Study Words!!!

[Greektim]

Aren't they both expressing the idea of coming to know someone/something in an intimate fashion?

I dare not try to define love so simply in any manner. Choice... emotion/feeling... action... ? it is a term that means so much and yet so much of it is understood unconsciously w/out the help of definitions. I would simply muddy what is inherently clear.

 

[Yeshua1]

I dare not try to define love so simply in any manner. Choice... emotion/feeling... action... ? it is a term that means so much and yet so much of it is understood unconsciously w/out the help of definitions. I would simply muddy what is inherently clear.

Do you see a marked difference between how the two terms were used in the NT though?

 

[John of Japan]

Don;t think though it was a case of Jesus was going to keep asking peter until he said the right word for love, but that he was reminding him of denying him those 3 times...

Sorry, that doesn't negate my point on the semantics of the words in the original.

 

[Greektim]

Do you see a marked difference between how the two terms were used in the NT though?

At times. For example, I can't recall a place where agapaw is used to illustrate a physical act of love such as a kiss. But this is common for philew (see the accounts of Judas kissing Jesus).

 

[John of Japan]

I grant you the exact synonyms point. But there is so much overlap between the two words in question, that the nuances seem irrelevant, even in the same context of one another. As you know, the way of all languages is simplification. That applies to word meanings as well. These words, nuanced heavily at one time, have been simplified to near exact parallels, at least in the realm of emotion (e.g. "do you love me?").

There is no such thing as a "simple parallel" in semantics. There is always nuance. In the case of these two words, I follow the Fribergs in their definition of agapao (though I arrived there on my own, based on the contemporary usage which could include even prostitution), it means making a deliberate choice to love. On the other hand, phileo is a love based on mutual goals/activities.

For a place where the difference is obvious, look at John 15:13 where, as a friend has pointed out, though the forms are nouns instead of the verbs of John 21, the difference is obvious.

I'm curious, do you see a difference in oida and ginwskw?

Of course. Look at any good lexicon. There are clear differences in both the core meaning and the range of meaning. (Mary: "I know--ginwskw--not a man."--never oida.)

My friend also pointed out to me John 7:27--"We know (eidomen--know from experience, recognize) this man...but when Christ comes no man knows (ginwkei--"intelligent comprehension" in Friberg.

I could point out many more references but don't have time (at Starbucks).

 

[John of Japan]

At times. For example, I can't recall a place where agapaw is used to illustrate a physical act of love such as a kiss. But this is common for philew (see the accounts of Judas kissing Jesus).

Agapaw is used in extra-Biblical sources for illicit physical love. That may seem abhorrent to us when thinking of God's love, but we have to go where the linguistic evidence takes us--agapaw is love due to choice, which fits God's love for sinners exactly (Rom. 5:8).

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no such thing as a "simple parallel" in semantics. There is always nuance. In the case of these two words, I follow the Fribergs in their definition of agapao (though I arrived there on my own, based on the contemporary usage which could include even prostitution), it means making a deliberate choice to love. On the other hand, phileo is a love based on mutual goals/activities.

For a place where the difference is obvious, look at John 15:13 where, as a friend has pointed out, though the forms are nouns instead of the verbs of John 21, the difference is obvious.


Of course. Look at any good lexicon. There are clear differences in both the core meaning and the range of meaning. (Mary: "I know--ginwskw--not a man."--never oida.)

My friend also pointed out to me John 7:27--"We know (eidomen--know from experience, recognize) this man...but when Christ comes no man knows (ginwkei--"intelligent comprehension" in Friberg.

I could point out many more references but don't have time (at Starbucks).

So abasic differenc eon how those terms were used in that one referred to knowing something like I know what the book stated, but other would be more like I know because i did as the book stated?

 

[John of Japan]

So abasic differenc eon how those terms were used in that one referred to knowing something like I know what the book stated, but other would be more like I know because i did as the book stated?

More like, "I know what the book stated because I read it" and, "I know what the book stated because I thought it through."

 

[Yeshua1]

More like, "I know what the book stated because I read it" and, "I know what the book stated because I thought it through."

So when paul; stated that he wanted to know Christ, was that in the sense of knowing Him by his expereineces with Him, or by hearing about him?

 

[John of Japan]

So when paul; stated that he wanted to know Christ, was that in the sense of knowing Him by his expereineces with Him, or by hearing about him?

I assume you're referring to Phil. 3:10, "That I may know Him...." Paul wanted to know Christ in a genuine, thoughtful and experiential way, as evidenced by the previous verse, where the telling phrase (often used by Paul) occurs: "in Christ." So he could say in 1 Cor. 11:1, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (This is the well chosen theme verse for the school year of the college where I now teach, which has a great emphasis on Keswick style, genuine Christian living.)

 

[Yeshua1]

I assume you're referring to Phil. 3:10, "That I may know Him...." Paul wanted to know Christ in a genuine, thoughtful and experiential way, as evidenced by the previous verse, where the telling phrase (often used by Paul) occurs: "in Christ." So he could say in 1 Cor. 11:1, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (This is the well chosen theme verse for the school year of the college where I now teach, which has a great emphasis on Keswick style, genuine Christian living.)

There also seems to be a direct connection made by paul to knowing jesus in and thru his own sufferings for him, as if those experiences made Him more concrete reality to paul!

 

[Bro. James]

What about them? Your lines have no rhyme or reason.

The functioally illiterate need to gave a good English teacher.

Initially, though they are not able to read they can at least hear the Word of God. Then someone needs to explain it to them. The NIrV would be an ideal version for them to hear the Word of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry you do not seem to appreciate convoluted conundrums.

A little child can understand the things of God. Convolution and conundrum usually take a few letters.

Is that an sp or a typo in your "functioally" above? Maybe it is a spell checker error.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

What about them? Your lines have no rhyme or reason.

The functionary illiterate need to
have a good English teacher.

Initially, though they are not able to read they can at least hear the Word of God. Then someone needs to explain it to them. The NIrV would be an ideal version for them to hear the Word of God.

(I corrected my typos)

Just what do you object to in the above?

If someone is functionally illiterate then they can't read. But they probably can speak and understand what someone else is saying. So you start from that point.

In England back in the 16th and a part of the 17th centuries most folks fell into the semi-literate category.

No, I do not appreciate irrationality. You need to be clear and straightforward BJ.

Little native English-speaking children (3rd grade and below)should read the NIrV. Foreigners whose level of English is very poor should also use that translation. Why would you possibly object to that?

 

[Bro. James]

(I corrected my typos)

Just what do you object to in the above?

If someone is funtionally illiterate then they can't read. But they probably can speak and understand what someone else is saying. So you start from that point.

In England back in the 16th and a part of the 17th centuries most folks fell into the semi-literate category.

No, I do not appreciate irrationality. You need to be clear and straightforward BJ.

Little native English-speaking chidren (3rd grade and below)should read the NIrV. Foreigners whose level of English is very poor should also use that translation. Why would you possibly object to that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know of no such word: fun tionally. My speller automatically corrects: f u n(c- missing) t i o n a l l y. Most folks spell function with a "c".

Semi-literates during the Reformation and beyond were not ignorant in spite of their lack of letters from Oxford or Cambridge. The privileged class has yet to find the correct, reformed, theology; they are probably not really looking for such. Archbishoprics and papal thrones have been bought and sold--more convoluted conundrum.

Jesus had no letters; nor most of the Apostles. Saul of Tarsus was probably a right reverend doctor, until Jesus corrected his paradigms.

Higher education is wonderful--provided it leads to rightly dividing The Word of Truth. Anything less leads to error and apostasy.

We live an apostate religious world which is getting worse. Is this clear and straight?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

Semi-literates during the Reformation and beyond were not ignorant in spite of their lack of letters from Oxford or Cambridge.

I never suggested otherwise --so why go there?

The privileged class has yet to find the correct, reformed, theology; they are probably not really looking for such.

Here again is an example of your mysterious-speak. Just express yourself clearly and directly BJ. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

We live an apostate religious world which is getting worse. Is this clear and straight?

You are forgetting your prepositions BJ. You meant "We live in an apostate religious world..."

It depends on what you mean by the word "apostate." I don't think many have actually been true Christians in the first place if they come to deny Him in one way or another later on. Remember John 6:66.

But what does any of this have to do with little children using Bible translations that are suitable for their reading level?

 

[Bro. James]

I never suggested otherwise --so why go there?

Here again is an example of your mysterious-speak. Just express yourself clearly and directly BJ. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

You are forgetting your prepositions BJ. You meant "We live in an apostate religious world..."

It depends on what you mean by the word "apostate." I don't think many have actually been true Christians in the first place if they come to deny Him in one way or another later on. Remember John 6:66.

But what does any of this have to do with little children using Bible translations that are suitable for their reading level?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the word should have been: within. I repent for ever having brought up the subject of preciseness of grammar.

Getting back on track: apostate means to fall away from the truth. This was going on as the New Testament was being written. Jude is about apostasy. Apostates were propped up in Rome circa 325 A.D by Constantine the great one. This group is still the majority in so-called Christendom. There was some offspring in the 16th century. They showed up in Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Sorry, I left out the ones who showed up in Constantinople.

Now they are worldwide; along with some late comers: Joseph Smith, etal.

"Suffer not the little children"; but not with watered down apostasy. The basic apostasy being: salvation by works, including infant baptism. A large portion of modern translation is done by pedo-baptists. A lot of folk say: so what.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

There also seems to be a direct connection made by paul to knowing jesus in and thru his own sufferings for him, as if those experiences made Him more concrete reality to paul!

Amen. Our pastor just preached from 1 Thess. pointing out how the Thessalonian church spread through persecution--suffering with Christ.

 

[Rippon]

Getting back on track: apostate means to fall away from the truth.

But they seemingly were of the truth before they visibly departed from it.

There was some offspring in the 16th century. They showed up in Germany, Switzerland, France and England.

Are you trying to say, in your still obscure way, that the Reformers and most Christians of that era who became Protestants were not Chrisians? If that is what you believe, you're all wet. And as a believer you should not only know but actually appreciate Church History. You have piggybacked on the labors of the Reformers and don't even recognize it. You should feel grateful to your spiritual forebears --not animosity.

"Suffer not the little children"; but not with watered down apostasy. The basic apostasy being: salvation by works, including infant baptism. A large portion of modern translation is done by pedo-baptists.

More nonsense coming from you BJ. Your blessed KJV was penned by paedobaptists exclusively. Aren't you aware of the irony of your words?

"A large portion of modern translation is done by pedo-baptists." Can you cite documentation for that absurdity? There are indeed some but not the majority. And since the KJV, as I stated previously, was done by only paedobaptists --you are displaying a quite conspicuous double standard.

 

[Bro. James]

But they seemingly were of the truth before they visibly departed from it.

Are you trying to say, in your still obscure way, that the Reformers and most Christians of that era who became Protestants were not Chrisians? If that is what you believe, you're all wet. And as a believer you should not only know but actually appreciate Church History. You have piggybacked on the labors of the Reformers and don't even recognize it. You should feel grateful to your spiritual forebears --not animosity.


More nonsense coming from you BJ. Your blessed KJV was penned by paedobaptists exclusively. Aren't you aware of the irony of your words?

"A large portion of modern translation is done by pedo-baptists." Can you cite documentation for that absurdity? There are indeed some but not the majority. And since the KJV, as I stated previously, was done by only paedobaptists --your are displaying a quite conspicuous double standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is a Christian or not is not for me to say. The Lord knows them that are His. Christian used to mean a follower of Christ. Baptism of infants is not following Christ. This has been part of the schism since day one. Salvation by works is another gospel. There is only one gospel.

I do appreciate Church History, especially the Book of Acts, which gives a very clear pattern for soteriology and ecclesiology. Scriptural history is the only reliable source, certainly not New Advent Enyclopedia.

There is an abundance of information which indicates the so-called reformers had a certain distain regarding the anti-pedobaptists, even more than their mother. True Baptists are not connected to Luther, Calvin, etal, nor the holy see, in fact, quite the contrary.

Indeed the KVJ in its several revisions and editions was produced by the Church of England, paedobaptists just like their mother. They chose not to translate baptize but rather to transliterate the word which means to immerse, dip or plunge. Their doctrine was sprinkling of infants, obviously not the right mode for sure. It was also the wrong motive.

Is it not amazing how the Holy Sprit bears witness to the Truth, even with a questionable translation? The KJV is still the best English rendition of the TR, IMHO.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Rippon]

Who is a Christian or not is not for me to say.

Well, for years on end here on the BB you have been calling folks apostates and other unsavory terms left and right.

The Lord knows them [those]that are His. Christian used to mean a follower of Christ. Baptism of infants is not following Christ. This has been part of the schism since day one. Salvation by works is another gospel. There is only one gospel.

On the issue of baptism there are those on the unscriptural side. But many of them are still our brothers and sisters in the Lord. You need to acknowledge that and sttop your disgraceful attacks on their fauth.

I do appreciate Church History, especially the Book of Acts, which gives a very clear pattern for soteriology and ecclesiology.

The majority of Church History has been since 100 A.D.

Scriptural history is the only reliable source, certainly not New Advent Enyclopedia.

You are odd.

True Baptists are not connected to Luther, Calvin,

And I suppose you are the standard of determining who a "True Baptist" is? You speak nonsense BJ. Many Baptists are of a Calvinistic stamp --now and in the past. Read Church History.

Indeed the KVJ in its several revisions and editions was produced by the Church of England, paedobaptists...

Thanks for recognizing the obvious. Therefore your previous line of attack was invalid.

Well BJ, the interaction we have had is not at all related to the OP. Let's stop and let the focus be on the subject of the OP. If you have the need start your own thread on whatever you'd like.