BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

Yes!

You are absolutely correct! I checked the Young's Analytical. Peter did respond with a different word for love than what Jesus used, and not even the NASB brought that out. Not a single one of the Modern Translations brought out this particular aspect any better than the KJV.

Jesus used agapao the first two times, and Peter answered with phileo.(a weaker kind of love.) To love without God's love within us is not good enough. That seems to be the point Jesus is making.

Thanks Bob.

Agape was used in many verses referring to an evil love also. Therefore it is not possible to support this interpretation between Jesus and Peter with the word Agape and Phileo. And the same can be said for Phileo where it is used in the most postive of spiritual commitments in some verses. Below are just some of the examples where Agape is used in the most evil kind of love.

Agape is used in all of these verses:

John 3:19 “people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil”;

John 12:43 “for they loved human praise more than praise from God”;

2 Timothy 4:10 “Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me” and

2 Peter 2:15 “They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness”.

Loving evil things is not a holy, divine love in any way, shape or form.

Wait... there's more. Actually a lot more than these examples.

Luke 11:43 (ESV)

Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

2 Peter 2:15 (ESV)

Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing,

• In the Septuagint (which is the Greek Version of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Christ), agape is used to refer to Amnon’s feelings for his half-sister Tamar, following his rape of her (2 Samuel 13:15, LXX).

I mean why would NASB, ESV, CSB or others say anything different than the KJV if the correct translation should be the English word Love. None of them, including the KJV is translating it "weak kind of love" and "God kind of Love" or something that communicates that because all these translators know that is not how Phileo and Agape should be translated nor are they used that way where ever they occur. This is a misunderstanding of how to view those Greek words.

I am not going to argue about it. Just trying to help. I will let it go because there are lots of people teaching that they mean human love and God love and it will be a while before this finally goes into the bucket with the "eye of the needle being a gate in the wall" myth pile where it belongs. But when it does, remember you heard it first here on CC. LOL

I see this, but doesn't the fact still remain that Jesus used a stronger word than Peter did? You yourself stated that context is important. The Greek context displays a definite contrast between question and response to said question.

Thank you for your insight as well, brother Amanuensis.

The Greeks must have adopted more than one word for love for a reason, yes?

That is an excellent question.

This is a fascinating aspect of the translations and very pertinent to our topic.

...and you are helping. Please remain on board and see what others have to say about this Greek love thing.

I understand your reasons for considering it. I did too. But when I look into it I discover that the Greek scholars that actually know Greek don't agree with these theories about the different word exchange between Peter and Jesus. Like this from F.F. Bruce.

Stylistically, this interchange between the Lord and his disciple is interesting because of the use of synonyms. Two words for “love” are used (agapaō and phileō), two words for tending the flock (boskō and poimainō),558 two for the flock itself (arnia and probatia) and two for “know” (oida and ginōskō). This interplay of synonyms is a feature of the writer’s Greek; it can hardly represent a comparable variation of vocabulary in the language which Jesus and Peter probably spoke. Of the four pairs of synonyms mentioned, it is the pair agapaō and phileō that commentators have generally found most interesting. The risen Lord uses agapaō in his first two questions and phileō in the third; Peter uses phileō in all three replies. But those who see a difference in force between the two verbs here are not agreed on the nature of the difference. According to R. C. Trench. Peter finds the word on his Lord’s lips (agapaō) “far too cold” at a time when “all the pulses in the heart of the now penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection” towards him. He himself uses a word (phileō) which more adequately conveys the warmth of that affection, and triumphs when on the third occasion the Lord consents to use that word.559 B. F. Westcott, on the other hand, takes agapaō, the word used by the Lord in his first two questions, to denote “that higher love which was to be the spring of the Christian life,” whereas Peter, by using phileō, affirms only the natural love of personal attachment. When, on the third occasion, the Lord uses phileō, Peter is the more hurt because the Lord now seems to be questioning even “that modified love which he had professed.”560 When two such distinguished Greek scholars (both, moreover, tending to argue from the standards of classical Greek) see the significance of the synonyms so differently, we may wonder if indeed we are intended to see such distinct significance. Let us consider these facts. (i) The verbs agapaō and phileō are used interchangeably in the Septuagint to render one and the same Hebrew word (e.g. in Genesis 37:3 Jacob’s preferential love for Joseph is expressed by agapaō but in the following verse by phileō). (ii) The verb agapaō in itself does not necessarily imply a loftier love; it does so when the context makes this clear (on the other hand, in 2 Timothy 4:10 Demas’s regrettable love for “the present age” is expressed by agapaō). (iii) More important still for our present purpose is the fact that John himself uses the two verbs interchangeably elsewhere in his Gospel, e.g. in the statement that “the Father loves the Son” (agapaō in 3:35; phileō in 5:20) and in references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (agapaō in 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20; phileō in 20:2). It is precarious, then, to press a distinction between the two synonyms here. What is important is that Peter reaffirms his love for the Lord, and is rehabilitated and recommissioned. The commission is a pastoral one. When first he was called from his occupation of catching fish to be a follower of Jesus, he was told that thenceforth he would catch men (Luke 5:10; cf. Mark 1:17). Now to the evangelist’s hook there is added the pastor’s crook, so that, as had often been said, Peter proceeded to fulfill his double commission “by hook and by crook.” How seriously he took this second commission may be gathered from 1 Peter 5:1-4 where, speaking towards the end of his life as an elder to fellow elders, he urges them to “shepherd the flock of God” so faithfully that they would receive an unfading garland of glory at the manifestation of the chief shepherd. The chief shepherd, whose voice has been heard in chapter 10, delegates his responsibility to under-shepherds, among whom Peter is first to be so commissioned.

Bruce, F.F.. The Gospel of John: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition (pp. 542-543). Kingsley Books.

Here is another ....

Much has been written as to whether his use of a different word for love82 in any way limits or qualifies his answer.83 But the two words, whatever their different nuances,84 are used interchangeably in this Gospel for the Father’s love for the Son (for example, 3:35; 5:20), the disciples’ love for Jesus (see 14:15; 16:27), Jesus’ love for Lazarus (see 11:3, 5), and Jesus’ love for “the disciple whom he loved” (see 13:23; 20:2). Other synonyms or near synonyms, moreover, are used interchangeably both in the immediate context—“lambs” (v. 15) and “sheep” (vv. 16, 17), “tend” (vv. 15, 17), and “shepherd” (v.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John (p. 1043). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..

Most are like this. They point out the fact that these Greek words are used in all sorts of contexts that demonstrate they should not be defined the way the popular myths in Christian circles say they should. We should be careful what we hear and check it out when it comes to Greek definitions and what I mean by check it out, is ask a Greek expert.

I also want to emphasize that I think we can understand the most important message between Jesus and Peter here without all this Greek discussion. There is a restoration of Peter going on because of his denials. He said though everyone else forsook Him he would not and he would even die. Now Jesus is asking him do you love me more than these others. He is saying Yes he loves him but he does not say "more than others" Then he is grieved about the third time because he knows it is about his denials. And the call to Feed His Sheep is a contrast with thinking he loved Him more than them. Now not only is he being restored but he is being called to shepherd the very lambs he once was saying he exceeded in love for Christ. There is a lot going on here but it can all be absorbed in the English translations as they don't require any changes to the word Love to grasp the main message here.

That's my opinion so far. I have not been convinced that the ones presenting the phileo/agape theory because they are never Greek experts. And they are not more persuasive than people like F.F. Bruce who was also a textual manuscript expert as well as one of the foremost Greek scholars of our modern times. I listen to what he says about this because he really knows what he is talking about. But he is not the only one. It seems like all of the Greek experts say no to this agape/phileo exchange theory as contrasting types of love Jesus is trying to teach Peter.

Ok, thank you for explaining.
That makes for a kind of 'apples & oranges' comparison though.
* Old Hebrew and Greek are the original languages.
* The KJV is a translation of those languages.

I haven't been making an argument that the KJV is not a good version. I have been making the argument that it is
not better than other English versions. It is not superior. It is not "word for word" or "more acurate"
Those are the things that bother me. Not the KJV itself but it's weaponised use against other legitimate translations.

This boils down to one thing.
We all have our preferences and we cannot force our own preferences on others.

I am not a KJ onlyist, I am a KJ bestest.

He slanders God’s word, I’m just stating facts. I haven’t slandered him personally.

Sounds quite personal. His work is evidence against the charge below.

Mine ear hath heard many new things this day. Thank you all.

It is good to know that KJV men may have had reason to do what they did with John 21.

It is important to know that even the experts cannot be sure about some things. That brings us back to home: note the context and seek the spirit for understanding. I feel comfortable sticking with KJV now. I was afraid I might be missing out on something "new and improved", but maybe I'm not. I really don't find the KJV to be difficult (personally). What Lucy said about the KJV language being early modern sounds legit.

John146
Asking you a question. Is this God's Word?

1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein.
2 For He has founded it upon the seas, And established it upon the waters.
3 Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive blessing from the Lord, And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Your face. Selah
7 Lift up your heads, O you gates! And be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in.
8 Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O you gates! Lift up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in.
10 Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory. Selah

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Context Context, Context!!!

Would Jesus ask Peter if he "loved" Him with an EVIL Love???

The difference relates, of course, to the "Intensity" / "Personal commitment" involved - as your illustrations demonstrate.

Jesus asks for "Commitment", and Peter answers with "Casual". This, of course is the diametric OPPOSITE of what Peter (and the other disciples) promised earlier (Mat 26:35). Basically anything that won't stand the TEST, isn't real.

Candlestick is a device holder but not a candle per se, while a lampstand is a device that holds the lamp. The lamp, however, is also a device vessel where oil is being put to. Of course, we are discussing not a wax candle, nevertheless, the element of a candle is wax and they were developed from a variety of fats, oils, and waxy-like substances derived from animals, insects, plants, and rocks.

My third point of rebuttal as I said the KJB does represent the candlestick rather than a lampstand. The candlestick is a device holder that holds the candle which has the element of oil or is sometimes called a lamp. Perhaps the difference is that candle is solid and the oil is liquid-gas. Actually, I have provided earlier in my post that Critical scholars like Thayer and Strong can either be translated as the same but the translation in the KJB text is far clearer as I explained because of the archaeological evidence I cited.

Now you go to the O.T menorah for Zechariah 4 and hopefully, we are talking about the translational issue,s not doctrinal issues. The KJB does translate menorah as candlestick made of gold and clearly, we are not talking about wax-based oil or candle. The candlestick, however, has seven lamps since lamps are regarded as burner device that produces light or illumination.

The literal translation of YLT does favor the KJB, however, Darby has the support of the lamp-stand. To settle this, I always consider the other languages for comparison.

Latin Vulgate/clementine vulgate = candelabra and lampas for lamp

German Luther Bible has Leutcher for candlestick and lampen for lamp

French Guiget / Segond Bibles has chandelier for candlestick and lampes for lamp

Espanol RV has candeleros and lamparas

These translations from the other languages do tell us the same sense as the KJB and not the other way around. Noticed, the Hebrew menorah= candlestick differs from the Hebrew translated as a lamp and could be translated depending on the context as light, candle, or lamp. On this occasion, the KJB does it correctly as a lamp.

Zechariah 4:2

Vulgate(i) 2 et dixit ad me quid tu vides et dixi vidi et ecce candelabrum aureum totum et lampas eius super caput ipsius et septem lucernae eius super illud septem et septem infusoria lucernis quae erant super caput illius

Now, the problem is that the Latin candelabrum per google translation has the same as a lampstand or candlestick but the google translator itself is definitely pro KJB because when you click the English candlestick, it tells more of the Greek Lychnius but not on a lampstand.

That's too obvious...

Immersion is not a total translation of the Greek Baptidzo. Immersion does not signify the truth of the gospel while baptism is. When you immerse, you are drowning the candidates and do not convey the life after death. The gospel is said to be the death, burial (immerse) but not a resurrection to life

I mean immersion would not portray ressurection to ife

Before leaving this topic, I believe, Mounce used the full meaning of Mr. Strong who is also a member of the revisionist body led by Westcott and hort in 1881. The definition is all there and Kjb is in no error at all. For precision, however, the Kjb is more precised simply because the other languages like latin, french, espanol and the German have the same sense as the kjb.

Here is the RSV
Hebrews 1 v 8
but to the Son He says "Thy throne O God is forever and ever
the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of Thy kingdom"

That's ok ain't it, that's no different to the KJV

... wait a minute, there's a footnote

"or God is Thy throne"

Not "God Thy throne ... " but he says according to this footnote God says to His Son "God is Thy throne"

He couldn't keep his opinion that Christ is not truly God out of the bible.

Hebrews 1 - 3 KJV
[Christ is] the brightness of His glory and the express image of [God's] person

RSV 1 -3
[Christ] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature. ....

merely reflects, is not the image of God but bears the stamp [imposed presumably] of God's nature

Pah ... it's awful nor are these the only examples.