I visit the forum because I noticed that gb cultivate power and abuse power. I don't support them! But it didn't make me angry atheist! I put a lot of effort to write a book which I am proud of, and I wish to share that message of hope, not to enslave anyone. You should know me personally, and then it would make sense to bring such accusations! I think you were hurt badly and I feel sorry for you, and for many abused and neglected witnesses. I am among them...
Ruin those Ruining th Earth
Matijevic: "About rev 11:18 διαφθείραι=aorist infinitive active, means past tense!"
Please recheck your favorite resource for this statement.
In .... infinitives... the aorist does not tell us the time at which the action happened." (Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek, p. 61. Bold letters added. )
Thus, the context must decide translation. The Greek-English Interlinear ESV New Testament gives the following gloss for διαφθείραι: "to destroy thoroughly."
The word translated as ruin is διαφθείρω and can relate to moral or physical deterioration, decay, destroying or killing. Since destroyers will be destroyed by God, it is very likely that this particular ruining means the physical decay, destruction of earth's flora and fauna.
I don't know what the issue for you is but that literary method of a shift in definition has been addressed earlier. . Your insistence suggests you haven't read the previous posts. The usage of διαφθείρωto refer to the ruined state of the earth due to moral/religious corruption is well supported.
If it helps to understand, think of a big beautiful cake ruined by a few 'bad eggs'. The cake is ruined from a certain standpoint. Similarly the moralist/sectarian authors of the passages in discussion saw what they viewed as 'bad eggs' ruining the earth. It was the 'bad eggs' that ruined the earth not environmental pollution. The overlay of modern environmentally conscious readers is not only not necessary but quite foreign to the moralist religious author.
Thank you wonderment for correction, I overlooked it! But, this does not affect my argument at all! We still have whore who corrupted morally the world and those who are corrupting the world! So, it seems to me that world is (or will be) corrupted morally, but also undergoes corruption,and that corruption should be phisychal, as I already said, they go hand in hand! Pete, I understand you, but you didn't convince me that we should apply literary method of a shift in definition to this verse. Can you give me an example of it in a case of verb in different tenses ? It doesn't need to be aorist and present! You also failed to mention rev 8:9, verse where we find without any doubt διαφθείρω. Are we gonna discuss about moral corruption of the ships?
So, it seems to me that world is (or will be) corrupted morally, but also undergoes corruption,and that corruption should be phisychal, as I already said, they go hand in hand!
Not entirely sure what that means. But I think you are making an overly literal distinction. To religious moralists, a person, a city, or a nation is 'ruined' by the moral behavior of the people. In the mind of a moralist, that equates to the person, city or nation being deemed worthless trash. That is not that much separated from the idea of being killed. Such a person is unlikely to concern themselves with whether the person in those cities or nation recycle or not.
I do not want to provoke anyone, but I feel these verses are so appropriate and I can not help it. Many will blame me for self-righteousness, but servant of God can not avoid it! The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. (1Cor 2:14,15).This is my experience! I think that many on this site are more intelligent than me, but I can underdstand them and they can not understand me! Pete, from your point of view, point of person who despise the Bible, God and true Christians, it is so understandable to say I am making an overly literal distinction! Bible is full of crap, and you do not care about some inconvenient details, unless they can support your opinion!But, you want to convince other people who still have some sort of faith to discard it! So, you must consider their point of view! There are people who think Bible is word of God, that prophets received supernatural visions and were enticed to write things they did not understand!It is totally irrelevant whether Johnny B goode could have comprehend environmental challenges we face! Every iota in the word of God is important, cause it could contain some valuable information!You said that religious moralist (true Christian) do not care whether the person recycle or not. I disagree. Motif is very important!If that person recycle because he/she cares about living world and other human beings, it is relevant for God of the Bible! Read these verses please: De 20:19,20; 22:6,7,10;Proverbs 12:10... That is why I said that moral and physical corruption go hand in hand. Immoral person do not care about living world and other humans, it cares about money. Rich, anti christian people are responsible for devastation of the fair world, and they want to put a blame on overpopulation! Like I said time is coming when moral corruption will reach its peak. i do not say that every person on this planet will be evil, but sharp distinction between good and bad persons will exist. All good men will be immune to moral corruption. Everyone prone to the corruption will be corrupt, this is the meaning of ripe harvest and grapes. (rev 14:14-20) On the other hand, rev 11:18 informs us that physical corruption will not reach its peak, because good men are also prone to it! it will be scary, like Luke 21:25,26 mention, but chosen ones, the ones immune to moral corruption will survive. https://clicknupload.org/d8v50rksqg85 Pete, I am glad that you admit strength of my argument about rev 8:9, and that it is inappropriate/without any solid foundation to apply antanaclasis to rev 11:18. However, I do expect (not glad about it) some poisoning of the well, if someone would give me just one like!
Pete, from your point of view, point of person who despise the Bible, God and true Christians, it is so understandable to say I am making an overly literal distinction! Bible is full of crap, and you do not care about some inconvenient details, unless they can support your opinion!But, you want to convince other people who still have some sort of faith to discard it! So, you must consider their point of view!
Is that what I have done? I sought to let the text interpret itself by looking to the Greek usage and the style and intent of the author. The fact that 1900 years of Christians did not interpret that text the way you are, should bear on the matter.
I hope I don't come across as a complete ass like you've described me. I have never called the Bible crap or "despised" Christians. You impugn my motivations must be devilish. In truth I feel a scholarly approach to the Bible is the best cure for apocalyptic hysteria and paranoia. An honest dispassionate analysis of the text is what we should all have done, is that not so? Ought we do that when buying health insurance but not religion? I'm not seeking to attack faith but fear. But if your faith merely consists of fear, it may be in your best interest to reconsider it.
Its more twisting of the facts after the prediction. Just like in 1914 WW1 was never predicted but it was glomed onto to support the date. Its like a psychic saying tomorrow a ship will sink and a plane crashes and you say see I am spot on.
Pete, I am glad that you admit strength of my argument about rev 8:9, and that it is inappropriate/without any solid foundation to apply antanaclasis to rev 11:18. However, I do expect (not glad about it) some poisoning of the well, if someone would give me just one like!
I think maybe we have a language barrier?? The strength of your argument is what? That the word means both corrupted (and hence worthless) and to mean physically destroyed? That is not in debate, that was said at the opening. The word is used in Revelation (and anywhere else) in a way pretty much identical to how we use the English word "ruin" and that is why is was a good translation.
The question is does the moralist/religionist author reveal their concern to be about moral/religious purity or about littering and fraking? The answer is pretty clear. The author is concerned with moral and religious matters. If we agree on that then, would you not agree that such a writer would see his world as corrupted, ruined, destroyed by the pagan Roman empire? He told us he did at 19:2. Why then try to impose a modern environmentalist meaning on 11:18?