Vinnie

The "plain literal meaning of words" is not a good hermeneutic. People exaggerrate, use hyperbole, there are different genres like biography, poetry, narrative and so on. We live 2000 years ahead of the Biblical authors who had an ENTRIELY different world view and so on. The chasm between us is immence. Context is important. If you want to know the proper interpretation of something use the historical critical method.

According to Garret (Systematic THeology v. 1 p. 137), "The historical-critical method seeks to interpret a text in view of lexical, grammatical, syntactical, comparative lexical, author-related, literary, comparative religious, secular historical, and other factors or to see the text, as far as possible, in light of its total context and situation."

Garrett went on to say (p. 148): "Either "proof-text" hunting or excessive biblical literalism can lead to misinterpretations of the bible. According to Harry Emerson Fosdick, "to read the books of the Bible without thus knowing their vivid settings is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation."�

Yet you are willing to accept your interpretation without evidence? Why is your interpretation better than mine as a default? You are dealing with an ancient text that needs to interpreted in light of its settings, not in light of your modern ideology and "plain sense of the words" as they appear to people in 2004. The question is, what was the plain sense to those whom Jesus told this to.

On a literal level (if we are dealing extreme literalists we have to use their other standards as well) we can say that a guy who told us to love our parents and our neighbors as ourselves and to love God and then goes on to say hate everyone close to you would be a lunatic. So was Jesus bonkers or is my interpretation more likely?

On another level, I don't see much in the extant documents pointing to Jesus being crazy. But for some wooden skeptics and wooden literalists you might be able to point to his claims to being God, his self suicide, the charges leveled against him that he casts out demons by Beelzebub, his family trying to detain him and Rome crucifying this rabble rouser.might point in your direction. These may, with some wiggling, point in your dierection (on a wodden literalists level).

But I know many of those incidents are not historical and one might be a caricature. Further, two or three of them do not concincingly supoort your case that Jesus was nuts, just different.

At any rate, carry on.

Vinnie

graymouser

(Apologies to anyone who doesn't see Greek letters here...)

I've boldfaced the verb (the same verb, mind you) - both are the exact same word (different conjugations), and listed in Woodhouse's Greek-English dictionary as μισειν, "Hate." And I've italicized the form of "brother."

So, if it's a translation error in Luke, why not in 1 John? The phrase is identical. Is 1 John warning against hatred? Then why is Luke not speaking of hatred?

The apologetic has a further weakness: Jesus in Luke never says "than me." There is no textual hint that "love less than me" is a good translation for μισει in this passage. Further, assuming this meaning for μισειν is contradicted directly by the 1 John passage, which doesn't make sense at all if it's substituted in. So I think that it's basically special begging to ask for this interpretation.

-Wayne

Sven

Yes, I know this. Thus this was only addressed to the folks who don't know this and take for example Genesis literally.


Because when we don't know anything, the plain meaning of the words is the only interpretation we have. Thus I said I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if you can provide reasons why the plain meaning is wrong - for example a hint from the original Greek.
Edited to add:
And sorry, I have evidence for my position: That the translators of the KJV, NIV, etc. did not change "hate" into something more consistent with your interpretation. And that the Greek does not suggest a different translation (thanks, graymouser!).


That's the reason why I asked you for evidence for your interpretation. I don't insist that the plain meaning of the words is the correct one, only the most obvious.


Huh? I suggest to first show that both of these statements are indeed from Jesus. Before this is established, no conclusion at all can be drawn about his mental condition.


I never stated anything like this. My opinion is more along the line that different writers had different opinions what exactly Jesus teached. Or that the plain reading is indeed wrong - which remains to be shown.

RTS

In the Biblical verse Luke 14:26, Jesus said "hate" --the same word "hate" used in every other Bible verse which means to to hate, pursue with hatred, and/or detest. If the text meant to say/teach "love less" then the language would have said eactly that. The original Greek word in question used here is "miseo", from the primary word "misos" which means hatred. The Greek word used in the NT Bible for love is "agapao".

King James Version: Luke 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

New King James Version: Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

NASB: Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Greek to English Interlinear Translation: Luke 14:26

ei [1487] {IF} tiV [5100] {ANY ONE} ercetai [2064] (5736) {COMES} proV [4314] {TO} me [3165] {ME,} kai [2532] ou [3756] {AND} misei [3404] (5719) ton [3588] {HATES NOT} patera [3962] eautou [1438] {HIS FATHER} kai [2532] thn [3588] {AND} mhtera [3384] {MOTHER} kai [2532] thn [3588] {AND} gunaika [1135] {WIFE} kai [2532] ta [3588] {AND} tekna [5043] {CHILDREN} kai [2532] touV [3588] {AND} adelfouV [80] {BROTHERS} kai [2532] taV [3588] {AND} adelfaV [79] eti [2089] {SISTERS,} de [1161] {AND BESIDES} kai [2532] thn [3588] eautou [1438] {ALSO} yuchn [5590] ou [3756] {HIS OWN LIFE,} dunatai [1410] (5736) mou [3450] {HE CANNOT} maqhthV [3101] {MY DISCIPLE} einai [1511] (5750) {BE;}

Check the Strong's Number: 3404... There are 42 instances of verses containing Strong's number 3404 and every one of them is translated "Hate". This is indisputable beyond doubt, undeniable, unambiguous, and unequivocal except to those who are blinded by the rhetoric of out-right LIES in an attempt to try to deflect the embarrassment of what their ¿god savior? actually said and taught. The correct translation is in all of the bibles up to the point where the New Revised Edition was rewritten to cover up this embarrassment.

It unequivocally means Hate!!!

graymouser

RTS: Thanks...my Strong's (yes, I have one) is at home. So is it well established that Lk. 14:36 and 1 John 3:15 are mutually contradictory? And the "love less" apologetic / hermeneutic / exegesis is just trying to hide this fact?

-Wayne

RTS

Yes, Luke 14:26 and 1John 3:15 are definitely contradictory.


Greek/English Interlinear Translation: 1 John 3:15

paV [3956] {EVERYONE} o [3588] {THAT} miswn [3404] (5723) ton [3588] {HATES} adelfon [80] {BROTHER} autou [846] {HIS} anqrwpoktonoV [443] {A MURDERER} estin [2076] (5748) {IS,} kai [2532] {AND} oidate [1492] (5758) {YE KNOW} oti [3754] {THAT} paV [3956] {ANY} anqrwpoktonoV [443] {MURDERER ouk [3756] {NOT} ecei [2192] (5719) {HAS} zwhn [2222] {LIFE} aiwnion [166] {ETERNAL} en [1722] {IN} autw [846] {HIM} menousan [3306] (5723) {ABIDING.}

NOGO

Yet again the word of God says something but meant something entirely different.

... and of course thanks to some apologist (Vinnie in this case) we can now perceive its REAL meaning.

In this particular case we are dealing with sectarian thinking.

If all we are told here is that unethical people should be avoided then I would not object. But how can one authomatically assume that all people who do not believe are also unethical. Sects make this equation.

A sect will try and isolate people from their friends and family.
That is the only way to keep them in the sect.

So Vinnie here is trying to justify a stupid statement with sectarian nonsense.

I have trouble deciding which I object to the most.

Boomeister

I'm assuming sectarian thinking is similar to cult thinking?
I agree.
Jesus told one of his followers to forsake his father (or maybe another male relative ???) by not burying him. "Let the dead bury their dead." Whatever in the hell that means. Oops, sorry for my un-lady like language there.
He also broke the commandment about honoring your mama. When Mary and his brothers were looking for him, he told his followers that his followers were his mother and brothers.
Sounds very cult-like to me.
And people wonder why many of the Jews during that time were suspicious of this new cult.
Where's the family values?
Of course, if one thinks the end of time is coming, what's the point of family values?...you have a mission to run. I get the impression that Jesus (and Paul also) really did think the end of times were coming so soon that their mission was more important than social stability. Give up your money, forsake your family, and come along.
I wonder how many children were left behind without their fathers and how many widowed mothers were left behind without their sons. How many people decided to not settle down and not have their own families. Sad, really.


Boomeister

Lord Emsworth

Hi all!

Is it possible that there is a simple Horse-Cart problem with the interpretations of Luke 14:26? That through the discipleship hate should arise or be kept seems even to a thoroughbred Atheist like me to be completely out of tune with the basic gist of Jesus' teachings.

The apologetic You-should-love-anything-less-than-Jesus seems just like a lame cop-out. Biblical idiom notwithstanding.

I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love, their brothers etc. can/need to be Jesus' disciples in order to be taught that lack of love. And that those who already love their brothers etc. cannot/do not need to be Jesus' diciples.

Does that make sense?

Here's the verse again:
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

RTS

Welcome Lord Emsworth,

You have done exactly what "love less" apologetics have done. You state "I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love,..."; then you build your explanation around the "do not love" theme. If Jesus had meant to say either "do not love or love less" the verse would have been recorded saying exactly that and used the word "agapao". The correct interpretation of the proper translation is exactly what it says; one must HATE father, mother, bother, sister and yourself to become a disciple of Jesus!

What apologetics does is twist and manipulate meanings and words, and keep digging deeper and deeper until they find SOME obscure means for making it say something completely different than what it actually says in order to satisfy their preconceived bias.

When the "resultant meaning" smells fishy, doesn't fit the actual translation, and takes a great deal of effort and contortion to evade the obvious meaning, then it's obviously adulterated. When that square peg just won't fit into the round hole, it's time to question how accurate that exegesis really is.

You are welcome to attribute any meaning you wish to the passage. Certainly, anyone by looking hard enough can find a variety of meanings for any writings that fit their preconceived notions, thus rendering any text MEANINGLESS. Perhaps it would be fitting to say that in seeking the real meaning of the word "hate" we discover those who hate "real meaning". No matter, it doesn't change what the text actually says, and it means exactly what it says.