Question about a "greek" word

Paul1611.

While I am nothing close to a Greek Scholar, I think you'd need to provide more information. If you could, please supply the passage of scripture--it would make things much easier.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I would say the word saved in english proves the same thing.

 

I completely disagree with such a simplistic assertion.

The verb "sozo" can mean anything from salvation from sin to simple healing from an illness.

I think he is appealing to a tendency in Greek for the present indicative to indicate (like the pun?) continuous action. Even so, this isn't always the case. If we were discussing a single passage, we might be able to evaluate the argument, but this kind of fiat statement doesn't make it valid.

FYI: I believe in eternal security.

 

sozo is as said.

peripoiesis used in Heb 10:39 does mean preservation

soteria in Heb 11:7 also has the idea of salvation..rendered saving in the kjv

diasozo...safely


but the one he maybe using is...phulasso..means to guard, keep, preserve luke 17:33, 2 peter 2:5
Notice the last part of phulasso...lasso..and think of our word lasso and how it is used to bring in. Just a side thought.


In Christ..James

 

sorry...one more thing

Saviour ..soter also has the idea of preserver

 

This is correct. If you cannot see a strong case for an idea in English, it is highly unlikely that the Greek proves it. If the Greek did prove it, a straightforward English translation should say the same thing.

Bogus proofs which appeal to "the Greek" are far too common.

 

Many on here resort to so called "Greek" answers to try and impose their veiw on a certain Scripture when in fact Greek words have several meanings. They pick out the one that fits their belief. This is one of the first things I learned after coming on BB so I don't place a lot of emphasis on someone who says "well the original text says this". I think probably those who did the translating in the first place took into consideration the different meanings and they were closer to the happening than we are and are probably more right than we. So what we have in the Bible now is probably as close as you are going to get.

 

Right you are. A modern English translation will establish a reputation early regarding whether or not it is faithful to the original language. They all claim it, of course, but they are also all hated by someone with enough education to challenge them--so they are all challenged. Done by big committees of good scholars, they can surpass the AV to a degree. But by now, fer cryin' out loud, I should hope that somebody has gotten it right.

But there are always problems, so no single translation should be trusted implicitly. One of my pet peeves is the NIV's translation of "menstealers" as "slave traders," an utterly stupid fabrication, unprecedented in the history of Bible translation. And even the NKJV turns "oppress" into "exploit," which is the Marxist-Leninist term for "hire," as in the expression "He borrowed a million dollars, opened a factory, and began exploiting the poor people in the community." The word "oppress" means "to press down upon" and has nothing to do with offering somebody a job. But the Left is well represented within evangelicalism, so eternal vigilance is necessary.

But, back to the topic, human language is flexible. That's why legal documents use so many words, and say things in such unnatural ways. They're trying to make the sentences untwistable. Ordinary language can be twisted easily. That's why some Bible interpreters disagree with me.

Greek, being a human language, is just as twistable as English.

 

And that Pipedude, is why in our legal language we have "notwithstanding".

 

Very true in nearly all cases. Pipedude and I have all ready talked about this. Context is KING. Context should never be changed. What we see many times is a attempt to change the context or order to line up with own doctrine. However, it is not wrong to change a word to give better understanding, if the context is not changed.

Lets face it. There are hard passages we do not understand. In some cases we must leave the passages as is, and walk away saying we do not understand. In many cases, yet not all cases, we see a rewrite of the Bible to fit doctrine. This is the very thing JWs did with their translation.

As to the OP, we would need to know the text before making a call. I know of only two verses that supports the OP. There maybe more, but I do not know of them. The way the OP reads, it is wrong to say this. However, it sounds like to me that this was used as a shadow of the truth. This is seen thoughout the Bible and is used to cast a idea of a picture of the truth. This too can be over done. Its not wrong to show a shadow of the truth and say..."think about it" and let the hearing/reader place something in their own mind. This was done by me in lasso seen above. But as said, this can go to far as well. If you build doctrine on shadows, it is not solid doctrine. As a matter of fact, doctrine should never be set by shadows. Shadows are only to be give support to a doctrine already set by clear and solid verses.

In this case, if the pastor were to say..."The word saved in its very meaning can give the idea that it is forever"...this would only cast a shadow of truth on OSAS. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Yet to say...The very "greek word means forever"...is wrong unless you talk about the two verses where it does use such a word with that meaning. But if one were to do this, they need to point out that this is not always the case.


In Christ...James

 

Some may get mad at me....but it will not be the 1st time.

I do not consider the NIV a translation. They took to many liberties. Now in most cases I agree with the words used, but still, they did not translate as much as interpret it for us. That I feel is wrong. That is not to say the NIV can not be used. It is very good reading. It is a poor study Bible. The greek has a choppy read to it. It should stay that way, in order to be ture to the text. Yet for light reading, a paraphrase..which is the way I view the NIV....is very good.

No need to send hate mails...

 

One must be careful - commentaries are full of this kind of thing. The statement is incorrect - the verb does not imply a continuous action. The tense system of Greek is different than that of English. In the late 19th century there was a lot of investigation of the sciptures using this flawed "insight" - the idea that present tense verbs are continuous action where as aorist tense verbs are a "once and for all" action. In truth it is far more complex than this. Suffice it to say that context is the most important tool in interpretation.

 

Salvation is often spoken of in the past, present, and future tenses in scripture. If pick out a verse often it will be one of the three tenses. Sometimes a different tense is used to describe an attribute of salavtion.

For example in 1 Peter 1:4, " reserved in heaven for you" is a perfect participle. A perfect participle puts the emphasis on the existing result and will be antecedent to the time of the leading verb.

 

Yes, there are several different kinds of salvation in the Bible, and that's why it's important to make a distinction. For example, applying some kind of mystical meaning to a simply physical salvation from an enemy would be erroneous, and applying works to spiritual salvation would be erroneous as well.

I would think that the passage that the OP is talking about is Acts 16:31, in which the Philippian jailor asked, "What must I do to be saved?" He was asking what works he needed to do.

The answer, that I'm sure everyone is familiar with is, "Believe [aorist; punctiliar] and you will [not "may"] be saved."

The verb saved, is future, passive, indicative, 2nd person, singular. It's to an individual, and it's somethign that will happen, with no doubt about it. (And, being passive, it's action that is performed upon the individual, not the individual acting himself.)

But, this is contingent upon something: Believe in the aorist. "Believe" is an aorist, active, imperative, 2nd person, singular. It's a command to an individual, and it's something that he does, not something that someone does to him, but it's an aorist tense; it's punctiliar action. It's an event, not a process.

So, the verb form of "saved" does show OSAS, but it's contingent upon an action. If the verb "believe" were a present tense, then the verb form of "saved" would not prove OSAS.

That's why it's important to know the context. Past, present, or future, as gb stated. Is the passage talking about a physical salvation, spiritual salvation, or salvation of the soul? Any time you find a passage talking about spiritual salvation (born from above into the family of God), "believe" is in the aorist; any time you find a passage talking about salvation of the soul, "believe" is a present tense, or the noun "faith" is used. ("believe" as a present, active, participle is synonymous with the noun "faith", btw.)

So, the verb form of "saved" can prove OSAS, depending contingent upon the context and the verb form of what it is dependent upon.

 

In other words have faith?

Again! It is the faith of the individual right?

 

No, spiritual salvation is by "believe"; we live by "faith".

Now, if you want to play mental gymnastics, you can ask, "In what do you believe?" "Well, that Jesus is my savior." "Aha! So, you have faith that Jesus is your savior!" But, the command is simply to "believe on the Lord Jesus" and you will be saved. Nothing further required for spiritual salvation.

But, in the Greek, "believe" and "faith" are two different conepts. "Believe" is simply mental assent. It's in the aorist. It's like squeezing the trigger on a gun; you cannot unsqueeze the trigger; it's an event. It either happens, or it doesn't. It can be a brief event (like the squeezing of the trigger) or it can be a big event, such as "the temple was built over a period of years". "I drove to the store yesterday" is an example of a verb that would be aorist in the Greek. The aorist is almost always translated in the past tense, but it's not the same as past tense; it's punctiliar.

The present tense is something that can be stopped. You cannot stop something that has already happened. "I am driving to the store" is an example of a present tense verb, and guess what? You can stop it. You can turn around and go home.

(As an aside, a participle is a verb that is used as either an adjective or a noun. In the Greek, when accompanied by the article, it's a noun. When "believe" is a present, active, participle, it's synonymous with the noun "faith".)

But, the point is that you can stop believing and you're still saved, because our spiritual salvation is based on what he did, not on what we do (works). But, you can't stop believing and please him. You can't live a faithless life and hear, "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

 

This is what you said above are you changing it now or am I reading you wrong?

Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
What is the first thing that happens in other words the Genesis of belief= Salvation. Peace :Fish:

 

You must be misreading, because this is what I've always said.

Edited to add: This is what I've always said on this board. When I was younger, I was misled by some preachers for a few years.

Also edited to add: I omitted one phrase in my previous post that may have made you misunderstand: The Philippian jailor was asking what works he needed to do to be saved, and they told him "believe" [as opposed to works].