Logos for the Layman! Wow! Peter and Jesus and Love – Be Advised! – This is A Longer Post!
Peace and Joy in the Lord to my Logos Community Brothers and Sisters!
My Main Point in this post is that I thank God for Logos Bible Software which provides the average layman (as well as the scholar!) the opportunity to deeper language studies and to “do theology,” along with the scholars. With dedication and determination and patience and perseverance on the part of the average layman, Logos Bible Software has the tools for richly satisfying, enabling, and empowering study and analysis.
If this post is too long for you, then simply right now go on to the next post on this Forum!
Blessings!
*smile*
I am more blessed in my whole life in everything that I can imagine than any other person I have ever met! I praise God for who I am for my family and loved ones and good friends and meaning and purpose in life and especially for His Amazing Grace for me in our Lord Jesus Christ, our Crucified and Resurrected Saviour!
Among the many reasons I’ve had to rejoice and to praise my God is the many years I’ve had in higher education (9 years after public high school), including Latin and Greek (Koine and Classical) and Hebrew and German and a whole bunch of other things, plus having the opportunity to study God’s Word for many a year, including sitting at the feet of some of the world’s greatest theological professors, e.g. Dr. Fred Danker of BDAG fame, and Dr. Arthur Karl Piepkorn of the One Holy Catholic Church Liturgical fame. (I am the age of Jack Benny {or George Somsel} The explanation usually given for the "stuck on 39" running joke is that he had celebrated his birthday on-air when he turned 39, and decided to do the same the following year, because "there's nothing funny about 40." Upon his death, having celebrated his 39th birthday 41 times, some newspapers continued the joke with headlines such as "Jack Benny Dies – At 39?")
However, and I am very humbled indeed about this, I find “gaps” in my knowledge and understanding that are not just old age settling in! *smile*
For example: A big gap in my knowledge – until last evening! I had just never noticed before!
Setting: Peter – early in the morning – on the Tiberias Sea shore – charcoal broiled fish breakfast prepared by the Lord of Lords – Peter had just swum in at the realisation it was Jesus – had hauled in the net with 153 large fish – and Jesus threw some of them on the coals – great breakfast with the Lord – and then!
John 21:15–19 (ESV)
Jesus and Peter
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
John 21.1-19 John 21:15–19 (NA27)
15 Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. * λέγει αὐτῷ· βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου. 16 λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ. ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. * λέγει αὐτῷ· ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. 17 λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· φιλεῖς με; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. * λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς]· βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου. 18 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυες σεαυτὸν καὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπου ἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου, καὶ ἄλλος σε ζώσει καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις. 19 τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν θεόν. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν λέγει αὐτῷ· ἀκολούθει μοι.
In my studies, I had NEVER noticed that there are two different Greek words in the original language for the English word “love,” I had just taken it for granted without really looking at it. This is the kind of study that a layman could study, even with just the ESV (or other) Interlinear!!! Maybe your ears with perk up, and you’ll take more notice in your studies than I did.
Last evening I came across an interesting blog and some interesting discussion and response on the blog’s forum. I do not know who are the individuals involved and will be quoting just prominent excerpts from just one responder on that forum. (If you need to see for yourself, I’m sure you can Google it! *smile* )
Hope this is helpful to all!
Trotk “I find it striking that at the end of John, when Christ restores Peter, and challenges him with whether Peter loves Him, this lack of assurance in one’s own love for God is evident:
Christ says, “Do you love (agape) me more than these (the fish, the other disciples, etc)?”
Peter responds, “I like (phile) you.”
Christ says, “Do you love (agape) me?” (notice the lowering of the question – no more comparison to his livelihood or other disciples)
Peter says, “I like (phile) you.”
Christ says, “Do you like (phile – further lowering of challenge) me?”
Peter says, “I like (phile) you.”
Christ doesn’t reject Peter’s lack of love, or send him away until he believes, and thus loves more. Instead, in each instance, He accepts what Peter is and offers him a role in the kingdom.
We cannot believe or love enough. Belief or love are not what save us. Thinking so places it on our shoulders. Faith, the means of accessing the work of Christ, is a gift of God. We can look at our baptism and know that Christ acted to save us. We cannot look at our faith and know that we have enough to save ourselves.”
Later: ……………. He writes ….
“The translation is mine. My field is Greek and Latin literature. If you need sources to make certain that I am not making stuff up, I will give you as much as you want.
Jesus and Peter don’t use the same word initially. I have translated Peter’s “like” because it is the closest approximation in English. Here is how the exchange goes, and then I will explain the words:
Christ: Do you agapeis me more than these?
Peter: I philo you.
Christ: Do you agapeis me?
Peter: I philo you.
Christ: Do you philo me?
Peter: You know that I philo you.
Agape is not about emotion, really. It is the willingness to endure with someone through all things. It is pretty much universally regarded to be the strongest of the four Greek verbs casually translated “love”.
Phile is all about emotion. It is brotherly affection, which can be strong, and can be weak. It makes no claim to endurance or action, but is simply the statement of “I feel affection for you”.
With that in mind, the conversation runs thus:
Christ: Will you endure with me to the end, commit yourself more to me than your livelihood, be more faithful than the other disciples?
Peter: I feel affection for you.
Christ: Will you bear with me in all things?
Peter: I feel affection for you.
Christ: Do you feel affection for me?
Peter: You know I feel affection for you.
Do you see how Christ doesn’t condemn Peter’s lack of love or lack of faith in the goodness and provision of God? The burden of Peter’s commission (which is woven through these verses) lies on Christ, not on Peter’s commitment or faithfulness.”
For those who are still with me ………..! *smile*
Praise God for the Pentecost and the Holy Spirit experience that empowered Peter and the other disciples in their devotion and still empowers us as we “follow Christ,” with them and all fellow believers ….
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
Comments
-
A while back I created a visual filter to be able to see the difference in the two words for love. I also created one for oida and ginosko which in verse 17 reveal the difference in intuitive knowledge and experiential knowledge. I share your enthusiasm for Logos and God's Word. I picture the catch of fish as a foreshadowing of the evangelistic "catch" of men that Peter leads on the day of Pentecost. Blessings
!"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
In my studies, I had NEVER noticed that there are two different Greek words in the original language for the English word “love,”
FYI... There are four Greek words that gets translated to the English language:
#1 - ἀγάπη (agape): is a relationship of faithfulness between God and man (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 1:39.)
#2 - ἐρᾶν (eros): the passionate love which desires the other for itself (sensual desire and longing). (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 1:35.)
#3 - φιλέω (philo): It denotes natural attraction to those who belong, love for close relatives (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 9:115.)
#4 - στοργή (storge) love, affection, of parents and children (H.G. Liddell, A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). 748.)
Note 1: φιλέω in relation to ἀγάπη: it is important to note that φιλέω often approximates to ἀγαπάω in meaning and use.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 9:116.
Note 2: If I remember correctly (I do not have the resource) Raymond E. Brown goes into detail about this topic in his commentary.
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
The burden of Peter’s commission (which is woven through these verses) lies on Christ, not on Peter’s commitment or faithfulness.”
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. With that thought fresh in your mind, consider reading Matt 16:15-18
Many believe (including many of the commentaries in Logos) That Christ is saying that He will build His Church upon Peter. Consider the possibility that Christ is saying that He will build His Church on what Peter had just said:
"You Are The Christ, The Son of The Living God"
God Bless You in Your Studies
~
0 -
Thanks for your post, Tom! Actually, I was aware of what you wrote. I really should have specified the use of the two words in this pericope for love as being different, and was not thinking of the other words as being translated as love elsewell. I appreciate the correcting refinement! *smile* Most certainly will I be studying this passage for a while!tom collinge said:Milford Charles Murray said:In my studies, I had NEVER noticed that there are two different Greek words in the original language for the English word “love,”
FYI... There are four Greek words that gets translated to the English language:
#1 - ἀγάπη (agape): is a relationship of faithfulness between God and man (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 1:39.)
#2 - ἐρᾶν (eros): the passionate love which desires the other for itself (sensual desire and longing). (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 1:35.)
#3 - φιλέω (philo): It denotes natural attraction to those who belong, love for close relatives (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 9:115.)
#4 - στοργή (storge) love, affection, of parents and children (H.G. Liddell, A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996). 748.)
Note 1: φιλέω in relation to ἀγάπη: it is important to note that φιλέω often approximates to ἀγαπάω in meaning and use.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). 9:116.
Note 2: If I remember correctly (I do not have the resource) Raymond E. Brown goes into detail about this topic in his commentary.
Peace to you!
Am eager to study this further. Now that I am retired I have the privilege of enough time to be a bit like the psalmist in Psalm 1 --
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Also, since I am also privileged to have Portfolio and a whole bunch of other resources, I wonder if I will ever have enough years left in my life to handle it all!
For me also it is important that I be active in a very positive way in my local congregation and am grateful for a very solid pastor (the age of my son!) who permits me in his pulpit quite regularly. Plus I also serve on Council and in the area of Evangelism.
Blessings, TomPhilippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
In addition to the other fine suggestions given here, I'd suggest doing a search for phileo/philos in John's Gospel & Epistles. I'd also suggest doing through word studies of both.
As I've studied these two words over the years with Logos software, I have come to agree with those who suggest that phileo/philos is not an inferior kind of love as compared to agapao/agape/etc.But the to words do lay emphasis on different aspects of personal love. In my studies I find that if I think of agape as "personal devotion" and phileo as "personal affection" and both with an emphasis on loving action, the overlapping nature of the terms is preserved, while their unique connotations are brought to mind. In this passage, with the strong possibility of the original dialogue being in Aramaic (not Greek), it seems to me that it's more likely that John intends to bring to the front Peter's personal affection for Jesus by his choice of the word phileo (vis a vis agape) here (though Morris disagrees, see below).
I've heard the exchange between Jesus & Peter taught/preached poorly, as a call by Jesus to the higher agape kind of love, but later Jesus descends to Peter's level to start with him where he is (so Hendrikson: Baker NTC). I think that displays a misunderstanding of these terms and how John uses them. Instead, I see Peter's phileo reponse to be something like this "not only am I devoted to you, I have deep affection for you." In other words, Peter's phileo includes and expands on Jesus' question about Peter's devotion (agape) to Jesus. In the same way, agape can include and expand on phileo. Remember both terms are translated by the same word in English. This is because the words overlap in meaning, more than they diverge.
The NICNT (Leon Morris) on this passage discusses this more thoroughly and decides that the best approach is to see no difference between the terms (as does Kostenberger: the Baker Exegetical Com.). Though, as I said above, I personally disagree (not that my opinion should carry any weight).
I hope the ideas I expressed here probe you to look further into the text and compare more scholarly opinions on this particular one.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Abi Gail said:Milford Charles Murray said:
The burden of Peter’s commission (which is woven through these verses) lies on Christ, not on Peter’s commitment or faithfulness.”
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. With that thought fresh in your mind, consider reading Matt 16:15-18
Many believe (including many of the commentaries in Logos) That Christ is saying that He will build His Church upon Peter. Consider the possibility that Christ is saying that He will build His Church on what Peter had just said:
"You Are The Christ, The Son of The Living God"
God Bless You in Your Studies
A big Hello to Abi Gail! *smile*
Abi, what I believe is that Christ is the Cornerstone. He is the Foundation! Peter's Confession is the Confession of the Church
Peter's Confession is my confession!
In our denomination we have an opening hymn when people gather for worship that reflects a bit of what I believe:
Christ Thou Art the Sure Foundation
1. Christ, Thou art the sure Foundation,
Thou the Head and Corner-stone;
Chosen of the Lord and precious
Binding all the Church in one;
Thou Thy Zion's Help forever
And her Confidence alone.
2. To this temple, where we call Thee,
Come, O Lord of hosts, today;
With Thy wonted loving-kindness
Hear Thy servants as they pray
And Thy fullest benediction
Shed within these walls alway.
3. Here voucesafe to all Thy servants
What they ask of Thee to gain,
What they gain from Thee forever
With the blessed to retain,
And hereafter in Thy glory,
Evermore with Thee to reign.
4. Praise and honor to the Father,
Praise and honor to the Son,
Praise and honor to the Spirit,
Ever Three and ever One,
One in might and one in glory,
While unending ages run.Also, to use Logos Resources in this post, there are many great resources from Logos in this area. I particularly like this one from Lenski's Commentary:
John 1:49–51. His faith is then called "the first foundation stone." We also challenge the reference to the Aramaic in order to wipe out the distinction between πέτρος and πέτρα
The church does not rest on a quality found in Peter and in others like him. The foundation of the church is not subjective but objective, namely God’s revelation. Nor does "this rock" signify Peter’s confession. The church is not built on the confession her members make, which would change the effect into the cause. By her confession the church shows on what she is built. She rests on the reality which Peter confessed, namely on Jesus, "the Christ, the Son of God the living." Some think of Peter’s (subjective) faith and tell us that he was the first to voice this faith—forgetting
. We know too little about the Aramaic to assert that when Jesus spoke these words he used the same Aramaic term in both statements. We should like to know more about the Aramaic as it was spoken at the time of Jesus. Therefore this appeal to the Aramaic substitutes something unknown and hypothetical for what is fully known and insured as true on the basis of the inspired Greek of the holy writers themselves.
On the rock named in Peter’s confession Jesus says, "I will build my church," the future tense being volitive, R.
889. We may take it that he refers to the day of Pentecost, or, if we wish to speak more exactly, that this building process has already begun and would continue in the future. Since Jesus speaks of himself as the builder, he does not call himself the foundation but makes the foundation "this rock" which Peter had just named. As the Lord of the church he says, "my church." Only here and in 18:17 does Matthew employ ἐκκλησία, which really means the "assembly" called out to meet as a body. We do not think that the etymology of the term is altogether lost in New Testament usage (contra R. 174). To be sure, the ἐκκλησία is not always an assembled body called out for a meeting, but it certainly is the body of those who have by faith heard and accepted the gospel κλῆσις (καλεῖν), whether they are gathered together in a meeting or not. The ἐκκλησία consists of κλητοί
who are called out of the world into the kingdom as Christ’s own. Both by virtue of this effective call and as a building built on a foundation the church forms a unit body, the great Una Sancta of the Apostles’ Creed, stone laid against stone, fitly framed together, a living temple of souls joined to Christ, the Son of God. No Peter could bear this structure, nor could any personal faith or confession emanating from him.
When he speaks of the foundation on which he will build his church, Jesus is thinking of her mighty enemies. Although the articles are missing from
πύλαι ᾅδου, both nouns are definite. On "hades" see 11:23. "The unseen place" is here viewed as a mighty fortress, the opposite of the sacred Temple of Christ; and the πύλαι, or portals of hades, are a figure for the mighty warring hosts that issue from these portals. "Hades" does not mean "the realm of the dead," the hypothetical place to which the souls of all dead men descend until the judgment day. How could "the gates" of such a place war against the church on earth? Here "hades" must mean hell, the abode of the devils, whose one object it is to destroy the church. The future tense οὐ κατισχύσουσιν must be futuristic: "shall not prevail against," be strong and mighty against, and not volitive as R. 875 suggests. This is the prophetic future. The object is put into the genitive because this is a verb of ruling, R. 510. The implication is that hell’s gates shall pour out her hosts to assault the church of Christ, but the church shall not be overthrown (Rev. 20:8, 9). What makes her impregnable is her mighty foundation, Christ, the Son of the living God (1 Cor. 15:24b
). As a curiosity in exegesis we mention the view that at the end of time the church will batter down the gates of the lower world in order to release the dead that are held there. This adds to Christ’s descent into hell a descent of the church of believers to the same place.
Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (p 626, p 627, p 628). Minneapolis, MN.: Augsburg Publishing House.
Finally, using Logos Software to search in the New Testament for "foundation" - I found -- and Praise God For! the following which I believe, teach, and confess with my life and being ..................
Ephesians 2:13–22
(ESV)
13
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
I've heard the exchange between Jesus & Peter taught/preached poorly, as a call by Jesus to the higher agape kind of love
I think we all have this pericope taught/preached poorly.
0 -
Much food for thought, thanks Milford! I picture Christ as both the Alpha and Omega. So He is the foundation stone.
204. ἀκρογωνιαῖος akrogōniaíos; fem. akrogōniaía, neut. akrogōniaíon, from ákron (206), extreme, and gōnía (1137), corner. The foundation cornerstone, applied figuratively to Christ who not only sustains the whole structure of the Church, but also unites Jews and Gentiles into one mystical building (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary :
And He is the Chief (top) cornerstone. Acts 4:11 He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.
11 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος, ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφʼ ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας.
2776. κεφαλή kephalḗ; gen. kephalḗs, fem. noun. The head, top, that which is uppermost in relation to something.
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Hi Richard!Richard DeRuiter said:In addition to the other fine suggestions given here, I'd suggest doing a search for phileo/philos in John's Gospel & Epistles. I'd also suggest doing through word studies of both.
As I've studied these two words over the years with Logos software, I have come to agree with those who suggest that phileo/philos is not an inferior kind of love as compared to agapao/agape/etc.But the to words do lay emphasis on different aspects of personal love. In my studies I find that if I think of agape as "personal devotion" and phileo as "personal affection" and both with an emphasis on loving action, the overlapping nature of the terms is preserved, while their unique connotations are brought to mind. In this passage, with the strong possibility of the original dialogue being in Aramaic (not Greek), it seems to me that it's more likely that John intends to bring to the front Peter's personal affection for Jesus by his choice of the word phileo (vis a vis agape) here (though Morris disagrees, see below).
I've heard the exchange between Jesus & Peter taught/preached poorly, as a call by Jesus to the higher agape kind of love, but later Jesus descends to Peter's level to start with him where he is (so Hendrikson: Baker NTC). I think that displays a misunderstanding of these terms and how John uses them. Instead, I see Peter's phileo reponse to be something like this "not only am I devoted to you, I have deep affection for you." In other words, Peter's phileo includes and expands on Jesus' question about Peter's devotion (agape) to Jesus. In the same way, agape can include and expand on phileo. Remember both terms are translated by the same word in English. This is because the words overlap in meaning, more than they diverge.
The NICNT (Leon Morris) on this passage discusses this more thoroughly and decides that the best approach is to see no difference between the terms (as does Kostenberger: the Baker Exegetical Com.). Though, as I said above, I personally disagree (not that my opinion should carry any weight).
I hope the ideas I expressed here probe you to look further into the text and compare more scholarly opinions on this particular one.
I appreciate your post! I will definatelly pursue these thoughts! And probe further! Over the years you have demonstrated reason and sanity both in the old Logos News Groups and here on the Logos Forums.
I always have respect for what you share! *smile*
Also! I should confess to you. At various times I've downloaded guitar chords from your web site!
Peace to you, my Brother!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
If I remember correctly there are four words in the Greek language as a whole that can get translated as “love” but only two of those four are found in the Greek New Testament (PHILOS and AGAPE).
0 -
Hi Jerry! That IS really well done! Another item that I had not considered is using the visual filter in this way. Am very grateful for you idea! And! for you sharing! *smile*Jerry M said:A while back I created a visual filter to be able to see the difference in the two words for love. I also created one for oida and ginosko which in verse 17 reveal the difference in intuitive knowledge and experiential knowledge. I share your enthusiasm for Logos and God's Word. I picture the catch of fish as a foreshadowing of the evangelistic "catch" of men that Peter leads on the day of Pentecost. Blessings
!Peace and Joy in the Lord always!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
For example: A big gap in my knowledge – until last evening! I had just never noticed before!
One of the really exciting things about Bible Study is coming upon a new discovery that simply makes the student quiver with the joy of joining seemingly disparate facts together, or simply realizing a connection between one part of the Bible and another...even within the same passage. What M.C.M. discovered was a momentous occasion of rejoicing for him. It didn't matter in the least that there are others who knew this in ages past or will discover it later, but what matters is that HE discovered it HIMSELF. It's like for the brief second that the Holy Spirit so quickened this to him that he could not resist sharing the joy of this discovery with others. I rejoice with him. I am happy for him. No matter how many times we read a passage that when we come to this clarity through discovery all by ourselves it is as if God Himself, in order to reveal more of Himself to us, takes us by the shoulder and turns us toward Him.
And we knew that same pericope wasn't there the last time we read it.... [:D]...and it was inserted today just for us.
Enjoy the Faith, brother. I know I do.
{charley}
running Logos Bible Software 6.0a: Collector's Edition on HP e9220y (AMD Phenom II X4 2.60GHz 8.00GB 64-bit Win 7 Pro SP1) & iPad (mini) apps.
0 -
Dr. Charles A. Wootten said:
it is as if God Himself, in order to reveal more of Himself to us, takes us by the shoulder and turns us toward Him.
And we knew that same pericope wasn't there the last time we read it....
...and it was inserted today just for us.I can't thank you enough for explaining that ... I thought it was senility.[:$]
~
0 -
Abi Gail said:
I can't thank you enough for explaining that ... I thought it was senility.
I don't believe any of us in this thread are over 39
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Richard is exactly right in his comments. See D.A. Carson in "Exegetical Fallacies" and his commentary on John which Logos has where he explains this in a little more depth. He points out that Jesus uses different words for love, feed/ tend, and sheep/lambs. Is Jesus trying to differentiate between types of lambs and tending? No. Greek, just like any other language, is something you have to immerse yourself in. What Logos does by providing phenomenal resources is to give pastors and everyday people the ability to see these types of things so that we can expound Scripture as best we can.
0 -
Jerry M said:
A while back I created a visual filter to be able to see the difference in the two words for love. I also created one for oida and ginosko which in verse 17 reveal the difference in intuitive knowledge and experiential knowledge. I share your enthusiasm for Logos and God's Word. I picture the catch of fish as a foreshadowing of the evangelistic "catch" of men that Peter leads on the day of Pentecost. Blessings
!Would you be willing to share the criteria you used to create this filter?
In HIS Eternal Service,
Tom Castle
**If we will do God's work, in God's way, at God's time, with God's power, we shall have God's blessings!!**0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
In my studies, I had NEVER noticed that there are two different Greek words in the original language for the English word “love,” I had just taken it for granted without really looking at it. This is the kind of study that a layman could study, even with just the ESV (or other) Interlinear!!! Maybe your ears with perk up, and you’ll take more notice in your studies than I did.
I hate to have to disappoint those who think that there is some profound lesson to be learned here, but there really isn't 10 ¢ worth of difference between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω. If there really were a difference, there are a number of cases in the NT where φιλέω appears where one would expect ἀγαπάω such as
Mt 10.37 Ὁ φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος, καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος·
where one's love toward Jesus is expressed by the word φιλέω
OR, even more significantly
Jn 16.27 αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐμὲ πεφιλήκατε καὶ πεπιστεύκατε ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον.
where the Father is said to φιλέω the Son.
That is the danger of drawing conclusions without having done a thorough study; nevertheless, it is a view which has been perpetuated for quite some time. The change in words must be considered as simply a variation in order to reduce monotony.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I hate to have to disappoint those who think that there is some profound lesson to be learned here, but there really isn't 10 ¢ worth of difference between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω.
George Somsel said:The change in words must be considered as simply a variation in order to reduce monotony.
[^o)]HHHMMMmmm~~~[^o)]
0 -
Tom C said:Jerry M said:
A while back I created a visual filter to be able to see the difference in the two words for love. I also created one for oida and ginosko which in verse 17 reveal the difference in intuitive knowledge and experiential knowledge. I share your enthusiasm for Logos and God's Word. I picture the catch of fish as a foreshadowing of the evangelistic "catch" of men that Peter leads on the day of Pentecost. Blessings
!Would you be willing to share the criteria you used to create this filter?
Yes I would be glad to. I don't know what you already know so I will point you to some wiki and forum sites first. To use the Greek and Hebrew keyboard you get help here.
How to enter text in Greek and Hebrew Because I used Greek in the visual filter, but you could just transliterate or perhaps copy and paste. There is more help in highlighting and visual filters here.
Highlighting Visual Filter and Custom Highlighting: Orig Lang. (for Visual Filters)
And I got the information on how to do this kind of visual filter in this forum thread. Its kind of long but worth reading.
Changing LORD to Yahweh - Logos Bible Software Forums
Finally if you have any questions at all or get stuck, or just want to give your feed back, feel free.
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
George Somsel said:
I hate to have to disappoint those who think that there is some profound lesson to be learned here, but there really isn't 10 ¢ worth of difference between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω.
Oh, but George, a 10 ¢ worth of difference is a very big difference! In pharmacology a DNA recombinant is an exact copy and a Biosimilar is variable enough to cost one his life. I am surprised you bother with the original languages at all if the New Century Version (with it's 5th Grade reading level) is acceptable.
Words mean things. And people should say what they mean & mean what they say. I would hate for my pilot to overshoot the runway by 10% [ap] !
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Peace to you, George! *smile*George Somsel said:[I hate to have to disappoint those who think that there is some profound lesson to be learned here, but there really isn't 10 ¢ worth of difference between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω. If there really were a difference, there are a number of cases in the NT where φιλέω appears where one would expect ἀγαπάω such as
Mt 10.37 Ὁ φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος, καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος·
where one's love toward Jesus is expressed by the word φιλέω
OR, even more significantly
Jn 16.27 αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐμὲ πεφιλήκατε καὶ πεπιστεύκατε ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον.
where the Father is said to φιλέω the Son.
That is the danger of drawing conclusions without having done a thorough study; nevertheless, it is a view which has been perpetuated for quite some time. The change in words must be considered as simply a variation in order to reduce monotony.
Perhaps you're right, but I'll peruse a few commentaries tomorrow evening when I can schedule time. Am eagerly looking forward to studying this matter!
However, in my original post I quoted not only the anonymous person on the blog who claimed to be scholarly about it, but I also looked it up in Lenski, which I quoted in that post who also agreed with the person on the blog. So perhaps I drew my conclusions too quickly. I do want to check it out.
Right now I just took a quick peek at another of my favourite resources, and he seems to agree with Lenski ...
Perhaps you might share why you think the Apostle John would choose to use the different Greek words the way he did. It might be helpful to us here in this Forum.
Blessings to you, George ..
BTW, here is the other quote:
The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and notes on the Authorized version
. 1908 (B. F. Westcott & A. Westcott, Ed.) (p 302, p 303). London: J. Murray.lovest thou me more than these?] i.e. more than these, thy fellow-disciples, love me. The reference is probably to St Peter’s words (ch.
13:37; Matt. 26:33), in which he had claimed for himself the possession of supreme devotion (comp. 15:12 ff.). In the record of St Matthew (l.c.) this profession is placed in immediate connexion with the Lord’s promise of an appearance in Galilee after His Resurrection, which gives peculiar force to the question. It is unnatural to suppose that "these" is neuter, and that the Lord refers to the instruments or fruits of the fisher’s craft.lovest (ἀγαπᾷ͂ς, Vulg. diligis)] It will be noticed that the foundation of the apostolic office is laid in love and not in belief. Love (ἀγάπη) in its true form includes Faith (comp. 1 Cor. 13:13).Yea, Lord …] St Peter in his answer affirms his personal attachment to the Lord, appealing to the Lord’s own knowledge; but his profession differs in two important points from the question proposed. He does not assume any superiority over others (more than these): and he lays claim only to the feeling of natural love (φιλῶ σε, Vulg. amo te), of which he could be sure. He does not venture to say that he has attained to that higher love (ἀγαπᾷν) which was to be the spring of the Christian life (ch. 13:34, 14:15, 14:21, 14:28, &c.). Moreover now he says nothing of the future, nothing of the manifestation of his love (13:37). Comp. Bernard, ‘Serm. de div.’ 29. fin.thou (emphatic) knowest] Experience had taught St Peter to distrust his own judgment of himself. Even when the fact is one of immediate consciousness he rests his assertion on the Lord’s direct insight.Feed my lambs] In response to the sincere confession the Lord imposes a charge which shews that He accepts the apostle’s answer. The privilege and the work of love are identical. The image is now changed. The fisher’s work is followed by the shepherd’s work. Those who are brought together and taken out of "the many waters" need to be fed and tended. This office of the shepherd with which St Peter is entrusted is regarded under three different aspects. The first portrayed here is the simplest and humblest. The little ones in Christ’s flock need support, which they cannot obtain of themselves; this the apostle is charged to give them.Feed] The original word (βόσκειν), which occurs again in v. 17, is found elsewhere in the New Testament only of swine (Matt. 8:30, 8:33; Mark 5:11, 5:14; Luke 8:32, 8:34, 15:15). As distinguished from the word which follows (v. 16, ποιμαίνειν) it expresses the providing with food.
. The Vulgate does not distinguish feed and tend (pasce, pasce).
17. lovest thou (φιλεῖς
, Vulg. amas) me] When the Lord puts the question "the third time," He adopts the word which St Peter had used. Just as the idea of comparison was given up before, so now the idea of the loftiest love is given up. It is as if the Lord would test the truth of the feeling which St Peter claimed.σύ) knowest …).
The three questions could not but recall the three denials; and the form of this last question could not but vividly bring back the thought of the failure of personal devotion at the moment of trial. So Peter was grieved not only that the question was put again, but that this third time the phrase was changed; that the question was not only put once again, but at the same time put so as to raise a doubt whether he could indeed rightly claim that modified love which he had professed. His "grief" lay in the deep sense that such a doubt might well be suggested by the past, even if it were at the time ungrounded. Men might reasonably distrust his profession of sincerity after his fall, but he appealed to the Lord (Thou (
16. A short pause, as we must suppose, followed; and then the question was repeated a second time, but so that the thought of comparison is omitted: Simon, son of John, lovest (ἀγαπᾷς) thou me? St Peter’s answer is identically the same as before. He still shrinks from taking to himself the loftier word. In reply the Lord lays upon him a new part of the shepherd’s duty: Tend—be shepherd of—my sheep. The lambs require to be fed; the sheep require to be guided. The watchful care and rule to be exercised over the maturer Christians calls for greater skill and tenderness than the feeding of the young and simple.Feed] Tend (ποίμαινε), Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Matt. 2:6. Comp. Rev. 2:27, &c.; Jude 12
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Sorry, but for some strange reason the mechanism of the Forum put verse 16 comments after verse 17.
It was correct when I posted it. Perhaps I'll try to edit it! *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Sorry, but for some strange reason the mechanism of the Forum put verse 16 comments after verse 17.
It was correct when I posted it. Perhaps I'll try to edit it! *smile*
Again, sorry, I tried to edit it with success. Guess I'm lacking a few computer skills with the Forum ... *smile*
So.......
am posting the quote again:
. 1908 (B. F. Westcott & A. Westcott, Ed.) (p 302, p 303). London: J. Murray.
The Gospel according to St. John Introduction and notes on the Authorized version
13:37; Matt. 26:33), in which he had claimed for himself the possession of supreme devotion (comp. 15:12
lovest thou me more than these?] i.e. more than these, thy fellow-disciples, love me. The reference is probably to St Peter’s words (ch.
ff.). In the record of St Matthew (l.c.) this profession is placed in immediate connexion with the Lord’s promise of an appearance in Galilee after His Resurrection, which gives peculiar force to the question. It is unnatural to suppose that "these" is neuter, and that the Lord refers to the instruments or fruits of the fisher’s craft.
lovest
ἀγαπᾷ͂ς, Vulg. diligis)] It will be noticed that the foundation of the apostolic office is laid in love and not in belief. Love (ἀγάπη) in its true form includes Faith (comp. 1 Cor. 13:13
).
Yea, Lord …
φιλῶ σε, Vulg. amo te), of which he could be sure. He does not venture to say that he has attained to that higher love (ἀγαπᾷν) which was to be the spring of the Christian life (ch. 13:34, 14:15, 14:21, 14:28, &c.). Moreover now he says nothing of the future, nothing of the manifestation of his love (13:37
). Comp. Bernard, ‘Serm. de div.’ 29. fin.
thou
Feed my lambs
Feed
βόσκειν), which occurs again in v. 17, is found elsewhere in the New Testament only of swine (Matt. 8:30, 8:33; Mark 5:11, 5:14; Luke 8:32, 8:34, 15:15). As distinguished from the word which follows (v. 16, ποιμαίνειν
) it expresses the providing with food.
16. A short pause, as we must suppose, followed; and then the question was repeated a second time, but so that the thought of comparison is omitted: Simon, son of John, lovest (ἀγαπᾷς
) thou me? St Peter’s answer is identically the same as before. He still shrinks from taking to himself the loftier word. In reply the Lord lays upon him a new part of the shepherd’s duty: Tend—be shepherd of—my sheep. The lambs require to be fed; the sheep require to be guided. The watchful care and rule to be exercised over the maturer Christians calls for greater skill and tenderness than the feeding of the young and simple.
Feed
ποίμαινε), Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Matt. 2:6. Comp. Rev. 2:27, &c.; Jude 12
. The Vulgate does not distinguish feed and tend (pasce, pasce).
17. lovest thou (φιλεῖς
, Vulg. amas) me] When the Lord puts the question "the third time," He adopts the word which St Peter had used. Just as the idea of comparison was given up before, so now the idea of the loftiest love is given up. It is as if the Lord would test the truth of the feeling which St Peter claimed.
The three questions could not but recall the three denials; and the form of this last question could not but vividly bring back the thought of the failure of personal devotion at the moment of trial. So Peter was grievea not only that the question was put again, but that this third time the phrase was changed; that the question was not only put once again, but at the same time put so as to raise a doubt whether he could indeed rightly claim that modified love which he had professed. His "grief" lay in the deep sense that such a doubt might well be suggested by the past, even if it were at the time ungrounded. Men might reasonably distrust his profession of sincerity after his fall, but he appealed to the Lord (Thou (
σύ
) knowest …).
] Tend (] The original word (] In response to the sincere confession the Lord imposes a charge which shews that He accepts the apostle’s answer. The privilege and the work of love are identical. The image is now changed. The fisher’s work is followed by the shepherd’s work. Those who are brought together and taken out of "the many waters" need to be fed and tended. This office of the shepherd with which St Peter is entrusted is regarded under three different aspects. The first portrayed here is the simplest and humblest. The little ones in Christ’s flock need support, which they cannot obtain of themselves; this the apostle is charged to give them. (emphatic) knowest] Experience had taught St Peter to distrust his own judgment of himself. Even when the fact is one of immediate consciousness he rests his assertion on the Lord’s direct insight.] St Peter in his answer affirms his personal attachment to the Lord, appealing to the Lord’s own knowledge; but his profession differs in two important points from the question proposed. He does not assume any superiority over others (more than these): and he lays claim only to the feeling of natural love ( (
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:George Somsel said:
I hate to have to disappoint those who think that there is some profound lesson to be learned here, but there really isn't 10 ¢ worth of difference between φιλέω and ἀγαπάω.
Oh, but George, a 10 ¢ worth of difference is a very big difference! In pharmacology a DNA recombinant is an exact copy and a Biosimilar is variable enough to cost one his life. I am surprised you bother with the original languages at all if the New Century Version (with it's 5th Grade reading level) is acceptable.
Words mean things. And people should say what they mean & mean what they say. I would hate for my pilot to overshoot the runway by 10%
!When I said 10 ¢ worth of difference I was being generous. I originally put 2 ¢ but decided that with deflation it should be more. There really isn't much difference at all.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Sorry, but for some strange reason the mechanism of the Forum put verse 16 comments after verse 17.
It was correct when I posted it. Perhaps I'll try to edit it! *smile*
Don't feel bad about it. I've been having the same problem which isn't restricted to this forum. I sometimes find things misplaced when I post on b-greek.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Words mean things.
Words do mean things, and sometimes two or more words have the same meaning.
Matthew C Jones said:I would hate for my pilot to overshoot the runway by 10%
I would too, but I wouldn't care if the pilot overshot the runway by 10¢
0 -
OK ...This has gotten to the spectator sport stage. I'm gonna go make some popcorn[:P]
~
0 -
Abi Gail said:
OK ...This has gotten to the spectator sport stage. I'm gonna go make some popcorn
Make that a double batch.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
tom collinge said:
I would too, but I wouldn't care if the pilot overshot the runway by 10¢
My father-in-law trained pilots. He wouldn't give a nickle for a pilot who misses runways.
American Airlines overshoots runway in Jamaica 10-17-2010Early rumor has it the pilot dropped a thin dime in the controls. In reality it was two fat nickles. What difference do the denominations make? It was 10¢ either way, right? (Did ya catch the double meaning of "denominations?" Cool how one word can mean two things or two words can mean one thing, and one mean word can mean too much........Oh stop it ! [:|] )
tom collinge said:Words do mean things, and sometimes two or more words have the same meaning.
I tend to think God knows the difference even when Webster, Wescott, Hort & Robertson don't. [8-|]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Perhaps you're right, but I'll peruse a few commentaries tomorrow evening when I can schedule time. Am eagerly looking forward to studying this matter!
The New Pillar Commentary on John by Carson does a good job of sorting this out, and talks about the use ἀγαπάω (agapaō) during that time period, and though Carson agrees with George (or vice-versa [;)]), it is still a beneficial study. I myself see importance in the fact that Jesus uses the higher degree of love, as to indicate love towards him, and of course the restoration of Peter. Whatever we tend to see in these verses, having the tools in Logos is a big plus for scholar or layman alike!
0 -
Ralph Mauch said:Milford Charles Murray said:
Perhaps you're right, but I'll peruse a few commentaries tomorrow evening when I can schedule time. Am eagerly looking forward to studying this matter!
The New Pillar Commentary on John by Carson does a good job of sorting this out, and talks about the use ἀγαπάω (agapaō) during that time period, and though Carson agrees with George (or vice-versa
), it is still a beneficial study. I myself see importance in the fact that Jesus uses the higher degree of love, as to indicate love towards him, and of course the restoration of Peter. Whatever we tend to see in these verses, having the tools in Logos is a big plus for scholar or layman alike! Peace to you, Ralph -- and Joy on this Lord's Day! *smile*
Thank you so much for your post. Much appreciated indeed. The older commentaries make a "big do" over the two words issue ...
the more recent commentaries say it's not quite the difference it seems ......... .... if there is a difference ....
I have Pillar and think that Carson is correct -- plan to research it more (and other resources! Praise God for Logos Bible Software!) this evening for personal reasons --
however, I don't think I'm likely to have anything new to post re. this item --- AND, George! Thank you! Bless you!
Off to Divine Service shortly.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
The older commentaries make a "big do" over the two words issue ...
the more recent commentaries say it's not quite the difference it seems ......... .... if there is a difference
This happens quite often. One of the reasons why this happens, I believe, is that we now know more about the Greek language. As we learn more, we make the needed corrections.
0 -
tom collinge said:
This happens quite often. One of the reasons why this happens, I believe, is that we now know more about the Greek language. As we learn more, we make the needed corrections.
I have some of those newer commentaries too. Some of them have corrected the Virgin birth misunderstanding. Other scholars have banished ignorance by finding the historical Jesus . A few fellows have even corrected their own beliefs and no longer believe what they believed just 20 years ago. Isn't progress great?
Recent scholarship has revealed "the Bible Code" (Equidistant Letter Sequencing.) We can dismiss it as coincidence or we can ascribe some heavy meaning to it. The one thing we cannot do is claim it is non-demonstrable. So George Somsel and Carson can say the differing words don't mean anything while others say they do. ( btw: There are many rabbis who put stock in the "Torah codes.")
Any child who has played the "telephone game" knows the further you get from the original source the more likely you will have error introduced. I have always been suspect of modernists who claim to restore holy writ to perfection. You can start a new religion if enough people sign on. [6]
Now if we believe God is capable to preserve his word and deliver it intact to the intended receiver, we have no worries. [:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Any child who has played the "telephone game" knows the further you get from the original source the more likely you will have error introduced. I have always been suspect of modernists who claim to restore holy writ to perfection. You can start a new religion if enough people sign on.
Gal 1:8-9[:)]
0 -
K.J. said:Matthew C Jones said:
Any child who has played the "telephone game" knows the further you get from the original source the more likely you will have error introduced. I have always been suspect of modernists who claim to restore holy writ to perfection. You can start a new religion if enough people sign on.
For any who don't immediately recognize the passage and / or didn't bother to look it up, let me quote it.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!
The problem with quoting this passage is that when one does so he is generally NOT supporting simply the text of Paul's letters or even of the NT itself. What he is generally supporting is A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL VIEW of such propounded considerably later by someone other than the apostle. Let us remember that the bible is the founding document, not some particular understanding thereof. If we find that we have not been understanding a passage correctly we are free to change our understanding of that passage and, indeed, are even under obligation to do so. Otherwise, we might as well choose a translation which suits us (if we are limiting ourselves to one understanding then we aren't really dealing with the original text, are we?) and one commentary which suits us and avoid studying anything else. I guess we could sell our Logos program since we really wouldn't need it for that.Fortunately, I think that the very thought of such an action would be intollerable to most. Why then do the same thing by the back door? Why do the same thing by cavalierly dismissing any thought which doesn't agree with our own understanding? A couple of closing passages from scripture:And Judas went out and hanged himself.Go thou and do likewise.Both are in scripture. Would you care to follow them?george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
The problem with quoting this passage is that when one does so he is generally NOT supporting simply the text of Paul's letters or even of the NT itself.
Could you be specific as to the "he" you refer to? Are you qualified to know "his" thoughts? OR, is this just another meaningless generality? Could it be that because "he" is not "you," "he" could not possibly have the Truth?
0 -
K.J. said:George Somsel said:
The problem with quoting this passage is that when one does so he is generally NOT supporting simply the text of Paul's letters or even of the NT itself.
Could you be specific as to the "he" you refer to? Are you qualified to know "his" thoughts? OR, is this just another meaningless generality? Could it be that because "he" is not "you," "he" could not possibly have the Truth?
The "he" is a general "he" referring to anyone in general and no one specifically. In other words, "if the shoe fits ..." If the "he" is honest with himself and a tad introspective regarding his thoughts and actions, "he" knows whether the shoe fits. Then if the shoe fits that person (and this may include myself) "he" is obviously setting his own interpretation of scripture above that of the scripture itself. This is the program of the Beast in the Apocalypse whose "number" is that of the Unholy Trinity (666 = Man, man, man). It is a case of "My will be done ...", not "Your will be done ..."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
The "he" is a general "he" referring to anyone in general and no one specifically. In other words, "if the shoe fits ..." If the "he" is honest with himself and a tad introspective regarding his thoughts and actions, "he" knows whether the shoe fits.
[^o)]HHHMMMmmm~~~[^o)]
0 -
George Somsel said:
Then if the shoe fits that person (and this may include myself) "he" is obviously setting his own interpretation of scripture above that of the scripture itself.
Confession is Good for the Soul.[:P]
God Bless
0 -
George Somsel said:
Otherwise, we might as well choose a translation which suits us (if we are limiting ourselves to one understanding then we aren't really dealing with the original text, are we?)
One that disregards the original text and translates both words "love?"
George Somsel said:I guess we could sell our Logos program since we really wouldn't need it for that.
Or for the plethora of lexicons that report φιλέω and ἀγαπάω as different entries, with different definitions.
Or for the word studies we can do on φιλέω and ἀγαπάω.
Or for studying why scholars of the past thought there is a difference
Or for discovering not all modern scholarship agrees with any one view.
That is why I like having my Logos. (As a layman I can investigate, ponder and benefit from depths of study without the results being "sanitized" by a self-appointed committee.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
One that disregards the original text and translates both words "love?"
Something may be said to be "six of one and half a dozen" of another. What is the difference between "six" and "half a dozen" ? They are different words so, according to you, they must have a different meaning. It seems to me that the point of such a phrase is that there is no difference.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
If the "he" is honest with himself and a tad introspective regarding his thoughts and actions, "he" knows whether the shoe fits. Then if the shoe fits that person (and this may include myself) "he" is obviously setting his own interpretation of scripture above that of the scripture itself.
If we are honest, all of us are "he."
0 -
George Somsel said:
Something may be said to be "six of one and half a dozen" of another. What is the difference between "six" and "half a dozen" ? They are different words so, according to you, they must have a different meaning. It seems to me that the point of such a phrase is that there is no difference.
Ah! So, It is like comparing "Don't kick a dead horse" to "Don't argue with a fool" ?
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
One that disregards the original text and translates both words "love?"
One additional note: Can you tell me the difference between πιστεύων ἐν and ὁ πιστεύων εἰς in Jn 3.15-16? They are different words so, according to you, they should have a different meaning.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Abi Gail said:
OK ...This has gotten to the spectator sport stage. I'm gonna go make some popcorn
Make that a double batch.
Are you a prophet? this is certainly a double bagger! [:P]
~
0 -
George Somsel said:
Something may be said to be "six of one and half a dozen" of another. What is the difference between "six" and "half a dozen" ? They are different words so, according to you, they must have a different meaning. It seems to me that the point of such a phrase is that there is no difference.
Yogi Berra: "When you come to a fork in the road....Take it"
Robert Frost: "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."
Half-dozen of a Baker's dozen is 6.5
Willie's donuts gives you 14 when you buy a dozen......
In Japan they sell eggs 10 to a package.
A dynamic equivalent of the any of the above could result in something being "lost in translation." And diluting the lexicon will too.Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
[^o)]HHHMMMmmm~~~[^o)]
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Half-dozen of a Baker's dozen is 6.5
Willie's donuts gives you 14 when you buy a dozen......But we aren't speaking of one particular vendor, are we ? Also, a dozen is fairly universally accepted as 12 -- you're playing games.
Matthew C Jones said:In Japan they sell eggs 10 to a package.
So what ? We aren't speaking of different cultures. We are discussing Greek-speaking culture of the Roman Empire in the first century AD.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:K.J. said:Matthew C Jones said:
Any child who has played the "telephone game" knows the further you get from the original source the more likely you will have error introduced. I have always been suspect of modernists who claim to restore holy writ to perfection. You can start a new religion if enough people sign on.
For any who don't immediately recognize the passage and / or didn't bother to look it up, let me quote it.
I didn't need to bother with finding... RefTagger did it for me... [:P]
George Somsel said:The problem with quoting this passage is that when one does so he is generally NOT supporting simply the text of Paul's letters or even of the NT itself. What he is generally supporting is A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL VIEW of such propounded considerably later by someone other than the apostle. Let us remember that the bible is the founding document, not some particular understanding thereof. If we find that we have not been understanding a passage correctly we are free to change our understanding of that passage and, indeed, are even under obligation to do so. Otherwise, we might as well choose a translation which suits us (if we are limiting ourselves to one understanding then we aren't really dealing with the original text, are we?) and one commentary which suits us and avoid studying anything else. I guess we could sell our Logos program since we really wouldn't need it for that.
Fortunately, I think that the very thought of such an action would be intollerable to most. Why then do the same thing by the back door? Why do the same thing by cavalierly dismissing any thought which doesn't agree with our own understanding? A couple of closing passages from scripture:
And Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.
Both are in scripture. Would you care to follow them?Very well said George.
I can say for myself I met some people, who claimed those Paul's words concerning their own biased ideas about Biblical text, not to the text itself. I can say I am always very happy to be able to have an "aha" moment to see things more clearly. The thing is it is not always "aha" in the desired direction we would like. Sometimes I was preparing to preach on some text with certain idea, I believed was fascinating, but after doing my home work, I had to preach something else, simply because more thorough study discouraged me from doing that "fascinating" conclusions.
Bohuslav
0 -
Matthew, do you believe that there is a difference between sheep and lambs in John 21? They are different words, so shouldn't they have different meanings?
0
