The curious case of John 5:4

[ChristinaL]

What’s really difficult here for me is justifying my own use of time.

[For me this forum is primarily an escape from my work with neglected, abused and at risk children. (Quite often, especially with teens, they don’t want help but are in desperate need of it.) The irony is that my presence here is a ”hair of the dog that bit me” remedy. Running from trauma to trauma to escape trauma. A psychiatrist would probably have a field day with that.]

Professors I worked with think what I’m doing here is a waste of time and talent. I’m working in the gutter; they’re still working in an ivory tower.

You dont have to justify yourself to anyone but God. And if what you mean by "here" is your workplace, working with those kids cant ever be considered a waste of time and talent. But if "here' is this website, well, you are always going to come across some real hardasses. I can be one of them when it comes to fighting lies and ignorance

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"how can a normal person understand what this means" Very easy. Read it and look it up if you need to.

I should not have to.. I should be able to read it in my language and understand it.

We do not talk like "verily verily" we do not use those words

Baptize is not even an english word. it is a greek word.

There are 4 words for love in the greek, which interpretation of love do I use by reading in the english.

As for errors in the KJV I challenged you to prove it, and you cant because there arent any that cant be explained.

I guess if you worship a bible interpretation you will nto believe anything against it.

jesus said peter do you "agape" me, Peter said ye Lord I "Phileo"

The KJV says. "peter do you love me, Yeah lord I love you"

Not even close to being the same, a flawed interpretation which is found in EVERY english bible.

There are also many additions to the word. that even falls in my NKJV, that make no sense. Like Rom 8: 1. where part of verse 4 was respoken in verse one. and is an obvious error

I can go on and on and on.

PROVE YOURSELF. You arent the only one who claims here that the KJV is full of errors. well I say to ALL of you Put up or shut up. I have seen the sites myself that claim the KJV is garbage but their conclusions are completely errant

You have alot af pride. Your worship of a bible is wreeking. you attack people who have nothing more to say than do not trust any english bible. because they did your holy kjv which is out of date and has all the basic flaws of every english text.

 

[marks]

No. It is what it is. It will remain this way until the Messiah returns.

No, you are far more in control of your experience than perhaps you realize. The topics you pick, the manner in which you post, the way you respond to others, these all have a profound effect. You are either building up or tearing down. Don't blame your experience on others.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You dont have to justify yourself to anyone but God. And if what you mean by "here" is your workplace, working with those kids cant ever be considered a waste of time and talent. But if "here' is this website, well, you are always going to come across some real hardasses. I can be one of them when it comes to fighting lies and ignorance

He means here on the forum which he characterizes as "the gutter".

Yuck!

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

He means here on the forum which he characterizes as "the gutter".

Yuck!

Much love!

Not quite.

 

[Rockerduck]

I should not have to.. I should be able to read it in my language and understand it.

We do not talk like "verily verily" we do not use those words

Baptize is not even an english word. it is a greek word.

There are 4 words for love in the greek, which interpretation of love do I use by reading in the english.





I guess if you worship a bible interpretation you will nto believe anything against it.

jesus said peter do you "agape" me, Peter said ye Lord I "Phileo"

The KJV says. "peter do you love me, Yeah lord I love you"

Not even close to being the same, a flawed interpretation which is found in EVERY english bible.

There are also many additions to the word. that even falls in my NKJV, that make no sense. Like Rom 8: 1. where part of verse 4 was respoken in verse one. and is an obvious error

I can go on and on and on.



You have alot af pride. Your worship of a bible is wreeking. you attack people who have nothing more to say than do not trust any english bible. because they did your holy kjv which is out of date and has all the basic flaws of every english text.

Would you rather read the KJV in English or Greek? Agape and Phileo are Greek words not in the English language, so they translated it to English. Although you know the real reason, you shouldn't claim it wrong.

 

[ChristinaL]

I should not have to.. I should be able to read it in my language and understand it.

We do not talk like "verily verily" we do not use those words

Baptize is not even an english word. it is a greek word.

There are 4 words for love in the greek, which interpretation of love do I use by reading in the english.





I guess if you worship a bible interpretation you will nto believe anything against it.

jesus said peter do you "agape" me, Peter said ye Lord I "Phileo"

The KJV says. "peter do you love me, Yeah lord I love you"

Not even close to being the same, a flawed interpretation which is found in EVERY english bible.

There are also many additions to the word. that even falls in my NKJV, that make no sense. Like Rom 8: 1. where part of verse 4 was respoken in verse one. and is an obvious error

I can go on and on and on.



You have alot af pride. Your worship of a bible is wreeking. you attack people who have nothing more to say than do not trust any english bible. because they did your holy kjv which is out of date and has all the basic flaws of every english text.

Its not pride to be strong and confident in the truth. Slap to you for even daring to suggest that i worship a bible.

Agape love is sacrificial love. Jesus was asking Peter if he loved Him enough to do anything for Him. That is why He said Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.


A commentary from bibleref.com
Peter's shame at denying Jesus, three separate times (John 13:36–38) was evident in his remorse (Luke 22:61–62). Now that Jesus has been resurrected, He has asked Peter to affirm his love (John 21:15). Now, He repeats that question using essentially the exact same ideas. Peter probably understands where this is going; if not, he will certainly grasp the symbolism the third time Jesus asks (John 21:17).

The terms used by Jesus and Peter here are not identical in all three instances, but they are meant to imply the same ideas. Jesus' commands use terms for "sheep" and "lambs," but He doesn't mean to draw a distinction between them. In the same way, Jesus uses the Greek term agapaō, referring to "love," in His first two questions. His third question, and all of Peter's replies, use the term phileō. This also refers to love—in separate contexts, these imply different types of love. In this instance, they're intended to mean the same thing.

My parkinsons is getting in my way so its too hard to respond to the other at the moment.

BACK NOW.

I prefer to use commentaries which can usually answer some points much better than I can

Romans 8:1 Romans 8:1 Commentaries: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Read them because there is too much to cut and paste here

 

[ChristinaL]

He means here on the forum which he characterizes as "the gutter".

Yuck!

Much love!

ah. lol

 

[GodsGrace]

Would you rather read the KJV in English or Greek? Agape and Phileo are Greek words not in the English language, so they translated it to English. Although you know the real reason, you shouldn't claim it wrong.

This is funny Rockerduck!
@Eternally Grateful is absolutely correct about the language situation.

If I said to you:
I agape you
or
I eros you

YOU wouldn't find any difference because they're both translated LOVE.

But there's a world of difference that the English does not pick up...
Languages cannot be totally translated 100% correctly due to phrases and cultural differences.

 

[GodsGrace]

What’s really difficult here for me is justifying my own use of time.

[For me this forum is primarily an escape from my work with neglected, abused and at risk children. (Quite often, especially with teens, they don’t want help but are in desperate need of it.) The irony is that my presence here is a ”hair of the dog that bit me” remedy. Running from trauma to trauma to escape trauma. A psychiatrist would probably have a field day with that.]

Professors I worked with think what I’m doing here is a waste of time and talent. I’m working in the gutter; they’re still working in an ivory tower.

Nothing you do that could be helpful to either the Body or those outside of the Body is a waste of time.
What we dedicate to God will always have some type of good turn-out.
Even if we never even see it.

 

[ChristinaL]

This is funny Rockerduck!
@Eternally Grateful is absolutely correct about the language situation.

If I said to you:
I agape you
or
I eros you

YOU wouldn't find any difference because they're both translated LOVE.

But there's a world of difference that the English does not pick up...
Languages cannot be totally translated 100% correctly due to phrases and cultural differences.

This person, and you as well are wrong. You have to learn meaning and context which you clearly havent done

 

[GodsGrace]

This person, and you as well are wrong. You have to learn meaning and context which you clearly havent done

C,
I'm not speaking about meaning and context.
I'm talking about properly representing the words used in the original Greek.

In the English versions, the word HELL is always used.
There's only one place in the NT that actually means what we understand as being hell:
2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

Everywhere else that the word HELL is used, the original word in Greek is sheoul, or hades, Gehenna,
which do not mean hell, as we use the word and as we mean it.

Also, when reading the bible a person cannot be going to a dictionary for practically every sentence that he reads since it will have a word that is no longer used today. This is an unreasonable request.

Did you know that The Message was translated for our younger readers?
Do you really think the kids of today could understand even the NASB?
Sometimes I wonder.

Better to read a version that is easily understandable TO THE READER.

 

[ChristinaL]

C,
I'm not speaking about meaning and context.
I'm talking about properly representing the words used in the original Greek.

In the English versions, the word HELL is always used.
There's only one place in the NT that actually means what we understand as being hell:
2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;

Everywhere else that the word HELL is used, the original word in Greek is sheoul, or hades, Gehenna,
which do not mean hell, as we use the word and as we mean it.

Also, when reading the bible a person cannot be going to a dictionary for practically every sentence that he reads since it will have a word that is no longer used today. This is an unreasonable request.

Did you know that The Message was translated for our younger readers?
Do you really think the kids of today could understand even the NASB?
Sometimes I wonder.

Better to read a version that is easily understandable TO THE READER.

THE MESSAGE bible also uses somewhere, I think in its faulty version of the Lord's prayer, As above, so below. Something used in witchcraft. Paraphrased bibles not only use bad Hebrew/Greek texts but they take far too many liberties with translation

Can kids today learn to understand the NASB or older bibles? YES. No excuses. Do you not know that kids in centuries past used the bible, usually the KJV, to learn how to read? or they used the McGuffey reader, the original of which was heavily bible based? Pretty tough slogging but they did it. People need to stop with the stupid excuses

I dont judge people who read modern bibles as long as they (the person) is solidly grounded in the truth. But they also need to quit judging the KJV when they really dont know what the hell they are talking about

 

[GodsGrace]

THE MESSAGE bible also uses somewhere, I think in its faulty version of the Lord's prayer, As above, so below. Something used in witchcraft. Paraphrased bibles not only use bad Hebrew/Greek texts but they take far too many liberties with translation

I don't like The Message....I was using it as an extreme example.

Can kids today learn to understand the NASB or older bibles? YES. No excuses.

Let me put it this way C,,,,
Kids today are not too interested in the bible.
Take a look at my avatar. I teach kids....I know first-hand what I'm talking about.
They have enough of a problem just dealing with the bible...
let alone using a version that they can't even understand.
If you intend to tie them to their chair and force-feed them...I don't know, that method could be tried I guess.
Otherwise, we need to use a bible that they'll understand.

Do you not know that kids in centuries past used the bible, usually the KJV, to learn how to read? or they used the McGuffey reader, the original of which was heavily bible based? Pretty tough slogging but they did it. People need to stop with the stupid excuses

It's not those days unfortunately.
We've been dumbed down in the education field and we're not going back.
I love the KJV for its poetic sounding verses...I know many by heart.
Most folk just will not use it and this has to be accepted.
Unless a person wants to live in their own world....

I dont judge people who read modern bibles as long as they (the person) is solidly grounded in the truth. But they also need to quit judging the KJV when they really dont know what the hell they are talking about

But I gave you reasons why it shouldn't be used.
I think I know what I'm talking about.

But this conversation should really end here...

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Would you rather read the KJV in English or Greek? Agape and Phileo are Greek words not in the English language, so they translated it to English. Although you know the real reason, you shouldn't claim it wrong.

Agape and Phileo have totally different meaning. If you just use one word t interpret them both you can not properly know what the original author intended to say this will be hindered in the actual interpretation.

If you want a flawed bible and take it as perfect feel free to as fr
Me. I will investigate with tools knowing. Have a great bi or in my hands hindered by my language

And I never said it was wrong I said it was flawed a flawed interpretation is by defenition in error. So
Take it what you will

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Its not pride to be strong and confident in the truth. Slap to you for even daring to suggest that i worship a bible

I a confident in the truth that any English bible is flawed. So there is that

When you hold up a bible like you do. Most people call it worship. Slap away. It still is what it is

Agape love is sacrificial love. Jesus was asking Peter if he loved Him enough to do anything for Him. That is why He said Feed my sheep, feed my lambs.

Yes but Peter could not admit that he loved god with agape love. That’s why he reaponded with phileo love. Talk about having my eyes opened when I first learned this. That Jesus encouraged Peter. Even if you do not agape me. I still trust you to feed my sheep

A commentary from bibleref.com
Peter's shame at denying Jesus, three separate times (John 13:36–38) was evident in his remorse (Luke 22:61–62). Now that Jesus has been resurrected, He has asked Peter to affirm his love (John 21:15). Now, He repeats that question using essentially the exact same ideas. Peter probably understands where this is going; if not, he will certainly grasp the symbolism the third time Jesus asks (John 21:17).

But you missed the point of what happened in English. Jesus asking agape and Peter saying phileo is huge. Basic love is not what Jesus asked

The terms used by Jesus and Peter here are not identical in all three instances, but they are meant to imply the same ideas.

Sorry this commentary is in error. If they displayed the same ideas they both would have used the same Greek word

Jesus' commands use terms for "sheep" and "lambs," but He doesn't mean to draw a distinction between them. In the same way, Jesus uses the Greek term agapaō, referring to "love,"

No. It does not refer to just love it is deeper than this

in His first two questions. His third question, and all of Peter's replies, use the term phileō. This also refers to love—

A different type of love. That is where the flaw comes in they have different meanings

in separate contexts, these imply different types of love. In this instance, they're intended to mean the same thing.

No they are not. And you want to attack me for saying you worship a translation. Your not listening to reality your trying to excuse your bible.

My parkinsons is getting in my way so its too hard to respond to the other at the moment.

BACK NOW.

I prefer to use commentaries which can usually answer some points much better than I can

Romans 8:1 Romans 8:1 Commentaries: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Read them because there is too much to cut and paste here

That’s great but not everyone has excess or uses a commentary

Either way the commentary you used here just ignored the basis of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. And this is not the only place this happens. Just one of many

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is funny Rockerduck!
@Eternally Grateful is absolutely correct about the language situation.

If I said to you:
I agape you
or
I eros you

YOU wouldn't find any difference because they're both translated LOVE.

But there's a world of difference that the English does not pick up...
Languages cannot be totally translated 100% correctly due to phrases and cultural differences.

There is a reason God chose Greek not English. Greek was a a much deeper language.

Even English words have changed tongues is no longer a word we use language today. Imagine if even the modern bibles used language instead of tongues Same with baptism. Imagine if the modern text used immerse instead of baptize. Or even Jesus name. Which is a transliteration to his Greek name iesus. Which a translation of his Hebrew name yeah ya which in English literally means Joshua.

The true interpretation of Jesus name and title would be Joshua the anointed one. Or yeshua the messiah or Iesus christos

 

[ChristinaL]

I a confident in the truth that any English bible is flawed. So there is that

When you hold up a bible like you do. Most people call it worship. Slap away. It still is what it is

Yes but Peter could not admit that he loved god with agape love. That’s why he reaponded with phileo love. Talk about having my eyes opened when I first learned this. That Jesus encouraged Peter. Even if you do not agape me. I still trust you to feed my sheep

But you missed the point of what happened in English. Jesus asking agape and Peter saying phileo is huge. Basic love is not what Jesus asked

Sorry this commentary is in error. If they displayed the same ideas they both would have used the same Greek word

No. It does not refer to just love it is deeper than this


A different type of love. That is where the flaw comes in they have different meanings

No they are not. And you want to attack me for saying you worship a translation. Your not listening to reality your trying to excuse your bible.

That’s great but not everyone has excess or uses a commentary

Either way the commentary you used here just ignored the basis of the conversation between Jesus and Peter. And this is not the only place this happens. Just one of many

Man your ignorance and arrogance is just astounding if you are going to completely trash commentaries from men far wiser and more experienced that either of us. You think you know even more than the greatest minds in history.

Commentaries are the best resources you can use to understand the scriptures and the Greek and Hebrew behind it. NEVER lean on your own understanding

I didnt miss the point between agape and phileo love. I just explained to you through the commentary why two different words were used.

I am not going to waste any further time on you

 

[GodsGrace]

There is a reason God chose Greek not English. Greek was a a much deeper language.

Even English words have changed tongues is no longer a word we use language today. Imagine if even the modern bibles used language instead of tongues Same with baptism. Imagine if the modern text used immerse instead of baptize. Or even Jesus name. Which is a transliteration to his Greek name iesus. Which a translation of his Hebrew name yeah ya which in English literally means Joshua.

The true interpretation of Jesus name and title would be Joshua the anointed one. Or yeshua the messiah or Iesus christos

How about Hebrew?
The same can be said.
The culture was so different when the OT books were being written that we miss a lot of what happens.
Words are important.
Entire sentences/paragraphs are written where much can be missed.

I don't know all the times this happens....but I know that it exists and I try to be careful in understanding scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

Man your ignorance and arrogance is just astounding if you are going to completely trash commentaries from men far wiser and more experienced that either of us. You think you know even more than the greatest minds in history.

Commentaries are the best resources you can use to understand the scriptures and the Greek and Hebrew behind it. NEVER lean on your own understanding

I didnt miss the point between agape and phileo love. I just explained to you through the commentary why two different words were used.

I am not going to waste any further time on you

I'm sorry about your parkinsons C.
I know it affects how you feel, I just want to say that I don't think either @Eternally Grateful or I are trashing commentaries.
For instance, what do you do when your read 3 or 4 and they don't even agree?
I'm sure you realize that if a Protestant reads 1 Cor 3:15 he understands it entirely different than if a Catholic reads it....
and I'm talking about theologians, not us!

When they all agree, it's great.
But when they don't?

I just think we need to read through and come to some kind of understanding that we can live with and that we believe to be correct.
Take OSAS....an important topic for me. Not all theologians agree on its verocity. What to do? Is it true or not? Theologians won't help you much...