The Widow's Mites

[LindaR]

6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

From what language did the KJV translators translate the Bible into English?  There is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words.  It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like what the Bible says when one goes to a Greek dictionary in order to find the meanings of words. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

i have not changed anything that God has inspired at all.  I am in perfect sgreement with God.

I contend that it is you who is "comfortable" with changing what God has inspired.

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

[No Nicolaitans]

6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

I've watched you with interest since you've joined...

You've gone from making small, non-inflammatory posts when you first joined to making overtly challenging posts as time has passed...and now you are moving into making derogatory posts.

Why should any of us listen to anything you have to say about God, his word, or any theological subject? After all...

[Standing Firm In Christ]

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

Given the fact that your interpretation of God's commanded tithe makes it monetary instead of agricultural, I've no reason to trust your interpretation of the widow' mites interpretation.

 

After all, your faulty interpretation of the account of the widow is financially profitable for your church, as is your faulty interpretation of God's tithe.

 

God, the Holy Spirit, inspired the Greek "ptochos" in Mark 12, which means "beggarly, asking alms"  I'll stick with that,... she was beggarly. Luke indicates the widow was poor.  Mark reveals the depth of her poverty, i.e.; beggarly, asking alms.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Given the fact that your interpretation of God's commanded tithe makes it monetary instead of agricultural, I've no reason to trust your interpretation of the widow' mites interpretation.  After all, your faulty interpretation of the account of the widow is financially profitable for your church, as is your faulty interpretation of God's tithe.

Interesting attempt either to shut down or side track the debate concerning the correct understanding of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4 -- by trying to insert the matter of the tithe.  However, the matter of the tithe is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the matter of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4, since Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4 has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with the matter of tithing.  Nice try, but I have no intention of biting.

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

God, the Holy Spirit, inspired the Greek "ptochos" in Mark 12, which means "beggarly, asking alms"  I'll stick with that,... she was beggarly.

False.  God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "ptochos" in Mark 12:42-43, which means as follows (from your own posting):

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 6:35 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

Also God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Therefore, I myself will "stick with" both Holy Spirit inspired adjectives, and with the meaning wherein both adjectives are in perfect unity, that is -- "poor, needy."  The widow was a "poor" widow (just as the King James translators translated it).

 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

By the way, Brother Robey, your last posting did not provide an answer at all to my above question.  Do you intend to provide an answer?

Edited December 28, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
layout

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Ptochos is the correct Greek word.  The woman was beggarly.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

 

3 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Ptochos is the correct Greek word.  The woman was beggarly.

So then, did God the Holy Spirit get it wrong when He inspired the Greek adjective "penichos" to be in Luke 21:2, instead of the Greek adjective "ptochos"?

[Jim_Alaska]

10 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

There is nothing wrong with looking at the meaning of words that were originally written in another language and contemporary with the times they were written in.

All languages change with time; many words that we consider archaic have completely different meanings today than they did in the times they were written.

As Bro. Scott has pointed out, the Greek word for "poor" does not necessarily mean "beggarly". I have been poor in my life; not two cents to rub together, but I was not a beggar because I did not beg. In order to be a beggar I must of necessity beg.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is pitiful that we have to get down to critically examining and arguing over every word to come to the plain teaching of the Scripture in question.

If we look to those brethren who have gone before us, both scholars and lay people, we see a common assertion that The Lord was commending this poor widow. So it is not just one person's interpretation, it has been understood this way down through time.

How can we explain why so many before us have seen The Lord's words as a commendation? The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood.

I am by no means a grammatical scholar, but I do understand the "plain" meaning of words.

In considering the "contrast" between what Jesus said about how people were casting into the treasury I see Him commending the widow because her act was totally unselfish in contrast to the rich that gave a part, but not all they had.

 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. In the light of this Scripture a "private interpretation" is plain for all to see in the original post that started this thread.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

38 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

So then, did God the Holy Spirit get it wrong when He inspired the Greek adjective "penichos" to be in Luke 21:2, instead of the Greek adjective "ptochos"?

No.  As I said previously, Luke reveals she was poor and needy.  Mark reveals to what degree her poverty had gotten.  It placed her in a beggarly state.  Both Luke and Mark were correct, Mark just used a different Greek word to emphasize the depth of her poverty.

31 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

There is nothing wrong with looking at the meaning of words that were originally written in another language and contemporary with the times they were written in.

All languages change with time; many words that we consider archaic have completely different meanings today than they did in the times they were written.

As Bro. Scott has pointed out, the Greek word for "poor" does not necessarily mean "beggarly". I have been poor in my life; not two cents to rub together, but I was not a beggar because I did not beg. In order to be a beggar I must of necessity beg.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is pitiful that we have to get down to critically examining and arguing over every word to come to the plain teaching of the Scripture in question.

If we look to those brethren who have gone before us, both scholars and lay people, we see a common assertion that The Lord was commending this poor widow. So it is not just one person's interpretation, it has been understood this way down through time.

How can we explain why so many before us have seen The Lord's words as a commendation? The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood.

I am by no means a grammatical scholar, but I do understand the "plain" meaning of words.

In considering the "contrast" between what Jesus said about how people were casting into the treasury I see Him commending the widow because her act was totally unselfish in contrast to the rich that gave a part, but not all they had.

 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. In the light of this Scripture a "private interpretation" is plain for all to see in the original post that started this thread.

The fact that the Scripture reveals the beggarly condition of the widow, proves that if there is any "private interpretation" being employed, it is by those who are claiming that Jesus was commending the widow.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Critical Mass]

5 hours ago, LindaR said:

From what language did the KJV translators translate the Bible into English?  There is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words.  It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like what the Bible says when one goes to a Greek dictionary in order to find the meanings of words. 

I guess than God couldn't preserve his words in English. We need a dead language to help us understand. A language that we are at the mercy of mostly unsaved reprobates to give us the meaning of. The majority of lexicons and Greek syntaxes are produced by unbelieving reprobates and liberal theologians who are always changing and/or updating the definitions of the "original languages". Many of them can even agree on the definitions.

Every bible corrector uses the Greek to change the bible when he doesn't like what it says in English. Every one. And we see it going on in this case to the point where we have the widow turning out to be a selfish rebel. All supported by the Greek.

You can all give yourselves thumbs up all you want but it's the truth. The primary reason the church is in the mess it is now is because of this. Everyone is a Greek authority changing what the text says plainly in English. Everyone is an expert in dead languages nobody speaks anymore. There are over 360 versions of the bible in English since 1901. I have a list of over 260 English versions since the KJV was translated to 1992. That doesn't include all the paraphrases. There probably has been another hundred since 1992. All because "there is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words". No wonder nobody believes the bible anymore.

 

[wretched]

Well the problem of guessed meanings come into play since any greek linguist today will explain to you that any lexicon you can obtain now is at least four major vernacular changes away from the ancient greek the Scriptures were originally penned in. Hence the term greek to me.

So, at least four possible meaning changes of the same words and more important sentence structures that also change the meanings of words have occurred. In other words, your lexicons are useless in translating the original greek texts with any added certainty.

Hmm, I wonder if the Lord did this for a reason? Didn't He say His Words will never pass away? He didn't mean the original greek texts obviously. BTW, anyone actually have one of those?

Back to the OP, I think some on here miss the forest for the trees in this subject. The predominant theme of our Lord throughout the Gospels was the rebuke of all forced, manipulated, heart-less religious acts. He has always wanted men and women's hearts to serve Him because they believe Him and because they believe Him, they love Him.

Anyway, I often wonder how many folks in our churches would remain if a truly qualified pastor preached the whole counsel. You know, the things you never hear, like giving all you don't need to your brothers in need. Cancel cable, entertainment, sell your TVs, Ipads, toys, boats, play things, fancy jewelry and give it all to your brothers, sisters and the lost poor. You  know, pick up the cross and follow Him (ring a bell?).

10% is easy, the lost religious love a rule like that, it makes them think they are getting some kind of brownie point. When they miss the point completely.

I wonder how much real power a church like that would have?  Of course, we will never know, we can only read about it with a grain a salt in the Book of Acts.

I know, don't rock the boat because even the closest of us born-again IFBs love our half "made up" religious practices as long as we never have to really go "all the way" capeesh?

[LindaR]

1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

I guess than God couldn't preserve his words in English. We need a dead language to help us understand. A language that we are at the mercy of mostly unsaved reprobates to give us the meaning of. The majority of lexicons and Greek syntaxes are produced by unbelieving reprobates and liberal theologians who are always changing and/or updating the definitions of the "original languages". Many of them can even agree on the definitions.

Every bible corrector uses the Greek to change the bible when he doesn't like what it says in English. Every one. And we see it going on in this case to the point where we have the widow turning out to be a selfish rebel. All supported by the Greek.

You can all give yourselves thumbs up all you want but it's the truth. The primary reason the church is in the mess it is now is because of this. Everyone is a Greek authority changing what the text says plainly in English. Everyone is an expert in dead languages nobody speaks anymore. There are over 360 versions of the bible in English since 1901. I have a list of over 260 English versions since the KJV was translated to 1992. That doesn't include all the paraphrases. There probably has been another hundred since 1992. All because "there is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words". No wonder nobody believes the bible anymore.

 

The Scriptures were written in Koine Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT)...not in English.   God promised to preserve His Word long before the English language came into existence (Psalms 12:6-7).  The King James Bible is the PRESERVED, inerrant and inspired Word of God in the English language, which was translated from the PRESERVED, inerrant and inspired original Greek and Hebrew, neither of which is a dead language.  Neither does the English "correct" the Greek (or Hebrew), as some teach.  The 360 "perversions" of which you speak were not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as the King James Bible.

The English language didn't exist until the fifth to the seventh century AD.   English is a West Germanic language that originated from Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain in the fifth to seventh centuries by Germanic invaders and settlers from what is now northwest Germany and the Netherlands. (Wikipedia). 

Quit with the insults already....the more you insult, the more you show your ignorance about Bible translations.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

No.  As I said previously, Luke reveals she was poor and needy.  Mark reveals to what degree her poverty had gotten.  It placed her in a beggarly state.  Both Luke and Mark were correct, Mark just used a different Greek word to emphasize the depth of her poverty.

First, your above answer does remove my concern that you are willing to change the wording of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Second, I do apologize for missing this part of your answer above.  It appears that you added it with an "edit," and that you did it while I was in the process of formulating my response to your posting.

Third, concerning your answer itself there is a difficulty.  The Greek adjective "ptochos" (as employed in Mark 12:42 carries a domain of various meanings, even as you yourself have posted (and thereby acknowledged) above, as follows:

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 6:35 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

Even so, in the realm of "rightly dividing" God's Word, it is not appropriate to choose one of these meanings against the others simply on the ground of your own authority and agenda.  Rather, in the realm of "rightly dividing" God's Word, it is necessary to choose one of these meanings against the others on the ground of contextual and Biblical evidences.

With my position I have chosen the meaning of "poor, needy" on the ground of the following evidences:

1.  The meaning of "poor, needy" IS a part of the meaning of the Greek adjective "ptochos."
2.  The meaning of "poor, needy" DOES fit with the Biblical fact that the widow had very little money, that is -- only two mites.
3.  The meaning of "poor, needy" carries PERFECT unity and equivalency with the Greek adjective "penichros" that God the Holy Spirit inspired for the parallel passage of Luke 21:2.
4.  The meaning of "poor, needy" is that which the King James translators understood for the Greek adjective "ptochos" in Mark 12:42-43, and they knew significantly more concerning Greek syntax and grammar than I will ever know.
5.  The meaning of "poor, needy" is that which the King James translators understood for the Greek adjective "ptochos" for the significant majority of its usages throughout the New Testament (31 out of 34 times).
6.  (An argument from silence) There is no specific indication anywhere in the Biblical context that the widow ever actually engaged in the practice of begging, or that she acquire her two mites through the practice of begging.
7.  (An argument from question) If the widow's only source of income was begging, why did our Lord Jesus Christ not instruct that some alms should be given unto her out of "the bag"? (See John 13:29)

 

12 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The fact that the Scripture reveals the beggarly condition of the widow, proves that if there is any "private interpretation" being employed, it is by those who are claiming that Jesus was commending the widow.

Now then, I have already indicated this in a previous posting; but I shall present it again -- If for the sake of your argument I grant that she was a "beggar" widow who had acquired her "two mites" through begging for alms, how does that impact whether or not she gave those "two mites" out of compulsion or out of free-willingness?  Once the money was hers (by whatever means), she could do with it as she pleased, yes?  Or, was there some commandment of God that prohibited either beggars or widows from giving "unto the offerings of God"?

Indeed, this is the primary point of contention; so then let us return to it -- Did the widow give out of motive of compulsion or of free willingness?

Edited December 28, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎12‎月‎27‎日 at 9:12 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I really do not know.  Since the passage does not say anything whatsoever about this, I choose not to make claims without information.  However, I could speculate on a whole number of possibilities in which the widow may have had more just the day before, but had to spend it on food or other things.
 

She MAY have.  Yet she may also have acquired them through work.  Or, she may have acquired them through help from the temple offering.  Or, she may have acquired them by finding them on the side of the walkway.  Or, she may have acquired them by stealing them from another.  Or, she may have acquired them . . .  (You see, this is what happens when we engage in speculations without any Biblical information whatsoever.)

 

No, the fact that she was "poor" shows that she was "poor."  There have been multitudes of poor and needy people down through the ages of history who have never been "reduced to a begging status." 
 

Yet there is not a single word in the context that indicates that she ever engaged in a single moment of begging in her life.  Building conclusions upon speculations is certainly not the way to "rightly divide the word of truth."  If either God the Holy Spirit or our Lord Jesus Christ intended that we should understand that this widow was a "beggar" and that she had acquired her mites through "begging," they had every ability to specify this information precisely.  Neither of them specified such information; therefore, any claims thereof are an act of adding unto that information which they did specify.

Brethren,

Throughout this entire discussion I have been pleased with the way that Pastor Markle has definately proved his contentions: specificly that the widow gave her offerings to God and that the Lord Jesus commended the widow after denouncing the scribes and other hypocrites.

The contentions by SFIC have all been soundly disproven by Pastor Markle by not only the English text (the King James Version), but by the various Greek meanings. The contentions sounded out by SFIC throughout this entire discussion are his own opinions (or interpretations of the scriptures), and are not supported by any scripture at all: either in the English  or the Greek language. The twistings of the scripture and the miss-use of the Greek by SFIC does not change the commendation of the Lord Jesus one whit.

The Holy Spirit always, may I repeat always, leads His men by the truth of the sciptures. The Lord Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13 Pastor Markle has presented the truth of the matter of the widow and her mites. Both by the English King James Version and the usage of the Greek meanings.

The widow gave her all, her two mites, as an offering to God, because she loved God and the work of God. The widow purposely, without any coercion from anybody, gave her two mites and the Lord Jesus publicly commended her for her offering. The widow is an shining example for all of us in our service to the Lord Jesus. In spite of all of the hypocrites, internet theologians, Charismatic charlatans, and other fleshly led sinners and saints: we need to serve the Lord with purpose and cheerfulness of heart.

Alan

Edited December 30, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Scott has NOT proven his contentions at all.  There is absolutely NOTHING in the English text, nor in the Greek that indicates the widow gave her last two mites willingly.  

Nor is there any indication in the text that Jesus was commending the widow.

But, the text does indicate the widow was robbed, put in a beggarly position as I have maintained since my OP.  The widow was made destitute by a corrupt Temple system, a system that Jesus identified as "a den of thieves".

The twisting of the Scripture is clearly on behalf of Scott, Jim & Alan,... not by me.  Easy to see why.  Their making the widow joyous and making Jesus happy at the destitute widow's actions helps to convince others to part with money that is otherwise needed for one to survive on.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ