Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Didn't call anybody a name, but if the shoe fits wear it.
The shoe didn't fit. You made an inappropriate comment.
]The English has more than one definition for love. to know what that definition is will be found in context.
But the definition in the greek words are found in the context and the word. Without knowing that, you are ill equipped to decide what it means.
I would never have come to the conclusion that "love" in John 21 meant all the same, especially since Jesus is not redundent in any of His teaching.
Jesus is very redundant in his teaching. I don't even know how you can make this statement.
Exactly, that is why context is the mv killer
Again, you are not making sense. Context doesn't kill the MVs. The MVs are the word of God whether you like it or not. When you attack the MVs you are attacking teh word of God.
Then they were artistic genuises because they did so with perfection that cannot be matched to give us exactly what the Spirit inspired and not limited to just the simple words but are the living words of God. IOW, they have it right.
Those who know what they are talking know that this is not true. The KJV is a fine translation but it has some bad translational choices in it.
As time passed and learning increased, then why is man living less and less like there is a God?
Because as God said, in the last days men will grow worse and worse.
My hypothesis is the hypothesis that every orthodox believer in church history has operated from. It is the hypothesis on which the apostles used the OT in their writings. It is you who is outside the bounds of historic orthodoxy. All you need to do is study to find out your position is wrong.
wh6y aren't these "learned" men out winning souls since they know and understand so much about the Hebrew and the Greek instead thney sit around and teach and boast how much they know?
A great many of them are. In fact, there are more souls being won from MVs today than from teh KJV.
Then what praytell language are you speaking in?
English.
I thought you said it isn't usually communicated at all in English?
It isn't. Both "de" and "alla" are usually translated as "but." But they have different meanings. To read your English version, you have no way of knowing whether the word "but" is "de" or "alla." You should know this before taking such a dogmatic stand ... or you should at least allow yourself a graceful way to acknowledge that you are wrong. You keep digging this whole deeper.
Then how is it you are able to ask these questions?
Lots of study and reading on the topic. Knowing something about it has enabled me to see through this "arguments" you are putting forth. They just don't work.
I don't see so much expertise in what you believe, rather the opposite. I see alot of words thrashed about, alot of denigration due to our disinterest in your logic and then your attempt to defame us when we already know where we stand on the KJB.
Funny you say that about Strong's Concordance, yet every instance I and you both use the same Strong's numbering system to identify the Greek and Hebrew words.
I haven't used Strong's numbering in more than 10 years. I use actual lexical resources such as BAGD, NIDNTT, TDNT, TLOT, EDNT in the NT and BDB, TDOT, NIDOTTE, TLOT, KB and TWOT in the OT. BibleWorks 5.0 does most of the searching to make it easy, but if I need to use a concordance, I have Evans-Shoshan for Hebrew as well as the Hebrew English and the Greek English for the NT. The bottom line is that I am operating out of actual lexical resources used in translation. If you would avail yourself of these resources your faulty presuppositions would very quickly come to light.
You're not lying again are you?
I haven't lied the first time, much less again. If you would check your facts, you would know that. Don't accuse me of lying. You are getting out of hand with these off base charges. You are attacking people in appropriately. You need to set aside your biases and get to the facts of the matter. Deal with reality.
