yes or no

Originally posted by Chill ↑

1. NKJV uses the term love. KJV uses charity. Point is they all lead back to the Greek agape. I didn't say it says something different.

2. "the active love of a God for his son and his people which is supposed to be reciprocated to God and his son and each other'' .....well that's actually from a concordance describing agape. So not my rationale or my addition?

Regarding charity, it is used in the KJV in the same way love or agape, as you quote, is used in the NKJV. They both lead to agape. The other types of love in the bible and from the Greek, are eros, phillia and storge.

With over 100 english versions of the bible, of which there are numerous variations in terminology, is it any wonder the world is confounded and confused when it comes to God. And who is responsible for that? (A rhetorical question). Here are some questions that confound and confuse even the so called elite:

Is the God head a trinity?
Is the Sabbath a Saturday or Sunday or any day you like and should it be kept holy?
Were the 10 commandments nailed to the cross?
Are there other bibles? Book of Mormon for one.
Why aren't there healings in 2017 similar to what is described in the bible?
Should you celebrate Easter with eggs and bunnies?
Should you celebrate Christmas with Santa (an anagram for satan) and pressies as Christs Birthday?
Should you keep the Passover as Christ did?
Should you keep all the holy days or feasts as Christ did.
Should you tithe?
The list goes on and on. So many people will answer these questions differently. Some couldn't care less. My point is that what YOUR view of God and the truth of the bible is, is simply that, YOUR view and your truth; Not necessarily someone else's. In the endtime many false prophets will come in my name......you know the scripture. Is it any wonder people are turning away from God as they are surreptitiously deceived. How can they take what is written at face value?

Expand

. NKJV uses the term love. KJV uses charity. Point is they all lead back to the Greek agape. I didn't say it says something different.

I think you are avoiding the issue of the contradictions in the nature and character of the god of the bible as described by the bible itself. Here is the quote from KJV, it says what it says and its meaning is clear. Playing with semantics doesn't alter the essential message, you can switch to 'agape' if you like - Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agápē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to love, "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God".^[1] - but that would not change the fundamental meaning of these verses:

⁷Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
⁸He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

''With over 100 english versions of the bible, of which there are numerous variations in terminology, is it any wonder the world is confounded and confused when it comes to God. And who is responsible for that? (A rhetorical question). Here are some questions that confound and confuse even the so called elite:''

So much for the clarity of what is claimed to be a body of works inspired by the Creator of the Universe. Which still avoids the clear and indisputable contradictions between various descriptions of the nature of God as described in the bible. This remains true regardless of how fancy a semantic shuffle, agape, etc is used in an attempt to reconcile these irreconcilable contradictions.