Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Eternally Grateful]

I explained why these words do not always mean what you think it means by pointing out verses that have them that does not support your viewpoint. You simply chose to ignore the points I made.

I do not ignore them. I looked at them I focused on them

I looked at what Jesus asked

I looked at how peter responded.

And I discounted your points. because they do not prove your point. They just once again help you to fail to see the truth that Peter could not tell Jesus he agape him.. And there was a reason..

for those of us who have learned from that point, we are blessed

If you want to keep believing this. Well good luck

 

[Robert Gwin]

I found this information on Google:

“Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)”

“Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i).”

Thanks much Micah, you have taught me something today sir. I appreciate it, I have always wondered why it was done that way, I now understand.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The Greek manuscripts all say “Lord” in the Greek form when quoting the Old Testament.

Greek is the original language of the New Testament: translators aren’t involved at all.

I understand that Micah, you are very correct, the original writings were Greek, however the originals no longer exist. Because of copyists deliberate alterations, many do not know who God is today sir. Clearly the inspired penmen of the Bible would never alter a quoted verse from the Hebrew passages. Mat 4:10 is a really good example of how manipulation changes understanding. I can't count the number of individuals that think Jesus is speaking about himself, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever, what would satan have to tempt God? But he did have something to offer Jesus, his brother.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

the means people will go to to try to prove their idol bible is perfect is just astonishing

Every translation I have seen translates “agape/phileo” as love. It’s not even unique to the KJV and has nothing to do with defending the KJV. It has to do with fact.

Placing a difference between “agape” and “phileo” in the Greek is like placing a difference between the English “adore” and “love”.

Suppose we all spoke Greek and the ancient language of the scriptures was English. Now suppose that a passage read like this:

Peter, do you love me? Peter says, yes, I adore you.

There is clearly no difference in these two expressions, just as there no difference in the expression of the two Greek words in question.

Expert translators agree.

You are no expert and your limited knowledge in this field has you coming up with a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Not true. The Bible does exist. I can hold the King James Bible in my hands.



It is perfect. It's just carnal reasoning of men will see flaws where there is none. I know. I have discovered answers or explanations behind the many supposed contradictions in the KJB over the years. So flaws are only in the eye of the beholder. A person can say the same thing about GOD in general, too. But they would be in error.



I do believe Jesus is God. It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word (Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture). Jesus (Seeing He is GOD) can exist in spirit within a believer's heart in addition to having a human body.

Ephesians 3:17

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith;
that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”​

So there is no contradiction.

I provided 160 reasons why Jesus is GOD on the forums here at ChristianityBoard.
You can check that out here.

Not true. The Bible does exist. I can hold the King James Bible in my hands.

There is no such book that I am aware of sir, are you sure you do not mean the King James Version of the Bible? I think if you do just a small amount of research you will find that the Bible does not actually exist, all we have are copies. Since no 2 versions read exactly the same, it is rather obvious that alterations have been included. There of course is nothing wrong with this, as long as you keep the original intent of the passage; is is when the additions change the meaning that there is a problem.

I do believe Jesus is God. It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word (Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture). Jesus (Seeing He is GOD) can exist in spirit within a believer's heart in addition to having a human body.

Ephesians 3:17

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith;
that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”​

There you have it out of your very own mouth sir, now all you have to do is believe Jesus in whom he taught his God is. May I ask what Christ means Hi? When you get the answer to that, who then made Jesus the Christ?​

 

[Robert Gwin]

Yes, absolutely.

We definitely agree on that sir, in fact, obedience to that is the only thing that will preserve us through the tribulation if we are still alive at that time.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Jesus comes from Iesus (greek)

I have always wondered that myself.. You would think we would want to call him by his given name.. Not a made up transliterated one.

Christ comes from Christos.. another transliterated vs translated word.. which means the anointed one.

Very good Grateful, I sir am grateful to you for bringing that out. Another poster mentioned that as well. Keep in mind those names are English, not Hebrew or Greek, and obviously God accepts it as being correct, or He would not have allowed it. You are dead on with what Christ means, something I fear many do not know.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

….

@Robert Gwin

You quoted me, but it did not turn out correctly. I cannot decipher your words from my own.

Here is a helpful video on multi quoting.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Wonder no more!
Pull out your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and lookup pretty much any word for a person, place, or thing that starts with the letter J. What you are going to find is that it is pronounced as a Y. If you get on the internet and ask for the pronunciation of words like Job, or Joshua, or Jericho or Jesus, you will find it sound like e-Y because the Hebrew Y has an e tang to it.

Why is this? The Letter J nor it pronunciation did not exist in any language until 1400 AD and did not catch on until the 1500's.

So then again why did they change all the Y's to J's. Some call it the Great Consonant Shift, I call it the J slam. People disagree on why.... What it was, was the final step of removing God the Father's name and God the Son's name from the Bible. No one knows were the word Jesus came from. God the Father's name Yahweh at one time was in the Old Testament nearly 6,000 times. They removed His name and replaced it with the Tetragrammaton---YHWH. And then they removed that and inserted either the words God or Lord nearly 6.000 times and rearranged the words in the verses to accommodate the wording.

Can not blame the KJV for the shift from Y's to J's but you can see the shift if you study the history of the KJV, because up to the middle of the 1600's the KJV used the Greek name for Christ---Iēsous and then removed that and inserted the word Jesus.

One other thing, Christ in Greek is Christos which means Messiah. LOL Jesus Christ....it should read Yeshua the Messiah....Christ or Messiah is not His last name.

Thanks for the information Hunter, it is very possible that Matthew was initially written in Hebrew, although it is not able to be substantiated, as far as I know then, Jesus name never was mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, although most will state that it is Yeshua in Hebrew, of which I agree. You stated it correctly, although Yeshua should be in English Joshua, because of it being translated from Greek, it was rendered Jesus.

You are quite correct that Messiah and Christ are the same word, simply one in Hebrew the other in Greek rendered in English and mean the same thing, and even though at one time I thought it was Jesus last name, it is not.

The original name of God is actually YHWH though. The most used name in the Bible hands down, there is a lot of different numbers of it's occurrences in Scripture, but we believe that it occurred 6973 times in the Hebrew passages. Heck because of the differing numbers I have no honest idea.

 

[Truther]

We definitely agree on that sir, in fact, obedience to that is the only thing that will preserve us through the tribulation if we are still alive at that time.

The church will be caught away prior to the tribulation.

God kinda likes His bride.

Only sicko's will allow their girls to be ravaged by atrocities they could have prevented before marrying them in shambles.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Every translation I have seen translates “agape/phileo” as love. It’s not even unique to the KJV and has nothing to do with defending the KJV. It has to do with fact.

Which PROVES my comment that the ENGLISH language is flawed. Hence ANY english bible will have that inherent flaw in it. so there IS NO PERFECT FLAWLESS ENGLISH BIBLE

Placing a difference between “agape” and “phileo” in the Greek is like placing a difference between the English “adore” and “love”.

Suppose we all spoke Greek and the ancient language of the scriptures was English. Now suppose that a passage read like this:

Peter, do you love me? Peter says, yes, I adore you.

There is clearly no difference in these two expressions, just as there no difference in the expression of the two Greek words in question.

Expert translators agree.

You are no expert and your limited knowledge in this field has you coming up with a ridiculous conclusion.

So you show there is a difference. But then say there is none?

I am sorry but it goes deeper than that. Thats why peter got mad the third time when Jesus asked if he phileo him. If it is as you say and there is no difference, Peter would not react as he did.

as for experts.

You will find experts which will agree with you in about anything. So sorry, but that will not win you any brownie points or prove your point any more that it does the experts that claim the catholic church is the one true church.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Which PROVES my comment that the ENGLISH language is flawed

Wrong.

That is what TRANSLATION is for!

There isn’t even a footnote declaring any “deeper” meaning in those passages involving “agape/phileo”.

Any language is capable of accurately translating other languages.

That’s a dangerous thing to believe, especially with the Devil lying in wait to harm the sheep when the sheep have no confidence in their weapon with attitudes like yours.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not ignore them. I looked at them I focused on them

I looked at what Jesus asked

I looked at how peter responded.

And I discounted your points. because they do not prove your point. They just once again help you to fail to see the truth that Peter could not tell Jesus he agape him.. And there was a reason..

for those of us who have learned from that point, we are blessed

If you want to keep believing this. Well good luck

You believe Agapaō is exclusively a self sacrificial love and not a love that is based on affection or some kind of family love. This is erroneous because we see Jesus clearly having an affection alone for the rich young ruler involving the word Agapaō in Mark 10:21.

Mark 10:21 KJB
“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” - Agapaō

Strong's at BlueLetterBible:
Then G1161 Jesus G2424 beholding G1689 him G846 loved G25 him, - Agapaō

Mark 10:21 NLT
“Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” - Agapaō

The real reason why Peter was grieved was not because he did not understand the different meaning behind the kind of love Jesus was talking about but because Jesus asked a third time if Peter loved Him. It would not be a third time Jesus asked Peter he loved him if this was a different kind of word altogether being spoken about by Jesus.

John 21:17
“...Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? - Phileō.

Jesus used the word Phileō in reference to love a third time in the conversation not because it was a different meaning but because the Bible has different words that express the same meaning (like: synonyms within a Thesaurus).

“He saith G3004 unto him G846 the third G5154 time, Simon, G4613 son of Jonas, G2495 lovest G5368 thou me?” - Phileō.

If Phileō love is different than Agapaō love, than it would not be a third time that Jesus asked him if he loved him if it was an entirely different kind of word with an entirely different meaning. There would be no third time according to your viewpoint because you see Agapaō and Phileō love as completely different words with different meanings.

Think, no love can be self sacrificial without there being any kind of affection involved. Robots that are self sacrificial in loving actions does not mean that they are actually loving. One needs to have an affection first before one can be self sacrificing in their love. Affections lead to self sacrifice because you care and love the other person. We are not Vulcans or robots and neither is GOD. But you see the higher form of love as being exclusively self sacrificial without an affection so that is why this definition is erroneous.

Take for example Matthew 10:37.

Matthew 10:37
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” - Phileō

Matthew 10:37 - Strongs at BlueLetterBible
He that loveth G5368 father G3962 or G2228 mother G3384 more than G5228 me G1691 is G2076 not G3756 worthy G514 of me: G3450 and G2532 he that loveth G5368 son G5207 or G2228 daughter G2364 more than G5228 me G1691 is G2076 not G3756 worthy G514 of me. G3450

I take this as an affection mingled in with self sacrificial love. Yet, you would see this as an affection only because it uses the word Phileō.

Yet in context, we see that this kind of love is not just an affection alone but it is the kind of love that involves both affection and devotion by one's actions.

Here is the context of verse 37.

Matthew 10:34-39

34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”​

Notice in verse 34 that it talks about how Jesus says that he will be enemies or foes of our own household and that he comes to send a sword and not peace. Meaning our loyalty to our family is not our first priority anymore but it would now be Jesus Christ. For verse 38 says that the person does not take up their cross and follows Jesus is not worthy of Him. Verse 39 talks about how he that loses his life (for the Lord's sake) shall find it (save it). In other words, if we are to believe that this is a an exclusive affection for humans being spoken about here then it would be at the expense of the context because the context does not support an affection alone type love with no actions in Matthew 10:37. Jesus has in view that if we are to love Him in affection and by our actions together Him more than we would our family. Jesus in view desires us to pick up our cross and follow Him instead of following our families at the expense of our Lord's commands and duties.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

You see Phileō love as kind of like if I had a love for a McDonald's Phileō fish sandwich.

LOL!!!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You believe Agapaō is exclusively a self sacrificial love and not a love that is based on affection or some kind of family love. This is erroneous because we see Jesus clearly having an affection alone for the rich young ruler involving the word Agapaō in Mark 10:21.

Mark 10:21 KJB
“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” - Agapaō

Strong's at BlueLetterBible:
Then G1161 Jesus G2424 beholding G1689 him G846 loved G25 him, - Agapaō

Mark 10:21 NLT
“Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” - Agapaō

The real reason why Peter was grieved was not because he did not understand the different meaning behind the kind of love Jesus was talking about but because Jesus asked a third time if Peter loved Him. It would not be a third time Jesus asked Peter he loved him if this was a different kind of word altogether being spoken about by Jesus.

John 21:17
“...Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? - Phileō.

Jesus used the word Phileō in reference to love a third time in the conversation not because it was a different meaning but because the Bible has different words that express the same meaning (like: synonyms within a Thesaurus).

“He saith G3004 unto him G846 the third G5154 time, Simon, G4613 son of Jonas, G2495 lovest G5368 thou me?” - Phileō.

If Phileō love is different than Agapaō love, than it would not be a third time that Jesus asked him if he loved him if it was an entirely different kind of word with an entirely different meaning. There would be no third time according to your viewpoint because you see Agapaō and Phileō love as completely different words with different meanings.

You see Phileō love as kind of like if I had a love for a McDonald's Phileō fish sandwich.

Think, no love can be self sacrificial without there being any kind of affection involved. Robots that are self sacrificial in loving actions does not mean that they are actually loving. One needs to have an affection first before one can be self sacrificing in their love. Affections lead to self sacrifice because you care and love the other person. We are not Vulcans or robots and neither is GOD. But you see the higher form of love as being exclusively self sacrificial without an affection so that is why this definition is erroneous.

Take for example Matthew 10:37.

Matthew 10:37
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” - Phileō

Matthew 10:37 - Strongs at BlueLetterBible
He that loveth G5368 father G3962 or G2228 mother G3384 more than G5228 me G1691 is G2076 not G3756 worthy G514 of me: G3450 and G2532 he that loveth G5368 son G5207 or G2228 daughter G2364 more than G5228 me G1691 is G2076 not G3756 worthy G514 of me. G3450

I take this as an affection mingled in with self sacrificial love. Yet, you would see this as an affection only because it uses the word Phileō.

Yet in context, we see that this kind of love is not just an affection alone but it is the kind of love that involves both affection and devotion by one's actions.

Here is the context of verse 37.

Matthew 10:34-39

34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”​

Notice in verse 34 that it talks about how Jesus says that he will be enemies or foes of our own household and that he comes to send a sword and not peace. Meaning our loyalty to our family is not our first priority anymore but it would now be Jesus Christ. For verse 38 says that the person does not take up their cross and follows Jesus is not worthy of Him. Verse 39 talks about how he that loses his life (for the Lord's sake) shall find it (save it). In other words, if we are to believe that this is a McDonald's Phileō fish type love (or an exclusive affection for humans) being spoken about here then it would be at the expense of the context because the context does not support an affection alone type love with no actions in Matthew 10:37. Jesus has in view that if we are to love Him in affection and by our actions together Him more than we would our family. Jesus in view desires us to pick up our cross and follow Him instead of following our families at the expense of our Lord's commands and duties.

You can post all of this until your blue in the face my friend, It does not support your case.

I repeat.

Jesus: "Do you agape me?"

Peter: "I phileo you"

Bible Highlighter: "both are saying the same"

the means people will go to to try to prove their idol bible is perfect is just astonishing

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Wrong.

That is what TRANSLATION is for!

There isn’t even a footnote declaring any “deeper” meaning in those passages involving “agape/phileo”.

Any language is capable of accurately translating other languages.

That’s a dangerous thing to believe, especially with the Devil lying in wait to harm the sheep when the sheep have no confidence in their weapon with attitudes like yours.

lolol

A translation is only as good as the language it is translated in.

If the language is weak, You will get a weak translation.

I have faith in my bible. I have faith it will do what it needs to to make me complete in christ. (I do nto use the kjv by the way. Last time I tried to read it. ..well you get the picture)

I also have faith that if I dig deeper I can even get a deeper understanding of the word. Something that i can not get with just the english translation.

Again, this is just one example. there are so many more.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Y

You see Phileō love as kind of like if I had a love for a McDonald's Phileō fish sandwich.

Typical response from someone who is proud and thinks they are above all others. and have no error in their thinking

You have to make fun of the person who disagrees with you.

This just further boasts my opinion of the English flaw of all English bibles.. and takes me further away from determining you as any sort of expert in this matter.

 

[Grailhunter]

Thanks for the information Hunter, it is very possible that Matthew was initially written in Hebrew, although it is not able to be substantiated, as far as I know then, Jesus name never was mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, although most will state that it is Yeshua in Hebrew, of which I agree. You stated it correctly, although Yeshua should be in English Joshua, because of it being translated from Greek, it was rendered Jesus.

Well thanks for looking into it. I got to tell you that it is a deep topic and you can dig deeper and the internet is not the best place. First off scholars are not in agreement as to why the New Testament was written mostly in Greek but the best explanation that I heard is that since the Septuagint was written in Greek and Greek was the prevalent language of the time and was more precise than Latin the Apostles chose to write in Greek. And the topic of scribes come up as to who put the ink to the "paper"

The early copies of the Gospels did not have titles like "The Gospel of Matthew" The storyline usually gave you an indication of who was responsible. As far as Christ's name, as with a lot of the issues the Apostles had with the Greek language, they had to contend with a language that was Pagan, no Hebrew equivalent for some words and names and void of some Christian terms. So they used Greek words and modified the definitions at times. The word sin is a good example...If you told a Roman soldier that he sinned, it meant that his arrow missed the target, no religious context. Lucky for them it has a similar meaning in Hebrew...except missing God's mark.

In relation to Yeshua, the Greek word for His name more or less meant honorable man. The internet again is not much help here because references are inconsistent but most will tell you that Iésous mean "anointed one" well anointed one is the definition of Messiah. LOL That would pertain to Christos and Christ. So the Greek language is mostly only going to be accurate about Greek names. Most of the Apostles had Hebrew names so the Hebrew names are all that matters and can be spelt and pronounced in English very closely. So there is no reason not to pronounce God the Father's name and God the Son's name in the English phonic equivalent of the Hebrew.

There are two ways to correctly refer to Christ's name, Yeshua and Yehoshua because Christ's name is kind of like Ed and Edward and can be translated to God is salvation or Yahweh is salvation....something along those lines. Now the funny here is that you have probably heard, as I have that Christ's name was a common name in the OT and NT, well that would be Yeshua in both testament periods, rendered either Jeshua or Joshua after the "J" slam, but again no J.s actually in the scriptures.

You are quite correct that Messiah and Christ are the same word, simply one in Hebrew the other in Greek rendered in English and mean the same thing, and even though at one time I thought it was Jesus last name, it is not.

LOL The "the" is very important for correctness....Yeshua the Messiah.

The original name of God is actually YHWH though.

What you are referencing here is the tetragrammaton YHWH or the Tetragram. The first "word" used to replace God's name in the scriptures. Now it does not take much research to realize that they called God different names. The "common name" was "EL" and when they were naming a shrine or place after God they would use El this or El that.

The most used name in the Bible hands down, there is a lot of different numbers of it's occurrences in Scripture, but we believe that it occurred 6973 times in the Hebrew passages. Heck because of the differing numbers I have no honest idea.

Scholars do not agree on how God's name was originally written. They do look at how Pagan societies wrote His name in stone or Stelae, because they had no restrictions and it still comes out as Yahweh, sometime replacing the W with a V. And you were talking about how many time His name occurred in the OT, the tetragrammaton occurred a little less that 6,000 times and all the other names of God pushes it well over 6,000 times.

Another interesting point is that the footprint of the "J" slam is that it only effects the first letter of the words in the Bible. Taking out the Y's and replacing them with J's.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Typical response from someone who is proud and thinks they are above all others. and have no error in their thinking

You have to make fun of the person who disagrees with you.

This just further boasts my opinion of the English flaw of all English bibles.. and takes me further away from determining you as any sort of expert in this matter.

I don't believe it is wrong to make jokes upon something that is a false belief. A belief is not you. A belief is separate from who you are because you did not create it. My attack is not primarily upon you but it is upon the wrong belief. So my joke is geared towards the false belief. My apologies if that is not the definition you hold to for Phileo. But that still does not undo the points I made with Scripture that you are ignoring, friend.

If that is not what you believe that words means, I will of course retract that statement and I will apologize.

Anyways, do not take my word for it. But there are others who are not KJB Only who think that this whole love language thing was created by C.S. Lewis' book on the four love languages. Little do folks realize that C.S. Lewis struggled with the occult and he promoted witchcraft in his fictional writings.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Typical response from someone who is proud and thinks they are above all others. and have no error in their thinking

I am not above others. I am human and only God alone is the source of all that is good. I believe I have a long way to go to be perfect still, and I believe the best way to be loving towards others is to serve them and not lord over them. I have seen this lording over the flock mentality (with them thinking they are flawless while everyone else is beneath them). I do strive to listen to what a person actually believes vs. what I think they believe. Sometimes I am not perfect and I may assume something wrongfully about what they believe initially. If so, I make an effort to apologize about it.

You have to make fun of the person who disagrees with you.

God is talking to my heart about it now. While my joke was primarily geared towards the false belief, I can see how you can take it personally. My deepest apologies for your thinking Phileo is like loving McDonald's fish. I have went back and re-edited my previous posts to you to remove the joke. The Lord Jesus wants me to be better than that. I strive to be better than throwing jokes around (even if it was more an attack on the wrong belief). We shall all given account for every idle word we speak. So my apologies on that. Please forgive me. I will strive to not throw any jokes around your way again. That was wrong of me.

This just further boasts my opinion of the English flaw of all English bibles.. and takes me further away from determining you as any sort of expert in this matter.

Samson was not perfect, and yet God was working with Him still. So I don't believe that any flaw within me proves you are correct, my friend. Mark 10:21 proves that agapeo is not a love that is a self sacrificial love in action type definition. Jesus clearly loved (agapeo) the young rich ruler as He was talking to Him. Jesus was not self sacrificing anything in that moment for the young rich ruler. This is all the proof I need, my friend.

So please reconsider Mark 10:21 in prayer with our Lord and do not hold my imperfection of character (I am working on in the Lord) against what the Scriptures say.