement.
Additionally, they both (Luke 22:34 rooster and Luke 23:43 thief) also include a preceding "and He said", one with "to him" and the other without.
For what that's worth.
I believe the "amen" is to solidify the truth of Jesus's statement, whichever version of the conclusion is correct.
If the KJV comma is correct or not, here's a new question -
did the thief because of earnest repentance and faith, enter paradise on that day, in his heart, before he died and slept?
Did he, being in the church of "Ephesus", that is, having been an "overseer" - evidenced in his previous ministry to the other rebellious thief, and having repented and done the former works - evidenced by his state of heart while hanging to die...
...for a short time on earth, "overcome and eat from the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God" in his spirit, before he actually gets to physically?
Either way, did Jesus give him peace on earth before he died, and if not, why speak on earth instead of just letting him die and find out for himself?
Sorry bout that theological injection, for me it's so difficult to separate grammar.
In short, check out the greek Matthew 26:34 and see if that is closer to what you are looking for, though it's a different author.
The other rooster verse (22:34) doesn't contain the exact idiom with the word "amen", but it does contain the preceding "I say to you".
Note that the position of the words "to you" and "I say" are backwards between the Luke 22:34 rooster and Luke 23:43 thief, for whatever that means.
This rooster verse (22:34) doesn't contain "amen" according to Luke.
But Matthew's account (26:34) does include "amen". Also, Luke uses the word "today", and Matthew uses the words "during this night".
Luke does not record Jesus use of "hoti" in this scene, but Luke does use it of himself in 22:61, in an unrelated part of the verse for a different reason, to note Jesus's entire words as a statement rather than Jesus giving a statement, and Matthew does include Jesus using "hoti" to indicate a statement.
Luke does record Jesus use of "hoti" in other places, and I believe if Luke had written "[hoti] today you will be with me in paradise" that it would have meant the thief goes now.
In other words, if Luke had used [hoti] in the thief verse, he would have recorded that " Jesus said quote - 'today you will...' "
But he didn't, and he does know how to use that conjunction to specify a statement within a statement.
Additionally, they both (Luke 22:34 rooster and Luke 23:43 thief) also include a preceding "and He said", one with "to him" and the other without.
For what that's worth.
I believe the "amen" is to solidify the truth of Jesus's statement, whichever version of the conclusion is correct.
If the KJV comma is correct or not, here's a new question -
did the thief because of earnest repentance and faith, enter paradise on that day, in his heart, before he died and slept?
Did he, being in the church of "Ephesus", that is, having been an "overseer" - evidenced in his previous ministry to the other rebellious thief, and having repented and done the former works - evidenced by his state of heart while hanging to die...
...for a short time on earth, "overcome and eat from the tree of life in the midst of the paradise of God" in his spirit, before he actually gets to physically?
Either way, did Jesus give him peace on earth before he died, and if not, why speak on earth instead of just letting him die and find out for himself?
Sorry bout that theological injection, for me it's so difficult to separate grammar.
In short, check out the greek Matthew 26:34 and see if that is closer to what you are looking for, though it's a different author.
Last edited by a moderator:
It would appear you have been busy. I certainly appreciate you contribution to this thread. Matt. 26:34 uses the ὅτι clause but, the account in Luke 22:34 and 61 where the same statement is repeated twice, Luke does not use ὅτι and in all three instances the adverbial qualifier is part of the second clause.
R
I usually don't spend that much time in greek or hebrew or grammar. But this is one of the things I've looked at in the past (though not quite as deeply, I had not referenced matthew's account previously until you got me digging)
This particular item, and the camel/needle verse, and a few others are things that once I had spent enough time looking, I learned these valuable lessons about scripture -
God, Jesus, Moses, prophets, etc, - VERY clever with words.
Take punctuation loosely sometimes.
Throw out verse and chapter breaks except for finding things.
Any time someone uses a bible verse to say something, read a good chunk before and after it.
KJV with all of it's nuances still leaves room to imagine the emotions and human drama of the situations, because it slows the reading. (for me anyway)
I'll probably take a break on this one now, it was a good break from my normal routine and helped with sitting idly at home waiting on family Christmas meals to come and go. Plus it gave me time to finally reinstall my operating system. Merry Christmas.
This particular item, and the camel/needle verse, and a few others are things that once I had spent enough time looking, I learned these valuable lessons about scripture -
God, Jesus, Moses, prophets, etc, - VERY clever with words.
Take punctuation loosely sometimes.
Throw out verse and chapter breaks except for finding things.
Any time someone uses a bible verse to say something, read a good chunk before and after it.
KJV with all of it's nuances still leaves room to imagine the emotions and human drama of the situations, because it slows the reading. (for me anyway)
I'll probably take a break on this one now, it was a good break from my normal routine and helped with sitting idly at home waiting on family Christmas meals to come and go. Plus it gave me time to finally reinstall my operating system. Merry Christmas.
