Page 72 - Bibliology - Textbook w videos short

the PLEASURE of motorcycles: the roar of hot exhaust, the danger of taking curves too fast, the
brilliance of polished chrome, the thrill of aerated freedom that drew these riders together. Philein
is a pleasure responsive love (not a love for pleasure).

Agapan is used in its verb, noun, and adjective forms over three hundred times. It is evoked by an
“awakened sense” of value for a person or object. Agapan goes beyond the pleasurable response of
Philein to recognize the “precious value” in something. In contrasting Philein and Agapan, the
former is a love of pleasure and the latter is a love of esteem; the former takes pleasure in and the
latter gives value to; the former delights in receiving while the latter excels in giving. Agapan was
used grudgingly by secular writers during the Greek Classical period and use of the noun form,
Agapesis, was rare. This was true, perhaps, because the human condition did not frequently share
in this type of love, plus the other three encompassed the whole human experience. Here was a
word, nearly dormant, waiting for something to give it prominence, and that happened with the
telling of God's love for people through His “esteem” for us. It is imputed love that we did not
deserve. Agapan possessed the necessary concept to fully expound the love of God. Agapan was
made for biblical writers. Agapan is God's merciful esteem for us. It is the motivating force that
made Christ be willing to sacrifice Himself on a cross to pay the penalty for our sins (John 3:16).

2. Sometimes the word order in one language does not match the word order in the other.

3. Each language has hundreds of idiomatic expressions which make no sense when translated. For
example, J’ai le cafard in French, translated word for word in English is “I have a cockroach.” It
means “I am depressed” or I have the blues.”

Morgenstund hat gold im mund is word for word translated “morning hours have gold in the
mouth.” It is an idiomatic saying the is similar to our English saying, “The early bird catches the
worm.” In other words, in translating, one must not only match words, but must decipher meaning!
You must ask the question, “What is this author really saying and what words best express his
thoughts?” This brings us to the great debate on how to translate the Bible.

The debate is over dynamic vs. formal equivalency.

Formal equivalency is the method of translating that gives as literal a translation as possible. This
perspective seeks a word-for-word translation from one language to another.

Illustration of Formal Equivalency: If a Hebrew or Greek word means “to run”, then literal translators
render the word “run” in the target language instead of shuffle, amble, move, skip, prance, or stroll,
because none of these verbs convey the most literal sense of running.

Dynamic equivalency seeks to translate the meaning from one language to another, even if this involves
sacrificing a word-for-word translation in the process.

Illustration of Dynamic Equivalency: The German phrase, Wie Heissen Sie? (How are you called?) is
better translated in English, “What’s your name?” Even though it is not translated word for word, the
meaning is clearer when translated culturally as the target language expresses the same thought.

Quickly look through the four gospels and you will find that every fourth or fifth sentence begins with
the word, AND. The authors of the Bible wrote very long sentences. For example, Eph. 1:3-14 is really

71