Do the words in the bible have the same meaning......

[Gustaf]

Jmf...I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bible cannot be translated. Rather, I'd say that the argument is precisely that the commandments of God must be easy to translate and therefore those commandments cannot be embedded in literal interpretations of specific words, since those cannot easily be translated from one language to another.

I don't know if you've studied a foreign language but I've done it enough so that I know how difficult it can be. Even when translating between closely related languages such as English, Swedish and German difficulties arise, even with everyday words.

Just to give a simple example, the word "think" has no direct translation in Swedish, even though both English and Swedish are Germanic languages with the same roots: this is because "think" as in "I think it is going to rain" is a different word in Swedish than "think" as in "I think you're an idiot".

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Yes, I now what you mean and I studied french for two years.

But are you willing to argue that Koine Greek doesn't have the concept of obeying authority?!  I've already provided the link to the greek lexicon in the other thread.  AND, I have provided the context so that we are NOT reliant upon a single word.  And the context is OVERWHELMING.

So, provided you believe the meaning Koine Greek has not been lost to history, tell me again, exactly, what I am doing wrong? 

Oh, I'm not arguing against the word submission specifically, I was making a general point. I don't know Greek and certainly not the old Greek that we're talking about here. However, I'd guess that you don't either, right?

I understand the contextual argument and if it is indeed the same Greek original word in all these instances (I'm assuming you've checked this somehow, so that it is not another Greek word also translated to submit, etc) it would make a strong case.

My point is more that in general it seems to make little sense to a lot of people, myself included, to try and understand the exact meanings of specific words in the Bible when these are prone to errors in translation. It seems more reasonable to go for the spirit of the message in cases where different interpretations or translations could change the meaning. As you said yourself, it is not reasonable to expect such messages to be important.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Now, I don’t know Greek, that is why I read translations.  But if the translation is in question, here is a link to a parallel bible that shows many translations (both literal and non-literal for a given verse:

http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-1.htm

You can also look up any of the verses, along with the surrounding verses providing context, I posted and see how the different translations render it.
So, we have:

1)   many different passages across several writers of the bible from both Old and New Testaments….being translated the same way by many different translations including both literal and non-literal translations.
2)   Deeply embedded context that is in agreement with the translations
3)   Many examples of the same concept adjacent to the passage in question

And for the lexicon link, you can check the other thread.

So, again I ask, what exactly am I doing wrong, apart from answering an idiotic, non-constructive, and meritless question?  I already went over the lexicon, translation, similar passages, and the contexts in the other thread.  And not a single objection has been raised, rather Gramps attempted to make submission and commitment synonyms, which the context did NOT support (which shouldn’t come as a surprise since the two words are not synonyms).

I don’t mind questions about translation, but in this case it is a meritless objection and the attempt to worm out of it was extremely weak.  The simple fact is that removing meaning from the word of God is something the bible has warned about since Genesis ch 3.  It’s the original deception and Satan’s bread and butter play, but it only works on those who allow themselves to be deceived by it.  To new Christians who respect the word of God, the first encounter with someone attempting to rob language of its meaning can be pretty shocking due to the feeling of having the meaning of your language raped in front of your eyes.  And it is confusing at first because you want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  But the truth is that MALICE is very much involved, which is why malice is described in Mat 7:6, for they have already rejected the truth and now are simply trying to destroy the medium through which the truth is transmitted in order to shut the speaker up:

Do not give what is holy [the word of God] to dogs, and do not throw pearls [what you barter with – i.e. language] before swine, lest they trample [both the word and the language] under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces [in a malicious attack].

There are those who reject the word and then there are those who maliciously seek to undermine the word.  The latter is a different breed altogether.

The way I interpret the question it is rather inspired by the discussion on submission than focused on that specific issue. And I don't think the question is neither idiotic or meritless in that context.

And I'm not accusing you of anything, really.   

[Gustaf]

Yeah, you don't get banned for calling someone a fraudulent Christian. If this spirals into name-calling I will lock the thread, but I hope it won't, you both being grown men and all.

Jmfcst, I know you think you have proven that you were right on the submission thing. I'm not saying you're not, but I think whatever could be said on this thread that was germane to that issue has pretty much been said.

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

[Gustaf]

Basically, if Gramps isn't going to debate you on this you're only allowed so many bait/gloat posts before you will have to content yourself with feeling victorious.

First off, I haven't even engaged in arguing.  I genuinely created this thread to learn.

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

[Gustaf]

Yes, I'm not really taking issue with you in this thread. I'm trying not to take a side on this, but I've been in the position myself where I feel that I've won a debate and the other person runs away from it. I've also been in the position of ignoring someone because I don't see debating them as worthwhile anymore.

I'm not judging who is "right" in this instance merely pointing out how to act assuming that you're right.

Gustaf,

You have missed the whole point.  I’m not calling Gramps out on a single issue, I couldn’t care less what he thinks about submission, rather I am saying he is a FRAUD because his whole APPROACH is fraudulent. 

He refuses to take into account any and all witnesses regarding: context, translation, multitude of parallel passages, similar opinions of different writers, similar doctrines across the covenants, etc, etc, etc.  If anyone cared about arriving at a unbiased interpretation, then they would automatically consider these things, not duck and hide and ignore them

Now, you yourself may find such approaches legit, but I find them to be a load of trash.  . If I attempted such deception, I would immediately be crucified on this forum, but I happen to care about honesty and integrity.  So I am not going to consider separate threads created about the “meaning of words” in a religious context to be intended to be an honest discussion when the poster’s whole “interpretational” approach is the antithesis of honesty and impartiality.

If he honestly cared at all about the “meaning of words”, he would change his approach.  But, since he hasn’t changed his approach or shown any remorse for ignoring all evidence that would lead to a proper interpretation of the meaning of words, I can only conclude this whole thread is simply a search for an excuse for him to continue to practice the trade of deception.

Now, please tell me where I am being unfair and unjustified in my remarks.

I don't think you understand me at all here. I'm not saying that you are unfair or unjustified. My job as a moderator is not to judge that. I don't really think there is much wrong in a moderator-sense with your last posts, apart from the small edit I made in one of them.

I'm making a couple of points -

1. This is a thread about general interpretation. You made a point on how you think that was not the honest motive behind it. Gramps has denied it, but that's really the end of the line for that argument. I'm not saying you are wrong (how on Earth could I know) nor am I saying you were not entitled to claim that in this thread. However, other people, myself included, might be interested in this topic and if you want to continue the sumbission feud you should take it back to that thread.

2. In general, if the other person doesn't engage in a debate you will have to let it go at some point. Even if you're right and all.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

I understand as a moderator you have to unplug your brain and simply make sure the conversation is kept cordial, but sometimes your best friend is the one who is willing to hold a mirror up to your face, and the veracity of my critique is not to be compared with vindictive and slanderous name calling that happens on a regular basis on this forum. 

Obviously, I can’t force him to take an inventory of his integrity, but my objections are not beyond the norm as any reasonable person understands you can’t ignore all the surrounding evidence and come to an honest and reasonable interpretation since we are all taught from early age to interpret based on the surrounding evidence.  And we practice it every single time we observe anything and especially when we read even if we are just reading the sports page.  It is simply part of our cognitive skillset.

I feel as if we're talking past each other now...just to be clear, I do not think that any of your posts in this thread so far are over the line. I'm just trying to be pro-active, to make sure that it doesn't descend into animosity.

Also, as I've stated, I will attempt to uphold a somewhat stricter standard on this board than on the other boards.