TedM

What exactly is your problem aa? I saw how the phrase was more ambiguous so I backed off. Then I showed how all of your phrases were ambiguous and you ignored it. You are on one mighty high horse. Don't fall off. Good night.

aa5874

Your posting pattern is consistent as soon as your fallacies are exposed you "run away".

Please, tell spin of your fallacies--phrases with "the Lord" are now ambiguous. You did not know what you were talking about or was confused.

spin

We haven't got to the communication with the tenant yet. We are dealing with you and the serf.

You are not giving your serf the exact words to say. Your use of the word "here" is directly interpreted by the serf. That is the nature of "here". And "here" is where you are.

And that is why the NRSV translation is wrong. That is the point of the discussion. The text presented by the NRSV doesn't work and you know how "here" in the context constructed by the NRSV shows that.

(And you already know how "immediately" makes the NRSV unlikely. The parallelism of the fulfillment of the prediction also shows how the writer conceived of the statement by Jesus, which is against the NRSV's version.)

TedM

ARGG..if I say to the serf "the Lord needs it and he will send it back here". it sounds like "here" is is where I'm at. IF I precede this by saying "TELL THE TENANT:" "the lord needs it and he will send it back here". then it is totally different. Then "here" is where the tenant is. That's the part you were missing in your hypothetical to me. And, that's why the NRSV could be right. That's where the issue of "immediate" and the missing "when finished" can be debated.

My last post ended with 3 viable options and each of those could mean either "Jesus" or "God" for "the Lord", so really 6 options. Option #1 is the NRSV. It is viable. The non-viable option is not the KJV, NASB, or NRSV.

hjalti

I think that the fact that they say "immediately"/"right away" points to this understanding being wrong. They're in the act of taking the colt, it makes little sense for them to say "we'll return it immediately". "Here's your rental car, sir. "Thank you, I will return it immediately."

And like spin says, the rest of the text mentions nothing about returning the colt, but in v.6 it says that "they said what Jesus had told them to say and they let them go" (quoted from memory :P ), which seems to fit with how spin (and many translations) understand v.3.

But I think you agree that it's plausible that "the lord" here is Yahweh, not Jesus. So we can at least all agree that there is no "the lord" in Mark that clearly refers to Jesus.

I think that the same goes for Matthew (haven't looked closely).

aa5874

You are wrong. The Two disciples were NOT in the act of taking the colt.

Mark 11.1-3 contains the supposed statement of the Lord Jesus to TWO of the disciples at Mount Olives.

It is completely absurd to suggest that God needed a donkey to ride for the triumphal entry into Jerusalem and HE would return it.

It was Jesus who was in need of the donkey and rode it in Mark 11.7.

Mark 11:7 NAS Jesus the Lord got the donkey that he needed.

spin

I see that you actually still refuse to do the job. Amazing. All you have to do is deal with the impact of the speaker (you) to the serf. You will not do this.

It doesn't matter if you precede 'this by saying "TELL THE TENANT:" "the lord needs it and he will send it back here".' The serf has to interpret "here" because of the nature of the word, despite the fact that you think it is embedded in a phrase to repeat.

It works this way:

1. "here" = where the speaker is.
2. You say to the serf 'TELL THE TENANT: "the lord needs it and he will send it back hither".'
3. because of #1, the serf understands you as saying 'TELL THE TENANT: "the lord needs it and he will send it back [where you, the speaker, are]".' It doesn't matter that it is in a sentence preceded by "TELL THE TENANT".

Look at 2 Sam 14:32. Absalom said to Joab, "Look, I sent word to you, saying Come here (ωδε, as in Mk 11:3)". Absalom gave his agent a message along the lines "Say to Joab, 'Come here.'" Would the agent have gone to Joab and said, "Come here" or would he have interpreted the word "here" as where Absalom was? The latter is obvious.

What about when the wise woman in 2 Sam 20:16 cried from the city wall, "Listen! Listen! Tell Joab, 'Come here (ωδε), I want to speak to you.'" What do you honestly think the listener(s) should have used to Joab... the following words, "Come here, I want to speak to you"? "here" is where the wise woman was, not where Joab was told the message.

Sorry, but I can't hold your hand any longer.

TedM

Agree, but the word isn't even in the KJV. In the NASB the definition is:
1) straight, level

2) straight forward, upright, true, sincere

3) straightway, immediately, forthwith

So, the sense of urgency may not have been there at all.



That has little bearing on my reading of it because there is no need to follow through to say "yep, they returned it afterwards". It's implied in the text that it would be returned.. However, it makes sense to have to reassure those whom it belonged to that they would get it back!



Yes, all of us except aa.

TedM

It matters. It simply is nonsense when you think about it: Why would the serf have any need to tell the TENANT that God would send it back to me? Similarly, why would the disciples have any need to tell the colt-owners/villagers that God would send the colt to where Jesus was when it was their explicit TASK to bring it back? They wouldn't. It's absurd to think that they would. Therefore it would have been absurd for the disciples to see it that way too.

aa5874

You just recanted and said the reference to "the Lord" was AMBIGUOUS. You have now recanted what you previously recanted.

Please, your posts are actually recorded.

You appear utterly confused or is openly mis-representing yourself.