@DannyNC1 thank you!

@mo-me119 J. Sidlow Baxter's Explore the Book is also very good

You're welcome

Okay, your example about the street is absolutely irrelevant. That'd be like saying ask anyone in the street what liberty means and because you get some wishy-washy answers, therefore we shouldn't pay mind to studying political philosophers' take on the definition.
And as for number of word usages is also irrelevant. There's a field called Textual Criticism and NT Studies that take care of that problem. And I never implied studying their culture means I give them the same authority as the Bible. I am saying that studying the social and cultural backgrounds helps us bring *clarity* and insight into some difficult passages and clear confusion on some strange Greek words in the NT.

Just because you didn't understand my example as fitting the context of the discussion does not give you warrant to label it absolutely irrelevant. Ask clarifying questions before stooping to dismissiveness. The example is to show that the Greek culture, whatever was studied, could in all probability have come from secular, non-Christian usage, whether the culture to explain the statement, or the word use itself. You don't know actually how much bearing that has on what you are saying, but yet you jump to dismissiveness because you think I'm somehow a combatant for you. Greek scholarship has been precisely corrupted because of this point. They about 300 years ago started inter-mingling ancient Greek culture usage of words to be used in their lexicons. This slowly leaked in until it corrupted Biblical understanding of Greek words and terms. It's basically like they were giving the Greek text to a 1st century pagan to read and define how he thought it meant. I have studied much about textual criticism and their 'science'. A lot of fallacious reasoning underlies it.

Oh my goodness that is a bunch of bare assertions and genetic fallacy snugged in. Just because a Greek historical studies were employed by secularists does not invalidate their usefulness to Biblical studies. That is poisoning the well fallacy. As for the rest involving Textual Criticism's and New Testament studies; you need to provide citation and a reliable track record. Just because some NT scholars disagree on some matters does not invalidate the entire field. That is uber absurd. Should we invalidate the study of quantum physics solely because there is still a debate over the nature of the wavefunction?

Oh my goodness you guys are still going on with this, just give it a rest.

Fallacy this...fallacy that... This is getting unbearable. I don't have to go educate you on the fallacious reasoning of Textual criticism. I haven't know you all that long, and do not even know you really. But yet you say I have no reliable track record. You don't know me nor what I've studied to go and make an arrogant assumption like that. You need to learn some humility, graciousness, proper brotherly love and put it in practice here.

Agape is not often used by greeks right ?

I never said you *don't have* a reliable record. Stop misrepresenting me. I actually *asked citation* for it and you have not offered one.
And yes, agape is used in Greek writings, that's how NT scholars can tell their meaning. They study classical writings and compare and contrast from other sources.

And you have a biblical obligation to study a course in logic.

Alright guys stop attacking each other

Listen, I don't accept homework assignments from people I don't even know

So you won't even provide one citation of how the field of Textual Criticism is "corrupt" and "fallacious"?

Nor substantiate your claims?

I'm not obligated to do so when you have not patiently, charitably listen to all I have been telling you. If the simple Bible study of the Bible text's usage will not get through to you there's no point continuing further with you, you just demonstrate it's a waste of time.

We are talking bout love,don't hate each

I have listened, I simply showed you that your examples do not reliably prove what you intend.

We obviously will get nowhere as we seem to have radically different approaches to biblical exegesis and the epistemic baggage with it.

Other

Can y'all dumb it down for me. What's both of y'all position?

His position is that the two types of love phileos ad agape are grammatically synonymous and I dispute that and I think his attempts have been flawed and did not prove what he intended.

@Smash Boy No, you did not effectively prove what point you thought you had because you never grasped the point I was trying to get across, and were simply actively dismissing it and downplaying it, or slandering it as fallacious.

I never said grammatically synonymous

That shows you didn't listen

You prove what I just said.

Anyway, it's been real, it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun.

Ok each just state ur position so there is no misunderstanding

I have much better things to do

I literally said they have different meanings, grammatically and you actively dispute that. How is that not evidence that you think they are grammatically synonymous?

@DeButcher You can DM, I am getting off here for the day.

They are substantively synonymous---synonyms in meaning. The grammar is superfluous.

You're attacking the strawman of grammar

Don't state other person position just yours

"Substantively synonymous"
What does that even mean?

Wow, I have to explain a simple phrase. Synonymous in substance, i.e. meaning--thus, no focus on grammar.

I am going. Please don't ping me.

The entire point of grammatical synonymity is to show they *are synonymous in meaning*. You are splitting hairs.

Grammar is about noun, verb, adjective, adverb. I never focused on that.

Stop pinging me

Hermeneutics literally studies the grammar and meaning of words in context. "Substantively synonymous" being different from grammatically synonymous is literally meaningless.

I was trying to make it clear that you could see I was not saying grammatically synonymous