ScottEmerson
Active Member
Respecter of persons? Preventing the poor and needy? Contradiction? You'll have to go into detail here.
-
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!
PARABLES
- Thread starter Charles Meadows
- Start date
You're kidding, aren't you? What I posted about Jesus and Peter, and the use of agape and phileo are obvious biblical fact. Your interpretation is completely and blatantly contrary to scripture. It does not remotely resemble the conversation that Peter and Jesus actually had.For those just tuning in, I'll post the context again:
First, Jesus asks Peter, Do you love me unconditionally (agape)? Peter replies, I love you like a brother (phileo).
Second, Jesus asks Peter agin, Do you love me unconditionally (agape)? Peter replies, I love you like a brother (phileo).
Third, Jesus asks Peter, do you love me like a brother (phileo)? Peter completely misses the point, and gets frustrated, and tells Jesus "You know everything. You know I love you like a brother (phileo). Peter completely missed the fact that Jesus met Peter at his level. Peter had not yet comprehended the ability to love Jesus unconditionally, as God loves us. Peter never, in this passage, came up to Jesus' level. it was Jesus who came down to Peter's level.
This context is lost in translation to English, because "agape" (unconditional love) and "phileo" (brotherly love) are both translated in English as "love". QuickeningSpirit prefers to ignore the original Greek meaning in favor of English, which lacks the same message as the Greek.
You're kidding, aren't you? What I posted about Jesus and Peter, and the use of agape and phileo are obvious biblical fact. Your interpretation is completely and blatantly contrary to scripture. It does not remotely resemble the conversation that Peter and Jesus actually had.For those just tuning in, I'll post the context again:
First, Jesus asks Peter, Do you love me unconditionally (agape)? Peter replies, I love you like a brother (phileo).
Second, Jesus asks Peter agin, Do you love me unconditionally (agape)? Peter replies, I love you like a brother (phileo).
Third, Jesus asks Peter, do you love me like a brother (phileo)? Peter completely misses the point, and gets frustrated, and tells Jesus "You know everything. You know I love you like a brother (phileo). Peter completely missed the fact that Jesus met Peter at his level. Peter had not yet comprehended the ability to love Jesus unconditionally, as God loves us. Peter never, in this passage, came up to Jesus' level. it was Jesus who came down to Peter's level.
This context is lost in translation to English, because "agape" (unconditional love) and "phileo" (brotherly love) are both translated in English as "love". QuickeningSpirit prefers to ignore the original Greek meaning in favor of English, which lacks the same message as the Greek. </font>[/QUOTE]Simple minds, simple questions, simple answers.
Uh-uh, I see you try to tear down the KJHB saying it has errors and archaic words hard to be understood when that is not true. That is the works of a destroyer, to tear down. You might come to your conclusions because of the Greek you apply, but themenaing is already there as defined in the KJB English. I don't know why yall won't admit that, all you do is play on words, Oh well?
You and Cranston both are starting this "breaking the rules" stuff, but that is only because you read something into what I've said, so go ahead, play your silly little games.
Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Uh-uh, I see you try to tear down the KJHB saying it has errors and archaic words hard to be understood when that is not true.
But it IS true, and we've PROVEN it.
That is the works of a destroyer, to tear down.
Thus is the work of the KJVO-to attempt to LIMIT GOD by denouncing His word as written in a version he/she doesn't like.
You might come to your conclusions because of the Greek you apply, but themenaing is already there as defined in the KJB English.
It was in the Greek first. And "KJB English" is no longer in common use.
I don't know why yall won't admit that, all you do is play on words, Oh well?
And we have yet to see any KJVO prove us wrong, or prove him/herself right. You all dodge the issues, as you're now doing.
You and Cranston both are starting this "breaking the rules" stuff, but that is only because you read something into what I've said, so go ahead, play your silly little games.
No "word games" to it. The owner(s) of this board, who pay the bills, have appointed certain people as moderators, with the authority to make the rules for this board. One of them is, thou shalt not call any Bible version a "perversion". Another is that we anti-Onlyismists shall not call KJVO a cult. And a MAIN rule is, thou shalt not call the faith or salvation of another into question. I have the same rule in every board I moderate.(Not saying you broke this one.)
If I were to break the rules, I would expect to have it called to my attention.
I ask: Is KJVO of God or man? Please provide *PROOF* for your answer. I can do the same if asked, but we would like to see YOUR answer.
Uh-uh, I see you try to tear down the KJHB saying it has errors and archaic words hard to be understood when that is not true.
But it IS true, and we've PROVEN it.
That is the works of a destroyer, to tear down.
Thus is the work of the KJVO-to attempt to LIMIT GOD by denouncing His word as written in a version he/she doesn't like.
You might come to your conclusions because of the Greek you apply, but themenaing is already there as defined in the KJB English.
It was in the Greek first. And "KJB English" is no longer in common use.
I don't know why yall won't admit that, all you do is play on words, Oh well?
And we have yet to see any KJVO prove us wrong, or prove him/herself right. You all dodge the issues, as you're now doing.
You and Cranston both are starting this "breaking the rules" stuff, but that is only because you read something into what I've said, so go ahead, play your silly little games.
No "word games" to it. The owner(s) of this board, who pay the bills, have appointed certain people as moderators, with the authority to make the rules for this board. One of them is, thou shalt not call any Bible version a "perversion". Another is that we anti-Onlyismists shall not call KJVO a cult. And a MAIN rule is, thou shalt not call the faith or salvation of another into question. I have the same rule in every board I moderate.(Not saying you broke this one.)
If I were to break the rules, I would expect to have it called to my attention.
I ask: Is KJVO of God or man? Please provide *PROOF* for your answer. I can do the same if asked, but we would like to see YOUR answer.
Again for your limited ability to read and comprehend, if you define KJVO as those who maintain the KJHB is the ONLY Bible then that is of man, on the same hand THOUGH, if you accuse a man of holding to the KJHB as the Word of God preserved to the English speaking people, inerrant, infallable, inspired, as KJVO then your accusation is of man and not God.
Your "proofs" are consistent error themselves and not substanciated due to their being rooted in perverted, contradicting, and maligned MAN-U-R-Eccentric in your belief that God cannot preserve His Word in one Bible as our founding fathers of our faith have so consistently held to SINCE 1611 !!!!
Your total adherence to your assumption that the Word of God is still being searched out in alexandrian mss, and according to w/h textual criticisms is calling God a liar and denigrating His Deity and Omniscience. If we don't , and we do! have the Word of God, then we are hapless creatures without the Blessed Hope.
Guess what, Cranston, I have the Pure, Unadulterated, God Breathed Eternal Word of God in my AV 1611 King James Holy Bible. I don't need the antics of FALLABLE, UNHOLY MEN TO TRY AND DENY ME THAT DISTINGUISHABLE AND DIVINE RIGHT TO HOLD TO IT EITHER.
Out of the mouths of babes:
"Momma, today the preacher said some things about the Virgin Birth, and how some try to deny it, How could they unless they got from another place instead of the King James Virgin?"
Do you mean for instance the “antics” of the "FALLABLE, UNHOLY MEN" the 1769 “correctors” of the Word of God the “AV 1611 King James Holy Bible”.
1769KJV Ezekiel 24
5 Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
6 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the bloody city, to the pot whose scum is therein, and whose scum is not gone out of it! bring it out piece by piece; let no lot fall upon it.
7 For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock;
she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;
1611KJV Ezekiel 24
5 Take the choice of the flocke, and burne also the bones vnder it, and make it boyl well, and let him seethe the bones of it therein.
6 Wherefore thus sayth the Lord GOD; Woe to the bloodie citie, to the pot whose scumm is therein, and whose scumm is not gone out of it! bring it out piece by piece; let no lot fall vpon it.
7 For her blood is in the middest of her; she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke;
she powred it upon the ground, to couer it with dust;
HankD
And what exactly is the difference between the printing "errors" of the KJV and the scribal "errors" for which the supporters of the Alexandrian MSS have suffered venemous attacks from the KJVO?
An error is an error is an error unless of course it is an "inspired error" God forbid.
HankD
And what exactly is the difference between the printing "errors" of the KJV and the scribal "errors" for which the supporters of the Alexandrian MSS have suffered venemous attacks from the KJVO?
An error is an error is an error unless of course it is an "inspired error" God forbid.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Hank, Did God make an error of inspiration?
ScottEmerson
Active Member
In other words, I don't know how to answer this.Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Simple minds, simple questions, simple answers.[/QB]
In other words, I don't know how to answer this. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]looks as if it sufficed to get your I. R. A. Simpleton's response.Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Simple minds, simple questions, simple answers.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
In other words, I don't know how to answer this. </font>[/QUOTE]looks as if it sufficed to get your I. R. A. Simpleton's response. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Again, "I still don't know how to answer this." Use all the ad hominems that you'd like, the fact is that you can't answer John's assertion, so you're running away from it. All you have to do is admit that you are wrong, but to do that, I suppose, would mean that the house of cards your KJVO-theology is based upon would fall to the ground.Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Simple minds, simple questions, simple answers.
I answered all of you with definitions relating how the English language has defined love in every way imaginable. John may not like it, you may not like it, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.To say the English definition of love doesn't suffice the Greek "agape" or "phileo" is preposterous. You may prefer some concocted definition but the context remains the same. I suggest you apply every mention of the words in the Greek to every scripture and see whetehr they fit. Of course you will alter the words and exchange one for the other to make them "fit" just as w/h figured a way to "force" a word into the text to satisfy their want for a better translation, but to the point of perverting what thus saith the Lord.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
So, if I want, I can imagine in my head that Jesus is asking Peter is he loves him sexually? Doesn't that work according ro what you suggest? Would that not be blasphemy?
But you don't seem to grasp the the Greek agape and Greek phileo are different in their language. They mean different things. That's the problem you have to deal with - the English found in the KJV isn't specific enough to accurately convey what Jesus and Peter were really talking about.
And there is absolutely no way that one can understand why Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times without understanding the Greek behind it. Using just the KJV, one doesn't see that Jesus actually radically changes his question on the third time.
Of course - that is why we learn Greek. Most places are just fine and accurately translated. Every now and then, though, the English doesn't completely convey accurately the message of the Greek, which is why we test and try every translation, from the KJV to the Message.
I fail to see how accurately representing Jesus and Peter's dialogue as JohnV did somehow perverts the book of John. Care to show us how he perverted it?