eternal suffering

[Der Alte]

... Seriously, what does John 3:16 say in your Bible? Nobody EVER wants to actually ANSWER that question! Are y'alls doctrines so weak that you can't even stand to say what John 3:16 says?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,[ἀπόλλυμι/apollumi] but have everlasting life. ​

ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings,
(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].

ἀπόλλυμι for its conj. s. Bl-D. §101 ( s.v. o[llumi ); Rob. 317; fut. ajpolevsw Hs 8, 7, 5, Att. ajpolw` 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ); 1 aor. ajpwvlesa ; 1 pf. ajpolwvleka ; fut. mid. ajpolou`mai Lk 13:3 ; 2 aor. ajpwlovmhn ; the 2 pf. ajpovlwla serves as a pf. mid ., ptc. ajpolwlwv" ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , En. , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ).
1. act .— a. ruin, destroy.
a. of pers. (Sir 10:3 ) Mk 1:24 ; Lk 4:34 . W. ref. to eternal destruction mh; ejkei`non ajpovllue do not bring about his ruin Ro 14:15 . Esp. kill, put to death (Gen 20:4 ; Esth 9:6 v.l .; 1 Macc 2:37 ; Jos. , C. Ap. 1, 122) Hs 9, 26, 7. paidivon Mt 2:13 ; Jesus 12:14 ; 27:20 ; Mk 3:6 ; 11:18 ; Lk 19:47 ; B 12:5; [kill] the wicked tenants kakou;" kakw`" aj. ( s. kakov" 1a) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death Mt 21:41 . tou;" gewrgouv" Mk 12:9 ; Lk 20:16 ; t. fonei`" Mt 22:7 ; t. mh; pisteuvsanta" those who did not believe Jd 5 ; pavnta" Lk 17:27 , 29 . W. sw`sai (1ike Charito 2, 8, 1) Js 4:12 ; Hs 9, 23, 4. Of eternal death ( Herm. Wr. 4, 7) yuch;n k. sw`ma aj. ejn geevnnh/Mt 10:28; yuchvn B 20:1; t. yucav" Hs 9, 26, 3 (cf. Sir 20:22).
b. w. impers. obj. aj. t. sofivan t. sofw`n destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ). aj. t. diavnoian destroy the understanding Hm 11:1.— g. without obj. J 10:10 .
b. lose ( X. , Pla. +; PPetr. III 51, 5; POxy. 743, 23; PFay. 111, 3 ff ; Sir 6:3 ; 9:6 ; 27:16 et al .; Tob 7:6 BA; 4 Macc 2:14 ) t. misqovn lose the reward Mt 10:42 ; Mk 9:41 ; Hs 5, 6, 7. dracmhvn ( Dio Chrys. 70[20], 25) Lk 15:8 f ; aj. a} hjrgasavmeqa lose what we have worked for 2J 8 . diaqhvkhn B 4:6, 8. th;n zwh;n t. ajnqrwvpwn Hm 2:1; cf. s 8, 6, 6; 8, 7, 5; 8, 8, 2 f and 5. th;n ejlpivda m 5, 1, 7.— W . colloqu. flavor i{na pa`n o} devdwkevn moi mhv ajpolevsw ejx aujtou` that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me J 6:39 ( Bl-D. §466, 3; Rob. 437; 753).— aj. th;n yuchvn ( cf. Sir 20:22 ) lose one’s life Mt 10:39 ; 16:25 ; Mk 8:35 ; Lk 9:24 ; 17:33 ; cf. J 12:25 . For this aj. eJautovn lose oneself Lk 9:25 (similar in form is Tyrtaeus Lyr. [VII BC ], fgm. 8 Diehl 2 lines 12 ff : ‘The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’).
2. mid .— a. be destroyed, ruined.
a. of pers. perish, die ( schol. on Nicander , Ther. 188 ajpovllutai oJ ajnhvr =the man dies) 1 Cl 51:5; 55:6; B 5:4, 12; D 16:5; Hs 6, 2, 1 f. As a cry of anguish ajpolluvmeqa we are perishing! ( PPetr. II 4, 4 nuni; de; ajpolluvmeqa ) Mt 8:25 ; Mk 4:38 ; Lk 8:24 ( Arrian , Peripl. 3, 3 of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer). ejn macaivrh/ aj. die by the sword Mt 26:52 . limw`/ [die] of hunger (Ezk 34:29 ) Lk 15:17 . th`/ ajntilogiva/ tou` Kovre Jd 11 c (because of 11a and b it should perh. = be corrupted; cf. Polyb. 32, 23, 6). uJpo; tino" ( Hdt. 5. 126; Dio Chrys. 13[7], 12) uJpo; t. o[fewn killed by the snakes 1 Cor 10:9 ; cf. vs. 1 0. Abs. of a people perish J 11:50 . Of individuals (Lev 23:30 ) Ac 5:37 ; 2 Pt 3:9 ; 1 Cl 12:6; 39:5 (Job 4:20 ).—Esp. of eternal death ( cf. Ps 9:6 f ; 36:20; 67:3 ; 91:10 ; Is 41:11 ) J 3:16 ; 17:12 . ajpolevsqai eij" to;n aijw`na perish forever 10:28 (Bar 3:3 hJmei`" ajpolluvmenoi to;n aijw`na). ajnovmw" aj. Ro 2:12 ; mwrw`" aj. IEph 17:2; ejn kauchvsei because of boasting ITr 4:1; cf. IPol 5:2. Abs. 1 Cor 8:11 ; 15:18 ; 2 Cl 17:1.— oiJ ajpolluvmenoi ( opp. oiJ sw/zovmenoi , like Plut. , Mor. 469 D ) those who are lost 1 Cor 1:18 ; 2 Cor 2:15 ; 4:3 ; 2 Th 2:10 ; 2 Cl 1:4; 2:5. For this to; ajpolwlov" Lk 19:10 (Mt 18:11 —Ezk 34:4 , 16 ). ta; ajpolluvmena 2 Cl 2:7 ( cf. Dit., Syll. 3 417, 9 ta; te ajpolwlovta ejk t. iJerou` ajnevswsan ). b. of things be lost, pass away, be ruined ( Jos. , Bell. 2, 650 of Jerusalem) of bursting wineskins Mk 9:17 ; Mk 2:22 ; Lk 5:37 ; fading beauty Js 1:11 ; transitory beauty of gold 1 Pt 1:7 ; passing splendor Rv 18:14 ( w. ajpov as Jer 10:11 ; Da 7:17 ). Of earthly food J 6:27 ; spoiled honey Hm 5, 1, 5. Of the heavens which, like the earth, will pass away Hb 1:11 (Ps 101:27 ). Of the end of the world Hv 4, 3, 3, Of the way of the godless, which is lost in darkness B 11:7 (Ps 1:6 ).
b. be lost (Antipho 54 Diels, Vorsokrat. ajpolovmenon ajrguvrion ; X. , Symp. 1, 5; 1 Km 9:3 ) ISm 10:1. Of falling hair Lk 21:18 ; Ac 27:34 ; a member or organ of the body Mt 5:29 f ; remnants of food J 6:12
. Of wine that has lost its flavor Hm 12, 5, 3.—Of sheep gone astray Mt 10:6 ; 15:24 ; Lk 15:4 , 6 ; B 5:12 ( cf. Jer 27:6 ; Ezk 34:4 ; Ps 118:176 ). Of a lost son [who has returned] Lk 15:24 ( Artem. 4, 33 hJ gunhv. . . t. uiJo;n ajpwvlese kai. . . eu|ren aujtovn .—JSchniewind, D. Gleichn. vom verl. Sohn ’40). aj. qew`/ be lost to God Hs 8, 6, 4. M-M. B. 758; 766.
BAG Greek Lexicon online​

People are never said to go to eternal torment. Read the only verse that says ANYTHING about eternal torment at all, it is in the BOR and it is referring to the devil, the seven headed beast and the false prophet.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:[κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal.
1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[κόλασις/kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

​

 

[ClementofA]

Read the only verse that says ANYTHING about eternal torment at all, it is in the BOR and it is referring to the devil, the seven headed beast and the false prophet.

So do you believe the devil will be tormented forever?

 

[Timothew]

So do you believe the devil will be tormented forever?

No.

The BOR uses symbols. The beast has seven heads and ten horns.

 

[ClementofA]

No.

The BOR uses symbols. The beast has seven heads and ten horns.

Okay, fair enough. I am pleased that you don't believe Love Omnipotent
is a sadist for all eternity. And there will be universal salvation of all those
who believe in Jesus Christ. I suppose we are in agreement there.

 

[Der Alte]

No.
The BOR uses symbols. The beast has seven heads and ten horns.

Not necessarily. There are at least 8 beasts mentioned in BoR and the one that is thrown into the LoF is not the one with seven heads and ten horns.

 

[Der Alte]

Okay, fair enough. I am pleased that you don't believe Love Omnipotent
is a sadist for all eternity. And there will be universal salvation of all those
who believe in Jesus Christ. I suppose we are in agreement there.

Don't be too quick to pat Tim on the back. He does not believe in UR he believes that the wicked will be destroyed.

 

[ClementofA]

Don't be too quick to pat Tim on the back. He does not believe in UR he believes that the wicked will be destroyed.

I am aware of his CI opinion.

My comment stands & applies to all who believe as he does.

 

[Timothew]

Don't be too quick to pat Tim on the back. He does not believe in UR he believes that the wicked will be destroyed.

"Hope in the LORD and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are destroyed, you will see it." Psalm 37:34

The reason that I believe that the wicked will be destroyed is because the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed. Don't pat me on the back, believe what the Bible says. If the URs are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by having their wickedness destroyed, the wicked will be no more. That's possible. If those who believe that the wages of sin is death are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by being destroyed, they will be dead forever. That seems closer to what the Bible actually says. If those who believe that the wicked will be preserved forever in hell being tortured alive are correct, then the Bible is simply in error when it says that the wicked will be destroyed. If the Bible is in error, then we are all free to believe whatever the hell we want to believe.

 

[Hillsage]

"Hope in the LORD and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are destroyed, you will see it." Psalm 37:34

The reason that I believe that the wicked will be destroyed is because the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed. Don't pat me on the back, believe what the Bible says. If the URs are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by having their wickedness destroyed, the wicked will be no more. That's possible. If those who believe that the wages of sin is death are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by being destroyed, they will be dead forever. That seems closer to what the Bible actually says. If those who believe that the wicked will be preserved forever in hell being tortured alive are correct, then the Bible is simply in error when it says that the wicked will be destroyed. If the Bible is in error, then we are all free to believe whatever the hell we want to believe.

Hey Timothew I never heard of writer's cramp from 'sand writing', but hey, here you are.

Do you think that the literalness of this verse you quote, was not literally fulfilled with literal Israel and its enemies? Just maybe, that which is seen in the OT is temporal to teach us the invisible and 'truly' eternal (adios) principles. Anyway that's how I'm looking at this.

KJV 2CO 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (age-during) weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal (age-during).

YLT 2CO 4:17 for the momentary light matter of our tribulation, more and more exceedingly an age-during weight of glory doth work out for us - 18 we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen {are} temporary, but the things not seen {are} age-during.

 

[Timothew]

Hey Timothew I never heard of writer's cramp from 'sand writing', but hey, here you are.

I know. I want to stay away, but there you go. I should just go away and write in the sand rather than try to convince anyone that the Bible really does mean what it says, when nobody really wants to believe that. Why do I waste my time here?

I don't know what 2 Cor 4:17 has to do with whether the wicked will be destroyed or whether the wickedness of the wicked will be destroyed. It certainly doesn't say "Bad people will go to hell when they die where God will torture them alive forever without mercy."

 

[Der Alte]

I know. I want to stay away, but there you go. I should just go away and write in the sand rather than try to convince anyone that the Bible really does mean what it says, when nobody really wants to believe that. Why do I waste my time here?
I don't know what 2 Cor 4:17 has to do with whether the wicked will be destroyed or whether the wickedness of the wicked will be destroyed. It certainly doesn't say "Bad people will go to hell when they die where God will torture them alive forever without mercy."

I could be wrong but I counted 13 times Jesus used the word "sin," in the gospels, never once did He say the wages/penalty for sin was "death." Jesus used the word "death" 17 times in the gospels. If He meant "death" at Matthew 25:46 He would have said "death." The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection they know that death was universal and permanent. "Everlasting punishment" would not have meant "death" to them.

 

[Hillsage]

I know. I want to stay away, but there you go. I should just go away and write in the sand rather than try to convince anyone that the Bible really does mean what it says, when nobody really wants to believe that. Why do I waste my time here?

Well, at least you asked a question I CAN answer....Get a better bible translation. The milktoast translations you're using are simply written for different age/maturity groups. And the dumber one is, the more watered they are...all the way to simply paraphrased. Our preferred translations are simply harder reading therefore requiring 'more' to understand them. The young/dumb translations poison 'first timers' with something similar to the theological 'law of first mention'. Wherein, if your first time of hearing about the judgments of God is couched in visions of 'eternal purposeless torturing' in a place called 'eternal hell' then your subconscious brain will filter all subsequent teaching through your first cognitive contact impression. Only those seeking the truth (wherever it may lead) will leave the lemming masses and press past that level of filtering their paradigms.

That's why I wish you'd prove your position with any of those many translations which I've provided over and over. You never have and never will...unless you want to seek the truth. If they won't prove your POV, then disprove them as reputable translations. As always, I've respected that you dropped paradigm 1 for a kinder God paradigm 2. But your POV still leaves God as creation's loser in the cosmic order. Losing most of his beloved creation to the devil whom he created, and whose works Jesus came to destroy.

I don't know what 2 Cor 4:17 has to do with whether the wicked will be destroyed or whether the wickedness of the wicked will be destroyed. It certainly doesn't say "Bad people will go to hell when they die where God will torture them alive forever without mercy."

Can't help you there bro. Eyes to see will come from the humbleness to which God will empower with the grace of His "spirit of truth which will lead you into all the truth."

The harder you grasp what yo have, the harder it is to receive that which you have not.

 

[ClementofA]

"Hope in the LORD and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land; when the wicked are destroyed, you will see it." Psalm 37:34

The reason that I believe that the wicked will be destroyed is because the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed. Don't pat me on the back, believe what the Bible says. If the URs are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by having their wickedness destroyed, the wicked will be no more. That's possible. If those who believe that the wages of sin is death are correct, then the wicked will be destroyed by being destroyed, they will be dead forever. That seems closer to what the Bible actually says. If those who believe that the wicked will be preserved forever in hell being tortured alive are correct, then the Bible is simply in error when it says that the wicked will be destroyed. If the Bible is in error, then we are all free to believe whatever the hell we want to believe.

If God meant "dead forever" why didn't He say "dead forever" instead of "destroyed".

Jesus' body was "destroyed" but not "dead forever". Destroyed for only 3 days.

A car that is "destroyed" in an accident can be rebuilt better than it ever was.

The people/earth of Noah's day were "destroyed" yet will be raised/was renewed.

 

[Timothew]

Well, at least you asked a question I CAN answer....Get a better bible translation. The milktoast translations you're using are simply written for different age/maturity groups. And the dumber one is, the more watered they are...all the way to simply paraphrased. Our preferred translations are simply harder reading therefore requiring 'more' to understand them.

I read the NT in Greek, and I have found that the ESV is an excellent translation of that. I compare the ESV to the original Greek every day in my daily Bible reading. Sadly, I cannot read Hebrew so I use a translation for the OT part of my daily Bible study. Since I see that the ESV is trustworthy in the NT, I use it for the OT. As far as I know, there isn't any translation that translates apollumi as "not ever destroyed at any time."

Whenever someone doesn't like what the Bible actually says, they always blame the translation, even when they have no translation skill themselves.

I'm sick of arguing about this. I believe what the Bible says and I will stick with that.

 

[Der Alte]

I read the NT in Greek, and I have found that the ESV is an excellent translation of that. I compare the ESV to the original Greek every day in my daily Bible reading. Sadly, I cannot read Hebrew so I use a translation for the OT part of my daily Bible study. Since I see that the ESV is trustworthy in the NT, I use it for the OT. As far as I know, there isn't any translation that translates apollumi as "not ever destroyed at any time."

Anyone can construct a strawman and tear it down and say e.g. "I rebutted your argument." I have never translated "apollumi as 'not ever destroyed at any time.'" But I do note the hypocrisy, the people who argue that "apollumi" means destroy, annihilate etc. are the same people who argue that aion/aionios does not mean eternity/eternal. Although "apolummi" occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. They argue that aion/aionios cannot mean eternity/eternal because sometimes it refers to something that is not eternal such as a person's life, the reign of a king etc.

Whenever someone doesn't like what the Bible actually says, they always blame the translation, even when they have no translation skill themselves.

False witnessing! I, for one, defend everything I post from accredited grammars and lexicons as I demonstrated a few posts above with the complete definition of apollumi from BAGD one of, if not, the most highly acclaimed lexicon available.

I'm sick of arguing about this. I believe what the Bible says and I will stick with that.

I too believe what the Bible says, I read it in more than one language including Greek and Hebrew and I have found that the KJV and some other "translations" are sometimes lacking.

 

[Hillsage]

I read the NT in Greek,

What are your qualifications to do so? Do you think you are as qualified as the authors of YLT, or Rotherham's, or Weymouth's translations? If not then you have simply chosen to believe a Greek/English Interlinear from those who also believe in eternal hell, which you do not. And it is there that I've come to the POV that the translations which at least translate the word aion and its adjectives 'consistently' represent a better handling of the Greek than the ones which translate it based upon their indoctrination from the church of Rome. Remember what I said about 'Law of first mention'? And your mis-understanding of appolumi is subservient to a doctrine which must fit under their mis-translations concerning "eternity".

and I have found that the ESV is an excellent translation of that. I compare the ESV to the original Greek every day in my daily Bible reading. Sadly, I cannot read Hebrew so I use a translation for the OT part of my daily Bible study. Since I see that the ESV is trustworthy in the NT, I use it for the OT. As far as I know, there isn't any translation that translates apollumi as "not ever destroyed at any time."

Sadly I don't read Greek or Hebrew. Happily, men who do are of the same persuasion as I. So, it sounds to me like you've pretty much started putting more weight for all your theology into this one word, as of late. At least that's what I think I see happening over the years.

Whenever someone doesn't like what the Bible actually says, they always blame the translation, even when they have no translation skill themselves.

Yes, you're right. That's when you have to listen to the arguments of both sides and then come to a final decision. Hopefully one that is based upon being Spirit led, a leading which is very difficult when one is fighting against the religious spirit of indoctrination. And 'that' spirit's influence ranges from oppressive to obsessive to possessive in it's authority in the life of a believer.

People always want to quote the verse about "wisdom in an abundance of counselors" like the degreed nincompoops you/I both run into here. But then they run with 'that' counsel and forget the rest of scripture's recommendation to free you from the false 'traditions and commandments of men' which your bible will warn you of. Men who wear their 'theological degrees' like the 'phylacteries on a scribe'. And are mad when you/I don't bow down to their indoctrinated POV.

ISA 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit,

I'm sick of arguing about this. I believe what the Bible says and I will stick with that.

Sounding like the sand pile again to me bro. But that would certainly solve your Bible's conclusions.

MAT 10:6 but go rather to the lost/apollumi sheep of the house of Israel.

So, show me one use of the word apollumi which can't be associated with the death, or death sentence, of our bodies which will rot with corruption of a perishable 'in the grave' because we all still sin, even as Christians? IOW all apollumi takes place before the resurrection of all the apollumi dead.

 

[Timothew]

What are your qualifications to do so?

Being ABLE to read Greek??? Duh!

Do you think you are as qualified as the authors of YLT, or Rotherham's, or Weymouth's translations?

No. But I'm not the one griping about translations, now am I?

If not then you have simply chosen to believe a Greek/English Interlinear from those who also believe in eternal hell, which you do not.

I don't read an Interlinear, and I didn't say that I did.

Sadly I don't read Greek or Hebrew.

Then you are hardly in a position to be able to say which translation is best.

Happily, men who do are of the same persuasion as I.

You COULD just pick a translation that matches the results you want to get, and then then you WILL get the results you want to have. BUT that is not the proper way to determine what the Bible actually says.

 

[Timothew]

False witnessing! I, for one, defend everything I post from accredited grammars and lexicons as I demonstrated a few posts above with the complete definition of apollumi from BAGD one of, if not, the most highly acclaimed lexicon available...

How is it false witnessing??? I wasn't even talking to you or ABOUT you. I was ignoring you, so please butt out.

 

[Hillsage]

Being ABLE to read Greek??? Duh!

I was just wondering. Now, apparently I'm just as qualified as you then, based upon your 'opaque response'.

No. But I'm not the one griping about translations, now am I?

No, but then, neither are you dealing with the fact that 'higher learning' exists on a 'higher' scale than you are at, just like me. So, no winner no loser on those qualifications.

I don't read an Interlinear, and I didn't say that I did.

What are you reading then? What Greek text/book are you speaking of?

IOW back to my original question. What qualified you to be a 'reader of Greek'? Was it a self teaching Greek primer like I have from Vine (author of Vine's Greek dictionary)? Was it college courses...beginner basics or degreed? Just plainly answer the question, as your vagarity will simply lead some to suspect deception.

Then you are hardly in a position to be able to say which translation is best.

Like you, you mean? Or do you mean like, two highly degreed Greek linguistic gurus who both divisively disagree? I hope you get my point. Like I alluded in my last post, 'Cemetery degrees' abound in the church....so what?

You COULD just pick a translation that matches the results you want to get, and then then you WILL get the results you want to have. BUT that is not the proper way to determine what the Bible actually says.

Unfortunately 'that' translation just doesn't exist. ALL TRANSLATIONS will let you down if you just look deep enough IMO. And in my case, I searched out the theological arguments between both sides on 'this doctrine' before even knowing of all the translations which support it.

But, in an attempt to also move on, and keep you from getting 'sicker', don't forget to deal with my question for your litmus 'word'. I'll ask again;

Hillsage:

MAT 10:6 but go rather to the lost/apollumi sheep of the house of Israel.

So, show me one use of the word apollumi which can't be associated with the death, or death sentence, of our bodies which will rot with corruption of a perishable 'in the grave' because we all still sin, even as Christians? IOW all apollumi takes place before the resurrection of all the apollumi dead.

 

[Timothew]

I was just wondering. Now, apparently I'm just as qualified as you then, based upon your 'opaque response'.

I started reading Greek in 2009 reading just a little bit every day. It was like cutting a trail through a jungle. But I kept reading a little every day, and it opened up and I understood more and more. It's still a work in progress, I don't claim to be an expert, but I am also not the one of us who is disagreeing with the experts. You are, and you are not qualified to do that. You told me to get a better translation, based on nothing. Don't forget that. Then you asked me what qualified me to read Greek. I gave you a good answer. I read the NT in Greek because I learned how to read in Greek. I'm not telling You which translation to use, or to not use a certain translation. You told me that. You think the translations I use are bad. You are not qualified to make that claim. I'm not making any claim other than to say based on my experience, the ESV is a good translation. You have no experience, I have a little. Why should I accept your opinion? I am not the one who is disagreeing with the experts. You are.