Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course mankind has failed, because God subjected us to vanity and not of our own choice ...
When being made subject to vanity there is no option but to fail. That is why man needs Christ. All Mankind has failed to earn salvation, but Christ has not failed to save all mankind.
If anyone claims that Christ will not save the those who are apollymi, and that most people will be for ever apollymi, then they are claim Christ failed to do what he came to do, which is to save those who are apollymi.
Ironmaw, Bless you in Christ Jesus.
I noticed your usage of ἀπόλλυμι - apollymi in Luke 15:4 which is not in the text itself, but is in the form of ἀπολωλὸς - apolōlos - denoting lost, not destroy. Destroy in Matt 19:28 is used in the form of ἀπολέσαι - apolesai
Thought you might want to take a closer look at the actual text, rather than the reference words the Concordances provide. Those specific words ie. G1234 only provide a base wording, wherein the actual text gives you the true meaning of based form from the G1234 word. So, no, one word means lost, and the other one, means destroy. They come from the same word, but denote entirely different meanings.
I noticed your usage of ἀπόλλυμι in Luke 15:4 which is not in the text itself, but is in the form of ἀπολωλὸς - denoting lost, not destroy. Destroy in Matt 19:28 is used in the form of ἀπολέσαι
Thought you might want to take a closer look at the actual text, rather than the reference words the Concordances provide. Those specific words ie. G1234 only provide a base wording, wherein the actual text gives you the true meaning of based form from the G1234 word. So, no, one word means lost, and the other one, means destroy. They come from the same word, but denote entirely different meanings.
They are the same meaning. Lost or destroyed.
Here is the word from the Greek interlinear ... The meaning is the same.
Certainly the context determines the exact meaning. Christ finds/saves the lost/destroyed(apololos).
Whatever the variation of the word the meaning is practically the same. Those that are lost are those that are perishing are those that are destroyed are those that will be saved by Christ.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 03-01-2010 at 01:09 AM..
Of course mankind has failed, because God subjected us to vanity and not of our own choice ...
When being made subject to vanity there is no option but to fail. That is why man needs Christ. All Mankind has failed to earn salvation, but Christ has not failed to save all mankind.
If anyone claims that Christ will not save the those who are apollymi, and that most people will be for ever apollymi, then they are claiming Christ failed to do what he came to do, which is to save those who are apollymi.
I noticed your usage of ἀπόλλυμι - apollymi in Luke 15:4 which is not in the text itself, but is in the form of ἀπολωλὸς - apolōlos - denoting lost, not destroy. Destroy in Matt 19:28 is used in the form of ἀπολέσαι - apolesai
Thought you might want to take a closer look at the actual text, rather than the reference words the Concordances provide. Those specific words ie. G1234 only provide a base wording, wherein the actual text gives you the true meaning of based form from the G1234 word. So, no, one word means lost, and the other one, means destroy. They come from the same word, but denote entirely different meanings.
Ironmaw, you are incorrect, otherwise it would have both been written as the same word. The Greek text states this, yet you deny it? Why?
You have your opinion and you are entitled to it ... I quoted from a Greek interlinear bible above. And it shows that the word can be interpreted as either one-HAVING-destroyED
or one-being-lost.
I realize you want to believe that there is a massive difference so that it would not be true that Christ saves those that are destroyed and or lost. But it is neither here nor there ... Christ didnt come to save the righteous or to justify the godly, he came to save the lost and to justify the ungodly. He is the savior of all men, especially believers.
... I think that the FORM of the English "lost"
has misled you into supposing that APOLWLOS has a passive sense; it
doesn't; rather it means something like "having come to naught" or "having
gone to waste"
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
The meaning is the same ... i.e. having been lost, or having gone to destruction.
The meaning is the same ... i.e. having been lost, or having gone to destruction.
No...it is not. Lost in the woods, is not destroy in the woods. The writers wrote different words, based from the same word "appolymi", which denote entirely different meanings, therefore that is what they present....Lost or destroy. One cannot dance around this subject and expect to be right, without re-writing the text. My arguement with this premise is not what you present, but what you present in that the highlighted text of Matthew which contextually refers to the Body and Soul "destroy" is of a different tense, form, and syntax.
Secondly, I am not arguing on the premise that Luke 15:6 does not define LOST, it does, yet the context of the sheep being lost, is not "destroy", but rather....."lost", the reason for the different variants of appolymi.
Thirdly, your link provides the reader with the tense of the apolwlos, in reagrds to the context of it being "found"...so I really don't see your point.
No...it is not. Lost in the woods, is not destroy in the woods. The writers wrote different words, based from the same word "appolymi", which denote entirely different meanings, therefore that is what they present....Lost or destroy. One cannot dance around this subject and expect to be right, without re-writing the text. My arguement with this premise is not what you present, but what you present in that the highlighted text of Matthew which contextually refers to the Body and Soul "destroy" is of a different tense, form, and syntax.
Secondly, I am not arguing on the premise that Luke 15:6 does not define LOST, it does, yet the context of the sheep being lost, is not "destroy", but rather....."lost", the reason for the different variants of appolymi.
Thirdly, your link provides the reader with the tense of the apolwlos, in reagrds to the context of it being "found"...so I really don't see your point.
I dont see your point, the word APOLWLOS doesn't necessarily mean lost but it derives that meaning from the context. As Professor Carl W. Conrad stated in my quote from him above, it can mean "having come to naught" or "having gone to waste"(destrucion), not only as "as having become lost" ... Forgive me if I will trust his word on the matter over yours.
I posted the wrong link in my post above. The quote from Carl W. Conrad i posted above is from ...
I dont see your point, the word APOLWLOS doesn't necessarily mean lost but it derives that meaning from the context. As Professor Carl W. Conrad stated in my quote from him above, it can mean "having come to naught" or "having gone to waste"(destrucion), not only as "as having become lost" ... Forgive me if I will trust his word on the matter over yours.
God bless ...
Snip:
Have you noticed that this is 'always' (so far as I know) Englished as
"that was lost"? The fact is that, just as a present participle can
represent both the present and imperfect indicative, so the perfect
participle can represent both the perfect and the pluperfect
indicative; what that means is that, when the perfect is understood as
indicating present reality just like a present tense, then the perfect
participle can be understood as equivalent in time to either present
indicative or imperfect indicative. For instance, hESTHKE = "is
standing," but hEISTHKEI = "was standing." Therefore TO PROBATON MOU
TO APOLWLOS = TO PROBATON MOU hO\ APOLWLOS HN.
Where does he say that?
ἀπολωλὸς - Lost - Luke 15:6
ἀπώλειαν - destruction - Matt 7:13
ἀπολέσαι - destroy - Matt 10:28
ἀτεκνουμένη - naught - 2 Kings 2:19
These are all different words stemmed from one word - ἀπόλλυμι
Carl Conrad would concurr with this assesment based on my readings of him. What Mr. Conrad is explaining here above is not the meaning of the word ἀπολωλὸς, but rather the tense of the text where it is used. I trust hiswords as well, but nowhere in this link do I see what your put forth. Forgive me, but the link you gave, is it the right one, or are you reading from another one? As far as I understand the presentation here is that Mr. Conrad is just saying, that "Lost/ἀπολωλὸς " can being in the present or past/imperfect indicative tense....."was lost/lost"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
