Maybe those who are very used to accuse others should take a moment and ask themselves why. Is that too hard for them to do?

I've pointed out why I accuse you. Would you like me to repeat why?

Your interpretation. Who failed Christians?

The power hungry, money grabbing charlatans who believed that control of the Christian Faith was more important than it's ideals.
You may call them "Christians". I call them the Church authorities.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

I've pointed out why I accuse you. Would you like me to repeat why?

Do you really have to be accusative rather than reason with people? What justifies the habit of people accusing others with such language?

Bastage:

The power hungry, money grabbing charlatans who believed that control of the Christian Faith was more important than it's ideals.
You may call them "Christians". I call them the Church authorities.

Church authorities, christians - what difference does that make? Are these two seperate bodies?

Do you really have to be accusative rather than reason with people? What justifies the habit of people accusing others with such language?

Off your high horse. It's very, very difficult to reason with you. Reasoning with someone who only wants their side to be heard, who preaches and discards every single point put to them is a waste of time. So you'll probably find yourself accused until you recognise that a debate has two sides.
It's also pretty silly of you to start flapping about people treating you badly when one only has to look back through this thread to see how you've addressed other people.

Church authorities, christians - what difference does that make? Are these two seperate bodies?

Yes. When one takes into account how many different churches there are and how many different factions of Christians, they are now seperate bodies. Not just two - many. They may all fit under the umbrella of Christianity but as so many of them pull in different directions, it's hard to see how they can all be classed as identical.

pilgrim.1:

@Bastage,

Thanks. It has become the culture now, so I'm quite used to such.

I think it would not hurt to read simple statements and understand what I pointed out. Christians are not a different body from the Church. The Church is actually made up of Christians. If the "Church has failed Christians", it simply means that Christians have failed themselves. Nobody should be seeking to blame "the Church" as if it is a different entity from Christians - that does not translate as the "infallibility" of the Church/Christians, as I have not hinted any such thing.

My dear pilgrim.1 thanx for the education on the meaning of "church" and what makes up the church but semantics apart i am sure even my daugther would understand i was refering to the church leadership and not church members when i stated that the church as failed christians.

I said:
A lack of calm has been read into the first address. How? That's beyond me, but I'm sure that the 2nd dialoguer has perfectly justifiable reasons why the first address smacks of disquiet.

She said:Lol, if you had to go this length to allege I had "justified" anything in yours, what is the meaning of your agreement thereto as this:
That I said:

Quote from: Pastor AIO
I am now certain that you must be a psychic.  How did you know that I was rolling my eyes and frothing at the mouth when I wrote that post.  I was really trying to pretend to be calm.

Which made me laugh very much.  However I also realise how apt this exchange is for illustrating something that is central to this thread.  The matter of interpretation. There is a rhetorical devise called sarcasm where one says the exactly opposite (to the extreme to emphasis the ridiculousness of it) of what one means but if you are 'High context' enough rather than 'low context' then you will understand from the context that the opposite is intended.  

If I was frothing at the mouth and rolling my eyes don't you think that I'd be better of rushing to the hospital than commending you for psychically perceiving it.  I actually thought you were playing a double bluff by saying that you could tell because you have been like that too.  Wow pilgrim!  How often do you froth at the mouth and roll your eyes in a crazed manner?  I'm going to bring this up again on the 'Can a christian be possessed by demons' thread.  I just have to, it is too good.  

Anyway, I was just being sarcastic. See what too much false indoctrination can do to you.  It has made you so laughably low context. You take everything so literally now, not just the bible.  Please can you tell me what you think of Edward Hall.  see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_context_culture

So while we are on that point I would like to know what you think about this bible passage from Mark 2: 17  "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."  
I've always been taught that Jesus had his tongue in his cheek when he said this.  Would you agree, or would you take it literally and say that Jesus knew that the Pharisees were without sin?

Let me make something clear to you guys. I've been trying to reason with posters, but somehow just because you don't want to reason, all sorts of language and accusations are now the order of the day. My question is this: why seek to justify such language at all? If I have been using such lingo, what then would you guys have said with all the talk about being "Christ-like"? This is the one thing I find really amusing today: people who recommend that others should be "Christ-like" and lovable are the very ones who do not care one hoot about what they recommend, and will seek to justify those same things they accuse others of! If that is the norm, what is my worry?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

My dear pilgrim.1 thanx for the education on the meaning of "church" and what makes up the church but semantics apart i am sure even my daugther would understand i was refering to the church leadership and not church members when i stated that the church as failed christians.

Church leadership and church members are in the same Church - the Church failed herself, and we should live with it.

Bastage:

Off your high horse. It's very, very difficult to reason with you. Reasoning with someone who only wants their side to be heard, who preaches and discards every single point put to them is a waste of time. So you'll probably find yourself accused until you recognise that a debate has two sides.
It's also pretty silly of you to start flapping about people treating you badly when one only has to look back through this thread to see how you've addressed other people.

But truth be told Pilgrim.1, and I say this without malice, your complaining about how people treat you is really poor form.  Jesus said, do unto others as you would have them do onto you and since I've been aware of you on this forum, and your manner of engaging people, you have no right to complain about people accusing you of anything, especially when the accusations are justified.

I guess that now would be an excellent time to point out to you that your excessive use of the word 'hubris' is in fact the very height of hubris itself.  Afterall, what is more arrogant than seeing every opposing viewpoint as arrogant.  An in your case it has been absolutely every viewpoint that did not concur with yours.

@PAstor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

If I was frothing at the mouth and rolling my eyes don't you think that I'd be better of rushing to the hospital than commending you for psychically perceiving it.  I actually thought you were playing a double bluff by saying that you could tell because you have been like that too.  Wow pilgrim!  How often do you froth at the mouth and roll your eyes in a crazed manner?  I'm going to bring this up again on the 'Can a christian be possessed by demons' thread.  I just have to, it is too good.  

Anyway, I was just being sarcastic. See what too much false indoctrination can do to you.  It has made you so laughably low context. You take everything so literally now, not just the bible. Please can you tell me what you think of Edward Hall.  see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_context_culture

I know when and how to tease along with people, even when they are being sarcastic; not when they are trying to justify the very things they cannot receive. If anyone has been very 'literalist' in Bible reading, we have seen them aplenty - for this was the very things they all did and reacted so much about when I tried to point out the place of the Law in other threads. If the Law was such as to be interpreted literally in the new covenant, what then was the purpose of people reading it at all and getting confused all the more? Their reactions would not equate me to Edward Hall, would it?

Pastor AIO:

So while we are on that point I would like to know what you think about this bible passage from Mark 2: 17  "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."  
I've always been taught that Jesus had his tongue in his cheek when he said this.  Would you agree, or would you take it literally and say that Jesus knew that the Pharisees were without sin?

You give it your own interpretation as best suits you. The one funny thing that I often find is that after the sarcasm and accusations that people have tried to justify, I wonder why it is often the culture that after I point out something, nobody refers to that same thing anymore. I have been accused about the point in my rejoinders as regards John 5:39, I discussed it in detail, I had pointed out simply that we were on the same page (it was not a "command" and you disagreed. After discussing it, nobody made reference to it anymore but the culture of justifying accusations and insults seems to be the norm. Lol, how has that very things helped you guys in this thread?

pilgrim.1:


You give it your own interpretation as best suits you. The one funny thing that I often find is that after the sarcasm and accusations that people have tried to justify, I wonder why it is often the culture that after I point out something, nobody refers to that same thing anymore. I have been accused about the point in my rejoinders as regards John 5:39, I discussed it in detail, I had pointed out simply that we were on the same page (it was not a "command" and you disagreed. After discussing it, nobody made reference to it anymore but the culture of justifying accusations and insults seems to be the norm. Lol, how has that very things helped you guys in this thread?

I have every intention of addressing it. But it will take time. For a start your arguments are so convoluted as usual, so I will need the time to sit down and pick at it. Suffice for now to say that I disagree with it and that I think that you are trying to use semantics to wriggle you way out of your quagmire.

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,

Church leadership and church members are in the same Church - the Church failed herself, and we should live with it.

I don't know what you intend to achieve with all these semantics and playing with words, i am pretty certain that the import of my post was not lost on all those reading this thread. As usual instead of addressing issues you are looking for straws(technicalities) to grab at instead of addressing the subtstance of the issues raised.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

But truth be told Pilgrim.1, and I say this without malice, your complaining about how people treat you is really poor form.  Jesus said, do unto others as you would have them do onto you and since I've been aware of you on this forum, and your manner of engaging people, you have no right to complain about people accusing you of anything, especially when the accusations are justified.

Truth be told, they could reason with me where they disagree with what I have pointed out. I reasoned with you; and if my manner was not welcomed, no worries. Not in one instance have I called anyone "stupid" no matter how much they don't agree with me. Not in one instance have I used expressions such as "fanatic", nor "rude, malicious, mendacious, attacker, accuser, fight-fight-fight". ,   what is all that for? Is that how I have been addressing them? Did I call anyone "crazy" or "ignorant"? Where did I refer to anyone as "selfish"? Why is it that the "truth be told" that others recommend, they cannot see these matters at all before seeking to justify these same things? Where have I ever referred to anyone as a "disgrace" to Christianity? Where have I ever tried to justify anything in this regard and in such manner?

None of these things move me; I take them and return their kindness to those who feel well at home to use them. If I were using the same language at them, a thread would be set up to call for my ban. It has become increasingly the norm, and that is why I am asking question, not because such things bother me. Let those who recommend their "Christ-likeness" share with us why anyone should justify these same attitude from among themselves.

Pastor AIO:

I guess that now would be an excellent time to point out to you that your excessive use of the word 'hubris' is in fact the very height of hubris itself.

Thanks, and when queried about it, I explained what the term meant and in what context I used it. As regards my using it in response to you, I stated clearly that you seemed to have bought into, not that I therefore concluded that was the case. The scientists who appeal to such attitudes are very well resisted by their colleagues; and that was why I clearly stated it was an arrogant statement that many scientists make - not that I directly used it to allege that you were "arrogant".

Pastor AIO:

Afterall, what is more arrogant than seeing every opposing viewpoint as arrogant.  An in your case it has been absolutely every viewpoint that did not concur with yours.

See? Did I not agree with you earlier that we said the same things - but no, you yelled back that I had lost my marbles! After discussing it in detail, did you come back to disagree? Why is it that you guys are not helping yourselves to be consistent? If "pilgrim.1" is your worry, I could as well leave the forum for you so you no longer suffer yourselves to be worried about me.

KunleOshob:

I don't know what you intend to achieve with all these semantics and playing with words, i am pretty certain that the import of my post was not lost on all those reading this thread. As usual instead of addressing issues you are looking for straws(technicalities) to grab at instead of addressing the subtstance of the issues raised.

Was that the only thing I addressed? The Church (members and leaders) failed herself. That was no big deal - but that is now the bigger deal that others have been shouting every single time. Why?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

I have every intention of addressing it. But it will take time. For a start your arguments are so convoluted as usual, so I will need the time to sit down and pick at it. Suffice for now to say that I disagree with it and that I think that you are trying to use semantics to wriggle you way out of your quagmire.

All accusations welcome. When you're done, please let me know.

Not in one instance have I called anyone "stupid" no matter how much they don't agree with me. Not in one instance have I used expressions such as "fanatic", nor "rude, malicious, mendacious, attacker, accuser, fight-fight-fight". ,   what is all that for? Is that how I have been addressing them? Did I call anyone "crazy" or "ignorant"? Where did I refer to anyone as "selfish"? Why is it that the "truth be told" that others recommend, they cannot see these matters at all before seeking to justify these same things? Where have I ever referred to anyone as a "disgrace" to Christianity? Where have I ever tried to justify anything in this regard and in such manner?

Again, very misleading. Ever heard of the word "insinuate"?

You insinuate with nearly every post you make in reply to someone with an opposing view to yours. Being devious enough not to outright call someone a liar or an idiot, but leaving an independent reader with the impression they are, by means of pretty blatant insinuation, does not make you an innocent.

All accusations welcome. When you're done, please let me know.

Again. Does nothing for your defence.

Bastage:

Again, very misleading. Ever heard of the word "insinuate"?

You insinuate with nearly every post you make in reply to someone with an opposing view to yours. Being devious enough not to outright call someone a liar or an idiot, but leaving an independent reader with the impression they are, by means of pretty blatant insinuation, does not make you an innocent.

I did not call anyone by the terms they have used and are still justifying.

Bastage:

Again. Does nothing for your defence.

What has been said about John 5:39 yet?

What has been said about John 5:39 yet?

My interpretation, when taken with 5:40 is that it is an admonishment.
It's basically saying that the study of Scripture isn't the be all and end all. One has to look at the bigger picture as well.


Well. You did ask.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

My interpretation, when taken with 5:40 is that it is an admonishment.
It's basically saying that the study of Scripture isn't the be all and end all. One has to look at the bigger picture as well.

Glad you pointed that out. This has been my point all along: John 5:39 was not a command; and among the things I tried to point out was this: "it was understood there as a challenge of recommendation".

Bastage:

Well. You did ask.

Now that's what I mean by people dialoguing and not accusing. I appreciate that.

Bastage:

My interpretation, when taken with 5:40 is that it is an admonishment.
It's basically saying that the study of Scripture isn't the be all and end all. One has to look at the bigger picture as well.


Well. You did ask.

[size=16pt]Word![/size]

pilgrim how body? whats the beef with all the guys in the room? hope u are doing good out there?. . . . . .

mazaje:

pilgrim how body? whats the beef with all the guys in the room? hope u are doing good out there?. . . . . .

Lol, mazaje, I'm cool. And you? I don't have any beef with anyone. . I just wonder about the new culture.

@pilgrim
Hello, you know I was beginning to feel sorry for you because of the negatives coming from everyside.Then I looked into the Scriptures to see if I could get some words of comfort to give.But blimey, right now,I'll like to be in your shoes.See some of what i saw
2Corinthians 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
2Co 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
1Peter 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
And the one that blew my mind,

1Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
The Spirit of Glory! The Spirit of Glory!I hate to concede to this but I'm envious of you this moment.Always remember,It is well

You people have started misinterpreting scriptures again abi, who persecuting her now in the name of christ now.

Chrisbenogor:

You people have started misinterpreting scriptures again abi, who persecuting her now in the name of christ now.

misinterpretation you call it? the whole bible really misinterprets some basic and major aspects of life in general. . . . . . . . they can always find verses that will console them and keep them going in their world of delusion . . . . . .

pilgrim.1:

@Bastage,

Glad you pointed that out. This has been my point all along: John 5:39 was not a command; and among the things I tried to point out was this: "it was understood there as a challenge of recommendation".

Now that's what I mean by people dialoguing and not accusing. I appreciate that.

Maybe I owe you a small apology because I really thought that you were being a maradona when you sought to make a distinction between Command and imperative. however on reading this post again I see how your position is based on that distinction.

@Pastor AIO,

Let me go back in reference to some statements you made earlier:

Quote from: Pastor AIO
As a result in many such languages the imperative (command) can get mixed up with the present indicative.

I think that is where some people are getting it wrong, for the imperative is not strictly and always a matter of "command". In many other languages, this is very clear, for we know that in French, the imperative mood could be used to imply the following:

■ give an order
■ express a desire
■ offer advice
■ recommend something
■ make a request

Like I said as regards the imperative in John 5:39, there was no place in my rejoinders where I used that word "imperative" to imply a "command". I made that thing very clear; so if one were reading the word 'imperative', please don't assume everytime that it is always pointing to a "command".

That's what I need to clear first and then I'll share my thoughts on John 5:39.

I now think that you are using it in the sense of suggesting something to someone on the basis of their beliefs. For instance if I am trying to convince a moslem not to steal, rather than quote bible to him I am better off saying: "Read the quran, cos you think that's the truth, abi? Well the quran says you mustn't steal."
In that sense an imperative can be followed by - 'because you think . . . '.

However, accepting this point does not change much. And again it hinges on that word 'you'. The word you is not used when constructing the second person of verbs except for emphasis. For example, a similar thing occurs in Italian. Imagine I met a tranvestite. A woman that is dressed as a man, has had the sex change and would like to be addressed as a man. She says to me, " Sono uomo" Sono means I am in italian while uomo means man. But in response I can shake my head and say, "Io sono uomo". That is I am a man. The emphasis makes a distinction, an important point that I am trying to convey.

If you see the word you in ancient greek then an important nuance is being indicated. Now consider the phrase:

Search the scriptures; for (in them) you think . . . .

In greek this is : ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε

You is Humeis which is emboldened above. It is followed by dokete which means to suppose or to think. Now, rhetorically, why would Jesus suddenly add the personal pronoun when it is not necessary grammatically in the language. I say it is because the Supposition is theirs and their especially (if not theirs alone). He emphasises the you to imply that it is their position, not necessarily his.

Accentuation is a very important part of language and communication and in many ways writing has a destructive effect on a communication. Afterall most communication is not literal but packed full of nuances.
Take for instance this statement: She sells seashells on the seashore
What it is saying is obvious, no? Yet any actor will tell you that there are a thousand and one ways to deliver this phrase so as to give it many quite contrary meanings. Even simply by shifting the accents you can create many different nuances with much added meaning.
For instance:
She sells seashells on the seashore
Emphasising the She suggests that I'm making the point that Her and not anyone else is the one selling the seashells, so please don't go accusing me of such actions.

She sells seashells on the seashore
Emphasising Sells. What? you mean she's selling them? I thought she was supposed to be giving them out for free. I can't believe she's making money out of them.

She sells seashells on the seashore
Seashells!!!! I thought she was selling crabs! So it is seashells that she is selling. na wa o!

She sells seashells on the seashore
Surely not on the Seashore! Talk about taking coal to newcastle! Why sell them there when there are so many seashells already lying around? Haha, how silly.

So by actually stating the you (humeis) before dokete Christ is emphasizing that the supposition is theirs.


Then there is also the matter of the word Dokeite itself. δοκειτε means to think, to suppose, to reckon, to conjecture. It is where the word orthodox comes from. ortho- means Right, Dox comes from dokeite to think. Therefore orthodox is right thinking. So obviously erroneous thinking/suppositions are possible too.
Since I've already thrown in a tongue twister above, I'll throw in another for absolutely no reason at all.
Moses supposes his roses are poses but Moses supposes erroneously.
Trying saying this fast over and over again.

Back on track . . . If Jesus agreed that eternal life, Zoe Aionis (ζωην αιωνιον) was to be found in the scriptures wouldn't he have used the word Gnothi (γνώθι ), Gnosis (knowledge) rather than Dokete (supposition). Jesus could have said:"Search the scriptures, because in them you Know you'll have eternal life". But he said humeis dokeite which in ancient greek is very telling of what he is trying to say.

Pilgrim.1 said:

Since you say that it is not the convention to place the ‘you’ there, I wonder what you make of John 6:26 where indeed the pronoun ‘you’ appears before ‘search’? Like I said, the "imperative" in Greek does not mean everytime that it is a "command", Pastor AIO. When you read that verse even in the Greek, you find indeed that the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search"; and in doing so, it does not break the convention.

This is the original Greek of the verse.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με, οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.

Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody. 

However, come to think of it, you don't have to make zeteite the present indicative.  You could just as easily translate it as the imperative like before and you'll get
And Jesus answered them, "Verily verily I say to you, Seek Me, not because you've seen signs, but because you are full of loaves".

Which is quite a delightful interpretation of the verse, don't you think?

@Image123,

Image123:

@pilgrim
Hello, you know I was beginning to feel sorry for you because of the negatives coming from everyside.Then I looked into the Scriptures to see if I could get some words of comfort to give.But blimey, right now,I'll like to be in your shoes.See some of what i saw
2Corinthians 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
2Co 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
1Peter 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
And the one that blew my mind,

1Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
The Spirit of Glory! The Spirit of Glory!I hate to concede to this but I'm envious of you this moment.Always remember,It is well

I want to thank you for your that encouragement. Those verses are taken to heart and have blessed me seasonally. Yes, it is well, and my warmest thoughts to you - may the Lord Jesus fill you with ever increasing wisdom. Shalom.

@Pastor AIO,

Let me follow your replies in reverse order. But first, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts - I really appreciate all you have said. A few things, though, I would like to point out in summary.

Pastor AIO:

Pilgrim.1 said:

Since you say that it is not the convention to place the ‘you’ there, I wonder what you make of John 6:26 where indeed the pronoun ‘you’ appears before ‘search’? Like I said, the "imperative" in Greek does not mean everytime that it is a "command", Pastor AIO. When you read that verse even in the Greek, you find indeed that the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search"; and in doing so, it does not break the convention.

This is the original Greek of the verse.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με, οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.

Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody.

 

Glad you recognize that the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) does not have a pronoun preceding it, which demonstrates that it is not the convention to always have or otherwise leave out the pronoun in Greek imperatives. All the examples cited so far (John 5:39 and 7:52 and 6:26) point to the fact that such imperatives may have the pronoun or otherwise do not have the pronoun.

What has been the underlying thought is whether that pronoun 'you' was "omitted" in order to make it sound like a "command" - in which case my rejoinders have been saying that the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun and did not make it sound like a "command", because the pronoun was not there in the first place. If it had been there in the Greek and we do not read it in the KJV, then indeed it would have been an "omission"; but as we can see, it was not an "omitted" word as charged by justcool, and the KJV was not trying to make it sound like a "command".

Pastor AIO:

However, come to think of it, you don't have to make zeteite the present indicative.  You could just as easily translate it as the imperative like before and you'll get
And Jesus answered them, "Verily verily I say to you, Seek Me, not because you've seen signs, but because you are full of loaves".

Which is quite a delightful interpretation of the verse, don't you think?

Lol, I would not want to go into another detailed discourse on that. While appreciating yours, let me note something in connection with what you stated earlier as regards ζητεῖτέ (zeteite):[list]

Pastor AIO:
Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody.

[/list]

Okay, I commend your submission on distingusihing between ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) and ερευνατε. For the sake of our readers, perhaps it may be necessary to point out further that in Greek ζητεῖτέ could be used for both searching for something and someone. Would it help to check with some study aids (like Thayer's Greek Definitions); and then looking at a few examples where ζητεῖτέ is used in both cases? A few of such examples:

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking someone:

       John 7:11 - 'Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?'

       2 Timothy 1:17  - 
      'But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me'
      _______________________________       

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking something:

       Luke 15:8 - 'Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,
       doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?'

       1 Cor. 1:22 - 'For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.'

       Matthew 13:45 - 'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man,
       seeking goodly pearls.'

In either cases, the words ζητεῖτέ and ερευνατε are used whether as regards seeking/searching for someone or something. And examples where ερευνατε is used as indicative for searching/seeking for something other than a text (but in connection with people) could be found in Romans 8:27 and 1 Cor. 2:10.

* Romans 8:27 - 'And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what
    is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
    the will of God.'

* 1 Cor. 2:10 - 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
    for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.'

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Maybe I owe you a small apology because I really thought that you were being a maradona when you sought to make a distinction between Command and imperative. however on reading this post again I see how your position is based on that distinction.

Lol, that's okay. Sometimes I've also misread a few people and had to wait to get a better understanding of what they were saying before drawing any inferences - just as I misread yours earlier (consequently said that was "why I waited to make yourself clear".

Pastor AIO:

However, accepting this point does not change much. And again it hinges on that word 'you'. The word you is not used when constructing the second person of verbs except for emphasis. For example, a similar thing occurs in Italian. Imagine I met a tranvestite. A woman that is dressed as a man, has had the sex change and would like to be addressed as a man. She says to me, " Sono uomo" Sono means I am in italian while uomo means man. But in response I can shake my head and say, "Io sono uomo". That is I am a man. The emphasis makes a distinction, an important point that I am trying to convey.

Yes, I understand the distinctions; but even so, that would not necessarily make it a "command" , would it?

Pastor AIO:

If you see the word you in ancient greek then an important nuance is being indicated. Now consider the phrase:

Search the scriptures; for (in them) you think . . . .

In greek this is : ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε

You is Humeis which is emboldened above. It is followed by dokete which means to suppose or to think. Now, rhetorically, why would Jesus suddenly add the personal pronoun when it is not necessary grammatically in the language. I say it is because the Supposition is theirs and their especially (if not theirs alone). He emphasises the you to imply that it is their position, not necessarily his.

Wow! I think you have actually captured the essence of my emphasis all along. Let's not lose focus on the very basic thing I have addressed all this while, and I would like to quote that emboldened line in yours to show what exactly I had been pointing out:
______________________________________________________________

Now, rhetorically, why would Jesus suddenly add the personal pronoun
when it is not necessary grammatically in the language.
______________________________________________________________

The question there is "why" - that is, why add the personal pronoun there at the beginning of the verse in John 5:39? Briefly, some assume that the KJV has "omitted" the pronoun and therefore made it to sound like a "command". In other words, to these gentlemen the omission of the pronoun sounds like it was a "command" and I have been pointing out all along that (a) the pronoun is not there in the Greek in the first place, so it is wrong to accuse the KJV of having "omitted" it; and (b) even standing without the pronoun at the beginning of that verse, nobody was trying to make it sound like a "command". Let me remind you of the allegation made earlier that I had referred to:

justcool:

In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Bottomline: the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun at the beginning of that sentence, for the pronoun was not there in the first place; it did not change or distort its meaning; and it certainly did not make it sound like a "command". The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."

Shalom.

Masters una well done oh, em I just want to ask since Jesus didnt speak in greek, are you sure that is exactly the way he said it and exactly the way it is or are we left to the ability of there apostles to render these things, please someone dont say inspiration.

are you sure that is exactly the way he said it and exactly the way it is or are we left to the ability of there apostles to render these things

Nobody is sure. We can only judge the words that are put before us and that's the best we can do.
Biblical study is one of assumption. We have to assume the identity of the writer and we have to assume that he speaks with authority. But no. We can never be sure.

pilgrim.1:

Bottomline: the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun at the beginning of that sentence, for the pronoun was not there in the first place; it did not change or distort its meaning; and it certainly did not make it sound like a "command". The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."

Shalom.

Lie! Lie! Lie!
What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV, The "you" was actually omitted in KJV, therefore it cannot be an allegation. He compared KJV with other English translations, and actually in KJV, the word "you" was actualy omitted(missing). Omitted simply means "left out," "not included" "disregarded". In KJV the word "you" which most English translations included was omitted. You can argue that the omittion was correct because the word "you" was not on the original Greek verse. But you cannot say the "you" was not omited in KJV when compared with other english translations. justcol was compareing KJV with other English translations not the original greek version.

Besides, anybody who know about languages and translations, knows that you do not translate sentences word by word. In order to convey the right meaning, when translating, words may be added or removed. This is done in-order to comply the operations of the language. I will give an example;

In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.