Good choice of quote Alchemy. I'm glad that you are interested in this subject also and you're agreeing with my perception that "kill" is a bad word choice to kick this off.

I haven't been involved with Green and APL multiple discussions; but I did read a couple of posts and know they've been at it for quite awhile.

Green, APL -- How long have you been on this subject of Kill verses murder? Has it been years now? and how many? Do you think you guys can resolve this in a couple of pages?

It is fine that you discuss about the word kill. I'm glad that you can exchange something that you both are interested in and both passionate about.

However, if this is something that cannot be resolved simply -- maybe the title of this discussion should be changed "The Power of the Word Kill -- Why Definitions Matter". That would be more descriptive.

APL,

This thread is for definition studies. Not theological debate, per se. Thank you for respecting that.

Alchemy,

I believe that every word of the Bible is significant. That is the message we find in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

Elle et al.,

This discussion is important, even though some terms may be controversial, because, actually, every single word in the list I posted in the OP is controversial. The fact is, people come to the Bible with a predetermined opinion, then arbitrarily suggest the meaning for its words that appears to fit their personal theology. Satan knows that if he can just warp people's understandings of the meanings of the words, he has succeeded in a great measure with altering their theologies and doctrines. Here's an attempt to portray the situation graphically:

START HERE
|
|> Authority --> Word meanings/definitions --> Concepts --> Understandings --> Beliefs --> Theology --> Doctrines --> Life practice --> Character --> Eternal destiny

The first step is choosing an authority. I choose, by faith, to accept the Bible as my final authority for truth. This is a faith choice.

Once I have that, then I must understand its words. Definitions matter tremendously. This is the realm of focus for this thread. This impacts every subsequent level in the chain, and the devil knows this well.

After I understand the meanings of the words, my mind can frame their basic concepts/messages.

Following this, I translate those messages into understandings/interpretations.

This leads next to beliefs.

Beliefs directly impact one's theology and doctrines.

Out of these proceed, hopefully (if the beliefs are acted upon), one's life practices and habits.

Then comes character--and we all know our eternal destiny is at stake with the formation of our character.

It's fairly simple. You will notice that I have left out the "concept of God." That would come under "beliefs" and must necessarily follow an understanding of the meaning and message of the Word. If someone places the "concept of God" as preceding the understanding of the words of God, then one is essentially basing his or her views upon private opinion, by filtering everything through those "concept of God" glasses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Even here, problems arise.

Words have multiple meanings.
People can find texts using the same word, but with a different meaning. Then by exchanging twist the meaning of texts yet still claim they are "getting their meaning from scripture".

Words can have their obvious meaning dismissed, and given symbolic meanings with total disregard as to whether a text is speaking symbolically or not.

Playing with semantics has been the devil's playground -- he is an expert Bible student.
Since the Bible has become readily available for all people, he has launched multiple schools of theology based on confusing semantics to undermine fundamental beliefs and truths that were clear, but are now thrown off into realms of "gnostic" confusion .

Actually the "gnostics" in early Christianity already started that trend in Christianity. Even earlier the Kabbalists in Judaism already launched "words" and with them truth, into confusion, prior to Christianity.

Not only must one be careful to find the "meaning of words", one must also be careful what school of thought they turn to that claims to know the meaning of those words.

Studying English words will not solve the problem --
Bible writers wrote in a different language.

If I read my German Luther translated Bible it sounds different from the English Bible.

John 3:16 Denn Gott hat die Welt so geliebt, daß er seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, damit jeder, der an ihn glaubt, nicht verloren gehe, sondern ewiges Leben habe.
For God have the world so loved that He His indigenously son gave so that everyone, that on Him believes, not lost go, instead everlasting life has.

English version:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

There are several minor differences in the meaning of words.

eingeborenen has a closer meaning to indigenously
giving the meaning of being the only one "indigenous" (belong to or having the characteristic, a native of the same) to God.

Whereas the English "begotten" has a closer meaning to "generated" offspring.

The difference can have a profound effect on theology.

The other difference in Luther's translation is

verloren gehe = lost going (ending up lost)
while English uses the word "perishing".

Since "This thread is for definition studies. Not theological debate, per se"

Let's explore the word Luther translated as verloren gehe = lost going (ending up lost)
while English uses the word "perishing" in John 3:16

apollymi

According to Word Definitions apollymi means

destroy, to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to, ruin, a judgment of death, to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed

Now let's look at how the apostle John uses the word in his epistle.

It seems to appear FOUR times in John 3:15-16!




apollymi mee apollymi translated in English as
should not perish
Why the double use of the word?

It emphasis the completeness of the fate of all if it were not for God sending his Son they should utterly perish .

Other uses of the word by apostle John:


Jhn 6:12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. G622


Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, G622 but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you


Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose G622 nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day


Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: G622 I am come that they might have life,


Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall G622 never perish, G622


Jhn 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish G622 not


Jhn 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose G622 it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal


So from this study -- of context and use of the word
I see that whenever John uses the word G622 apollymi in conjunction with the term eternal life , it clearly has the opposite meaning of eternal life -- that is to perish, to be lost, ruined, utterly destroyed.

God's purpose is for believers to have eternal life. But to clarify this, we are given both the positive purpose (eternal life) and the flip side, the negative result which occurs to those who reject the gift.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already.

SYMBOLIC OR LITERAL

Should we take the word symbolic? That's the next question.
Is the context framed in symbolic language?
If not then we should probably not take its words symbolically.
For example--
Is "eternal life" symbolic?
If not then the "perishing" is not symbolic either.
The context shows that God's gift of His Son is to save believers FROM perishing.


In John there is no middle ground: believe in the Son (resulting in eternal life) or refusing to believe (resulting in destruction) are the only options. Since “perish” is contrasted with “eternal life,” it stands to reason that perishing is eternal as well.

Yes, I recall you wasting everyone's time in the past, but did not distinguish between the words then, either. Easy to say you already have, hard to prove it. Numbers 35 talk about refuge cities. That does not define the words. As stated to you in the past.

Since you start a thread about definitions, initiate that there is a difference between killing and murder, but flat out refuse to give the Biblical definitions, what are we to conclude? That you are unable to give a simple paragraph definition from the Bible showing such? That you cannot find any such distinction in the Bible? It's not my "research" but yours in starting the thread.

Should I request Daryl close the thread as you refuse to support your opening premise, refusing to give the definitions? I mean, the topic is "The Power of Words -- Why Definitions Matter", right?
Why not list the two?

kland,

Those who do not see the definitions because they would conflict with strongly held personal opinions (e.g. "God does not kill") are choosing to interpret scripture, including its definitions, in a manner inconsistent with the scriptures themselves. The Bible defines the distinctions between killing and murder. That some cannot see this does not mean the distinction has not been defined. The thread where this particular distinction has been discussed before can be found HERE. I think it is clear enough from the Bible, if one looks at the evidence objectively.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, that is a consistent manner of understanding the meaning of a word from its context. This brings me to the question of why multiple words like "everlasting," "eternal," "perpetual," and "for ever" have been relegated by most Adventists to a rather unintuitive meaning of "until it is done/finished." If words are supposed to have meaning at all, why would we ignore their obvious purpose, including their contextual use in the Bible, in order to mis-define them? Misdefinitions of Bible words are all too common these days, and they come up because of people's preconceived opinions and in trying to make the Bible fit their view.

Instead of looking to see how something supports our view, we should look to see what the Bible is saying. Mrs. White tells us we should accept a "plain reading" of the Bible. If one must go to contortions to explain what something evidently means, chances are higher that the explanation is incongruent with the Bible's meaning or intent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - you are laying out ground rules which conform to your idea of how we should proceed. You want to divorce a definition from the theological meaning, but is that valid? I don't think so. Is that because of my preconceived ideas or yours? Kill - this means to cause death. But what does the Bible tell us about death? That it came from Satan, not God. We have to take the Bible as a whole.

One text teaches how man was first formed. Another text makes known the process of his dissolution. What God did in creating, death undoes by dissolving. How did death get the power to step in and undo the Creator's work? Man forfeited his right to live by sinning against God. Death entered by sin. Romans 5:12. Death, then, has an evil parentage. In fact, it has a bad character in the book of God; it is not a friend, but an enemy; and so serious and formidable a foe is it that its destruction is made the subject of special promise to the people of God. 1 Corinthians 15:26. The power of death Satan himself has controlled. Hebrews 2:14. Death came from the devil, just as life came from God.

God gave to man life, and instructed him that if he would obey him, he should continue to live. The devil told Eve that she should, by sinning, be introduced to a higher life, brought death upon our race. Death is the child of sin and Satan. What does Jesus call him because of this work? A murderer. John 8:44

The Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground. Death causes that dust to return to the earth as it was before it formed the man. If God does the first work, it is not God that destroys it. No; indeed. An enemy is the doer of all this.

To divorce your definition of kill from the Bible defintion will not work. God is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

I guess the only way to solve this and keep it from turning into massive EGW quoting in which the only result is to convince the casual visitors to this forum to think EGW contradicts herself -- is to collect examples of just how the different words are used in scripture.