PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 13, 2019 6:31:04 GMT -5
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. — John 21:16-17
John himself tells us that Jesus repeated the same question. The first two words are agape, and the third is philos.
I looked at this sequence in numerous popular translations. None of them translate any of the three words as anything other than love. One said “dearly love” on the third question, but that’s about it. The nuance between agape and philo is not expressed by any popular translation.
We have to go to the Greek for that nuance, which is something all reasonable KJV users are fine with. No one says KJV (or any English translation) is the same as Greek. Only that KJV is our best English version.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 8:50:55 GMT -5
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. — John 21:16-17John himself tells us that Jesus repeated the same question. The first two words are agape, and the third is philos. I looked at this sequence in numerous popular translations. None of them translate any of the three words as anything other than love. One said “dearly love” on the third question, but that’s about it. The nuance between agape and philo is not expressed by any popular translation. We have to go to the Greek for that nuance, which is something all reasonable KJV users are fine with. No one says KJV (or any English translation) is the same as Greek. Only that KJV is our best English version. Thanks for your response regarding the passage I quoted from John 21. A few versions of the Scripture I have do correctly portray the two Greek words translated as "love" in the KJV and most other versions. The Complete Jewish Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the World English Bible. And I was surprised to see even a couple much newer translations on BibleGateway - the TPT and NTE - have it correct, as well as the old Darby Bible. IN the end, I love the old King James as well. But having access to other translations has been a huge benefit in my study, writing and teaching of the Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 13, 2019 10:18:26 GMT -5
I do have and use a Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary, and as a companion to my KJV Bible, that is more than adequate to have full understanding of the text. As for the 1611 KJV Bible, it did take me a little effort to get used to it. I have read a 1611 Edition cover to cover, including the Apocrypha, 3 times, and it took me till I had finished Genesis to be used to the old English spelling and letters. The Authorized Version is the same except for the spelling, so I am fine with using it, and generally do for the purpose of posting scripture. last wednesday the preacher had a song for us to sing, it was scripture out of the NIV. I had to get out my KJV so i could understand. i had a nice laugh about that. Often times, the different translations are not saying the same thing, and they do cause confusion.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 13, 2019 10:23:11 GMT -5
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. — John 21:16-17John himself tells us that Jesus repeated the same question. The first two words are agape, and the third is philos. I looked at this sequence in numerous popular translations. None of them translate any of the three words as anything other than love. One said “dearly love” on the third question, but that’s about it. The nuance between agape and philo is not expressed by any popular translation. We have to go to the Greek for that nuance, which is something all reasonable KJV users are fine with. No one says KJV (or any English translation) is the same as Greek. Only that KJV is our best English version. Exactly. That is what I do. Sometimes, you find a situation where two or three Greek words can only translate to a single English word. Most people that have studied scripture know that, and you need a Greek Dictionary to see that. This isn't even about translation errors. In the example you gave, love is the only corresponding English word you can use, but in Greek there are two words used.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 13, 2019 10:26:22 GMT -5
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. — John 21:16-17John himself tells us that Jesus repeated the same question. The first two words are agape, and the third is philos. I looked at this sequence in numerous popular translations. None of them translate any of the three words as anything other than love. One said “dearly love” on the third question, but that’s about it. The nuance between agape and philo is not expressed by any popular translation. We have to go to the Greek for that nuance, which is something all reasonable KJV users are fine with. No one says KJV (or any English translation) is the same as Greek. Only that KJV is our best English version. Thanks for your response regarding the passage I quoted from John 21. A few versions of the Scripture I have do correctly portray the two Greek words translated as "love" in the KJV and most other versions. The Complete Jewish Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the World English Bible. And I was surprised to see even a couple much newer translations on BibleGateway - the TPT and NTE - have it correct, as well as the old Darby Bible. IN the end, I love the old King James as well. But having access to other translations has been a huge benefit in my study, writing and teaching of the Scripture. How do translations express it right in English when we don't have but one English word that fits? Are you speaking of translations or paraphrases? What English word do they use that is better than "love?" I will stay with using the KJV Bible exclusively. It has served me well for the past 37 years since I got saved. I fully trust it.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 13, 2019 11:12:18 GMT -5
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. — John 21:16-17John himself tells us that Jesus repeated the same question. The first two words are agape, and the third is philos. I looked at this sequence in numerous popular translations. None of them translate any of the three words as anything other than love. One said “dearly love” on the third question, but that’s about it. The nuance between agape and philo is not expressed by any popular translation. We have to go to the Greek for that nuance, which is something all reasonable KJV users are fine with. No one says KJV (or any English translation) is the same as Greek. Only that KJV is our best English version. Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament, An Expanded (from Greek) Translation will take time to get a quote. (it's not online). Here's one from biblegateway that's good and has no contradiction with any part of Scripture : www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:15-17&version=AMPJohn 21:15-17 Amplified Bible (AMP) The Love Motivation 15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these [others do—with total commitment and devotion]?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My lambs.” 16 Again He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you
love Me [with total commitment and devotion]?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I
love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].”
Jesus said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do
you love Me [with a deep, personal affection for Me, as for a close friend]?”
Peter was grieved that He asked him the third time, “Do you
[really] love Me [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend]?”
And he said to Him, “Lord, You know everything; You know that I
love You [with a deep, personal affection, as for a close friend].”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. Footnotes:
John 21:15 As indicated by the amplifications, Peter uses a different Greek word for love (phileo) than Jesus does (agapao) in His first two questions to Peter (see note v 17).
John 21:17 This time Jesus uses the same word for love that Peter previously used twice (phileo).
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA 90631. All rights reserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 14:29:10 GMT -5
Thanks for your response regarding the passage I quoted from John 21. A few versions of the Scripture I have do correctly portray the two Greek words translated as "love" in the KJV and most other versions. The Complete Jewish Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the World English Bible. And I was surprised to see even a couple much newer translations on BibleGateway - the TPT and NTE - have it correct, as well as the old Darby Bible. IN the end, I love the old King James as well. But having access to other translations has been a huge benefit in my study, writing and teaching of the Scripture. How do translations express it right in English when we don't have but one English word that fits? Are you speaking of translations or paraphrases? What English word do they use that is better than "love?" I will stay with using the KJV Bible exclusively. It has served me well for the past 37 years since I got saved. I fully trust it. That's fine brother. I was there once too! Loved my King James. Still got one I was given in college 35 years ago by a gal when I was still living by my 'old man'. Took me another 15 years before I began the road of repentance and following the Lord, but I kept that Bible, and the note she wrote in it about praying for me. It's battered and torn, but safe now in my safe. I just like to broaden horizons when I can, as (at least for me personally) my understanding of God's Word and Truth has been greatly expanded by adding other translations to my study. Concerning the passage I quoted, "friend" or "kindly affectionate" fits 'phileo' far better than "love", and some versions do use that correct term. The word, phileo (Strong's G5368) is used several other times in the NT, mostly in John, and is not as strong as 'agape.' Blessings to you, and each one God has called, as we walk daily with Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 14, 2019 1:42:14 GMT -5
How do translations express it right in English when we don't have but one English word that fits? Are you speaking of translations or paraphrases? What English word do they use that is better than "love?" I will stay with using the KJV Bible exclusively. It has served me well for the past 37 years since I got saved. I fully trust it. That's fine brother. I was there once too! Loved my King James. Still got one I was given in college 35 years ago by a gal when I was still living by my 'old man'. Took me another 15 years before I began the road of repentance and following the Lord, but I kept that Bible, and the note she wrote in it about praying for me. It's battered and torn, but safe now in my safe. I just like to broaden horizons when I can, as (at least for me personally) my understanding of God's Word and Truth has been greatly expanded by adding other translations to my study. Concerning the passage I quoted, "friend" or "kindly affectionate" fits 'phileo' far better than "love", and some versions do use that correct term. The word, phileo (Strong's G5368) is used several other times in the NT, mostly in John, and is not as strong as 'agape.' Blessings to you, and each one God has called, as we walk daily with Jesus. The only problem with what your versions say is that friend or kindly affectionate is not the correct definition. They have actually altered it. The definition is to love in a social or moral sense. The word doesn't mean friend, even if you may love a friend in that way. Kindly affectionate is also not the proper definition, even if you believe that kindly affectionate is a good description of that kind of love. Love is the proper definition of the word. Love is the only English word that properly fits. What you are describing is more of a paraphrase or even a running commentary, and I don't need a Bible trying to do that for me. I want the best corresponding English word period, and if I want a definition, I will look it up in my Strong's Greek Dictionary.
I didn't start out KJV only. I am just the opposite of you. I didn't just start out with the KJV Bible, fall in love with it, and refuse all others. I was going to a church where the Pastor would read from the KJV Bible, but compare it with the NIV. So we could follow along with him better, he bought Parallel Bibles with the KJV on one side of the page and the NIV on the other. It was comparing translations that led me in the direction of being KJV only. I noticed the NIV had removed portions of the established text and put them in footnotes, and discredited other portions of the established text, like the last part of Mark chapter 16. The Biblical canon was already established, and included all those verses. Anyone that comes along later and says they don't belong or puts some verses in footnotes has attacked the Biblical canon. Now I realize they didn't remove the books, but the contents are what matters, not the name of a book being represented. You can't have already established that something is canon, and had men of God preaching from that text with confidence for centuries, only to come along later and say, not so fast, some manuscripts we dug up in caves don't include this or that. That destroys all confidence in the canon. I started out neutral on modern translations and became KJV only because of how they were changing, removing, editorializing and in one translation, they even added a verse to one of the Psalms.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 14, 2019 7:15:01 GMT -5
I started in a KJV church, then I developed my study across multiple translations, then I circled back to KJV only. If we know we’re going to the Greek eventually, Occam’s razor compels us not to fill our head with a dozen English theories on what a word means. If I want to know what bonjour means, I need not ask a dozen English writers; I should look it up in French and be done with it.
Translations will embellish or slightly exaggerate the difference between terms like agape and phileo in order to bring more value to their product. They need to make sure that a handful of verses seem to pop in their version, hence making their version “an important part of the modern Bible scholar’s library.” There’s no excuse for this many English translations of a book. There really isn’t. When you buy other foreign books (such as Les Miserables or Anna Karenina) you don’t find ten or twelve renditions of the same book sitting together on a shelf, and you don’t have a bookstore clerk saying you’d best read at least five versions to understand the story. Yes, foreign books are translated and put on the market by more than one publisher, but no one pretends you have to read all of them to understand Les Mis. In fact, we know it would be a waste of time to do this. We read it once in English, and then if we’re curious we dabble in French.
When you read Anne Frank’s diary in school, did you wonder how much of the text was “hidden” in your lone English copy? Did you wonder that about Beowolf? Cinderella?
If secular books were treated like the Bible, we’d soon have people go around saying bonjour doesn’t exactly mean good day because they read an interesting translation of some French novel that wrote it as [quality, fine, approvable, virtuous; epoch, era, period, 24 hours]. What insight from this publisher to copy/paste synonyms for good and day! That right there is talent! Next thing we know, we’re debating whether bonjour is “really” about the moral uprightness of a cultural movement. Meanwhile a French person is looking at us stunned, wondering how on earth we have so badly butchered bonjour.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 14, 2019 9:36:51 GMT -5
I started in a KJV church, then I developed my study across multiple translations, then I circled back to KJV only. If we know we’re going to the Greek eventually, Occam’s razor compels us not to fill our head with a dozen English theories on what a word means. If I want to know what bonjour means, I need not ask a dozen English writers; I should look it up in French and be done with it. Translations will embellish or slightly exaggerate the difference between terms like agape and phileo in order to bring more value to their product. They need to make sure that a handful of verses seem to pop in their version, hence making their version “an important part of the modern Bible scholar’s library.” There’s no excuse for this many English translations of a book. There really isn’t. When you buy other foreign books (such as Les Miserables or Anna Karenina) you don’t find ten or twelve renditions of the same book sitting together on a shelf, and you don’t have a bookstore clerk saying you’d best read at least five versions to understand the story. Yes, foreign books are translated and put on the market by more than one publisher, but no one pretends you have to read all of them to understand Les Mis. In fact, we know it would be a waste of time to do this. We read it once in English, and then if we’re curious we dabble in French. When you read Anne Frank’s diary in school, did you wonder how much of the text was “hidden” in your lone English copy? Did you wonder that about Beowolf? Cinderella? If secular books were treated like the Bible, we’d soon have people go around saying bonjour doesn’t exactly mean good day because they read an interesting translation of some French novel that wrote it as [quality, fine, approvable, virtuous; epoch, era, period, 24 hours]. What insight from this publisher to copy/paste synonyms for good and day! That right there is talent! Next thing we know, we’re debating whether bonjour is “really” about the moral uprightness of a cultural movement. Meanwhile a French person is looking at us stunned, wondering how on earth we have so badly butchered bonjour. While she was still alive, if someone was able to talk to Anne Frank about her life and her diary, specifically, generally , lightly, and in depth (like a reporter doing an interview over a few weeks), would Anne Frank be able to tell the reporter what Anne Frank meant at any point in her diary and in her life ? Yes. Likewise, Jesus Praised out loud before His disciples and Apostles the Father in heaven for REVEALING SALVATION FULLY to little children, because He Said "Thus it was/is YOUR GOOD PLEASURE SO TO DO" ..... (as well as to HIDE SALVATION ..... from educated ones.... ) .... How Many Times does the Father Reveal (Tell/ Give) His Word (and/or / thus give understanding) to someone in the Bible, and describe His Will to Do This for His children today ?
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jun 14, 2019 10:08:33 GMT -5
All of us have an equal chance at this very moment to interview the author of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 14, 2019 10:56:32 GMT -5
All of us have an equal chance at this very moment to interview the author of the Bible. Not according to the author of the Bible. See in the Bible who the author of the Bible does not listen to. (more common than who the author of the Bible does listen to) A few examples: Psalm 66:18 If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. Psalm 145:19 He fulfills the desires of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and saves them. Proverbs 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous. Proverbs 28:9 Whoever turns his ear away from hearing the law, even his prayer is detestable. Isaiah 1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jun 14, 2019 13:19:12 GMT -5
Not according to the author of the Bible. See in the Bible who the author of the Bible does not listen to. (more common than who the author of the Bible does listen to) A few examples: Psalm 66:18 If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. Psalm 145:19 He fulfills the desires of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and saves them. Proverbs 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous. Proverbs 28:9 Whoever turns his ear away from hearing the law, even his prayer is detestable. Isaiah 1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him,
To all who call upon Him in truth." - Psalm 145:18
"...the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." - Romans 3:22-23
"Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the Lord your God,
And have scattered your charms
To alien deities under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the Lord." - Jeremiah 3:13
"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord..." - Acts 3:19
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him." - Romans 10:12
"Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the Lord your God..." - Jeremiah 3:13
"...God, having raised up His Servant Jesus,
sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities." - Acts 3:26
|
|
Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on Jun 14, 2019 13:21:12 GMT -5
All of us have an equal chance at this very moment to interview the author of the Bible. Not according to the author of the Bible. See in the Bible who the author of the Bible does not listen to. (more common than who the author of the Bible does listen to) A few examples: Psalm 66:18 If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. Psalm 145:19 He fulfills the desires of those who fear Him; He hears their cry and saves them. Proverbs 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous. Proverbs 28:9 Whoever turns his ear away from hearing the law, even his prayer is detestable. Isaiah 1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. actually, yes, according to the bible we do.
Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Jas 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. Jas 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
the scriptures you posted are for those who are not allowing Jesus to be LORD of their life, they do not judge themselves, they do not consider their own ways, and they do not live for God, or to God, but instead do whats right in their own eyes. these people have the same opportunity to seek Gods face and repent and live for God as we do. if those people repent God would turn to them and when they ask God would give them liberally. and upbraideth not. and it shall be given him. God actually wants to do this for us, but if someone wont turn ye and live... shame shame and God will hide His face.
The book says its Gods good pleasure to give us the kingdom. there is even a whole book in the bible dedicated to getting knowledge and wisdom, and one of the members of this site is going thru this book with a right up on each chapter at a rate its hard for me to keep up. Micheal is pointing out the verses that show what our part is in getting wisdom and knowledge. God isnt a genie in a bottle, that will pop out when you rub the bottle and call you master and grant your wishes. He is The Way. We do it this way or... "good luck" with that. (I put good "luck" in quotes because its a myth.)
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jun 14, 2019 13:36:29 GMT -5
last wednesday the preacher had a song for us to sing, it was scripture out of the NIV. I had to get out my KJV so i could understand. i had a nice laugh about that. Often times, the different translations are not saying the same thing, and they do cause confusion.You aint kidding butero . Just today when I was in the library I found a jewish new testament . So I opened it up and read acts five and part of six. Here is how it had translated the passage concerning the widows and etc being neglected . IT said , And the jews which spoke greek had a dissention with the jews who spoke Hebrew in that their widows were being neglected . THIS IS NOT AT ALL what that text meant . IT said the greek beleivers and Hebrew believers . they tried to make it seem like all were the jews . But I caught that lightning fast. Folks are changing things because of certain agendas . And there is a jewish movment at work that does take things out of text to support its own beliefs . GO read acts in the kjv when it talks about the widows being neglected . IT was not implying what the jewish new test bible was saying at all . Folks I caught that lighting quick . I JUST wonder what else has been CHANGED and if its not much worse too . WE GOT OUR BIBLE . AND I AM STICKING WITH IT TO THE END . THE KJV. Now let all praise the LORD and let the LORD be praised . And rejoice in HIM and HIS SALVATION and the great HOPE we have IN HE and HE ALONE .
|
|