Romans 8:38-?Does God love all men?

Hello rc how are you?

The Received Text is the Greek text that was used for the NT.
The Old Testament was the Masoretic text. Did they use the Septuagint at all? It's all Greek to me.

john.

 

Did they use the Septuagint at all ... FOR WHAT?
For the KJV?

Clarify please....

By the way doin' fine. How bout you ol' chap!

 

I think it's fair to say that this statement clearly displays your ignorance and arrogance. You'd rather stereotype people and make candid unrighteous judgements about them, rather than engage in healthy and supportive dialigue. If you think yourself an uneducated peon, that's your right. But do not think yourself better than anyone simply because some of choose not to see ourselves as such.

More namecalling and belittling. Sad. You completely miss the crux of the issue. "Hate" does not mean "the withholding of love". That's a contemporary grammatical notion, and not scriptural.

If you choose to believe that God withholds his unconditional love from some people, then you don't believe in the God of the Bible.

[/QB]
Last time I checked, God wasn't in the translation business. If you did some basic research of OT Hebrew, you'd see that I'm correct. But you choose to believe your own misconception, rather than do some study yourself. Sad.

No, you miscopmprehend that God withholds love from Esau. Big difference.

 

Hello Johnv.

My arrogance maybe but not my ignorance of scripture as it is presented in the NIV. My ignorance of Hebrew I will admit to and on the whole I want to stay ignorant of Hebrew and Greek.

Why? Because you are trying to prove that hate does not mean hate?
RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Yea man no wonder I was reacting in the way I was. What does 'contemporary grammatical notion' mean? You are saying "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." means what? Maybe that Jacob I loved is a 'contemporary grammatical notion'.

RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
And you say: I never discussed atonement. The issue of Esau and Jacob is not atonement. No? But you say God does not withhold His love and I say Eli's household had no atonement offered for it. Love refused. Limited atonement is the refusal of God to love all. RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Poor old thing is He not. He writes a book in Hebrew and Greek and then He is incapable of explaining anything to me in English? You tell me I must study OT Hebrew before God can speak to me?

You say: Esau was loved less than Jacob. And this is from your studying OT Hebrew. Why did the translaters not translate it properly? They have the Hebrew and Greek and Greek has a bunch of words for love, how comes no translation, and I say no translation because you have failed to show one, ever translates it 'loved less'? You are claiming that I cannot get the truth from my bible but must become a translater before I can see? Nonsense.

Your post posted 08 July, 2005 21:10 Actually, YOU lose according to John 3:16, because it's clear that God's love did not exclude anyone in the world. Why then was there no opportunity for the house of Eli? Excluded.
Why: RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law... If the people did not even know of God's law how do you say no one is excluded from this love? What of the angels? A special case no doubt.
NE 13:1 On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, 2 because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) 3 When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent.
Is that so?
Eph 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...

Where's your one come from?

john.

 

Thanks rc I'm fine and I'm off work for the holidays! Praise the Lord.

Yes for the KJV.

john.

 

It is precisely that mentality that results in misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of scripture. Voluntary ignornace is, IMO, a tool of Satan used to divide the brethren.

It referrs to the fact that you're imposing the belief that "hate" equals "withholding of love", resulting in misunderstanding of scripture. Innocent and wellmeaning as that is, it is wrong.

To clarify that, we should look at the source texts in Hebrew and Greek. Oh, wait, you already admitted that choose to remain ignorant of them.

No, limited atonement is the refusal of God to grant grace to all. It's scripture that, while God's love is unconditional, God's grace is not.

No, I'm telling you that a person should be willing to look at the source texts to have a fuller and clearer understanding of scripture. It doesn't matter what the primary language of that person is.

I think that translators did okay, but there is no such thing as a perfect translation. The problem is that there is no exact word in English for the word in Hebrew. It's the same problem we have in the NT whenever the word "love" is used. There's only one word in English for "love", but several words in koine Greek. We can't fully comprehend the NT passages without knowing which word for "love" in Greek is being used. Heck, even understanding that scripture is God-breathed comes from Christians understanding the Greek word for "inspired".

 

I see no reason why differences of opinion should divide the brethren in fact I see no division. We have unity in the Spirit.

It is not voluntary is it? What you expect me to do? A home study course where I can go off half-cocked like I suppose you have? With respect that is.
How can a person learn Hebrew? Live in Golders Green maybe! HaHa! My boy. Who do I talk to? Most of the people I know don't speak their native tongue so well but they understand hate I assure you. They understand it like the people that translated my bible understand it. Are you on a committee that has done a translation? Have you any diplomas that should make me believe, I have your word which has been contested without reply, where is your authority to teach others that the bibles we have, not one but all translations, are wrong but you are right? With respect.

Innocent? Me? Voluntary ignornace is not innocent is it? I want to believe that hate means hate because it holds my doctrine together.

To clarify is good. I have no problem with clarifying a problem text but "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." needs no clarification it speaks loud and clear it needs believing.

Source texts in your case has not resulted in clarification but murky you make it.

That's a new one! Have problems with Ephesians 2:8-9?

But they should have had you there?

1CO 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
How many loves are there?

john.

 

This verse is to those who are already saved. When a person is saved then nothing can seperate him from the love of God.
This verse cannot be used to prove that God does love everyone.

 

In 1 Cor? It's referring to agape, which is Greek for "unconditional love". There is also phileo (acts 17), which is brotherly love. A studier of the NT must also understand that there are separate Greek words for romantic love (eros) and family love (storge), so as not to confuse agape and phileo with those.

In Acts 17 in English translations, it is impossible to comprehend what Jesus and Peter are talking about unless you understand that Jesus is asking "Peter, do you love me unconditionally and completely (agape)?", and Peter replies, "I love like my own brother (phileo)". English translations don't differentiate between these two separate and distince types of love, and without understanding the Greek, the context is lost. A disregard for the koine Greek results in the potential for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of this scripture.

 

In 1 Cor? It's referring to agape, which is Greek for "unconditional love". There is also phileo (acts 17), which is brotherly love. A studier of the NT must also understand that there are separate Greek words for romantic love (eros) and family love (storge), so as not to confuse agape and phileo with those.

In Acts 17 in English translations, it is impossible to comprehend what Jesus and Peter are talking about unless you understand that Jesus is asking "Peter, do you love me unconditionally and completely (agape)?", and Peter replies, "I love like my own brother (phileo)". English translations don't differentiate between these two separate and distince types of love, and without understanding the Greek, the context is lost. A disregard for the koine Greek results in the potential for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of this scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent points JohnV

 

Hello Johnv.

Yes, unconditionally like a brother.

I see no distinction being made. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails...
If it fails it is not any type of love.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You are continually rubbishing the scriptures. Why? Why can we not understand God's word without taking it through the Johnv filter of homespun Hebrew and Greek? Anybody would think that the Word does not know how to express Himself. I can't comprehend unless I know the Greek? How many more passages have you found that cannot be understood as it is written? How many Hebrew lessons must I take until I understand that hate is love?

And this translates into: Do not trust the scriptures unless you are learned and can speak two foreign languages. You would make a Catholic priest proud.
As for me and my house: PR 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
MT 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

You try to disparage the scriptures to your own harm.

john.

 

Wow...these are the same things I say while defending the literalness of John 3:16 that's been through the Calvin filter...

 

That's not what Peter was saying at all.

Jesus kept asking Peter "Do you agape me?" and Peter, not understanding what Jesus was asking, would reply "you know that I phileo you". Then Jesus would ask again, and get the same response.

Finally, Jesus asks "Peter, do you phileo me?" and Peter replies "you know I plileo you". In this dialogue in the koine Greek, Jesus lowers himself to Peter's level of comprehension. This point is completely lost in the English, since in the story, there is no discinction between agape and phileo.

1 Cor 13 is referring to agape love only. It never mentions phileo, storge, or eros, the other words for love in Greek. If you apply 1 Cor 13 to something other than agape, youre distorting scrpture. The verse sounds rather heretical if you were to say "Erotic live is patient and kind, erotic love does not envy..." Yet that's exactly what you're saying: that it's all the same. You're dead wrong, and this is a precide example of why having an understanding of scriptural sources is tantamount.

It really surprises me that you as a Bible-believing Christian don't understand the basic concept of hermeneutics. Sad. And then for you to spout unrighteous rantings, even sadder

No, it translates to: Do some basic bible study. Nothing is ever lost when this is done.

Yep, it doesn't say "every translation of God's Word is flawless", or Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every translation of the Word that comes from the mouth of God". That supports my point well, while at the same time refuting yours.

I'm curious. How do you know that scripture is God-breathed? Not by sticking to only an English translation. The only way to know is to comprehend the koine Greek (the Greek word translated "inspired" is "God-breathed).

With every finger you point, there are three pointing back. No matter, I won't take it personally. I beeseech you out of loving righteousness: Do not let pride prevent you from studying the source texts to get to know scriptures more and more. It's incredibly rewarding spritually, and I highly recommend it. A lot of people on this board recommend it.

 

Hello Johnv.

Exactly. Jesus lowered His level of love did He?

Love is love. If it fails it is not love is it? Whichever fails it is not love is it? Regardless of the word being used.

eros is not found in the Greek NT, neither the word itself nor as root of another word.

Right or wrong?

In the Hebrew there is one and only one word for love (the verb ahav and the noun ahava) which covers the concept as broadly as our modern word "love". God's love (Jr.31:3), love of God (Dt.6:4), love of the fellow man (Lv.19:18), love of a friend (2Sam.1:26), love of a girl (Gen.29:20), mere sex (Prov.7:18), love of money (Eccl.5:9), and love of vanity (Ps.4:3) are all called by the same name.

Right or wrong?

Paramount do you mean or tantamount to what? Why should I give you credence when you write English this way? Unless of course you are Hebrew in which case you might have a case. HaHa!

What's hermeneutics? Sounds like something to do with flying. As for good old Merriam Webster it says it has a thing to do with interpretation not translating. My unrighteous rantings is characteristic of me especially when I see an attack on the bible and it's trustworthiness to Peons.

Bible study? You are not advising a bible study but that I should not trust the bible but I must learn Hebrew and Greek and retranslate the scriptures according to Johnv. Bible study. HaHa!

So again in comes the attack against the scriptures! None of the translations are inspired? None can be trusted? None say what you are saying and that's for sure or you would have hammered me by now! You lose.

Which 'loving' is that then?

To study the source texts does not take humility but willingness. I'm not willing to learn Hebrew I know what I have been called to. I need no strangers advice to do the work set out for me.

I bet it is and I think that the ones that have knowledge of any sort concerning God is very rewarding. But you won't make me think that hate is love or that love has more meanings than love.

john.

 

No, Jesus never even said anything about him loving. He was asking Peter. He lowered himself to Peter's level of understanding.

So erotic love is the same as brotherly love? You'll have every gay activist cheering.

You said love is love. So eros love is the same as agape love, in your opinion. You didn't say "only the Greek words in scripture". Besides, since you choose to not look at the Greek, and since love is love, what difference does it make to you what words are listed in Greek?

WHy are you bringing up Hebrew to defend your position, when, acording to you, the cource texts are irrelevant?

Soulda said paramount. Sorry. See? A little humility is good. I'm never hesitant to recognize an erroor. You might want to try it some time.

I rest my case.

It's rather sad when you consider comprehension of koine Greek Masoric Hebrew as an attack on scripture.

Scriptural inspiration applies to the message contained in the scriptural texts. It does not extend to every word or letter to the exclusion of the context.

So, how do you know if I'm wrong, unless you look at the source texts for yourself? If you're unwilling, that's perfectly fine. However, you must then be more receptive to those who have done what you are unwilling to do. A little graciousness towards those same folks might not hurt either.

Then you choose to believe a supposition that is untrue. Fine. But don't tell the rest of us that we're wrong is you choose to do so. That's rather unloving of you.

 

Hello Johnv.

No I trust my God and Saviour. Jehovah Gira. The Lord will provide.
I know you are wrong because you cannot show one translation where it says 'loved less'.
I know you are wrong because you cannot show one proof that you have authority to teach the scriptures are false.

You said hate was love.

I know you are wrong because you ducked. Answer the questions why don't you?
eros is not found in the Greek NT, neither the word itself nor as root of another word. Right or wrong?
there is one and only one word for love in Hebrew Right or wrong? Answers required.

I said: What's hermeneutics? Sounds like something to do with flying. And you replied: I rest my case. But that is not all I said was it? I continued with the point by saying: As for good old Merriam Webster it says it has a thing to do with interpretation not translating. My unrighteous rantings is characteristic of me especially when I see an attack on the bible and it's trustworthiness to Peons. That's from a Peon. Why did you ignore this? Was it tantamount to error on your part? Or have I misunderstood the word?

I will give it a try sometime when I am humiliated.

That is a simple lie. I would not disparage the scriptures if they are in English or Hebrew or Greek like you disparage the bible.
Yep, it doesn't say "every translation of God's Word is flawless", or Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every translation of the Word that comes from the mouth of God". That supports my point well, while at the same time refuting yours.
That's what you said. Do not believe the scriptures because they are not inspired in other tongues.

And what does that mean but believe as you like?

You are unbelievable. You tell me I should not believe the bible but you? No. It's called believing the bible as those called to the task were fitted for the task. Are you? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim to be a scholar. Now is the time for some proof. I know you are not Hebrew otherwise you would have hammered me.

Four things I'm sure of from talking to you. You are not Hebrew and no translation has ever been produced with your corruption in it. And you have no qualifications and no authority to teach as you do.
That's how I know you are wrong.

What do you want from me? I am not a writer nor sophisticated and the truth is a very cold substance. It does not do to lessen it like you would like to do with hate.

Hateful you mean? But what's unloving in telling the truth? "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

john.

 

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Say what???????

 

God's grace is conditional on faith in Jesus Christ, God's love for all is proved by the fact that all laugh, all love, all have good days, all have the sun shine on them. if God was not loving think how bad the world would be, especially to unbelievers. but God reserves judgement for later, and allows His designed creation to show forth his "love" for all.

Grace is very conditional, otherwise Judas, Hitler, Charlemein, Ahab, Ciaphas, and many other would have default salvation, by "unconditional" grace.


thankyou and God Bless

 

I guess I should read this whole thread before responding to things, but this one caught my eye. I'm just a lowly Layman with no formal theological training who's been grappling with this issue off and on since I believed in Christ as a teenager (I'm 35 now), so please don't take this question as some post from some rabid Arminian attack dog

He's "allowed" to do whatever he wants, of course

When you say "favor the bride more than those that hate Him?", doesn't the Calvinist perspective really mean "more than those that He created to hate Him?".

I mean, Romans 9, potter, vessels made just for wrath and all that?

 

Hello LaymansTermsPlease.

More than those that He created to hate.

john.