So, drich, you read the bible in the original Greek? You are fluent in Koine?

Whatever.

[quote='genkaus' pid='281758' dateline='1336320308']
[quote='Drich' pid='281703' dateline='1336312359']
You misunderstand. Accepting God's love has nothing to do with living an easy life. It simply means you have your sins forgiven, and you will be placed on track with a relationship with God. For some this means a good life but for most this means trials and hardship. It all depends on your heart and what you need to endure to truly seek God.[/quote]

So, god is like the worst bets friend ever. He wouldn't make your life easier and might even make it worse. What's the point of having a relationship with him if we don't get anything out of it.
[/quote]

Your life here is to prepare you for an eternal life later. Hardship forces you to grow spiritually. The more you grow now the greater responsiablity/experience you will have later.

---

[quote='Kayenneh' pid='281768' dateline='1336321351']
[quote]Oh, I beg to differ, I do not misunderstand at all. If such a thing as 'lion' could in the first Finnish bibles be translated into 'jalopeura' (noble deer), I think it says a lot about just how much can be lost in translation, due to the massive difference in culture and environment regarding the writer and the reader/translator. But again, with all the editing, mistranslations, how the hell does anyone dare to bible bash others, without reading and understanding the original texts first? I have read the bible in three modern languages, and they are already quite different from each other.[/quote]Which three? Also did you read them from beginning to end or are you simply repeating the commentary/conjecture of someone who claims they did?

I have on line access to all translations so if you wish we can go book chapter and verse to any three you like. Couple that with a modern lexicon we can see exactly what is being said. Or did I just call your bluff? No? then lets staert with the exact title of the translation in question, and with the percise book chapter and verse.

Gotta love a christian who is too lazy to actually learn the language of the text he uses as a guidebook, but who will throw out his interlinear translation as the truth.

Typical ...

(May 6, 2012 at 1:28 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So, drich, you read the bible in the original Greek? You are fluent in Koine?

Whatever.

I have been studying it for the last 10 years or so, that said no one has to be fluent in Koine Greek with a proper lexicon and concordance.

Still not familiar with what a lexicon/concordance?
Here is an example: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/16

Now scroll down to John 3:16 and now you have the english word for word against the Koine Greek. Click on the word and the you have the defination from the orginal greek.

If you note each word has a number. So each word of the bible can be tracked and used in the proper context when trying to determine a proper excegisis of scripture.

(May 6, 2012 at 11:57 am)Drich Wrote: You seem to be looking to commentary to define a word. When did commentary superceed reference material?

When I couldn't find an online version of the BDAG lexicon. I didn't want to use Thayer's because it's out of date.

(May 6, 2012 at 11:57 am)Drich Wrote: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...=G25&t=KJV

This is the Thayer's lexicon supported by the Strong's concordance.
FYI these are reference books, and not commentaries based on doctrinal beliefs. all three of your links are commentaries.

I thought it was more likely that people today would be using more up-to-date sources than Thayer's lexicon. In the interim, however, I was able to find a quotation from BDAG for agape, which is as follows:

"the quality of warm regard for and interest in another, esteem, affection, regard, love" (BDAG, 6; BAGD, 5; LN 25,43)

The above is copied verbatim from here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K_mN...pe&f=false

The meaning provided differs from Thayer's, but not fatally as I'd expected it to. The source immediately above (the link, not the quotation) further defines it as "unconditional", however that appears to be the author's commentary rather than being drawn from the BDAG lexicon (I don't have access to it, so I don't know whether what they quoted is the whole definition or not). Given that the cite note appears before the term "unconditional" I'm inclined to think it's not part of the definition.

Since I'd read Thayer's lexicon was outdated, and a review of BDAG had commented on the differing definition of "agape", I came to the conclusion that the differing definitions I provided were different due to more sound input from a source like BDAG. I was wrong.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Gotta love a christian who is too lazy to actually learn the language of the text he uses as a guidebook, but who will throw out his interlinear translation as the truth.

Typical ...

Again in your hasty criticism you have repeatedly show a failure of the most basic reference materials offered to any serious believer. This is why I referenced a lexicon/concordance serveral times now.

This means (in my orginal message/challlenge) we will be taking a translated text and comparing it to the original Greek. Whether you know it or not this shows your criticism show a "typical" ignorant response to what you seem to be belligerently blind to. (In that you seem to not know how or what a lexicon/concordance is. Otherwise you would not have made your comment.)

How foolish is it to comment when there are variables in the conversation you can not fully account for? Wouldn't it be better to look up the word lexicon before you assume your assertion was correct?

Still looking to escape Epicuras, many threads later I see. Still haven't managed it. Good luck though. One needn't consult a lexicon or concordance to realize that god doesn't love everyone. The narrator makes it very plain in the fairy tale that he does not. By word and by action. Conditions for any love to be extended by this cosmic despot are laid out in a fairly easy to understand manner (even if those conditions themselves seem hilariously petty). If it took you ten years of "study" to figure this out.......well, the situation looks pretty bleak from this side of the river.

Is he malevolent? Why call him god? Take your pick.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm)Tempus Wrote: When I couldn't find an online version of the BDAG lexicon. I didn't want to use Thayer's because it's out of date.

The only time lexicons are deemed out of date is when doctrinal changes occur that contradict established or concise meanings of words. For the Koine Greek did not change.

Quote:I thought it was more likely that people today would be using more up-to-date sources than Thayer's lexicon.

It completely depends on the message they want to bring. To sole source is a mistake.

Quote:In the interim, however, I was able to find a quotation from BDAG for agape, which is as follows:

"the quality of warm regard for and interest in another, esteem, affection, regard, love" (BDAG, 6; BAGD, 5; LN 25,43)

The above is copied verbatim from here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K_mN...pe&f=false

The meaning provided differs from Thayer's, but not fatally as I'd expected it to. The source immediately above (the link, not the quotation) further defines it as "unconditional", however that appears to be the author's commentary rather than being drawn from the BDAG lexicon (I don't have access to it, so I don't know whether what they quoted is the whole definition or not). Given that the cite note appears before the term "unconditional" I'm inclined to think it's not part of the definition.

In you read the commentary you brought into this conversation more carefully word "Unconditional" refers to a love "Without respect Merritt performance." It however does not mean to say it is without terms. Again John 3:16 puts said terms on the love God offers.

Quote:Since I'd read Thayer's lexicon was outdated, and a review of BDAG had commented on the differing definition of "agape", I came to the conclusion that the differing definitions I provided were different due to more sound input from a source like BDAG. I was wrong.

Again the only difference between the Thayers interpretation and the Bdag is your haste to scan for key words that vindicate your assertion. If you or anyone else takes the time to read what has been written in either of the two lexicons or the bullingers (if you want a third to verify) they all say the same thing. God's love is limitless, but does hinge on certain terms.

---

(May 6, 2012 at 2:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Still looking to escape Epicuras, many threads later I see. Still haven't managed it. Good luck though. One needn't consult a lexicon or concordance to realize that god doesn't love everyone. The narrator makes it very plain in the fairy tale that he does not. By word and by action. Conditions for any love to be extended by this cosmic despot are laid out in a fairly easy to understand manner (even if those conditions themselves seem hilariously petty). If it took you ten years of "study" to figure this out.......well, the situation looks pretty bleak from this side of the river.

Is he malevolent? Why call him god? Take your pick.

Are You still are stuck in that paradigm? If you want more help resolving it then resurrect that thread.

'God does not love you...'

I aint so keen on her neither.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:30 am)Drich Wrote: So again, God's love is not unconditional, and it is not forced upon everyone. It is conditional, but for those who fall with in those conditions it will be boundless.

So... you're saying Gods into S&M? Its just some of what you wrote sounds sexually angry.
When I die am I going to be reborn in a gimp outfit like the one in that Pulp Fiction scene? I'll be honest, I'm not sure I'm ok with that.