Absolutely FALSE. (see below)
"Thank you, but I read Greek, I know what the word means in ENGLISH."
From The Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (Middle Liddel) and Georg Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary:
Masculine Noun: doulos - properly, a born bondman or slave, opp. to one made a slave
Feminine Noun: doulh - female slave
Adjective: douleios - slavish, servile
Verb: doulow - to make a slave of, enslave
Regardless of your flippant dismissal of arguably the most exhaustive and authoritative database of Ancient Greek words and their usage, the above demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'doulos' is 'slave'. Claiming otherwise is a LIE!
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.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't jump into this thread to comment on doctrine, I jumped in to comment on Greek. My contention is not that your doctrine is wrong, it's that you are wrong to say the word doulos connotes willing service... it does NOT.
"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."
You said in Post 34 that doulos "is never translated 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be." You were WRONG. I gave you seven examples where the word is undeniably expressed in a manner to mean slave, and I am thankful that you have graciously acknowledged this.
"And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service... No need to use the word 'slave'."
That was not my point.
My point was that your fundamental assertion throughout this entire exchange has been that the use of the word 'servant' by translators is proof that the the word translated implies "free will desiring to serve". You are WRONG! The KJV chapters and verses I cited were specific examples where the word 'servant' is used in reference to slaves.
You're doctrine may be true... but...
Your assertion that the use of the word 'servant' proves the person referred to is not a slave is FALSE.
Your assertion that the the word 'doulos' connotes in any way the concept of willing service is FALSE.
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
From The Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (Middle Liddel) and Georg Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary: Masculine Noun: doulos - properly, a born bondman or slave, opp. to one made a slave Feminine Noun: doulh - female slave Adjective: douleios - slavish, servile Verb: doulow - to make a slave of, enslave Regardless of your flippant dismissal of arguably the most exhaustive and authoritative database of Ancient Greek words and their usage, the above demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'doulos' is 'slave'. Claiming otherwise is a LIE!
First, Liddell and Scott are dealing with classical Greek not Kione, which is what the NT is from.
Second, here is a definition from another Lexicon, Friberg-Analytical, '(Generally, one who serves in obedience to another's will, slave, servant (emphasis added)
So, 'servant' is used as well as 'slave' for 'doulos'
The KJB just uses 'servant' consistency and allows the context to tell the reader what kind of servant the verse is referring to.
No, that is the definition of a word found in a lexicon, as a Greek would think of the word.
'doulos' slave ('servant' for 'slave' is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times; in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinquished)(BAGD, p.205)
In other words, the English usage of the word is made to conform to the broad connotation of being a servant and allowing the context to determine what kind of servant the individual is.
No believer is ever called a 'slave' of God.
[ 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.]
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I didn't jump into this thread to comment on doctrine, I jumped in to comment on Greek. My contention is not that your doctrine is wrong, it's that you are wrong to say the word doulos connotes willing service... it does NOT.
MacArthur is pushing this lie because Calvinism holds to the view that believers are 'slaves' and not willing servants, who receive rewards for FREELY serving God.
For the Calvinist, God is even responsible for the believer's sins, and has no will.
The Lexicon definition of 'slave' is not followed consistency by any translation, even those who do use the word 'slave' at some times.
So, 'doulos' is considered to be correctly translated as 'servant' by all modern translation, despite the lexicon definition.
[ "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."]
You said in Post 34 that doulos "is never translated 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be." You were WRONG. I gave you seven examples where the word is undeniably expressed in a manner to mean slave, and I am thankful that you have graciously acknowledged this.
Yes, and the context gave the clear meaning, without using the word 'slave'.
No need to use the word at all.
[ "And each one of those places, the context will tell you the nature of the service... No need to use the word 'slave'."]
That was not my point. My point was that your fundamental assertion throughout this entire exchange has been that the use of the word 'servant' by translators is proof that the the word translated implies "free will desiring to serve". You are WRONG! The KJV chapters and verses I cited were specific examples where the word 'servant' is used in reference to slaves.
The places where 'servant' is used for the believer is where the emphasis on 'free will desiring to serve' is placed.
MacArthur is saying that in THOSE verses the word should be changed to 'slave', destroying the broad connotation of free will.
So, that is the major point being discussed, in relation to MacArthur's book, is a Christian a servant or a slave?
You're doctrine may be true... but... Your assertion that the use of the word 'servant' proves the person referred to is not a slave is FALSE. Your assertion that the the word 'doulos' connotes in any way the concept of willing service is FALSE.
The word in English taken in context shows the concept of willing service.
That is why the word only the word 'servant' is used with believers, and only should be.
I never said that a 'servant' couldn't be a slave, I said a BELIEVER couldn't be a slave, not that a servant couldn't be.
I made it very clear context would tell you what manner of servant was being discussed.
So, the English word 'slave' was not needed at all since the context would tell you the difference.
A greek speaker in the 1st century, would have had the same understanding with 'doulos'.
For English speakers, the word 'servant' allows both it's narrow use (slave) and broader use (someone freely serving) and simply shows the meaning using context.
Respectfully, OHelix
I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to.
You have shown yourself to be no different.