I don't know how to say this any other way than "you are absolutely wrong." You have been misinformed, misguided, or SOMETHING. The Greek word 'doulos' does not, in any way, connote the concept of willing service.
The word "doulos" means "slave" PERIOD. You obviously really want it not to, but it does.
Go to any online English to Greek translator, type in "slave" and see if you don't get "doulos" in the results (Greek has several words that can mean slave, but doulos will usually be the first, and if not, usually the second). Likewise, go to any Greek to English and type in "doulos", and you'll see "slave".
Please see the following links to the Perseus Project:
"...it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB..."
The only reason this statement is true is that the word "slave" does not exist in the KJV New Testament... The KJV usually translates the word as 'servant' appropriately, as attested to in the 1828 Websters dictionary entry which states that "In Scripture", the word 'servant' means 'slave'.
However the KJV does translate doulos as "bond" or "bondman" occaisionally:
1cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
"... nor should it be. "
Here you, again, are simply wrong, misinformed, whatever. There are many examples of the KJV using the word 'servant' to refer to obviously non-voluntary servitude:
It is used in regard to Joseph's slavery in Egypt (Gen 39 & 41, Psa 105).
It is used of those who are bought and sold (Exd 12 & 21).
It is used in the same verse in contrast to "hired servant" (Lev 25:6).
It is used of those who are permanently bound to a household (Deu 15:17).
It is used of those who have run away from their masters (Deu 23:15).
It is used of those who are freed from their masters by death (Job 3:19)
Is is used of those who are ensnared by debt (Pro 22:7).
It is used in contrast to those who are free (1Cr 7:22-22, 9:19)
Again, I have to ask you why you are so antagonistic against the concept of having a slave-master relationship with God.
I'm obviously very bluntly telling you you're wrong, but I genuinely wish to be respectful in our exchange.
I'm kind of surprised by your zeal because I consider the concept of being purchased by blood, as God's own possession, a fairly universally accepted doctrine among Christians.
I gather you're passionately vested in the "free will" side of the "free will vs predestination" schism... but I don't see how the meaning of "doulos" is significant to that issue either way... I mean... I could believe I've chosen to make myself God's slave, or I could believe God's chosen to make me his slave... But to take the position that I'm not God's slave kind of flies in the face of the whole "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord" thing.
Am I just totally misunderstanding your position?
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
I don't know how to say this any other way than "you are absolutely wrong." You have been misinformed, misguided, or SOMETHING. The Greek word 'doulos' does not, in any way, connote the concept of willing service.
The ENGLISH translation of the word into 'servant (not slave) is what the true connotation of the word is.
That is why so many translations use the word 'servant' and not 'slave'.
The word "doulos" means "slave" PERIOD. You obviously really want it not to, but it does.
No, the word means 'servant' and that is how most of the ENGLISH translations translated it as.
The meanings of the word 'slave' and of 'servant' are different in English, and thus, the careful use of the word 'servant' and not 'slave'.
Go to any online English to Greek translator, type in "slave" and see if you don't get "doulos" in the results (Greek has several words that can mean slave, but doulos will usually be the first, and if not, usually the second). Likewise, go to any Greek to English and type in "doulos", and you'll see "slave".
Go to any Enlish translation and you will find the word 'doulos' in most translations, translated as 'servant' and NOT slave.
In Jn.15:15, only the NASB uses the word 'slave', the NIV, CEV, The Message, NKJ, NCV, NLT all use 'servant'
In Rev.15:3, the word 'slave' isn't used in any major translation.
When translating from language to another, you use the English word that best expressess what the context of the verse expresses, and it isn't the English word 'slave' it is 'servant.
A Greek would make that distinction automatically based on context.
Please see the following links to the Perseus Project: doulos - Masculine Noun doulh - Feminine Noun douleios - Adjective doulow - Verb
Thank you, but I read Greek, I know what the word means in ENGLISH.
[ "...it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB..."]
The only reason this statement is true is that the word "slave" does not exist in the KJV New Testament... The KJV usually translates the word as 'servant' appropriately, as attested to in the 1828 Websters dictionary entry which states that "In Scripture", the word 'servant' means 'slave'.
The KJB translated it correctly because the translators understood the broader connotation between 'servant' and 'slave' and rejected the word 'slave', as did most modern translations as well.
However the KJV does translate doulos as "bond" or "bondman" occaisionally: 1cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Eph 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free. Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all. Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.
Yes, which shows that they knew the meaning of the word and translated it accordingly based on context.
Those above listed were in fact 'slaves' but no Christian ever is., he is a servant of God.
[ "... nor should it be. "]
Here you, again, are simply wrong, misinformed, whatever. There are many examples of the KJV using the word 'servant' to refer to obviously non-voluntary servitude: It is used in regard to Joseph's slavery in Egypt (Gen 39 & 41, Psa 105). It is used of those who are bought and sold (Exd 12 & 21). It is used in the same verse in contrast to "hired servant" (Lev 25:6). It is used of those who are permanently bound to a household (Deu 15:17). It is used of those who have run away from their masters (Deu 23:15). It is used of those who are freed from their masters by death (Job 3:19) Is is used of those who are ensnared by debt (Pro 22:7). It is used in contrast to those who are free (1Cr 7:22-22, 9:19)
And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service.
No need to use the word 'slave'.
Nor, are any of those examples referring to anyone's relationship with God.
Again, I have to ask you why you are so antagonistic against the concept of having a slave-master relationship with God.
I am antagonistic to it because it isn't true.
God wants a relationship with man, one that means WILLING service, not slavery.
I'm obviously very bluntly telling you you're wrong, but I genuinely wish to be respectful in our exchange. I'm kind of surprised by your zeal because I consider the concept of being purchased by blood, as God's own possession, a fairly universally accepted doctrine among Christians. I gather you're passionately vested in the "free will" side of the "free will vs predestination" schism... but I don't see how the meaning of "doulos" is significant to that issue either way... I mean... I could believe I've chosen to make myself God's slave, or I could believe God's chosen to make me his slave... But to take the position that I'm not God's slave kind of flies in the face of the whole "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord" thing.
No, because believers bow the kneel willingly, the unbeliever will be forced to do so.
So, the importance lies in the fact that God brought out of slavery into freedom, the freedom of serving Him as a servant.
Am I just totally misunderstanding your position?
No, you are are just rejecting it since the Calvinist has no understanding that God wants a free will response from man, He derives pleasure out of it.
Respectfully, OHelix
Thank you, likewise.