Bluefalcon
Member
In this case they were simply following, as was their mandate, the Bishop's Bible from half a century earlier. It is possible that translating the same word differently over the space of 3 verses was simply an oversight.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is There Only One ...
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
In this case they were simply following, as was their mandate, the Bishop's Bible from half a century earlier. It is possible that translating the same word differently over the space of 3 verses was simply an oversight.
Brotherly love does not do justice to that word. It is far more intense than what we have in English. If you use a concordance you will find there is a lot of overlap in those two words. I do not believe that there is such a thing as unconditional love. We must meet God's conditions. It is that simple. If we do not meet His condition then then there is an end. God does not just let people continue to sin without any consequences.
You can claim Christ's love was not divine unconditional love, that the world had met some standard of excellence and that was the reason Christ demonstrated His love for us by dying for us while we were yet sinner. But you are wrong.
Next you say philo does not mean brotherly love, but something stronger. So now you claim the lexicons are wrong.
No need to continue when nothing means what the scholars say they mean. Divine love and Brotherly love draw a distinction in the translation that demonstrates Jesus accepted Peter's brotherly love that fell short, at that time, of being willing to die for Christ.
Bottom line, the translations could be greatly improved by distinctively translating words and phrases consistently, and avoiding translating differing Greek words with the same English word which obliterates the distinction in God's message.
Show one verse where God love is infinite and His patienmce never ends especially with those who practice sin such as blasphemy of the Spirit. Was Sodom and Gommorah an imagination.
The word philo covers much more than what you suggest it means in English. It goes far deeper than what we think of as brotherly love in our culture. If you do not believe me then do a concorance search and read the passages where agape and philo are used and you will see that they are not completely separate but there is overlap. In addition read it in context outside of the NT. Lexicons do not always give every definition of how a word is used. You may want to also read the book "Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker" It is about the a number of approaches to lexicography.
Where did I write such an assumption on your part, ". . . that the world had met some standard of excellence and that was the reason Christ demonstrated His love for us by dying for us while we were yet sinner. But you are wrong." I would contend as scripture does that Christ died for sinners but you failed to exclaim their destination of hell if they do not meet God's conditions. God does not have to meet our conditions but we must meet His. If not then what? Hell? If hell is not in your vocabulary then you are a universalist.
You said Agape love was conditioned on meeting God's condition. Brotherly love draws a distinction from Divine love. Unconditionally refers to the person loving someone without reservation, i.e. willing to die for that person. Christ demonstrated "agape" unconditional love when He died for us, while we were yet sinners.
You referenced verses that use both words (agape and philo) yet did not specify even one. Yes of course there is overlap, Jesus accepted philo after initially asking for agape.
Bottom line, the distinction of divine or self sacrificing love verses brotherly or affectionate love comes closer to presenting God's message than translating both words with the same English word, i.e. love.
You referenced verses that use both words (agape and philo) yet did not specify even one. Yes of course there is overlap, Jesus accepted philo after initially asking for agape.
Bottom line, the distinction of divine or self sacrificing love verses brotherly or affectionate love comes closer to presenting God's message than translating both words with the same English word, i.e. love.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
With all due respect, DrJames, your entire post (while probably interesting to some readers here) is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.
The opening post asks the question "Is there only one way to translate faithful and accurate way to translate each word,phrase,sentence and passage of Scripture?" to which I responded with a specific example from the KJV. The king's revisers had translated the exact same Greek word with two different translations (importantly, even within the same John Chapter 6 context). In one verse the Greek word was translated with two English words "small fish" while the very next occurrence it is alternately rendered by a single English word "fish".
I never stated that these KJV translations were in contradiction or error, merely that they were different per the OP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you quote me where I wrote such a thing? Salvation is not dependent on man. What God does is conditioned on man's response. His response may be judgment. Would you call judgment unconditional love.
Your explanation drew a distinction but that distinction is not always so cut and dried. That is the reason I suggested that you do some concordance work.
Gb93433 said:
This is from your post #22. Now why do you deny it?
You are sidetracking the issue, and the issue is that we can do a much better job of translating, by avoiding translating differing Greek words, like agape and philo into the same English word, i.e. love.
Salvation is conditional, God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth. Hades and Gehenna are real and provide eternal punishment, i.e. separation from God forever.
Lets have another go. What if Christ's words had been translated, Peter, do you love me more sacrificially than these others. And Peter responded with, you know l love you affectionately, like a brother.
The important doctrine of Jesus accepting us with less than sacrificial love is lost in the currently botched translations. Jesus accepts us as we are, and does not wait until we are willing to stretch out our hands and go where we do not want to go.
God Bless
Last edited by a moderator:
It is impossible accurately translate without explanation. So how would you suggest that translators translate with any explanation and use a word for word translation?
Phileo love is a love that one has for another through thick and thin. It is much deeper than just an affectionate love.
How does the judgment of hell fit into your belief of Jesus accepting us for who we are. The Jews equated who we in what we do. How can one be good and produce evil deeds? If I understand my Bible right we love because he first loved us. If we refuse to love it is not because of him but us.
I should have written that God loves and expects us to obey his commands. He loves first bur when we willingly disobey he gives judgment. That judgment is for the good of society. If we refuse then you could say his love is withdrawn and he gives us the results of our ways. I think Romans 1 and 1 Cor 5 are good examples of that.
The issue is not to translate perfectly, but to do a far better job than is done now.
No matter how the word is translated, such as deeply affectionate, that still differs from self sacrificing love.
This has nothing to do with the issue of improving translation. It is not my belief, Jesus accepted philo after asking for agape. He accepted Peter as he was, rather than expecting him to met the higher standard. If you deny that truth, there is little more I can say.
Calvinism argues wrongly that we in our natural men of flesh fallen state, cannot seek God and put our wholehearted trust in Jesus. Certainly our efforts will be flawed to varying degrees. However, we do not need to be perfect, just fully committed for it is God who decides to credit our faith or not as righteousness.
Returning to topic, translating differing Greek words with the same English word obliterates the distinction provided by God's inspired words. Words have a range of meanings, so it is not possible to translate the whole range of Greek word meanings using a single English word, but a few English words can be used for the differing meanings, and when the same meaning appears in different verses, the same English word or phrase should appear. This rule would help bring God's message into better focus.
I would hope every translator would have that as a given. Perhaps you should join in the discussion with translators and linguists on the B-Greek forum.
There is overlap in the usage of those words. They are not so completely different as many would seem to believe. Like I said do a concordance search on both ofg those words. So however you want to describe that is open to criticism. You cannot equate the meanings of words in the culture of that day with the culture of today. A good example in English would be how conversation is used in the KJV 1611 and how the same word is used today. They are not even close.
HE also told Peter, "Get behind me Satan." I would contend that Jesus loved him but was not content to allow him to stay there. I would say acceptance of another is not always being content to leave them there. If so that is not love but political correctness of today. I am not content with the word "acceptance" but rather that God works with us where we are but is not content to leave us as disobedient vessels.
Calvinism argues wrongly that we in our natural men of flesh fallen state, cannot seek God and put our wholehearted trust in Jesus. Certainly our efforts will be flawed to varying degrees. However, we do not need to be perfect, just fully committed for it is God who decides to credit our faith or not as righteousness.
Returning to topic, translating differing Greek words with the same English word obliterates the distinction provided by God's inspired words. Words have a range of meanings, so it is not possible to translate the whole range of Greek word meanings using a single English word, but a few English words can be used for the differing meanings, and when the same meaning appears in different verses, the same English word or phrase should appear. This rule would help bring God's message into better focus.[/QUOTE]
1) No one claimed a better translation today would be timeless. Of course as the meaning of words drifts or is lost, a newer translation is required. But I would expect that issue is primarily generational, i.e. every 25 years or so, the meanings held by the new generation would differ from the old.
2) Yes, there is overlap in the meanings of differing Greek words, but it is better to preserve the distinction, if God used differing words, then obliterate the distinction by using the same English word. English words have overlap too, so using separate English words is not a problem, i.e. sacrificial love versus deeply affectionate love.
3) Finally you suggest my view supports that God is content to leave us a disobedient vessels. No response needed to address fiction. Note that in John 21, the idea is one day Peter would be willing to sacrifice himself for Christ. God is in the business of building character.
2) Yes, there is overlap in the meanings of differing Greek words, but it is better to preserve the distinction, if God used differing words, then obliterate the distinction by using the same English word. English words have overlap too, so using separate English words is not a problem, i.e. sacrificial love versus deeply affectionate love.
3) Finally you suggest my view supports that God is content to leave us a disobedient vessels. No response needed to address fiction. Note that in John 21, the idea is one day Peter would be willing to sacrifice himself for Christ. God is in the business of building character.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh no I never suggested any such thing. To suggest such a thing is to suggest that God is content with people in hell. The problem is that hell is real and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that you are a universalist. God is most interested in our relationship with the living God. However he does not ignore those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. To even remotely suggest that he does is to teach a universal salvation and that hell does not exist. Would you suggest that God loves people into hell and some Christians do by not making disciples who make disciples? I would suggest that has reserved hell for some and discontinues His love and gives them their just judgment. I would have a hard time equating judgment and love with one person. Now I would say that he loves all people enough to give those who choose to be disobedient their just reward.
Both of you assume that God MUST love all sinners equally, that its our final call as to if we are saved or not...
The bible does not teach that, but that ALl deserve hell, Gods wrath is upon those of us who are disobedient and in sin to him, so that he savd some from what all deserve!
And since there are NOT wxact equivalents between say Koine greek and modern english, would be almost impoosible to transalte a bible as van presupposses!
I wonder where you got that idea from me. He loves them enough to patiently wait but there is an end.
That's the soteriology of real egalitarianism.And it is completely false. The Lord is not an equal-opportunity God.
saturneptune
New Member
That is correct. What we as flawed humans think is "fair" does not match God's purposes. Since we cannot even begin to understand the depths of the Lord, we as created beings do not have the right to tell God that anything is not "fair." In reality, we have no idea what fair really means.
The Lord provided the opportunity for salvation to all men, laying down His life as a ransom for all. However, not everyone hears or understands the gospel, and thus not everyone is afforded the opportunity to receive the gospel. Thus the Lord is not an equal-opportunity God.
OTOH, Calvinism teaches the Lord is a no opportunity God; you were either saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing you can do will alter that outcome for yourself or your loved ones. And that is completely false.
Returning to topic, translating differing Greek words with the same English word obliterates the distinction provided by God's inspired words. Words have a range of meanings, so it is not possible to translate the whole range of Greek word meanings using a single English word, but a few English words can be used for the differing meanings, and when the same meaning appears in different verses, the same English word or phrase should appear. This rule would help bring God's message into better focus.