I can agree with that.Grizalltheway wrote:Possibly. I'm just saying it's a pretty shaky premise to say that "humans feel guilt, therefore God must exist".JoltinJoe wrote:
If there is no God, wouldn't we evolve toward not feeling guilt?
DING!Skjellyfetti wrote:It's pretty much Catholicism in a nutshell.Grizalltheway wrote: Possibly. I'm just saying it's a pretty shaky premise to say that "humans feel guilt, therefore God must exist".
It must be so sad to be you.Skjellyfetti wrote:Yeah, you're right. Catholics don't focus much on guilt and it tends to be overlooked in the Churclh.
Who determines true justice? Jebbus?JoltinJoe wrote:I can agree with that.Grizalltheway wrote:
Possibly. I'm just saying it's a pretty shaky premise to say that "humans feel guilt, therefore God must exist".
I think it is more convincing to say that humans strive toward justice; therefore, objectively true justice must exist.
I apologize for sometimes saying to much with to few of words to support it, things get lost in the message .. my faultJoltinJoe wrote:It's just that your postings don't make much sense.Bisonfanatical wrote: Just wanted to clarify the words you tried to put in my mouth?
As for your last statement ...
Yes,
You addressed my points as best as you can from a Roman Church standpoint ... it comes down to the fact that we have 2 different belief systems, and we worship 2 different God's.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
If you are asserting that the Messiah lived and died 2,000 years ago, but that his nature and title were subsequently altered by man -- fine, I get your point. But that "alteration" happened within the lifetime of, and at the behest of, actual apostles and disciples who had traveled with him and heard him teach. It didn't happen in the 4th Century.
As for your assertion that the Messiah's name was changed to Jesus from Yeshua, you do realize that these are the same names, just different phonetic spellings in different language? Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, his name was pronounced "Eashoa" during his lifetime.
My friend, that is so funny.JoltinJoe wrote:You've been oblique up to this point, but you're a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you?Bisonfanatical wrote: The one who made a covenant with the Israelites, who punished them repeatedly, divided their kingdom, divorced and banished the 10 northern tribes, Punished the southern kingdom ... etc
All because they kept integrating Pagan imagery and rituals into their worship.
The God who declared that he never changes ... the God who established eternal dates for worship festivals ... Who said he will redeem his people with one of their own (human) from the tribe of Y'hudah .. the one who said besides me there is no other god ... the one who declared his name almost 7000 times in the Tanakh (OT) as Yehovah (not I am).
That will do for a start?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
You are aware there is no such word as "Jehovah" in Hebrew?
Jjoey52 wrote:Only thing worse than a liberal politician is a liberal theologian
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Jjoey52 wrote:Liberal Theologians would say the words of Jesus were added later, while conservatives would believe eyewitness accounts is one example.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
First, Deuteronomy stated, to be precise, nothing was to be added or taken from the LAW. Nothing in Deuteronomy suggests that there would be no more revelation. The Jews themselves added other revelation to their canon, including Isaiah, in which the prophet foretells that the Messiah would be known as "Immanuel" -- "God among us." And there are many other such references to the Messiah's divinity.Bisonfanatical wrote:I apologize for sometimes saying to much with to few of words to support it, things get lost in the message .. my faultJoltinJoe wrote:
It's just that your postings don't make much sense.
If you are asserting that the Messiah lived and died 2,000 years ago, but that his nature and title were subsequently altered by man -- fine, I get your point. But that "alteration" happened within the lifetime of, and at the behest of, actual apostles and disciples who had traveled with him and heard him teach. It didn't happen in the 4th Century.
As for your assertion that the Messiah's name was changed to Jesus from Yeshua, you do realize that these are the same names, just different phonetic spellings in different language? Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, his name was pronounced "Eashoa" during his lifetime.
First ... the nature of the Messiah was established in the book we call Deuteronomy. This book is very unique due to the fact that the Creator stated at the beginning and the end that nothing can be added to OR taken away from ANYTHING stated in it. The nature of the Messiah is very clear, as it is in all the books of the prophets.
Second ... the title was invented by the Universal Roman Church somewhere after the first 100 years and before the Council Of Nicea, no Hebrew was looking for a "Christos". According to New Advent dot Org, It was a special title created for a special person? Actually it was a special title for the special "sign in the sun" (lol) that the Roman Emperor Constantine saw ... the letters X and P ... called the Chi-Rho (sounds like Cairo). This is the "sign" that was on his "standards" when he went into battle, as well as 3 heads (trinity concept?) ... the first 2 letters in the Greek title "Christos" are this X and P which are translated C and H, think Christos (christ). Need more proof? Look at the cover of your Roman Missal.
Third ... neither the Messiah nor the Hebrew spoke aramaic as their mother tongue, they did not read from aramaic scrolls in the synagogues, the sign above his head when he was hung from a tree said "King of the Jews" in Greek and Latin and Hebrew ... that is what they spoke. Hebrews read in Hebrew.
Fourth ... the name of Joshua in the old testament was Yeshua, the name of the one we call Jesus in the new testament was Yeshua ... THE SAME HEBREW NAME ... the problem is that they should STILL BE THE SAME HEBREW NAME ... in any bodies language ... I don't care how you translate or transliterate them.
The apostles and all the Messianic believers of the Messiah called him by the name commanded by the Creator thru his angel who said;
You WILL call his name Yeshua, because he will save My people from their iniquities.
I hope I did better?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
What "born again" Christian sect instructs that Jesus was not divine?Bisonfanatical wrote:My friend, that is so funny.JoltinJoe wrote:
You've been oblique up to this point, but you're a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you?
You are aware there is no such word as "Jehovah" in Hebrew?
I am a born again baptised Christian who was "on fire" with the spirit, or so I thought.
I was witnessing to a JW on that very point. It was when I said there is no J ... therefore there was no Jehovah, Jerico, Joshua or JESUS ... BOOM ... that is when I had to stop and think.
The more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that Christians "worship what we do not know" to quote the Messiah to the Samaria woman ... we worship a god of our own imagination .. thousands of denominations but one bible ... rotf
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I was a born again Christian believer in someone named Jesus as well as the Trinity (3 as 1) ... came to understand that the problems stem from the man made traditions that change or override the word of the Creator. I don't care if you are a Luthern or catholic or methodist or whatever, you still believe in the same man-made doctrines from the Church of Constantine.JoltinJoe wrote:What "born again" Christian sect instructs that Jesus was not divine?Bisonfanatical wrote: My friend, that is so funny.
I am a born again baptised Christian who was "on fire" with the spirit, or so I thought.
I was witnessing to a JW on that very point. It was when I said there is no J ... therefore there was no Jehovah, Jerico, Joshua or JESUS ... BOOM ... that is when I had to stop and think.
The more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that Christians "worship what we do not know" to quote the Messiah to the Samaria woman ... we worship a god of our own imagination .. thousands of denominations but one bible ... rotf
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
And there is a "J" in English, and we are speaking English, right?
Why do you think there is some problem in using an English pronunciation of the Messiah's name, when we are speaking in English.
I have traveled a fair amount in Italy. I introduce myself as "Joseph," but Italians still call me, "Giuseppe." Because that's the Italian word for "Joseph."
First of all, in deuteronomy, in the Hebrew, it states that nothing is to be added to or taken away from this TORAH, which is the 5 book of Moss. It is the false western doctrine that teaches us that the law was the 10 commandments, those 10 statements were just a sign of the covenant between the Creator and His chosen people. There were over 600 commandments.JoltinJoe wrote:First, Deuteronomy stated, to be precise, nothing was to be added or taken from the LAW. Nothing in Deuteronomy suggests that there would be no more revelation. The Jews themselves added other revelation to their canon, including Isaiah, in which the prophet foretells that the Messiah would be known as "Immanuel" -- "God among us." And there are many other such references to the Messiah's divinity.Bisonfanatical wrote: I apologize for sometimes saying to much with to few of words to support it, things get lost in the message .. my fault
First ... the nature of the Messiah was established in the book we call Deuteronomy. This book is very unique due to the fact that the Creator stated at the beginning and the end that nothing can be added to OR taken away from ANYTHING stated in it. The nature of the Messiah is very clear, as it is in all the books of the prophets.
Second ... the title was invented by the Universal Roman Church somewhere after the first 100 years and before the Council Of Nicea, no Hebrew was looking for a "Christos". According to New Advent dot Org, It was a special title created for a special person? Actually it was a special title for the special "sign in the sun" (lol) that the Roman Emperor Constantine saw ... the letters X and P ... called the Chi-Rho (sounds like Cairo). This is the "sign" that was on his "standards" when he went into battle, as well as 3 heads (trinity concept?) ... the first 2 letters in the Greek title "Christos" are this X and P which are translated C and H, think Christos (christ). Need more proof? Look at the cover of your Roman Missal.
Third ... neither the Messiah nor the Hebrew spoke aramaic as their mother tongue, they did not read from aramaic scrolls in the synagogues, the sign above his head when he was hung from a tree said "King of the Jews" in Greek and Latin and Hebrew ... that is what they spoke. Hebrews read in Hebrew.
Fourth ... the name of Joshua in the old testament was Yeshua, the name of the one we call Jesus in the new testament was Yeshua ... THE SAME HEBREW NAME ... the problem is that they should STILL BE THE SAME HEBREW NAME ... in any bodies language ... I don't care how you translate or transliterate them.
The apostles and all the Messianic believers of the Messiah called him by the name commanded by the Creator thru his angel who said;
You WILL call his name Yeshua, because he will save My people from their iniquities.
I hope I did better?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Your second point is just an incorrect understanding of what the term "Christ" means. "Christus" is the Latin word for "Messiah." In Latin, the title of the Messiah would be "Jesu Christus." "Jesu" is Latin for the Hebrew name "Yeshua" and would have been pronounced "Yesu." "Jesu" then translates to Jesus in English, with a hard "J' sound. In Spanish, Jesus is still pronounced "Yesu," as in the Latin. So these are all the same terms, just in different tongues, and they designate the same Messiah by the SAME name and title. Otherwise, I'm fascinated by the level of your indoctrination into the falsities about the "Roman Church" advocated by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Third, the most common dialect spoken in Israel at the time of Jesus was Aramaic. There is simply no doubt about that.
Fourth, your statement that "the name of Joshua in the old testament was Yeshua" is not true. Ancient Hebrew contained no vowels; therefore, "Yeshua" was a itself phonetic expression. If you think the name "Yeshua" translates better into English as "Joshua," that's fine. "Joshua" and "Jesus" are English spellings of the same name, much the way a name like "Mary" and "Maria" are the same name. But if you start calling Jesus by the word "Joshua" in English, you are going to confuse many people, since the common English name "Jesus" comes into English through Latin -- and not directly from phonetic Ancient Hebrew.
Now here is my question for you. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses spend so much time trying to import significance to the manner in which names have been translated through the centuries? The leaders of the church intend to confuse you.
So freedom of religion supersedes laws? Our laws must jive with religions? That doesn't sound much like liberty either.JohnStOnge wrote:Back to the original post starting this thread:
I think it's a shame that we've evolved into a culture where people believe government should force other people to engage in commerce with them. The point of this country, though imperfectly implemented, was supposed to be Liberty. It wasn't supposed to be being able to run to the government to force someone who doesn't want to to bake a wedding cake for you.
And though I've written it before I'll write it again: Government making a law saying that someone must choose between being in business or violating their religious beliefs is about as clear a violation of the principle of the "free practice thereof" language in the First Amendment as there is. You can't say someone is free to practice their religion then say that they're not free to operate, for example, a bakery unless they re willing to violate their religious beliefs.
Now, intellectual honesty dictates recognizing that the First Amendment was a restriction on the Congress of the Unites States and not on State or local governments. But I'm talking about the "Freedom of Religion" principle it reflects. A law forcing someone to choose between violating their religious beliefs and being in business is contrary to the "Freedom of Religion" principle. And the "Freedom of Religion" principle is pretty obviously supposed to be one of the primary principles associated with this nation.
Do you understand the concept of translating from one language to another? Wait...you don't.Bisonfanatical wrote:First of all, in deuteronomy, in the Hebrew, it states that nothing is to be added to or taken away from this TORAH, which is the 5 book of Moss. It is the false western doctrine that teaches us that the law was the 10 commandments, those 10 statements were just a sign of the covenant between the Creator and His chosen people. There were over 600 commandments.JoltinJoe wrote:
First, Deuteronomy stated, to be precise, nothing was to be added or taken from the LAW. Nothing in Deuteronomy suggests that there would be no more revelation. The Jews themselves added other revelation to their canon, including Isaiah, in which the prophet foretells that the Messiah would be known as "Immanuel" -- "God among us." And there are many other such references to the Messiah's divinity.
Your second point is just an incorrect understanding of what the term "Christ" means. "Christus" is the Latin word for "Messiah." In Latin, the title of the Messiah would be "Jesu Christus." "Jesu" is Latin for the Hebrew name "Yeshua" and would have been pronounced "Yesu." "Jesu" then translates to Jesus in English, with a hard "J' sound. In Spanish, Jesus is still pronounced "Yesu," as in the Latin. So these are all the same terms, just in different tongues, and they designate the same Messiah by the SAME name and title. Otherwise, I'm fascinated by the level of your indoctrination into the falsities about the "Roman Church" advocated by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Third, the most common dialect spoken in Israel at the time of Jesus was Aramaic. There is simply no doubt about that.
Fourth, your statement that "the name of Joshua in the old testament was Yeshua" is not true. Ancient Hebrew contained no vowels; therefore, "Yeshua" was a itself phonetic expression. If you think the name "Yeshua" translates better into English as "Joshua," that's fine. "Joshua" and "Jesus" are English spellings of the same name, much the way a name like "Mary" and "Maria" are the same name. But if you start calling Jesus by the word "Joshua" in English, you are going to confuse many people, since the common English name "Jesus" comes into English through Latin -- and not directly from phonetic Ancient Hebrew.
Now here is my question for you. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses spend so much time trying to import significance to the manner in which names have been translated through the centuries? The leaders of the church intend to confuse you.
Go re-read Isaiah 7:14 as well as 8:8 in context to understand what "Immanuel" was all about .. remember that even though it is in the new testament doesn't mean it wasn't added later .. for instance the name Jesus and the title christ were never in the original documents.
Secondly ... As far as the title christ in the Latin, that has no value what so ever in this discussion, it is the language of the Romans ... latin vulgate came well after the CoN, and the invented title Christos was defined prior to the CoN ..... latin manuscripts were taken from Greek manuscripts .. and in the Greek manuscripts, according to Strongs concordance, the title Christ has the designation G5547 with the transliteration Christos, and you will see the Greek letters which start with Constantine's X and P ... look at your Roman Missal ... Greek X and P. The name Jesus has the designation G2424 with the transliteration Iesous, it shows the root word in Hebrew is H3091 which is Yehoshuah. ..and guess what? ... the designation in the old testament for joshua is H3091 which is Yehoshuah ... they have the same name ... we should be calling both of them Jesus or both of them Joshua ... you pick ... same name.
As for any connection with a few of my thoughts and the JW's, it is by independent study only .. the Creator's name is not Jehovah ... it is Yehovah.
Third ... the phrase above the Messiah's head was in Hebrew, the Messiah talked to Paul on the road to Damascus in Hebrew, Paul spoke to the masses in the synagogue in Hebrew, the Aleppo codex as well as the Leningrad codex are the oldest complete full HEBREW manuscripts in existance.
P.s. the Creator's full name is in them a couple times, with all the vowel points ... Yehovah.
Fourth .... it doesn't matter what nickname somebody gives you ... your name is what it is ... the angel said "you WILL call his name Yeshua... ... the name above all names is Yeshua ... there is NO OTHER NAME given to us by the Creator by which we MUST BE SAVED.
man cannot over ride the will of the Creator ... you can't sin your way to salvation my friend ... no pope (man) can save you ... sin is shown as disobedience ... you can't come to obedience thru disobedience ... in the Tanakh as well as the NT it states that if the blind lead the blind they both go in the ditch ... if it doesn't have its roots in the Tanakh ... it is man made bologna
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I'm sure I deserved that? Anyway,Ibanez wrote:Do you understand the concept of translating from one language to another? Wait...you don't.Bisonfanatical wrote: First of all, in deuteronomy, in the Hebrew, it states that nothing is to be added to or taken away from this TORAH, which is the 5 book of Moss. It is the false western doctrine that teaches us that the law was the 10 commandments, those 10 statements were just a sign of the covenant between the Creator and His chosen people. There were over 600 commandments.
Go re-read Isaiah 7:14 as well as 8:8 in context to understand what "Immanuel" was all about .. remember that even though it is in the new testament doesn't mean it wasn't added later .. for instance the name Jesus and the title christ were never in the original documents.
Secondly ... As far as the title christ in the Latin, that has no value what so ever in this discussion, it is the language of the Romans ... latin vulgate came well after the CoN, and the invented title Christos was defined prior to the CoN ..... latin manuscripts were taken from Greek manuscripts .. and in the Greek manuscripts, according to Strongs concordance, the title Christ has the designation G5547 with the transliteration Christos, and you will see the Greek letters which start with Constantine's X and P ... look at your Roman Missal ... Greek X and P. The name Jesus has the designation G2424 with the transliteration Iesous, it shows the root word in Hebrew is H3091 which is Yehoshuah. ..and guess what? ... the designation in the old testament for joshua is H3091 which is Yehoshuah ... they have the same name ... we should be calling both of them Jesus or both of them Joshua ... you pick ... same name.
As for any connection with a few of my thoughts and the JW's, it is by independent study only .. the Creator's name is not Jehovah ... it is Yehovah.
Third ... the phrase above the Messiah's head was in Hebrew, the Messiah talked to Paul on the road to Damascus in Hebrew, Paul spoke to the masses in the synagogue in Hebrew, the Aleppo codex as well as the Leningrad codex are the oldest complete full HEBREW manuscripts in existance.
P.s. the Creator's full name is in them a couple times, with all the vowel points ... Yehovah.
Fourth .... it doesn't matter what nickname somebody gives you ... your name is what it is ... the angel said "you WILL call his name Yeshua... ... the name above all names is Yeshua ... there is NO OTHER NAME given to us by the Creator by which we MUST BE SAVED.
man cannot over ride the will of the Creator ... you can't sin your way to salvation my friend ... no pope (man) can save you ... sin is shown as disobedience ... you can't come to obedience thru disobedience ... in the Tanakh as well as the NT it states that if the blind lead the blind they both go in the ditch ... if it doesn't have its roots in the Tanakh ... it is man made bologna
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Ibanez wrote:I'm not as arrogant on some here
Just sayin.Ibanez wrote:Do you understand the concept of translating from one language to another? Wait...you don't.
Huh? The English language is one of the more descriptive and expansive languages on the planet. There's a reason why English is such a dominant language when discussing something like science for instance - there are so may ways to describe something in English (because it's borrowed from so many different languages) that it's immensely useful. Take your example of love, which you say we only have one word for this. How about fondness, warmth, intimacy, affection, tenderness, adoration, worship, to hold dear, idolize, yearning, passion, lust, ardor, doting, desire, infatuation. I'm sure the list could be double or triple just what I came up with, if not more. All describe various degrees or variations of love. I think you're oversimplifying the expressiveness of language.Bisonfanatical wrote:
1st ... if we look at John 21:15-17 at the conversation between the Messiah and Petros we see the translated word "love" being used. The conversation makes little sense in the English because we have one word for love, however, in the Greek language which doesn't have our limitations, there are more than 1 word for love.
Hahaha ha89Hen wrote:Ibanez wrote:I'm not as arrogant on some hereJust sayin.Ibanez wrote:Do you understand the concept of translating from one language to another? Wait...you don't.
Hey guys, I know this book that will truly change your life! It will unlock all the doors to your salvation, and answer the cosmic questions!Bisonfanatical wrote:I'm sure I deserved that? Anyway,Ibanez wrote:
Do you understand the concept of translating from one language to another? Wait...you don't.
There are 2 problems which come to mind about the concept of translating;
1st ... if we look at John 21:15-17 at the conversation between the Messiah and Petros we see the translated word "love" being used. The conversation makes little sense in the English because we have one word for love, however, in the Greek language which doesn't have our limitations, there are more than 1 word for love. The Messiah uses Agapeo (strongsG25) the first 2 times asking him if he has a lay down your life kind of love. The 3rd time he uses Phileo (strongsG5368) which is more along the lines of being very fond of him, a more casual kind of love. Petros (strongsG4074) in return uses the word Phileo all 3 times. It is hard to translate properly with those limitations.
2nd ... there is a big difference between translating words and tranliterating words.
Going back to the English Messiah, it starts with the Hebrew word (as they all do actually).
MASHIYACH (Strongs H4899) referred primarily to the "anointed Messianic Prince".
Translated it becomes MESSIAS (Strongs G3323) which is the Greek form of Mashiyach. This is what you should read in the Greek transcript every time you see the title christ, although it was replaced by another title except for 2 times?
But you don't read it,
Instead,
Transliterated, Mashiyach became CHRISTOS (Strongs G5547) which means "annointed". from the root word Chrio which means "to anoint"
Now with translation you find a word that means the same thing Mashiyach=Messias which makes sense.
With transliteration you look for letters that kind of look the same, but it is based off of the appearance of the letters instead of the meaning of the word.
The natural step was to translate Mashiyach to Messias because they had the same meaning ... and that is what they originally did ... the church of Constantine couldn't use Messias because in the Greek letters Messias begins with a M and a E and those letters were NOT the sign he was told to conquer in ... thus they transliterate the title Mashiyach to Christos because in the Greek spelling it begins with the letters X and P which were the sign (letters) Constantine was told to conquer in.
(look at your Roman Missal cover)
There is no other reason to explain why the Greek translated title Messias was changed to the Greek transliterated title Christ.
No other reason!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
) kalm wrote:Hey guys, I know this book that will truly change your life! It will unlock all the doors to your salvation, and answer the cosmic questions!Bisonfanatical wrote: I'm sure I deserved that? Anyway,
There are 2 problems which come to mind about the concept of translating;
1st ... if we look at John 21:15-17 at the conversation between the Messiah and Petros we see the translated word "love" being used. The conversation makes little sense in the English because we have one word for love, however, in the Greek language which doesn't have our limitations, there are more than 1 word for love. The Messiah uses Agapeo (strongsG25) the first 2 times asking him if he has a lay down your life kind of love. The 3rd time he uses Phileo (strongsG5368) which is more along the lines of being very fond of him, a more casual kind of love. Petros (strongsG4074) in return uses the word Phileo all 3 times. It is hard to translate properly with those limitations.
2nd ... there is a big difference between translating words and tranliterating words.
Going back to the English Messiah, it starts with the Hebrew word (as they all do actually).
MASHIYACH (Strongs H4899) referred primarily to the "anointed Messianic Prince".
Translated it becomes MESSIAS (Strongs G3323) which is the Greek form of Mashiyach. This is what you should read in the Greek transcript every time you see the title christ, although it was replaced by another title except for 2 times?
But you don't read it,
Instead,
Transliterated, Mashiyach became CHRISTOS (Strongs G5547) which means "annointed". from the root word Chrio which means "to anoint"
Now with translation you find a word that means the same thing Mashiyach=Messias which makes sense.
With transliteration you look for letters that kind of look the same, but it is based off of the appearance of the letters instead of the meaning of the word.
The natural step was to translate Mashiyach to Messias because they had the same meaning ... and that is what they originally did ... the church of Constantine couldn't use Messias because in the Greek letters Messias begins with a M and a E and those letters were NOT the sign he was told to conquer in ... thus they transliterate the title Mashiyach to Christos because in the Greek spelling it begins with the letters X and P which were the sign (letters) Constantine was told to conquer in.
(look at your Roman Missal cover)
There is no other reason to explain why the Greek translated title Messias was changed to the Greek transliterated title Christ.
No other reason!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
It's 1200 pages long and through various mistaken translations has been rendered almost indecipherable.
Best of luck!
(Jesus should've written it in English. He only has himself to blame for being misunderstood.
I can see your point although some may look at those words not so much as different words used to convey love, but instead, different words used to convey emotions?GannonFan wrote:Huh? The English language is one of the more descriptive and expansive languages on the planet. There's a reason why English is such a dominant language when discussing something like science for instance - there are so may ways to describe something in English (because it's borrowed from so many different languages) that it's immensely useful. Take your example of love, which you say we only have one word for this. How about fondness, warmth, intimacy, affection, tenderness, adoration, worship, to hold dear, idolize, yearning, passion, lust, ardor, doting, desire, infatuation. I'm sure the list could be double or triple just what I came up with, if not more. All describe various degrees or variations of love. I think you're oversimplifying the expressiveness of language.Bisonfanatical wrote:
1st ... if we look at John 21:15-17 at the conversation between the Messiah and Petros we see the translated word "love" being used. The conversation makes little sense in the English because we have one word for love, however, in the Greek language which doesn't have our limitations, there are more than 1 word for love.
