God does not love you...

[Drich]

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 I didn't want to use Thayer's because it's out of date.

The only time lexicons are deemed out of date is when doctrinal changes occur that contradict established or concise meanings of words.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.

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.

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.

Since I'd read Thayer's lexicon was outdated, and a review of BDAG had commented on the differing definition of "agape", I came to the conclusion that the differing definitions I provided were different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

---

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.