Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 7:13 ¶ "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 7:13 ¶ "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad and easy to travel is the path that leads the way to destruction and eternal loss, and there are many who enter through it. |
Subject: How do we remit |
Bible Note: Greetings Dan! Let me touch upon each of your points! 1) This point really isn't valid, since I have made the case several times that there isn't any way to express the difference between a 2nd person singular and a 2nd person plural in English. The KJV used to use You and Ye, but we have no way in modern English to express this difference. But, to interpret this verse in the manner you propose would be like taking the following sentence: "If he buys a new car, she will be mad, he will have a large monthly bill." Did 'she' buy a car? No! The different pronoun seperates that clause from the rest of the sentence. Acts 2:38 does the same thing in the Greek grammar. I know I have posted this quote several times, but here is what Dr. A. T. Robertson said about this verse: "Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve." Source (Word Pictures) 2) 'Kai' serves in many more ways than simply a cordinating conjunction. It can be translated as 'even', 'but', 'also', ect.... So, the fact that 'kai' is used at the beginning of the clause does not mean that the change in number should be ignored. 3) If the command to 'be baptized' were plural in number, you would be absolutely correct. However, it isn't! :-) 4) My friend, this point was very disingenuous. I have posted many times on this verse, and I have consistently stated that the singular command to 'be baptized' cannot be grammatically connected to the rest of the plural sentence. This final option was thrown in as one of several possibilities. I personally do not hold to it, nor did I claim to do so. This whole topic illustrates how people get set in their beliefs and refuse to budge. The issue I have raised with Acts 2:38 is simple grammar, yet I can't even get you to acknowledge it because it doesn't agree with your interpretation. If we can't even agree on simple grammar, which has rules, how can we possibly agree on other issues? :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |